![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 77. Go back in thread:
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 19:00:19
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 18:45:11
>
> How hard have you looked?I haven't exactly looked, because it's not something I'm really interested in.
>Have you, yourself, tried to create a safe place and failed?
Even if I wanted to, I really have an aversion to banging my head against walls. I HAVE seen attempts at it in other forum venues, and the results were not positive.
I'm a proponent of tolerance, reasonableness, pragmatism, forgiveness, and I'm not a big fan of rules that exclude. WWJD?
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 19:09:24
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 19:00:19
> WWJD?
What's that?
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 19:16:54
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People » Ronnjee, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 19:09:24
> > WWJD?
>
> What's that?
>LOL - Google it, for God's sake
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." I don't think its a helluva lot differrent on forums.
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 19:28:27
In reply to Another Einstein Quote » SLS, posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 19:16:54
> > > WWJD?
> >
> > What's that?
> >
>
> LOL - Google it, for God's sake
Are you kidding me?
That's how you answer a simple question?
Never mind.
"If you have to be right, you're wrong." - Mike Duffy.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 3, 2014, at 19:37:08
In reply to Mike Duffy. » Ronnjee, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 19:28:27
>
> Are you kidding me?
>
> That's how you answer a simple question?
>
It was PART of my answer about tolerance, etc. - I just plugged it at the end as maybe an example that would resonate. And BTW, I'm an athiest, so I was simply referring to what I've gathered was his M.O., not anything else.I'm not trying to be right, I'm just sharing some thoughts, as you are, and I think a mix of ideas is good to consider. I really believe that we all can be right, and that win-win is a true possibility.
And there have been many times that I would've loved to see so-and-so instantly banished. But if I can't take a joke, it's on me, really.
Posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 7:11:19
In reply to Trolls and Freedom of Speech, posted by doxogenic boy on March 1, 2014, at 12:21:35
I am in agreement with 10derheart regarding your initial post along this thread. I neglected to tell you that I appreciated your post and the time it took you to compose it.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 7:44:41
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2014, at 19:58:32
> Were you here when the deputies were? I don't remember trolls then.
I don't either.
People were either civil in their communications or they weren't. If they weren't, they were blocked. To the best of my knowledge, their "troll" status was not considered, only their behavior. Because troll behavior is often uncivil, they were blocked from posting very quickly.
Calling someone a troll is an exercise in characterology. Is a troll what they are, or is it what they do? Can a troll remain civil on a website that they have an affinity for and whose tenets agree with their own? Are they still a troll?
> So it would work to again have deputies to moderate the board.
Posting activity on Psycho-Babble at this time is probably light enough that Dr. Bob can handle the volume and reestablish more of a presence as a moderator. I think it is important for him to set limits by example and comment on moderation standards before taking on deputies.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 10:39:08
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » Phillipa, posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 7:44:41
That's my understanding of what the thread-starter (and others) was advocating. Problem is, such policies lead to some really effed-up results, like the following:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/student-points-finger-like-gun_n_4895507.html
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 4, 2014, at 10:46:15
In reply to Re: Trolls and Extinction » doxogenic boy, posted by SLS on March 3, 2014, at 18:12:03
> I agree with what you say regarding psychopaths. They are predators born without conscience. No doubt, many of these people troll the web, but I am dubious that all trolls are psychopaths.
I think you are right about this - not all trolls are psychopaths. But most of the malicious trolls probably are.
> I also agree with you that the concept of "feeding" trolls is often accurate in its dynamic; with starving the troll often convincing him to leave the scene.
This is part of the reason why I think of a small change in the civility rules: if users are allowed to inform other users that a troll has entered the group, it is easier to starve the troll.
> The thing is, it is uncivil to call someone a troll.
Yes, but I propose that it should be allowed to warn other users when a known malicious troll comes into Babble. It may prevent some users from getting hurt by the troll, and I think it is important to prevent that users get more depressed and anxious in this support forum. (And I suppose you agree with me that it is within the civility rules to have discussions about trolls, psychopaths and cyberstalkers in general?)
> It is more of an accusation than it is a nosological description.
Yes it is now, but the Global Assessment of Internet Trolling (GAIT) scale (which the Canadian researchers have made) may change that, so "troll" more becomes like a diagnosis, I think of such as (a subtype of) antisocial personality disorder.
