I HEREBY STEP DOWN FOR NOW

[Markk]

I’ve experienced this first hand many times. That’s a real concern. And it’s interpretive, mainly subjective.

Good to see others have noticed this. Not sure what can actually be done about it.

Regards,
MG

read any of our moderator's posts on the subject, or even any other subset of posters. Markk's take is not agreed with, AT ALL. Good grief.

LOL…Remember when I said I would show you, you are so predictable? You have no objectivity, you speak for your tribe as a “we or us”, and demand that yours and your tribes opinions are the only ones worthy. As Hor or Chap wrote, I can’t remember which, you are implying your tribe is the correct, and thus, dwell in your self righteousness as they wrote.

I speak to my first post since I have been back, you folks (the butt hurt ones going after Shades because you lose the narrative) are simply whining because you lost the narrative and simply put, “have run into a troll that is better than you trolls and nanny’s, and who is dishing it out better than you have done to others, like myself and MG. It is comical.

[canpakes]

read any of our moderator's posts on the subject, or even any other subset of posters. Markk's take is not agreed with, AT ALL. Good grief.

LOL…Remember when I said I would show you, you are so predictable? You have no objectivity, you speak for your tribe as a “we or us”, and demand that yours and your tribes opinions are the only ones worthy. As Hor or Chap wrote, I can’t remember which, you are implying your tribe is the correct, and thus, dwell in your self righteousness as they wrote.

I speak to my first post since I have been back, you folks (the butt hurt ones going after Shades because you lose the narrative) are simply whining because you lost the narrative and simply put, “have run into a troll that is better than you trolls and nanny’s, and who is dishing it out better than you have done to others, like myself and MG. It is comical.

Markk, your comment doesn’t make much sense, because there’s no ‘narrative’ that you want to identify with within over 2000 posts composed almost entirely of obscenities and tantrums.

You really should poke around through a few of the 4+ new pages (that’s over 100 new splits) in Spirit Prison that have been added since you dropped out of sight. Then, come on back and explain what ‘narrative’ they represent.

[Chap]

But, when I am having a conversation with someone like you, both presenting what we believe are facts, and someone like him or Kevin just states I am a idiot….would that fall under what I quoted from you above?

Likely, yes.

What if someone did that many thousands of times, to almost every participant, in the space of half a year?

Exactly the point. AM splurged post after post informing everybody he disagreed with that they were "dumb betas" and in a "PROGRESSIVE cult". The first ten might charitably be treated as 'opinion'. When it got to three figures, I think we can say that the aim was no longer communication, but disruption pure and simple. Many people call that "trolling".

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve experienced this first hand many times. That’s a real concern. And it’s interpretive, mainly subjective.

Good to see others have noticed this. Not sure what can actually be done about it.

Regards,
MG

read any of our moderator's posts on the subject, or even any other subset of posters. Markk's take is not agreed with, AT ALL. Good grief.

I disagree that what Mark described happens “all the time.” In my opinion, what occurred with MG on the old board could be fairly described as targeted trolling by a group of folks. I can’t recall comparable treatment of Mark. I recall some substantive political arguments in which substantive positions were strongly argued on both sides. It may be that I’ve forgotten what Mark is referring to.

[MG 2.0]

I’ve experienced this first hand many times. That’s a real concern. And it’s interpretive, mainly subjective.

Good to see others have noticed this. Not sure what can actually be done about it.

Regards,
MG

read any of our moderator's posts on the subject, or even any other subset of posters. Markk's take is not agreed with, AT ALL. Good grief.

Not surprising.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Concerning "trolling". Here is the definition:

fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.

when I think of "trolling", I think of activities that correlate to this definition. I think it's very hard to ban "trolling" and I don't think all trolling is bad, even if people being trolled don't like it and are long-time community members. There are other activities that get reactions: assault or vandalism, for instance. But these activities don't seem to have much in common with trolling for fish. The best trolling is when the bait blends in with the environment, and the fish is slowly reeled in. In the way I think of trolling, the baiting generally gets the bait-taker to cross the line, without the trolling crossing the line. Trolls, of this kind, are a huge problem for forums because they aren't really breaking any rules, it's the longstanding members breaking rules in aggravation and retaliation. That's a real gray area. I'm not really opposed to that kind of trolling because I think people need keep their emotions in check, but I understand why most forums crack down on it.

I can "ping" any government or bank website. However, if I run a script that logs onto 1000 servers and ping a government website with large packet sizes such that it fills the bandwidth and others can't get to it, I could go to jail. The actions of the two most recent "trolls", with their opening salvo of hundreds or thousands of posts was more conceptually related to hacking or vandalism than it is "trolling".

This forum has 13 rules. when 1 person is filling up drain forum with their rule violations eating up everyone's time, it's very much like a "ping of death" attack. Nobody is going to put up with that. Not even the most free speech forums like 4chan. Tell your husband to try and create 1000 new threads at 4chan over the weekend and see if the let him.

[Res Ipsa]

Like this for example. This thread consists of 1185 moved posts. And that was just the beginning of ONE such person.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368

Then ignore it, he will get bored and move on eventually…trolls have to eat, quit feeding them. It is a choice, yours.

