|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 5, 2016 13:21:45 GMT
THREAD STATUS:-
PRIORITY:- 0
RULING:- COMPLETE,
First we need to define what a troll is.
What a dangerous troll is.
What a disruptive troll is.
What a disingenuous troll is and what an honest troll is.
and therefore:- What an unacceptable troll is.
And how to handle each element of these. In general, i beleive a policy of seperating out all trolls into the threads theyre passionate about is the methodology for resolving their attemps to disrupt other threads.
More importantly, however, is identifying when their beleifs ,much like other less aggressive forms of debate are sufficiently clear that theyre totally tactically incompatible with people who dont share their beleifs, and then putting them in a seperate forum for those tactical requirements.
A third seperate forum can then be created for people who have not yet selected their tactic where both the trolls and their opponents are BOTH welcome to discuss the issue in question.
Steven.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedEnd on Apr 14, 2016 9:58:12 GMT
I think maybe it's also useful to consider "is there a personal attack occurring?" And again, we need to clarify in order not to end up allowing "admins" to end up using this as just another way to get rid of people who ask pertinent questions...
So specifically I think a genuine troll repeatedly returns to sniping remarks about the uselessness of the poster and his or her post, undermines the MOTIVATIONS (ie suggests ulterior motives) and does so repeatedly when reminded to stop by others.
HOWEVER people need to be abel to tell others (Councillors....MPs....Admins....Meeting Chair people etc) if they have made an error in protocol or done something that works against the democratic process etc, including things that would suggest doing a bad job for example
ignoring members, favouring individuals, failing to answer requests and questions, pursuing right wing policy in general and failing to implement or pursue left wing policy
Things like this need to be allowed fully to be brought to the table, suppressing them is just bullying by those in a position to do so.
It's been my experience in Plymouth for example that FB Group Admins and the chair of the meeting have routinely taken measures to prevent almost all of the above by deleting posts, banning members and even cancelling meetings to prevent debate occurring.
Ultimately/.......................We need SIMPLE clear guidance, and I think it needs to be along the following lines:
***Trolling is personalised attacks on people (undermining the PERSONALITY) that have a clear intention of wanting to hurt the feelings or get the person emotionally worked up over time.
***Trolling IS NOT criticising people's politics, decisions on their political jobs, lack of action in their political roles, provided this is done as politely as possible and transgressions are not repetitive and unproductive.
***Sarcasm, the odd quip, maybe even the odd obvious dig need to be given some tolerance and understanding, and by the same ticket if someone does ask you to lay off a bit, reminds you to be less personalised then this should be responded to positively.
***A ban from the group page should result only form a UNANIMOUS admin vote.
***ADMINS of POLITICAL groups like Momentum should have been elected by the group.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 14, 2016 16:45:35 GMT
I feel i have a sense of what trolling truly is.
It centres around finding something thagt others find irritating, and DELIBERATELY using it provoke debate. While theyre personalised (written by a person), thats NOT the same thing as being DIRECTED at a person. It can just as easily be directed at a site, message board, community, or any discussion group, without reference to any individual personality in that group.
So here's my main problem with accusations of trolling, in common with many of the other things i list on my "censorship / rules" thread.
There are literally hundreds of conflicting definitions of the word "troll". As such, typical administrators isn NON TRANSPARENT FORA USE THE TERM TO LEGITIMISE CENSORSHIP, AND, BECAUSE THERES NO DIAGNOSTIC DEFINITION OF THE TERM, IT ESSENTIALLY REDUCES TO "I DONT LIKE WHAT THIS PERSON SAYS", WHILE FAILING TO DEFINE OR SUBSTANTIATE ANY SUCH CRIME.
Such poor legitimisation of exclusion is, to me, an outrage. I feel disgust and even rage at people who exclude others on such weak grounds. The same goes for "racism", "anti-semitism" and many, many other terms routinely relied upon to censor well intentioned, and frequently entirely innocent discussion participants.
And it happens all the time. In many, many forums, splitting people apart who would otherwise be included in discussions.