> Besides, it is much quicker to identify a behavior than it is to deliberate one's status as a troll.
You are probably right about that, but if deputies enforce a no-troll-policy, it will be possible to do that pretty fast, too. I think a malicious troll should be treated with stricter rules than a kind poster who has a bad day, or who defends himself against the troll - and most users would probably feel that is fair.
- doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 4, 2014, at 10:48:44
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » Phillipa, posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 7:44:41
>> Were you here when the deputies were? I don't remember trolls then.
> I don't either.
> People were either civil in their communications or they weren't. If they weren't, they were blocked. To the best of my knowledge, their "troll" status was not considered, only their behavior. Because troll behavior is often uncivil, they were blocked from posting very quickly.
I would like it to be like this, as an alternative, if we don't get any no-troll-policy.
- doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 4, 2014, at 10:50:10
In reply to Re: Trolls and Freedom of Speech » doxogenic boy, posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 7:11:19
> I am in agreement with 10derheart regarding your initial post along this thread. I neglected to tell you that I appreciated your post and the time it took you to compose it.
Thank you very much. :)
I appreciate your arguments, it helps me to think further whether a no-troll-policy is good or not.- doxogenic
Posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 11:24:25
In reply to Zero-tolerance Policies, posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 10:39:08
> That's my understanding of what the thread-starter (and others) was advocating. Problem is, such policies lead to some really effed-up results, like the following:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/student-points-finger-like-gun_n_4895507.htmlThe rule instituted by the school was certainly draconian and ought to be repealed. I'm not inclined to blame "zero tolerance" as the factor that makes this situation untenable. The rule is untenable. If there were a rule to prohibit students from urinating on the lunch counter, would a zero tolerance policy be desirable? Can you envisage a posting behavior on Psycho-Babble that should be treated with equal urgency? Interestingly, Dr. Bob always gives a warning rather than a posting block for the first offense. This is not zero tolerance.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 11:37:41
In reply to Re: Zero-tolerance Policies » Ronnjee, posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 11:24:25
All very good points, Scott! I'm just saying, proceed with caution.
Posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 11:53:58
In reply to Re: Zero-tolerance Policies » SLS, posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 11:37:41
> All very good points, Scott! I'm just saying, proceed with caution.
You are right.
I think Dr. Bob is currently trying to move away from the (near) zero tolerance policy that upset so many people several years ago. I was very unhappy with the situation back then. I don't think I offered any alternatives, though. In my mind, it was an all-or-nothing of thing. I wasn't very helpful.
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 12:19:07
In reply to Re: Zero-tolerance Policies » Ronnjee, posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 11:53:58
All-or-nothing is not the way to go, for sure. I think the desire for a perfect set of rules is an unreasonable one, but from what I see, all to common. This is vividly shown in the news, where seemingly everybody is sure their way is the right way.
"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong". ~ Stephen Stills
I think Bob has become aware of all this, and is simply trying to moderate on a case-by-case basis, and as little as possible. He seems to know now that there isn't a panacea. Like Dirty Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations".
Posted by SLS on March 4, 2014, at 16:05:05
In reply to Re: Zero-tolerance Policies, posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 12:19:07
> "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong". ~ Stephen Stills
One of my absolute favorites!
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
In reply to Re: Trolls and Vulnerable People » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 3, 2014, at 17:18:17
Hi, everyone,
I do like the idea of having a safe place to go. Maybe it would help after all to have a Refuge board with more moderation. Some posters might appreciate a third-party solution while they work on a first-party solution. Maybe it would be easier for them to learn to fish if they weren't hungry. Also, as I mentioned before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140214/msgs/1061603.html
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 don't want others to see me as unable to change, so I try to see others that way. Plus, the rule is just to be civil, not to be empathic.
My view is that it's OK to educate people about trolls in general, but uncivil to accuse particular posters of being trolls.
On the one hand, the idea that posters who react to trolls shouldn't be treated like trolls is incorporated into the block length formula, since I take into account whether someone seems to be provoked. OTOH, what if a "troll" were reacting to someone we're not aware of?
The idea of not feeding trolls is not to respond the way they want, which would reinforce their behavior. One alternative way to respond is to ignore them. What about supporting them? I realize that isn't the routine recommendation. This isn't a routine site.
