FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What is trolling? What is fair? And what is foul?





deanhills
I totally object to the contents of the last sticky that was put up by Bikerman in the Phil&Rel Forum. It is vague. As there is no proper definition of what trolling is. If there is a need for a sticky on trolling (which I don't think there is), then I would like to see one that is written by a Moderator who has no bias in the Phil&Rel Forum. Preferably Bondings. I would like to see a proper definition of what trolling is considered to be. As if trolling is going to be against the TOS, then it needs to be formally incorporated in the rules. I also would like the tone in the sticky to be modified. Unless Frihost would like to get rid of some of its posters? We're not in a class room here. We are supposed to be treated like adults.

We also need clarification of who is in charge of the Phil&Rel Forum. Last we officially heard on this matter it was Ocalhoun. I urge the Moderators to please put someone in charge who is not as involved, or if involved at least has the ability to be fair and unbiased with their moderation. I realize it is not an easy forum to moderate, but putting Bikerman in charge is unfair. Particularly with reference to his friendship with Indi. Indi is very hard on posters (particularly the ones whom Indi has judged to be of inadequate standard). Indi was also the one who introduced trolling as "a problem" and Bikerman seems to be backing Indi on that to the point of putting up a sticky on the matter. Why is that necessary? The sticky to me in effect is saying Bikerman (and Indi) are now in charge of the Phil&Rel Forum and they will hence forward be running it their way.
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
I totally object to the contents of the last sticky that was put up by Bikerman in the Phil&Rel Forum. It is vague. As there is no proper definition of what trolling is. If there is a need for a sticky on trolling (which I don't think there is), then I would like to see one that is written by a Moderator who has no bias in the Phil&Rel Forum. Preferably Bondings. I would like to see a proper definition of what trolling is considered to be. As if trolling is going to be against the TOS, then it needs to be formally incorporated in the rules. I also would like the tone in the sticky to be modified. Unless Frihost would like to get rid of some of its posters? We're not in a class room here. We are supposed to be treated like adults.

We also need clarification of who is in charge of the Phil&Rel Forum. Last we officially heard on this matter it was Ocalhoun. I urge the Moderators to please put someone in charge who is not as involved, or if involved at least has the ability to be fair and unbiased with their moderation. I realize it is not an easy forum to moderate, but putting Bikerman in charge is unfair. Particularly with reference to his friendship with Indi. Indi is very hard on posters (particularly the ones whom Indi has judged to be of inadequate standard). Indi was also the one who introduced trolling as "a problem" and Bikerman seems to be backing Indi on that to the point of putting up a sticky on the matter. Why is that necessary? The sticky to me in effect is saying Bikerman (and Indi) are now in charge of the Phil&Rel Forum and they will hence forward be running it their way.
Dean you said, "I would like to see a proper definition of what trolling is considered to be"

I might disagree with providing a definition unless it is a universal definition? Is this trolling? To disagree is trolling? To post perhaps is trolling? Perhaps being a member is trolling?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll does say it is a slang term

Quote:
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Would this be a good example of trolling from the thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-125895.html
Bikerman wrote
Quote:
Science works. Charlatans have been claiming extraordinary powers probably since we could talk as a species. NOT ONE OF THEM has ever been objectively verified. You can make all the claims you like, but they are just words. It may be that you believe them - I didn't say you were lying - but the fact that you believe them is pretty worthless, since personal testimony is a poor guide to anything.
I thought the whole idea was to post words and I would think anyone offering personal testimony would be something of a contribution but obviously it is considered worthless. How should I sigh this post as clueless? How rude, how wrong! But it is not trolling?

(Edit by Bondings, Wikpedia link partially removed, it caused the post to display blank.)
truespeed
Trolling happens on all forums,i think Bikermans sticky and description of trolling is an accurate one.

Is this trolling?

My Question

Bluedoll wrote:
I understand your question and I will answer it.


Bluedoll then types out a couple of long paragrapghs saying nothing in particular and not answering the questions,which if i am honest is all she ever does,which is why she has a reputation as a troll,someone who says controversial things,gets a reaction,then refuses to engage in discussion.

A discussion should be just that,an open,frank and honest exchange of points of view,people don't have to agree with each other,and most will probably end up agreeing to disagree,especially where relgion is concerned,but a dicussion should still be possible.