This forum is a response to that. Exclusion should be something that is very carefully considered.
So, lets consider the different qualifiers in the different potential definitions. and if theyre meaningful definitions. because i dont think most of them are.
consider the christian, the truther, the prankster. then the wikipedia definitions and severeal dictionary definitions.
my suspicion is that only the prankster is a meaningful definitions, and even then the particular kind of problem a prankster troll presents is a trivial one which doesnt require censorship bto handle.
contrast this with the spammer for example. who MUST be censored to maintain group integrity.
it seem to me that you wrere an "investigator" objecting to insufficient transparency by asking for details of why other hsad been kickjed from group.
This is also an outrage which this board was also designed to resolve. Please note how the rules require transparency and providre an appeal pathway.
I dont know the other allegations you have been prevented from knowing, but as a lone "investigator" of such censorship, you will never be exluded form the main parts of the momentum unofficial fora.
I will write another post shortly listing the qualifiers for the definition of the word troll as an example of how a judicious person would apply, or refuse to apply censorship in this and other trolling cases. Im a little busy now. But will return later to say more about it.
This sense of the word "troll" and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing individuals online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 14, 2016 17:56:43 GMT
Firstly, a quick response to your post:-
I think maybe it's also useful to consider "is there a personal attack occurring?"
As noted above, i don't think this is relevant to trolling.
===
And again, we need to clarify in order not to end up allowing "admins" to end up using this as just another way to get rid of people who ask pertinent questions...
100% agree. This is critical.
===
So specifically I think a genuine troll repeatedly returns to sniping remarks about the uselessness of the poster and his or her post, undermines the MOTIVATIONS (ie suggests ulterior motives) and does so repeatedly when reminded to stop by others.
alleging ulterior motives is fine. 100% fine. If the alleged ulterior motives are irrelevant or unsubstantiated, the respondent can ask for relevance and substantiation threads in this forum. Normally, those arguments take on lives of their own. They don't need stopping, they need SEPERATING.
Please see the releavnt section of my rules thread.
===
HOWEVER people need to be abel to tell others (Councillors....MPs....Admins....Meeting Chair people etc) if they have made an error in protocol or done something that works against the democratic process etc, including things that would suggest doing a bad job for example
Absolutely. Hence the need to a TRANSPARENT APPEALS PROCESS.
===
ignoring members, favouring individuals, failing to answer requests and questions, pursuing right wing policy in general and failing to implement or pursue left wing policy
This could also work the other way round, but clearly the left are the primary victims of this here.
===
Things like this need to be allowed fully to be brought to the table, suppressing them is just bullying by those in a position to do so.
I absolutely agree. Entirely. This will be part of the definition of bullying in the rules thread. Which currently means that the only form of recognised bullying currently on this forum is admin censorship without transparent explanation and appeals process.
In fact, i think im going to routinely allege that of competing fora. That they are bullying venues.
===
"It's been my experience in Plymouth for example that FB Group Admins and the chair of the meeting have routinely taken measures to prevent almost all of the above by deleting posts, banning members and even cancelling meetings to prevent debate occurring."
This is precisely what i mean by abusive censorship. it is a scourge in the modern society and eliminates legitimate debate and justification.
The Ron Paul Campaign suffered some truly corrupt and politically obscene bullying in the US elections a few years ago.
===
Ultimately/.......................We need SIMPLE clear guidance, and I think it needs to be along the following lines:
The trouble with simple guidance is that everyone thinks they know what it means. Until they have a dispute. Then they find interpretations of the rules don't go the way they like.
I would say to be careful about simplicity. We all want simplicity, but intelligent people are NEVER willing to pay a price of ambiguity to get it.
===
"***Trolling is personalised"
I think you may have used the word "personalised" out of context here.
===
"attacks on people (undermining the PERSONALITY)"
personalities can have clearly dangerous or damaging or counterproductive elements to them. Undermining a personality means you are ALSO undermining the personality of all others with the same characteristics. And can therefore be legitimate, even if a critic is focussed on one person when he criticises them.