Bob
--
> I think censored support groups/discussion boards can give more freedom of speech, because then will people who are afraid of aggressive posters, dare to use the forum.
>
> He or she may even commit suicide, and no one knows that it was the troll who caused it.
>
> There is no reason for giving the troll a second, third, fourth, fifth ... chance, because they are often cyber psychopaths, who hurt other people for fun. And psychopaths never learn
>
> So, therefore it should be allowed to say in a support group that a troll is a troll, a cyber psychopath is a cyber psychopath and a cyber stalker is a cyber stalker, to warn other users on the support group, and to stop the troll from posting.> If moderation is done often or fast enough, this will keep trolls away.
> I think posters who react to trolls shouldn't be treated like trolls.
>
> - doxogenic> Maybe a troll can learn not to be a troll?
>
> Having said all of that, it is still my intention to offer resistance to what I feel is undesirable behavior by posting my usual confrontational silliness.
>
> - Scott> it appears that the most defensive are the ones who want a third-party solution the most. ... Why do they feel the need to defend? Why are they so sure that someone or the website need defending? ... Is it about virtue and nobility, ala Don Quixote?
> I'm thinking about a psyche version of "give a man a fish.......", where learning to deal with the "slings and arrows" may be better than expecting to control the slingers. I think of road rage, and learning how to avoid it, starting with the acceptance that other drivers will always, at one time or another, do stupid or careless things on the road (as will we sometimes). We can't control that but we can learn to not be so surprised by it and not freak out about it.
>
> Ronnjee> The reason why I think it can be of importance to know if a poster is a troll is that he can be dangerous for other posters' mental health because of his sadistic and psychopathic personality.
>
> A person with psychopathic personality traits is biologically unable to learn empathy.> > novice Internet users are routinely admonished, 'Do not feed the trolls!'
> I think vulnerable people should have at least one safe place to go.
>
> - doxogenic
Posted by SLS on March 5, 2014, at 7:07:28
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I do like the idea of having a safe place to go. Maybe it would help after all to have a Refuge board with more moderation. Some posters might appreciate a third-party solution while they work on a first-party solution. Maybe it would be easier for them to learn to fish if they weren't hungry. Also, as I mentioned before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140214/msgs/1061603.html
>
> 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 don't want others to see me as unable to change, so I try to see others that way. Plus, the rule is just to be civil, not to be empathic.
>
> My view is that it's OK to educate people about trolls in general, but uncivil to accuse particular posters of being trolls.
>
> On the one hand, the idea that posters who react to trolls shouldn't be treated like trolls is incorporated into the block length formula, since I take into account whether someone seems to be provoked. OTOH, what if a "troll" were reacting to someone we're not aware of?
>
> The idea of not feeding trolls is not to respond the way they want, which would reinforce their behavior. One alternative way to respond is to ignore them. What about supporting them? I realize that isn't the routine recommendation. This isn't a routine site.
>
> BobThis sounds good.
Will there be a special sign-up procedure for entrance into a refuge forum?
- Scott
Posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 7:26:14
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
I can see how such a "safe" place might be quite agreeable to some members. I personally have no interest in it, but I'll be interested in seeing how the civility rules, blocks, etc. might be different there, and how the existence of such a place will, in turn, affect the civility situation on the "regular" boards. Cross-talk might be a potential problem, as I see it.
Posted by Twinleaf on March 5, 2014, at 8:21:41
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
Support is great -at least, almost always. But if posters are acting out hostilities or emotional/cognitive distortions, focussing on them excessively could be having the effect of rewarding and reinforcing unhealthy behaviors. I believe this is, unfortunately, happening with Lou presently. If "trolls" are supported as they act out destructive behaviors, that would be equally unfortunate and equally unlikely to promote healthier, more constructive interactions.
I would like to see destructive comments either ignored or mildly sanctioned, with support reserved for constructive, or at least neutral, interactions. But the board seems to be going in a direction which is increasingly irrelevant for minorities like me!
Posted by SLS on March 5, 2014, at 8:32:39
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Twinleaf on March 5, 2014, at 8:21:41
> Support is great -at least, almost always. But if posters are acting out hostilities or emotional/cognitive distortions, focussing on them excessively could be having the effect of rewarding and reinforcing unhealthy behaviors. I believe this is, unfortunately, happening with Lou presently. If "trolls" are supported as they act out destructive behaviors, that would be equally unfortunate and equally unlikely to promote healthier, more constructive interactions.