Mark, I know that's the common wisdom, but by now every troll in the world understands that it's a tactic being used against them. The response is often escalation after escalation until the members of the online community simply decide that trying to meaningfully participate just isn't worth the effort. The studies I've looked at indicate that the most effect methods of handling a troll are banning or deleting all their posts. (One can do both by simply deleting those accounts.) Of course, that has to be balanced here with the values of free speech. If you're talking about the kind of trolling that most folks here and everywhere do from time to time, I absolutely agree: stick 'em on ignore and they'll stop. But, if someone is trolling for the purpose of disrupting the community itself, ignoring doesn't provide much deterrence.

[Res Ipsa]

Concerning "trolling". Here is the definition:

fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.

when I think of "trolling", I think of activities that correlate to this definition. I think it's very hard to ban "trolling" and I don't think all trolling is bad, even if people being trolled don't like it and are long-time community members. There are other activities that get reactions: assault or vandalism, for instance. But these activities don't seem to have much in common with trolling for fish. The best trolling is when the bait blends in with the environment, and the fish is slowly reeled in. In the way I think of trolling, the baiting generally gets the bait-taker to cross the line, without the trolling crossing the line. Trolls, of this kind, are a huge problem for forums because they aren't really breaking any rules, it's the longstanding members breaking rules in aggravation and retaliation. That's a real gray area. I'm not really opposed to that kind of trolling because I think people need keep their emotions in check, but I understand why most forums crack down on it.

I can "ping" any government or bank website. However, if I run a script that logs onto 1000 servers and ping a government website with large packet sizes such that it fills the bandwidth and others can't get to it, I could go to jail. The actions of the two most recent "trolls", with their opening salvo of hundreds or thousands of posts was more conceptually related to hacking or vandalism than it is "trolling".

This forum has 13 rules. when 1 person is filling up drain forum with their rule violations eating up everyone's time, it's very much like a "ping of death" attack. Nobody is going to put up with that. Not even the most free speech forums like 4chan. Tell your husband to try and create 1000 new threads at 4chan over the weekend and see if the let him.

Dean Robbers, I think that's a good description of why we were very reluctant to adopt an anti-trolling rule. AM said he decided early on to target Kevin. And, if you go back and read the first few threads in which AM posted, you can see the dynamics of how that came about. And if you start looking for examples of trolling to bait the target into losing their cool, you can find that everywhere. Pragmatically, it would be a nightmare to have to moderate those kinds of posts, and I guarantee that almost everyone would hate it. To do that would essentially require Shades to put everyone on the queue and have their posts approved by mods before they appear. If I wanted that, there are other sites I could post on. But I would never volunteer to be a moderator there.

[canpakes]

Mark, I know that's the common wisdom, but by now every troll in the world understands that it's a tactic being used against them. The response is often escalation after escalation until the members of the online community simply decide that trying to meaningfully participate just isn't worth the effort. The studies I've looked at indicate that the most effect methods of handling a troll are banning or deleting all their posts. (One can do both by simply deleting those accounts.) Of course, that has to be balanced here with the values of free speech. If you're talking about the kind of trolling that most folks here and everywhere do from time to time, I absolutely agree: stick 'em on ignore and they'll stop. But, if someone is trolling for the purpose of disrupting the community itself, ignoring doesn't provide much deterrence.

To move this example into the real world, what can happen is not too different than if Markk is driving to a jobsite somewhere, but then encounters a trucker or BLM protest that has spilled into the streets and slowed or stalled traffic.

At some point, ‘ignoring’ doesn’t fix anything, nor does it allow the normals to do whatever they were trying to do. And the folks that are doing their best to gum up the works know this. That’s why they’re doing it.

Besides, the course of inaction that Markk is advocating is fatally flawed for this situation in the same way that Cultellus/Binger’s claim was. Cooler, rational folks wouldn’t spend their time repeatedly trying to gum up the works on a message board somewhere. People with issues do, and they’re far more driven by ego and narcissism to disengage in the face of requests to act rational.

[Chap]

Then ignore it, he will get bored and move on eventually…trolls have to eat, quit feeding them. It is a choice, yours.

Mark, I know that's the common wisdom, but by now every troll in the world understands that it's a tactic being used against them. The response is often escalation after escalation until the members of the online community simply decide that trying to meaningfully participate just isn't worth the effort. The studies I've looked at indicate that the most effect methods of handling a troll are banning or deleting all their posts. (One can do both by simply deleting those accounts.) Of course, that has to be balanced here with the values of free speech. If you're talking about the kind of trolling that most folks here and everywhere do from time to time, I absolutely agree: stick ''em on ignore and they'll stop. But, if someone is trolling for the purpose of disrupting the community itself, ignoring doesn't provide much deterrence.

You got it. And - not unimportantly - the sight of a board with troll posts splurged all over it renders it unattractive to visitors who might otherwise stay and take part.

Remember - the stated aim of much of the trolling by Cultellus/Binger/AtlanticMike was to destroy the board as a retaliation for someone have told them they were sexists, racists, or just plain idiots. Which they often richly deserved.