Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2014, at 3:42:30
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by doxogenic boy on March 23, 2014, at 18:48:51
> > 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.I like that approach: give people a choice.
> > 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 cyberstalking
>
> 2)
> All kinds of responses are welcome for a troll
>
> 3)
> 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.Thanks for considering the other side.
> > > it is very difficult to support trolls without being exploited.
>
> 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.1. I agree, posters who are more likely to believe false apologies may be more likely to be exploited.
They might feel safer on a Refuge board, where "trolls" may be less prevalent.
2. Believing false apologies might not be the most effective way to support "trolls".
> > 1. I wonder about their method of identifying trolls:
>
> > > > 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)".
>
> Do you think that their measurement tools aren't enough targeted?It seems to me it would be easy for a "troll" to answer "making new friends".
> > 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 see it as an attempt to group together people who share certain symptoms. It's not "evil personality disorder" or "bad personality disorder".
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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?I could -- that was the old Babble -- but what about people who prefer the city to the woods?
> > But how would you define "troll"?
>
> 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.I can decide whether a poster is uncivil based on a single post. It doesn't require waiting and seeing. I like being able to deal with an issue and move on.
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:1061607
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1063205.html