![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 77. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 15:52:44
In reply to Re: A no-trolling area in a trollish society » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 15:19:55
I've already, in many posts, voiced my opinions about rules, unintended consequence, overkill, etc., so I won't repeat. Suffice it to say that there are no cut and dry answers to your questions. There is a lot of sublety involved, and it seems that somebody always gets the short end of the stick, so to speak, no matter what. It appears that Bob is trying to address your concerns, while not excluding others in the process.
I understand your feelings, but you might try to understand that they are not universal.
Posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 16:27:43
In reply to Dox » doxogenic boy, posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 15:52:44
When I moved to Florida, I bought a home with a swimming pool. My son was 5 at the time, and his worried mother started talking about special security fences, floating alarms and such safety devices. I said, "Why don't we just teach him how to swim?". And that's what we did. Boy, did he enjoy that pool, and that freedom! As did we.
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 17:31:48
In reply to A Little Tale, posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 16:27:43
> When I moved to Florida, I bought a home with a swimming pool. My son was 5 at the time, and his worried mother started talking about special security fences, floating alarms and such safety devices. I said, "Why don't we just teach him how to swim?". And that's what we did. Boy, did he enjoy that pool, and that freedom! As did we.
What about kids who can't swim who jump into the swimming pool? There will always be someone who is unable to learn to swim, or who can't get swimming lessons.
- doxogenic
Posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 17:40:44
In reply to Re: A Little Tale » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 17:31:48
That is true, but we don't just drain the entire pool to suit them. We set up one of those little inflatable pools, instead, while not robbing the adults of their fun. If Bob decides on an analog to that, will that suffice?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2014, at 11:35:47
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.
>
> 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!
>
>
T_l,
You wrote,[...hostilities or emotional/cognitive distortions...unhealthy behaviors...destructive behaviors...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are the hostilities that you are wanting to mean here?
B. What are the emotional/cognitive distortions that you are wanting to mean here?
C. What are the unhealthy behaviors that you are wanting to mean here?
D. By what authority do you use, if any, to include my name in your post that a subset of readers could think that you are using me as the subject person in your post?
E. What are the destructive behaviors that you are wanting to mean in your post?
F. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2014, at 10:55:52
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Twinleaf on March 5, 2014, at 8:21:41
> > My view is that it's OK to educate people about trolls in general, but uncivil to accuse particular posters of being trolls.
> if posters are acting out hostilities or emotional/cognitive distortions ... I believe this is ... happening with Lou
>
> I would like to see destructive comments either ignored or mildly sanctionedPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on March 11, 2014, at 11:45:25
In reply to Re: mild sanction » Twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2014, at 10:55:52
I am having a difficult time understanding what is uncivil about my saying that I would like to see destructive messages ignored or lightly sanctioned. I feel what I said was civil and respectful. Could you explain what you felt was uncivil?
Posted by SLS on March 11, 2014, at 12:21:26
In reply to Re: mild sanction, posted by Twinleaf on March 11, 2014, at 11:45:25
> I am having a difficult time understanding what is uncivil about my saying that I would like to see destructive messages ignored or lightly sanctioned. I feel what I said was civil and respectful. Could you explain what you felt was uncivil?
Pardon my intrusion and presumptions. I am *guessing* that your post would have been fine had you not identified a specific person as:
...posters are acting out hostilities or emotional/cognitive distortions
...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.
Rightly or wrongly, one might associate this statement with your earlier reference to a specific poster. Thus, it might appear that you are calling him a troll.
- Scott
Posted by Twinleaf on March 11, 2014, at 12:37:45
In reply to Re: mild sanction » Twinleaf, posted by SLS on March 11, 2014, at 12:21:26
Oh OK; I thnk you're right. I wasn't even thinking of him in terms of being a troll, but just questioning whether so much attention to what seemed to me like negative behavior would help him change in a positive way.
Those of us who have had children have learned, often through our own errors, that lots of genuine praise for correct, healthy behaviors combined with benign neglect and rare mild punishment for less desirable behaviors works really well - the child wants to do well and retains hgh self-esteem.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2014, at 14:11:17
In reply to Re: A no-trolling area in a trollish society » Ronnjee, posted by doxogenic boy on March 5, 2014, at 15:19:55
> Will there be a special sign-up procedure for entrance into a refuge forum?
>
> - ScottI was thinking it could be entered just like any other board. The introduction would explain how it was different.