===
"that have a clear intention"
benign intentions are usually clear. Malign ones are usually unclear. Malign intent can also be the result of a legitimate underlying greivance. Even an urgent one.
====
"of wanting to hurt the feelings or get the person emotionally worked up over time."
Where people are apthetic, sedated and lazy, generating hurt can be a way to focus their attention on an issue. I've seen this work many times, and the offendee (in one case called "Stalinist" for their behaviour, and in another, in an administrative position advocating cesnorship) ended up in a sincerely apologetic and far more reasonable posture.
Intellectually lazy people frequently need to have their errors pointed out in dramatic and hurtful ways before they will recognise them.
===
"***Trolling IS NOT criticising people's politics, decisions on their political jobs, lack of action in their political roles, provided this is done as politely as possible and transgressions are not repetitive and unproductive."
politeness is not a criteria here. If you are discussing politics, you should EXPECT to find anger and hostility. Theres a LOT wrong with this world, and people and intellectual errors due to complacency or thoughtlessness are typically to blame.
I like your second criteria far more. :- repetitive and unproductive.
And here I agree entirely.
But in politics we are trying to improve our lives. NOT be polite.
===
***Sarcasm, the odd quip, maybe even the odd obvious dig need to be given some tolerance and understanding, and by the same ticket if someone does ask you to lay off a bit, reminds you to be less personalised then this should be responded to positively.
No. I disagree. People who have underlying differences that make them tactically incompatible should not be discussing anything together once they determine this.
That is the sole source of "digs":- unresolved fundamental greivances. These should be either focussed on and settled or the people should not speak with each other and assume the other person can not be won round.
===
***A ban from the group page should result only form a UNANIMOUS admin vote.
I disagree. A transparent appeal process with maximal independence should be managed. That is to say the admin as far resmoved as possible from the situation should be in charge of the appeal.
===
***ADMINS of POLITICAL groups like Momentum should have been elected by the group.
I agree here.
But didnt the group that just banned you make it clear they werent the official group?
In summary - as intellectual discussion participants, veracity, depth, efficincy and alertness are key. Not "feelings" "hurt" "offense" or anything else, all of which should be assessed for their impact on the other elements.
Prioritisation, efficiency, transparency, and disambiguation are critical. in that order.
Does this all make sense to you Redend?
Steven.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 15, 2016 3:31:11 GMT
Some definitions and discussions of trolling:-
trolling - Computer Definition
(1) Posting derogatory or false messages on social media. See Internet troll.
===
troll noun [C] (COMPUTING)
› someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble
› a message that someone leaves on the internet that is intended to annoy people: A well-constructed troll will provoke irate or confused responses from flamers and newbies.
===
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
This sense of the word "troll" and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing individuals online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments himself.
Usage
The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (January 25, 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do."[6][7] Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis[7] "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions",[8] and Dr. Phil.[citation needed] Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as Nicole Sullivan's keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled "Don't Feed the Trolls"[9] Gizmodo,[10] online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives[11] and comics.[12]
Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".
The "trollface" is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[13][14][15]
At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with.[16] Such usages goes against the ordinary meaning of troll in multiple ways. Most importantly, trolls don't actually believe the controversial views they claim. Farhad Manjoo criticises this view, noting that if the person really is trolling, they are a lot more intelligent than their critics would believe.[16]
Online trolls launch a personal attack on the author by following some of these steps: Call the author names, make fun of the author’s appearance, attempt to correct the author’s already correct grammar, accuse the author of nefarious motives, such as attention-seeking. Claim any studies are biased, especially when they’re comprehensive meta-analysis of every rigorous study ever done (designed to correct for bias), insult the author’s family for good measure.
...The Internet dictionary NetLingo suggests there are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling.....
Others have suggested that although flaming and trolling is often unpleasant, it may be a form of normative behavior that expresses the social identity of a certain user group
===
Netlingo
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic, hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
In general, to "troll" means to allure, to fish, to entice, or to bait. Internet trolls are people who fish for other people's confidence and, once found, exploit it. Trolls vary in nature; here are four types of online trolls:
Playtime Trolls: an individual plays a simple, short game. Such trolls are relatively easy to spot because their attack or provocation is fairly blatant, and the persona is fairly two-dimensional.