Its the P&R forums,eveyone has different philosophies and religious views,all that is needed is the ability to explain your point of view so others can understand it,and from there a discussion can take place.

If you have someone in the middle of a thread throwing out comments and refusing to discuss them once they have their reaction,then that to me is trolling.
Bluedoll
Sorry, about the last empty post - something went wrong.
truespeed wrote:
Is this trolling?

I think, I was not trolling in the thread but discussing topics relating to the op. Anyone can see by looking at the last part of that thread that Icecreamtruck, Bikerman, Ankhanu, Jewllsy, Truespeed, were all engaged in the same topic. A topic which I think is inline with the op. Are they trolling too? To say the topic is about a biblical study about Noah or a story about whether war is good is not what I think is what the op was about. I do realize that topics can and do wonder around but if you intend to apply trolling to every post then I think fairness should be applied as well. Bikerman does not want fairness, he wants complete control over the threads as he enjoys taunting and name calling and making personal insulting remarks about the character of the posts however when he is challenged in a topic and can not show dominance over the thread will resort to using the harsh tool of unfair moderation to show that his religion beliefs are best – and he called me the coward. This is a fact as anyone who has posted in his religious topics knows but it goes on unchallenged. Bikerman should not be moderating religious topics as he is not qualified to do so.

Regarding your question Truespeed, you did not simply ask one question. You did not type...

“Why did the flood occur?”

If you had, I could have answered that question but only if I had wanted to or not answered if I did not want to. For answering religious questions, I reserve as my choice and I will not be pressured into being required to answering questions by force. In my life, men have asked me many questions and some questions I do choose not to answer. I am not giving up that right ever. The fact is your question was compounded by your entire post and I did answer your question in the way I wanted to, I could have instead, choose to ignore the entire post, but did not. If that is considered trolling then I think the slang term trolling is being used here in a way that is controlling what posters can and can not post, hardly freedom of speech by any stretch of the imagination.

I do however see your perspective – you want to talk about God as a monster and yes you are entitled to your religious beliefs but that I think that was not what the op was about, was it? I have stated clearly I have little desire to get into religious arguments and want to avoid them as much as possible. I am appalled now to see that questions must be answered. This is a tyrant action that demands by moderation that all religious questions must be answered with evidence which is exactly what a roman dictator would demand but not what Jesus Christ would do. Truespeed, I could suggest that you post your question in a separate topic if you are interested in it that much but the fact is that will be impossible to get anything but a biased viewpoint on it. All other viewpoints other than those supported by Bikerman will be deleted.
deanhills
@Truespeed. This Forum is six years old, why bring in a sticky about something that is as old as the Internet is at this point in time? You've been around longer than I have, and I'm almost certain you must have seen worse trolling in the Phil&Rel Forum than right now. Why was there not a sticky put up then? And why now?

I see the trolling sticky as more than about trolling. I see it as a threat to all of those that Bikerman and Indi have differences with. I believe that that sticky was specifically written to me as well. Hence why I feel honour bound to respond to it. Bikerman has already spamcanned a post of mine a week ago. That means that my freedom of speech is being threatened. And by implication anyone else's whom Bikerman does not like.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
That means that my freedom of speech is being threatened.


This has been pointed out before, but, I'll point it out again... this is the internet; this is Frih. You don't have freedom of speech here. Any administrator or moderator of ANY website has the ability and right to limit the free speech of others making use of their site or service. The guidelines can be as reasonable or arbitrary as those in control decide to make them.

Can't threaten that which doesn't apply.
Bluedoll
We should now rule out freedom of expression?. Oh, thank you so much again for that insight Ankhanu for that does inspire me to write then it would follow with this kind of logic that there is also little freedom of religion as well then? You are right Ankhanu, this is really old news but does reflect well on the topic being covered. So then in your opinion, the new sticky is not about trolling but about limiting what is written regarding religious topics?
But if you consider the sticky and if this post was hypothetically placed in the p/r section would you be trolling right now since the topic is about trolling and not freedom of speech – in that case you could be moderated? I suppose you could be if a moderator did not like you but the point here is not to decide for the moderation team what they could do, should do or not do or what power they possess or do not possess. I am not a moderator and have appositely no input into how the board is moderated. The point of this post, I thought, as Deanhills put it was to clarify what trolling is, and how it applies to any future posts that might occur in the p/r section. It is very obivious that this sticky can be troublesome not just for the posters but the team as well!