This makes sense.
> I would like to see destructive comments either ignored or mildly sanctioned, with support reserved for constructive, or at least neutral, interactions.
> But the board seems to be going in a direction which is increasingly irrelevant for minorities like me!
I'm not sure that you are a minority, but you are perfect.
- Scott
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 8:49:04
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
> Hi, everyone,
> I do like the idea of having a safe place to go.Thank you very much for your reply. I hope it is possible to find a solution that most users on Babble are satisfied with. It seems like the majority would like a stricter enforcement of the civility rules, and I think that would make Babble safer for vulnerable people.
> Maybe it would help after all to have a Refuge board with more moderation.
I think it is worth a try. If it works, what about making all Babble forums to Refuge boards?
> Some posters might appreciate a third-party solution while they work on a first-party solution. Maybe it would be easier for them to learn to fish if they weren't hungry.
Can you elaborate this? I haven't read all the threads here on Admin, so I may have missed a point.
> Also, as I mentioned before:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140214/msgs/1061603.html
> 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?
> I don't want others to see me as unable to change, so I try to see others that way.
Thanks.
>Plus, the rule is just to be civil, not to be empathic.
Yes, but if a poster shows lack of empathy, it could me uncivil?
> 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?
> On the one hand, the idea that posters who react to trolls shouldn't be treated like trolls is incorporated into the block length formula, since I take into account whether someone seems to be provoked.
That is great. I didn't know about this.
> OTOH, what if a "troll" were reacting to someone we're not aware of?
Even if we try to be fair, we can fail sometimes, but I don't think this will happen very often.
> The idea of not feeding trolls is not to respond the way they want, which would reinforce their behavior. One alternative way to respond is to ignore them. What about supporting them? I realize that isn't the routine recommendation. This isn't a routine site.
If trolls are sadists, such as Canadian researchers say in the sciencific journal "Personality and Individual Differences" in the study "Trolls just want to have fun" (I have now found the fulltext article on the Internet, and it shows on the link below), then it is very difficult to support trolls without being exploited. If one realize after a long time that one has been exploited in a long-term troll strategy, it can be very hurtful and make it more difficult to trust other people. And the mentally ill often have problems with trusting other people. Supporting trolls may worsen their problems.
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
Two quotes from the link above:
"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"
End quote.What do you think about the above-mentioned study, as a mental health professional?
- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 12:35:37
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People » Dr. Bob, posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 8:49:04
People spewing vitriol in some sort of media is far from a new thing, and it's not limited to online activity. In recent years, 24-hour TV and radio news media (like Fox News) and the interweb have provided endless outlets for outrage, and it's become an unfortunately common part of people's mode of expression, and it's not just coming from the rabble. We often see it from our elected officials, religious leaders, etc.. What happens here is merely a reflection of a broader phenomenon, and I don't find it a bit surprising; it really shouldn't surprise anyone whose eyes are open, as we're living in a very polarized and frightened world. These facts must be taken in account when viewing activity here.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 15:11:10
In reply to Zero-tolerance Policies, posted by Ronnjee on March 4, 2014, at 10:39:08
> That's my understanding of what the thread-starter (and others) was advocating. Problem is, such policies lead to some really effed-up results, like the following:
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/student-points-finger-like-gun_n_4895507.htmlHow and why do you think this is comparable with a no-troll-policy to make a safe place for vulnerable people?
- doxogenic
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 15:19:55
In reply to Reality Check Regarding 'Trolls', posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 12:35:37
> People spewing vitriol in some sort of media is far from a new thing, and it's not limited to online activity. In recent years, 24-hour TV and radio news media (like Fox News) and the interweb have provided endless outlets for outrage, and it's become an unfortunately common part of people's mode of expression, and it's not just coming from the rabble. We often see it from our elected officials, religious leaders, etc.. What happens here is merely a reflection of a broader phenomenon, and I don't find it a bit surprising; it really shouldn't surprise anyone whose eyes are open, as we're living in a very polarized and frightened world. These facts must be taken in account when viewing activity here.
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
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.