Posted by doxogenic boy on March 23, 2014, at 18:48:51
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2014, at 14:11:17
I am sorry that it took so long time for me to reply to your post. See my answers below.
> > > I'm thinking about "blinders", a feature that would keep posters from even seeing the posts of other posters, also to help them feel safe.
> >
> > I support this idea. But one can see what the unwanted poster says, if other users quote him/her, unless it also is possible to blind replies to the unwanted poster. Maybe it can be a choice whether to blind just the unwanted poster or to blind replies to the poster too?
>
> Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. If X is blind to Y, should X also be blind to replies to Y, replies to those replies, etc.?
>
> 1. Y could be quoted in a post that's a reply to Z.
>
> 2. My inclination is to err on the side of being less blind than more.
Ok, but can you have two types of blinders, 1. weak and 2. strong? There will probably be some users who would like to have strong blinders (to the extent it is technically possible: not seing quotes of the blinded poster). If one see the same content in the replies to Y, then one isn't really blind to Y's posts.
> > > My view is that it's OK to educate people about trolls in general, but uncivil to accuse particular posters of being trolls.
> >
> > Thank you for this clarification. But can you see the arguments for warning other posters againts malicious trolls, to protect their mental health and that those who warn about this can have good intentions?
>
> Yes, I see those arguments. Can you see the arguments against accusing particular posters of being trolls?
1)
The troll may want to take revenge on those who warned against him/her, and starts or continues cyberstalking2)
All kinds of responses are welcome for a troll3)
Maybe it wasn't a troll, just a person who didn't understand that his/her post was provocative.4)
Maybe the troll has feelings, and feel hurt.5)
It was not a troll, just someone who had a difficult time.
> > then it is very difficult to support trolls without being exploited.
>
> Why do you say that?
If a troll comes with an apology for his/her (or its?) bad behaviour, and then the next day he/she starts again harassing the same posters who believed in the false apology, then they are being exploited.
> > http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
> >
> > "Online trolling is the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose."
> >
> > "Also as expected, sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism scores were positively correlated with self-reported enjoyment of trolling, all rs >.37 (see Table 1), even when controlling for overall Internet use, all rs >.39"
> >
> > What do you think about the above-mentioned study, as a mental health professional?
>
> 1. I wonder about their method of identifying trolls:
Do you think that their measurement tools aren't enough targeted?
> > > A second question probed their preferred activity when commenting online: "What do you enjoy doing most on these comment sites?" with five response options: "debating issues that are important to you", "chatting with other users", "making new friends", "trolling other users", and "other (specify)".
>
> 2. It makes them sound like bad people.
Isn't the diagnosis "antisocial personality disorder" the psychiatry's attempt to define evil? So, if trolls are sadists and have antisocial personality disorder, aren't they bad people - if bad people exist?
> > I think we can have a safe and quiet place here even though trolls are dominating TV, radio, newspapers, politics and religion. It can be like going for a walk in the woods, to get a break from the noise in the city.
> >
> > A no-trolling area in a trollish society.
> >
> > - doxogenic
>
> That would be the general idea of a Refuge board.
If the Refuge board works successfully, could you make all the boards into Refuge boards?
> But how would you define "troll"?
A person whose aim is to disrupt and make conflicts and does this just for fun.
> Or operationalize "sadistic", "psychopathic", and "Machiavellian"? I don't think it would work to make everyone fill out a personality measure.
Do you mean here on Babble? I don't think it should be necessary to use personality measures (or such as the Global
Assessment of Internet Trolling (GAIT) scale) here, to find the trolls when enforcing a no-troll policy; mostly one is probably right when one thinks a poster is a troll. And if one is not sure, then wait and see some days, to make a better decision. I don't think it should be more difficult to find out if a poster is a troll than to find out if a poster is uncivil. Perhaps a no-troll policy just can be there in addition to the civility rules.- doxogenic
Earlier TRD/anxiety
300 mg tianeptine, 6 X 50 mg successfully since Oct 2009
20 mcg liothyronine
40 mg escitalopram
100 mg trimipramine
50 mg agomelatine
600 mg quetiapine
poster:doxogenic boy
thread:1061607
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1063142.html