Ankhanu wrote:
Can't threaten that which doesn't apply.
I disagree in that freedom is not a concrete object like some statue that can be eliminated. In every country for every countryman freedom must be exercised. There are laws and there are courts, we exercise it every day. Now, here in this forum, a parallel could be drawn comparing what goes on here, to what does apply in our real life, outside this little internet activity. For example, I could get an office job where my boss could regulate what I do but when he steps over the line to demand coffee in his private office, it just might be the coffee, that ends up in his lap. Yes, I do risk loosing my job, but what I do or do not do will be decided by me, not by someone else. So yes, freedom and personal freedom does exist and does apply in my life always. Is this not what freedom is all about?
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
We should now rule out freedom of expression?. Oh, thank you so much again for that insight Ankhanu for that does inspire me to write then it would follow with this kind of logic that there is also little freedom of religion as well then? You are right Ankhanu, this is really old news but does reflect well on the topic being covered. So then in your opinion, the new sticky is not about trolling but about limiting what is written regarding religious topics?

You may notice that my post revolved entirely around freedom of speech, I did not mention religion at all. Everything that you've read into it regarding religion is speculation.

Insofar as the topic relates to religion, no, there is no loss of freedom of religion. You are free to believe and worship as you wish. What is regulated is your expression of your belief, i.e. your freedom of speech. More to the point, it's not even lacking freedom of expression (AFAIK, you can still express your beliefs), but rather it's a moderation of the format of that expression and an intention to actually hold a discussion (discussion being a two(+)-way interaction).

Bluedoll wrote:
But if you consider the sticky and if this post was hypothetically placed in the p/r section would you be trolling right now since the topic is about trolling and not freedom of speech – in that case you could be moderated? I suppose you could be if a moderator did not like you but the point here is not to decide for the moderation team what they could do, should do or not do or what power they possess or do not possess. I am not a moderator and have appositely no input into how the board is moderated. The point of this post, I thought, as Deanhills put it was to clarify what trolling is, and how it applies to any future posts that might occur in the p/r section. It is very obivious that this sticky can be troublesome not just for the posters but the team as well!


The topic of freedom of speech is somewhat integral to the topic of trolling, is it not? My response to Dean concerning the intrinsic lack of freedom of speech on this site is entirely topical to moderator decisions regarding limiting of expression and trolling.

If the moderating team disagreed with that assessment, I'm sure I'd receive a PM or have my post edited. I've been found to be out of line or off-topic by moderators in the past and have had the content of my posts edited... it's the nature of the beast, so to speak.

I agree that the definition of trolling is nebulous and hard to tack down... but, I believe this is, in part, intentional. Having a loose definition of trolling helps avoid loopholes through which trolls are especially adept at finding and wriggling through. A concrete definition is like a fence built across a driveway that doesn't extend around the yard. If you want, even if the gate is closed, you can walk around it.


Bluedoll wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Can't threaten that which doesn't apply.
I disagree in that freedom is not a concrete object like some statue that can be eliminated. In every country for every countryman freedom must be exercised. There are laws and there are courts, we exercise it every day. Now, here in this forum, a parallel could be drawn comparing what goes on here, to what does apply in our real life, outside this little internet activity. For example, I could get an office job where my boss could regulate what I do but when he steps over the line to demand coffee in his private office, it just might be the coffee, that ends up in his lap. Yes, I do risk loosing my job, but what I do or do not do will be decided by me, not by someone else. So yes, freedom and personal freedom does exist and does apply in my life always. Is this not what freedom is all about?


That's the thing... while conceptual in nature, freedom is absolutely something that can be eliminated. For example, your or my freedom to post on this forum can be taken away, lickity-split with a simple banning. Freedom eliminated. If we commit a grievous crime in the real world, our freedom will be taken away through jailing. There are all kinds of ways for freedoms to be eliminated.

I agree that we must exercise our rights to freedom in the real world, within reason. Even there moderation is appropriate. I don't speak every thought that comes to my mind... I'm free to do so, but it would be incredibly stupid.

