Strict enforcement of trolling [on topic]

[billvon 2,400]

A poll to see what people want here. (This is not a binding poll; for information only.)

Background -

The traditional definition of a troll is someone who posts solely or primarily to sow rancor and discord in a community - and in the rest of DZ.com that's the definition we use. However, here I use a somewhat tighter definition, one that includes intentional deception. I do this because Speaker's Corner was intended, in part, to keep rancorous discussions concerning politics, guns and religion out of the main forums, and this seems to be working. Thus the tighter definition of trolling.

Here's a good example of the tighter definition from Urban Dictionary:

Trolling

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.

Trolling requires deceiving; any trolling that doesn't involve deceiving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccessful troll.

This means that a guy who really, honestly believes that the Earth is flat - and posts his beliefs - isn't a troll under that definition, even if he enjoys the rancor his posts create.

The reason I make this distinction here is specifically because SC is intended as a place to post political (and often divisive) opinions. And someone might enjoy the discord that their posts create even though they are expressing their honest opinions on a topic. In those cases, I often let it slide - because while they my post inflammatory material, and enjoy the division it creates, it is not done with deception in mind.

If we do go to the wider definition of trolling (i.e. make the standards the same across the whole site) then the mods would determine who is trolling and who isn't. In some cases it's easy; several posters here have admitted they post, in part, to make people angry. In other cases it would be more difficult, and the mods would rely on their best judgment.

[Bob_Church 7]

I don't think this would be good. For instance, there is someone on here that I was convinced was trolling me. And the posts seemed to fit the definitions but I've since come to realize that this is just how that person talk to other people.
Back in the AFU and rec.skydiving days I saw a lot of trolling, and it didn't look anything like what's being posted here.

[nigel99 144]

Based on the posts and discussion that led to this I say keep things as they are.

Some people hold very strong opinions on certain topics and take every opportunity to drive that message home. The fact that 95% of other posters think they are nuts doesn't make it trolling.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Erroll 49]

I recommend the introduction of an "ignore" option. That way the regular readers of this forum can decide for themselves who the trolls are and avoid having to wade through their incessant drivel.

[ryoder 1,384]

Erroll

I recommend the introduction of an "ignore" option. That way the regular readers of this forum can decide for themselves who the trolls are and avoid having to wade through their incessant drivel.

Agreed!
Over on bikeforums.net they have an ignore option.
It replaces the ignored post with a small placeholder naming the poster, and a link that can be used to unhide the post.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Agreed - I posted exactly that suggestion in the suggestions and feedback forum a couple of months back: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4876108;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

We have it on a Lotus forum I'm on and it works great.

[wmw999 2,122]

A. Don’t moderate more tightly. It’d end up reflecting the prevailing moderators’ view more strongly than otherwise. Not deliberately, but simply because a conservative one-note idiot would sound smarter to a conservative, and vice versa.
B. An ignore option would be nice. However, we all have one. Just don’t respond to people who aren’t worth your time.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Phil1111 911]

nigel99

Based on the posts and discussion that led to this I say keep things as they are.

Some people hold very strong opinions on certain topics and take every opportunity to drive that message home. The fact that 95% of other posters think they are nuts doesn't make it trolling.

+1 Its easy enough to ignore (some)posters with little conscious effort IMO.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Many have left Speakers Corner due to the levels of toxicity. SC is down to the last ten players discussing the same ten issues. We can blame facebook for the withdrawal of so many diverse opinions; but the issue is not facebook as much as it is the lack of respect for an opposing opinion. The SC environment has degraded to a discussion of, "You don't know what you're talking about and therefore must be an idiot."

The level of respect for another's right to an opinion or even belief, common decency, and respect for our fellow skydivers (much less our fellow human beings) has deteriorated to a camel-spitting session in each thread. Too many talk "at" each other instead of "with" each other. Even when the substance of one's position has merit; their known religious beliefs or party affiliation gets entered into the discussion as a discredit to the foundation of their point.

For me; it has become a level of disgust for those in which I have once respected; as I watch the not so subtle innuendos of personal attacks. I don't think its possible to enforce decency, or respect, or common courtesy. Will the last person to leave SC; please turn out the lights.

/mic drop and exit stage left.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,122]

Definitely a contender. However, the whole tone of SC has always seemed to hie more to the British Parliament (as viewed by a USian) way of calling each other idiots. I don’t care for that approach, so I try just to do my thing.