Tactical Trolls: This is where the troller takes the game more seriously, creates a credible persona to gain confidence of others, and provokes strife in a subtle and invidious way.
Strategic Trolls: A very serious form of game, involving the production of an overall strategy that can take months or years to develop. It can also involve a number of people acting together in order to invade a list.
Domination Trolls: This is where the trollers' strategy extends to the creation and running of apparently bona-fide mailing lists.
You have probably heard various opinions about how to deal with people who write insulting or provocative remarks on various Internet forums. The most common is "Don't Feed the Trolls", which says that all the people in the forum should avoid responding to the troll.
Historical perspective: The people who post nasty comments online are likely to have pathological personalities, said a 2014 study from the University of Manitoba. Known as “Internet trolls,” Web users who like to post inflammatory comments, incite arguments, and send insulting tweets are more likely to exhibit Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. Collectively known as the “Dark Tetrad,” these personality traits were shown to be prevalent through surveys designed to understand what makes trolls tick. Participants were asked about their Internet behavior, including how frequently they posted comments and whether they preferred chatting, making friends, or trolling. Of the 418 people surveyed, 59 percent reported actively commenting, and among those just 5.6 percent admitted to trolling. The trolls gave responses that were strongly associated with the traits in the Dark Tetrad, especially sadism and psychopathy; they were more likely, for example, to agree with the statement “The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt.” Study author Erin Buckels told Slate.com that the Internet’s anonymity has freed pathological people to act out. “The allure of trolling may be too strong for sadists,” she says, “as they presumably have limited opportunities to express their sadistic interests in a socially desirable manner.”
===
In computing, the term "troll" refers to a person who posts offensive, incendiary, or off topic comments online. These comments may appear in Web forums, on Facebook walls, after news articles or blog entries, or in online chat rooms.
Trolls post off-color comments for a number or reasons. They may want to stir up an argument or may simply want attention. Some trolls use comment sections after news articles to rant about their feelings, which may or may not be related to the news story. Whatever the case, trolls are seen as a nuisance in online discussions. At the least, their comments distract from an otherwise legitimate discourse. In worse cases, trolls stir up emotions from other visitors, creating unnecessary arguments.
The action of posting obscene or inflammatory comments is often called "trolling."
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 15, 2016 14:04:45 GMT
It seems to me that there are so many definitions of what a troll is and so little agreement between people as to what it means that, in the interim, no-one at momentum.freeforums.net shall be censored for being accused of being a "troll" under any circumstances. Because the word is so poorly defined and so frequently abused, that it essentially means nothing.
This does not mean that someone who acts in a negaitve way that is dmagaing to the board in another sense other than alleged "trolling" might be cesnored.
At some point the admins may recognise a precise definition of trolling which is damageing to discussion and alter this.
Essentially the problem here is that I, as the primary policymaker on this board object to British (and maybe even global) culture in general in that it permits censorship on the mere grounds of causing "offense" on an extemely trivial level with aubsurdly poorly specifid allegations.
The British people are soft intellectually. If you want a wquality dicussion, you can't be. And i won't permit it here.
Steven.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedtrm on Apr 15, 2016 18:34:41 GMT
This is my administrative ruling:- We have a way of addressing accusations of trolling - ignoring them and asking people to express their objection to a poster in another way if necessary- means that this discussion is to be relegated.
The rules have been adjusted to reflect this.
This is my second ruling:-
Until we have a specific and significant definition of trolling, "Trolling" is no longer an important discussion.
This discussion has been marked as "VERY LOW PRIORITY" until that time.
It seems to me that wikipedia has the fullest definition of "trolling" and alongside this, the other ones mentioned in the post above.
Feel free to list the qualifiers and identify significant types of trolling.
For now, i am ending my partiicpation in this discussion to focus on discussions of higher priority.
Steven.
|
|