This is not a country... this is the internet. While complete freedom of speech exists on the 'net as a whole, it does NOT apply universally to individual services. In using a service, we agree to the censors that the provider imposes... it's really that simple. The provider has the right to impose as much or as little censorship as they please. It's part of the beauty of the internet, that there is no overall censorship, but we are free to censor as we like.


Bluedoll wrote:
So then in your opinion, the new sticky is not about trolling but about limiting what is written regarding religious topics?

In my opinion, no, the sticky about trolling in the P&R is NOT about limiting what is written regarding religious topics; anything can still be discussed. What it is limiting is actions which limit actual discussion. The P&R forum is a discussion forum, posts made within it should be designed to further the discussion. Post quality and content are important.
A poster can believe whatever they wish, there's no infringement upon that, whatsoever.

What I believe the trolling sticky and subsequent moderator action are intended to accomplish is a polishing of the P&R forum. A reduction of tangential topics, reduction of ad hominem commentary (which tends to be the content of the tangential topics), and promotion of discourse, rather than simple assertions. It's about content and quality... Yes, that intrinsically requires some limitations, but they're primarily limiting on presentation style rather than content.

Limitations on HOW posts are presented, not the core content.
deanhills
@Ankhanu. If it is true that the intention is to up the standard of posting in the Phil&Rel Forum, why not just come out and say so instead of accusing people of being trolls. I see a troll as someone really REALLY evil. Someone who lurks discussion boards and does malicious damage. I have not seen a troll like that at Frihost yet. If a higher standard of posting in the Phil&Rel forum is the objective, then maybe a system needs to be set up whereby only certain posters are allowed to post in the Phil&Rel Forum. In which case, would it not be better to start a new Phil&Rel Discussion Forum entirely as I thought Frihost was a general Forum and all posts were welcome?

Last I knew Bondings wanted us to post with gusto. If you look at our number of postings, they are down this month. So to alienate the posters who are producing the goods, I regard as foolish in the extreme. I have had two of my posts removed within less than a week, in the time that I have rebutted this stickie over the last two days, I could have made 30 other posts. I'm posting here for my own pleasure. I do not relish being hinted at as being a troll. No one at Frihost deserves to be called a troll without a very clear definition of what trolling is supposed to be.
Ankhanu
Trolling isn't always an intentional activity... sometimes it's oversight.

Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on your moderation specifically, but on general principle. I don't know the circumstances of those posts, nor their content (I'm not asking for clarification either, I'm attempting to work with generally applicable concepts rather than individual concerns).

Sometimes trolls are that person waiting to cause trouble. Sometimes they're more innocent in nature, but the end result is the same: derailment of threads/discussion and a drop in thread quality. I guess the difference between an accident and trolling could be defined by the frequency of events, particularly if some warning was given (or the poster can plainly see the derailment caused by the post(s)). In the end though, trolling is subjective and is subject to the perceptions of the people reading and the people moderating. In particular, in the case of moderation, if someone feels they've been wrongly moderated, they can certainly contact the moderator responsible and explain their intent with the post, and perhaps restate it in a way that makes it more clear and less resembling an attempt to garner reaction and/or derail. Failing that, if they think they've been really wrongly treated, they can approach other members of the moderating team and/or bondings and file a complaint. Sometimes something will come of it, sometimes it won't... chances are, if nothing comes of it, the moderated member was in the wrong and needs to accept it.

When I've been moderated, I've accepted it and I could understand the rationale behind the moderation. The moderation choices that I've seen where I've been privy to the original content of the post, I've likewise also understood the rationale behind those choices.

Given what we saw in the principle thread that was the straw on the camel's back concerning the creation of the trolling sticky, I think it's pretty clear as to why the choice for more stringent moderation is required. My outlook on that thread is far from unilateral, there's a lot of blame to go around, but I'm not going to publicly point my finger where I think the main blames rest (it's certainly not a single individual).
KHO
Personally, I don't mind if a moderator steps in and involves himself with threads he is moderating - in a positive manner. I do not believe that a moderator should step in and immediately shoot down any idea posted in a "Philosophy and Religion" forum especially. Regardless of how accurate you believe your opinions to be, science has been known to change it's mind frequently, and what you assert now may not always be true. That is why philosophy exists, so that we can speculate on the unknown and leave the finite details alone and try and look at a larger picture. Honestly, the way my thread was hijacked by bikerman was absolutely no different at all from any troll hijacking a thread. As the person who created the thread, I think I have more entitlement than any other individual (moderators and admins included) on these forums to decide who the troll in my thread was. It was not the person who made a disparaging remark to a moderator, it was a moderator who ignored the title of not only the thread but the entire forum and went about seeking to gain control of the thread.[/u]
truespeed
Bluedoll wrote:


Truespeed, I could suggest that you post your question in a separate topic if you are interested in it that much but the fact is that will be impossible to get anything but a biased viewpoint on it. All other viewpoints other than those supported by Bikerman will be deleted.