--
> > 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.
> > 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?
> then it is very difficult to support trolls without being exploited.
Why do you say that?
> 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:
> > 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.
> 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.
>
> - doxogenicThat would be the general idea of a Refuge board. But how would you define "troll"? Or operationalize "sadistic", "psychopathic", and "Machiavellian"? I don't think it would work to make everyone fill out a personality measure.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 11, 2014, at 17:16:09
In reply to Re: mild sanction, posted by Twinleaf on March 11, 2014, at 11:45:25
> I am having a difficult time understanding what is uncivil about my saying that I would like to see destructive messages ignored or lightly sanctioned. I feel what I said was civil and respectful. Could you explain what you felt was uncivil?
T_l,
You wrote,[...destructive messages...].
What criteria do you use to determine if a message is destructive?
Lou
Posted by corkskru on March 11, 2014, at 17:46:19
In reply to Re: A Little Tale » doxogenic boy, posted by Ronnjee on March 5, 2014, at 17:40:44
> That is true, but we don't just drain the entire pool to suit them. We set up one of those little inflatable pools, instead, while not robbing the adults of their fun.
Love the analogy that parallels what is happening in America. Nothing is fool-proof but being able to learn and adapt helps and strengthens better than trying for full protection 24/7. Life isn't always fair...
Posted by Ronnjee on March 11, 2014, at 18:59:43
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2014, at 14:11:17
Effin complicated, ain't it? The problem possibilities are just as complicated as the "regular" boards. It may be fun to watch, though.
Posted by Ronnjee on March 12, 2014, at 10:03:51
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders' » Dr. Bob, posted by Ronnjee on March 11, 2014, at 18:59:43
Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse. Any attempt on your part to correct this will only accelerate the process.
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2014, at 14:17:52
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders' » Dr. Bob, posted by Ronnjee on March 11, 2014, at 18:59:43
> Effin complicated, ain't it? The problem possibilities are just as complicated as the "regular" boards. It may be fun to watch, though.
It would be complicated, but it was how things were here before, so at least they're not new complications.
Bob
Posted by Ronnjee on March 14, 2014, at 15:02:49
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2014, at 14:17:52
> > Effin complicated, ain't it? The problem possibilities are just as complicated as the "regular" boards. It may be fun to watch, though.
>
> It would be complicated, but it was how things were here before, so at least they're not new complications.
>
> Bob
....although new complications might be more interesting and educational than the same old same old.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2014, at 17:22:53
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by Ronnjee on March 14, 2014, at 15:02:49
> > > Effin complicated, ain't it? The problem possibilities are just as complicated as the "regular" boards. It may be fun to watch, though.
> >
> > It would be complicated, but it was how things were here before, so at least they're not new complications.
>
> ....although new complications might be more interesting and educational than the same old same old.Be careful what you wish for!
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2014, at 18:02:27
In reply to Re: Vulnerable People, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2014, at 1:19:18
> 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'm starting to think about how to implement this. First, it won't be an option to be blind to me or deputies. It also occurred to me that posters might be interested, and it might even help them, to know how many other posters had chosen to be blind to them. Not which posters, just how many.
Bob
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
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
Posted by doxogenic boy on March 25, 2014, at 13:34:57
In reply to Re: Refuge board and 'blinders', posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2014, at 3:42:30
> > > 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.
Thanks. I hope it is technically possible to implement this.
> > > 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.
You are welcome.
> > > > 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.
Yes, this is what I think of a Refuge board.
> 2. Believing false apologies might not be the most effective way to support "trolls".
No, it isn't, but I find it difficult to find an effective way to support trolls, except for ignoring their posts.
> > > 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".
Good point. But couldn't this also be the problem when diagnosing personality disorders? That the patient understands what questions will result in a antisocial personality disorder-diagnosis?
> > > 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".:-)
But aren't those with an antisocial personality disorder often morally denounced, and sometimes also psychiatrists denounce them on the basis of this diagnosis? Are these psychiatrist wrong, and do they misunderstand what antisocial personality disorder is?
> > > > 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?
It seems to me like most of the posters here on Psycho-Babble Administration prefer the woods. If this is correct, could you do some forestation for us? Or maybe we can do it together?
> > > 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.
OK. But could a no-troll policy be a supplement (and not a substitute) to the civility rules, when a single post may not be uncivil, but more posts seen together are disruptive and trollish?
- 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.