And ignore some posters who seem to be particularly interested in finding creative (and within the rules) ways to call others dishonest or wrong. And some good posters have been run off that way. I don’t consider a poster who agrees with me as “good;” it’s someone whose logic (ooh! Logic!) I can follow, even if not agree with.

Lawrocket changed my views on a couple of things. But not on others . Others (including Bigun) informed my views to take more into account. Because pretty much anything that has to do with people’s behavior and is simple, is wrong.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[RonD1120 58]

I am on the same page with you here, post #10 and #7. Ignore is always an option.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,400]

>I recommend the introduction of an "ignore" option.

That is being considered for DZ.com 2.0. In the meantime, for Chrome users this may help:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hideheid/hdgfhcnkfdfimdndlcdgflbmadiomico?hl=en

And of course you can always simply not read.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Well, there are some pretty blatant trolls on here. And there's a lot of behavior in this forum that isn't tolerated in the topical forums (which is good, IMO).

Seeing as the primary goal of a troll is to get a rise out of someone, the best defense is to ignore them.
I've been 'got' a few times, and fallen down their rabbit holes. But that's all part and parcel of posting here.

There are also a couple people who are very good at knowing exactly where the line between an insult and a PA is. They seem to take great pleasure in baiting others into posting PAs and getting them 'in trouble'.

One thing I would like to see is some sort of ban/restriction/deletion of the "Nuh-Uuuuuuuuuuh" posts.
The one liners that have no substance, no information, nothing but "No. You are wrong and clutching at straws." They are 3 year old level contradiction, and are usually incorrect (the post they are contradicting isn't wrong).

Obviously, many of the 'one liner' posts don't fall under this classification, but there are a lot that do. Many are by one particular person.

Edit to add: Oh Duh. I forgot. Leave it as is.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[yoink 321]

I'm fine with leaving things the way they are IF Quade's sticky on quoting at the top of the forum on is enforced and expanded to include one word replies.

Simply posting 'no' doesn't add anything to a discussion. Neither does just posting a hyperlink assuming the reader will take the time to read and understand how it makes your point.
Even 'look at this [link] - it's why I think x,y,z' is better than just [link].

How long does it take you to write a reasoned post? 4,5 minutes? More?
To have that time and effort disregarded with a 'no' or 'wrong!' isn't simply ignorant, it's rude.

[chutem 0]

billvon

And of course you can always simply not read.

That along with not replying sounds like a plan.

How much self control does it take to not reply to a post that one finds less than worthy of their time?

[ryoder 1,384]

billvon

>I recommend the introduction of an "ignore" option.

That is being considered for DZ.com 2.0. In the meantime, for Chrome users this may help:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hideheid/hdgfhcnkfdfimdndlcdgflbmadiomico?hl=en

And of course you can always simply not read.

Omigawd, I almost spit coffee all over my phone when I saw the name of the extension!!!
Somebody hated Robin so much that they wrote an extension just for him???
I haven't seen a post from him in years!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

chutem

***

And of course you can always simply not read.

That along with not replying sounds like a plan.

How much self control does it take to not reply to a post that one finds less than worthy of their time?

Sometimes quite a lot.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[yoink 321]

billvon

And of course you can always simply not read.

True. But by doing this you're asking people who DO follow the rules and post constructively to alter THEIR behavior to suit people who are a disruption. Don't you see that's the wrong way of approaching it?

Take it to a logical conclusion - your posters who create discussion content could absolutely not read those posts by just not coming in here anymore, just as BIGUN points out has happened before.
All that happens with the 'if you don't like it, don't read it' approach is that you reinforce negative behavior and diminish the positive. It's inevitable that you end up with recdot...

[RMK 3]

billvon

This means that a guy who really, honestly believes that the Earth is flat - and posts his beliefs - isn't a troll under that definition, even if he enjoys the rancor his posts create.

I like this approach.

So for example, I believe [some poster] has a mental defect and I interact with him as one would when addressing someone lacking mental acuity, this would be OK?


edited to keep thread on topic

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Erroll 49]

yoink

***

And of course you can always simply not read.

True. But by doing this you're asking people who DO follow the rules and post constructively to alter THEIR behavior to suit people who are a disruption. Don't you see that's the wrong way of approaching it?
...


Agreed again.

The first option of the poll effectively asks whether trolls should be banned. An 'ignore' option will allow the readers to 'ban' whoever they want to without affecting the rights or integrity of legitimate posters.

Trolls are often prolific posters. Being able to just 'ignore' them will be beneficial all round.