My post could of been pulled because it was off topic to the OP,i should of started a new thread,but the point still stands,you don't engage in discussion,you don't answer questions,you do get offended,so combine you getting offended with a unwillingness to discuss the topic at hand,then you have a thread that goes nowhere,and this is pretty much every thread you participate in,every thread gets killed because you make comments and then refuse to discuss/explain your point of view.

If your not willing to join in a discussion then surely the best thing to do is not join the thread where your views will be questioned.


deanhills wrote:
@Truespeed. This Forum is six years old, why bring in a sticky about something that is as old as the Internet is at this point in time? You've been around longer than I have, and I'm almost certain you must have seen worse trolling in the Phil&Rel Forum than right now. Why was there not a sticky put up then? And why now?

I see the trolling sticky as more than about trolling. I see it as a threat to all of those that Bikerman and Indi have differences with. I believe that that sticky was specifically written to me as well. Hence why I feel honour bound to respond to it. Bikerman has already spamcanned a post of mine a week ago. That means that my freedom of speech is being threatened. And by implication anyone else's whom Bikerman does not like.



Ankhanu has already stated he has had posts pulled,i have had threads locked,its normal on a forum,it doesn't always have to be personal,when i delete posts on my forum,its not because i dislike the poster,its because the posts in question break the forum rules.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:
Trolling isn't always an intentional activity... sometimes it's oversight.

I'd disagree with that in particular...

Occasionally there may be something that unintentionally causes troll-like results, but I'd say that to be trolling implies intent to do so.
Ankhanu
Fair point... but what of people who consistently derail topics with the same method, though derailment is not obviously their intent? Is the refusal to recognize mistakes and enacting the same ones again and again not a form of trolling? Or if trolling isn't the word of choice, isn't it, at the very least, a behaviour which ought to be curbed?

I one off, or occasional mistake that causes troll like results is just that, a mistake. But is it really a mistake when it's consistent behaviour?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Trolling isn't always an intentional activity... sometimes it's oversight.

I'd disagree with that in particular...

Occasionally there may be something that unintentionally causes troll-like results, but I'd say that to be trolling implies intent to do so.
Completely agreed.

truespeed wrote:
Ankhanu has already stated he has had posts pulled,i have had threads locked,its normal on a forum,it doesn't always have to be personal,when i delete posts on my forum,its not because i dislike the poster,its because the posts in question break the forum rules.
I don't have a problem if my post is removed when a rule has been broken. But I do object when if someone else has broken the exact same rule, and I have reported it, there is no action. That is unfair. The troll sticky will magnify this unfairness a few times over as it will be dead easy to make a case for trolling, particularly if you look at Indi's definition of "concern trolls" below - all of our posts qualify. For people like you and Ankhanu whom Indi and Bikerman like. No problem. But for people that Bikerman and Indi are of the opinion are not up to scratch, definitely a problem.
Indi wrote:
There are many different types of trolls. Some are people who actually believe the topic but say contrary crap just to spark insults and such for lulz (so-called flame-bait). Other types pretend to be interested in the topic but are really only looking for excuses to "score points" for the other side, hoping that the other party trips up in some way while engaged in on-the-spot debate, and they delight in seeing lots of people waste lots of time trying to explain things to them that they have no interest in listening to (so-called "concern trolling"; you should be familiar with this type - this is the most common type of creationist troll on pro-science boards).

People who pretend to be interested in a topic, when they are really not, and use that feigned interest to waste the time of people who do care about that topic - for example, by repeatedly getting them to explain the basics - are an actual identified form of troll called "concern trolls". So yeah, they're trolls. Because i don't think anyone still seriously believes any of them actually care about the topics they're pretending to care about, and i don't think anyone has failed to notice how many times the same basic crap has to be explained to them, over and other.

One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.
Bluedoll
Deanhills wrote:
One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.
These questions are the most important questions in this thread that I think need to be answered. Who will answer them?
Ankhanu wrote:
Fair point... but what of people who consistently derail topics with the same method, though derailment is not obviously their intent? Is the refusal to recognize mistakes and enacting the same ones again and again not a form of trolling? Or if trolling isn't the word of choice, isn't it, at the very least, a behaviour which ought to be curbed?

I one off, or occasional mistake that causes troll like results is just that, a mistake. But is it really a mistake when it's consistent behaviour?
Who are the people? Why not bring to this out in the open and just define it clearly? I certainly do not want to make this discussion all about me (because it is not, the subject of trolling comes up over and over again – perhaps the word trolling should be banned along with profanity) but the fact remains the sticky was placed after this post by Bikerman.

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-125163.html
Bikerman wrote;
Quote:
And there we have it. Semi-literate gibberish with no information content, no point, no justification, no evidence and, in short, no clue.
Clueless.

It is trolling pure and simple and I've had enough of it.

with

Please read the new sticky on trolling. I am going to be enforcing it in this, and in other threads.
Now this decision was made after a single individual posted and that person would be me, so I think it would be fair in the defining of this slang term, trolling, that clear recognition to the posts made in that thread be used and not the assumed character of who I am or what intentions I have in my heart. In other words, not generalizations about me and how I post* but specifics from that thread that clearly show trolling to be true. For example, if you are going to say something like intent to derail then look at this post where I am labeled as a troll and you might see it is far less a derail function as it is in KHO’s post that was very obviously derailed with a very clear intention to shift the subject away from a spiritual journey to a scientific one?

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-125895.html

It is clear that strict enforcing is going to take place for some vague term no one can clearly define except Bikerman.

*in reality, failure to answer specific religious questions that results in arguments is what I am being accused of - not trolling and that I reserve as my right. It is not a mistake to have a religious belief (why not mention religion because the post in question is religious post!) and desire to stay with that belief and not submit to someone’s else’s standard of posting for example as to supply evidence. I will not use the bible in this manner. To say, that I do not join discussions or have an intention to pull a post off topic is not true and if it happen it is done far less by me than in others threads, yet I am the one being accused of being a troll by Bikerman (started by Indi) supported by other posters who are on that bandwagon). Why? Is there real proof that I am indeed a troll any more than any other poster in this forum or this about something else? Standing up!
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Fair point... but what of people who consistently derail topics with the same method, though derailment is not obviously their intent? Is the refusal to recognize mistakes and enacting the same ones again and again not a form of trolling? Or if trolling isn't the word of choice, isn't it, at the very least, a behaviour which ought to be curbed?

I one off, or occasional mistake that causes troll like results is just that, a mistake. But is it really a mistake when it's consistent behaviour?
Who are the people? Why not bring to this out in the open and just define it clearly?


I'm not making personal remarks here. "The people" in this context is anyone who displays the above mentioned behaviour trait... anyone.

Like I said, there's plenty of blame to go around, pointing fingers hasn't helped in the past and it likely won't now. In my replies here, I'm working in general terms that should apply to all people using the board, not specific individuals.

Bluedoll wrote:
... if you are going to say something like intent to derail then look at this post where I am labeled as a troll and you might see it is far less a derail function as it is in KHO’s post that was very obviously derailed with a very clear intention to shift the subject away from a spiritual journey to a scientific one?


Not defending the apparent derailment of KHO's post but, they do quite clearly state:
KHO wrote:
With that said, this is my current view on the universe, and I would love to hear any feedback from anyone patient enough to read this post.

This is an entirely open request for feedback. It offers no limits on the nature of the feedback... and a rationalist or scientific perspective is a relevant one. Some of the other stuff that went on, not so much.

I've been meaning to go back and go through KHO's thread carefully, I only had time to read part of the OP initially and it piqued my interest, but I had to leave and haven't had time to catch up. I just now gave it a quick scan though to see what the fuss was about. Truly, the discussion may not have progressed in the direction KHO intended, but it went in a direction (aside from the personal tones that developed) that is natural based on the content and the open ended request for feedback.

This is exactly why I've clearly defined the response threads I did not wish discussed in the threads that I've created in the P&R forum, to maintain some focus on the intended point and perspective, rather than taking forays down other perspective paths that are ultimately tangential to the intended topic. (It doesn't work, but that's another issue... well, no, it's closely related Wink )


Bluedoll wrote:

... It is not a mistake to have a religious belief (...) and desire to stay with that belief and not submit to someone’s else’s standard of posting for example as to supply evidence.

My point, and I think that it's the point of the trolling sticky/moderation decision, is that simple statement of "you're wrong" or "things are like this", without either evidence or rationale are discussion killers. What's there to discuss when a person is unwilling to actually give reasons? It's like one giant period at the end of the sentence that is a discussion Razz

You might notice that I did not infer that one should not express their views, nor did I express it explicitly. That message is not one contained within my statements, at all.

What I am saying is that one should, in a forum intended to foster discussion, aim to further a discussion, rather than terminate it. Furthering a discussion kind of requires adding more information to it, rather than halting it with simple assertion.

Bluedoll wrote:
... Is there real proof that I am indeed a troll any more than any other poster in this forum or this about something else? Standing up!

You're not alone. I've seen plenty of posting that I would consider trolling by several posters in the P&R forum as of late... or perhaps I'm just more sensitive about it than normal the past few weeks. Either way, it's been pretty apparent and rampant in my perception.

That's not to say that I'm innocent of it myself... I often make mildly inflammatory comments. That's just part of my sense of humour and not intended to be genuinely inciteful... but I recognize that most of you don't really identify with my humour, humour doesn't translate well via text, etc., and it can be taken off base. Yet, I still make the remarks. Is this trolling? Perhaps... especially if it causes problems more often than not. Should I curb that behaviour? Probably Razz
Bluedoll
Why should there be only a generalization about this sticky? I see no evidence of only short statements in my posts with ‘you are wrong’ in the thread.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-125163.html
Ankhanu wrote:
Yet, I still make the remarks. Is this trolling? Perhaps... especially if it causes problems more often than not. Should I curb that behaviour? Probably Razz
I understand the point you are making but I am not sure though you are actually defining trolling? Supplying evidence in posts or not in my mind is not trolling. In a lot of topics to supply evidence does make sense. Religion is one topic where supplying evidence should not be strickly required.

____________________________________________

The statement says your wife/gf is cheating on you. This is true because evidence is supplied that shows that she smiles when you are not around. If you do not respond to this or supply evidence to the contraire we will assume this statement is true. if you say she isn’t, you must proof it! Good luck!

____________________________________________

Regardless, the main point of this thread, I think still lies in Deanhills post,
Deanhills wrote,
Quote:
One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Why should there be only a generalization about this sticky? I see no evidence of only short statements in my posts with ‘you are wrong’ in the thread.


I'm trying to remain general, as I don't want to argue about specifics. I, also, largely wasn't and don't know for certain the thought processes of yourself or anyone else involved, so can only speculate. I'm speculating with some of the generalities as well, but it's less dangerous speculation Wink
I'm more interested in the general topic of trolling and thread derailment than the specific cases; I'm interested in how this subject applies more broadly than to the specific instances and personalities.

Bluedoll wrote:
I am not sure though you are actually defining trolling?


It is, though not explicitly. It's true that I'm not stating a definition... rather I'm throwing out questions as to what should fall into the definition. For example, is intent absolutely integral to the act of trolling? Ocalhoun appears to think so... I'm not entirely convinced. Is trolling an intent or is it an outcome? It's sort of a "the road to heaven is paved with good intentions" sort of thing... sometimes the ends are just as important as the means, and vice versa, in my opinion.

Bluedoll wrote:
... Religion is one topic where supplying evidence should not be strickly required.


I know. That's why I bolded that part in my reply, evidence or rationale. In philosophy, a rationale (a reason) can be sufficient where evidence is not necessarily required. But you need either or both of these if a discussion is to take place... otherwise we see what we often see in these sorts of threads: people then questioning how the conclusions were made. It's a pause in the conversation, and a pause that all too often proves fatal (as we've seen).

Bluedoll wrote:
The statement says your wife/gf is cheating on you. This is true because evidence is supplied that shows that she smiles when you are not around. If you do not respond to this or supply evidence to the contraire we will assume this statement is true. if you say she isn’t, you must proof it! Good luck!


I don't follow the rationale of this at all. Can you explain it to me better? If it's not really related to the topic of what is trolling and such, feel free to PM me.

Personally, if someone accused my wife of cheating on me saying that she smiles when I'm not around, I'd need MUCH stronger evidence than that to take the accusation seriously. It's not that I need to prove that she isn't, it's that there's not sufficient evidence that she is.


Bluedoll wrote:
Regardless, the main point of this thread, I think still lies in Deanhills post,
Deanhills wrote,
Quote:
One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.


Who made the value assessment? Clearly it was the moderator in question (perhaps the moderating team?). Making value assessments is their role on the forum, as moderators. How they reached their decisions would have to be asked of them specifically, I couldn't begin to guess (and hope to be right Razz )

Personally, I think higher standards apply due to the nature of the Philosophy and Religion topics. Philosophy kind of demands certain standards of discourse to be considered philosophy.
Part of it is the effect of derailment within the section. If you derail a discussion about Call of Duty for XBox 360, for example, it's not such a big deal, whereas a derailment from a discussion on ethical considerations in development of AI can have thread shattering consequences. Philosophy, by its nature, requires thought and consideration; it's a mental exercise as much as anything, and the discourse is absolutely pivotal. You don't get the same sort of thing from the Food forum.

This isn't exclusive to the P&R forum, we see the same sort of demands on the Science forums (That's an entire section of the board with 6 forums under it, all of which have standards), and the Support and Webmaster and Internet sections. These all require a certain level of content to be useful and meaningful. The other forums are less stringent by nature.

Who knows, maybe I'm just blowing smoke out my sphincter...
truespeed
deanhills wrote:

One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.


I think the P&R forums are different,you need a thick skin to be able to accept challenges to long held viewpoints,to do this people posting in there need to open up and stop taking every challenge as a personal attack.

I personally do think you contribute to the P&R forums,but (My opinion) you do take things a little personally sometimes,its not about winning arguments,its about presenting your point of view and then supporting it to see if it holds water or not.

As for the rules,i think we as members should leave the board owner and moderators to set the rules by which we post.

Theists and atheists can get along,but there needs to be open dialogue,where every question isn't seen as an attack because as much as theists (From what i have read in P&R) don't understand atheists,atheists like myself have a hard time understanding theists,which isn't helped when most theists won't even answer straight forward questions without going on the defensive.
Bluedoll
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:

One of the Staff "very gently" suggested whether by way of a solution I could consider posting somewhere else on the Board than in the Phil&Rel Forum? That has me really puzzled. If my posts are considered acceptable in all of the other Forums, why are they considered below standard for the Phil&Rel Forum? Who made that value assessment? And what about all of the other posters? Will those in "my category" or "below" also be advised to rather post in other Forums? What is so exclusive about the Phil&Rel forum in comparison with all of the other Forums? Why should it be different? And how was this conclusion arrived at? Which criteria were used. As this is not only about me, but anyone else who may wish to post in the Phil&Rel Forum and may be considered not to be up to scratch for Indi or Bikerman.


I think the P&R forums are different,you need a thick skin to be able to accept challenges to long held viewpoints,to do this people posting in there need to open up and stop taking every challenge as a personal attack.

I personally do think you contribute to the P&R forums,but (My opinion) you do take things a little personally sometimes,its not about winning arguments,its about presenting your point of view and then supporting it to see if it holds water or not.

As for the rules,i think we as members should leave the board owner and moderators to set the rules by which we post.
I certainly agree that a message board is managed by the staff and not the members of it. The question of fairness arises with this kind of logic however in that the moderator of the board is not actually able to follow what you are saying because of the active role he takes in the managed threads. How can anyone be impartial when the involvement in the thread is so intense? This is fair question.
Related topics
How difficult is to be fair!
Video Projects? They are not fair.
What do you experienced Frihosters consider fair rates?
I am broke
What was Zizou thinking?
Looking For Mods For My Site! 50 FRIH$ Frihost Mods Wanted!
fair/clean/high perfomance sport
Discussion ABOUT “Political Phil: What is [Not] Fair?” topic
Political Philosophy: What is [Not] Fair?
This day in Scottish History.
Anyone want a Flat tax?
Macbeth Ebook
Chelsea vs Spurs match - John Terry sent off, was it fair?
About Judas Iscariot...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Support and Web Hosting -> Frihost Support

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.