 sj |
||
|
||
BS: I will not respond to a troll
|
|
|
Subject: I will not respond to a troll From: Dave Wynn Date: 14 Feb 02 - 07:42 PM After much serious consideration I have decided to post this thread. It could be taken as a response to trolling , in which case it is self defeating. I (Spot the Dog) will not knowingly respond to any further thread containing an obviously trollish posting. Spot the Dog |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 07:52 PM Thank you for taking the pledge Spotty. Shambles and I have been actively trying to get as many 'Catters as possible...and we need them all!....to not respond. It is the only way....period. Even after Max makes any changes, the trolls will be here one way or another until we take away the food supply. Let me repeat here something I posted the other day and have been linking since. In the future the registration will undoubtedly do away with the "Guest" moniker and that will not be the issue..but then again it really never was. The changes, outside of Max's letter, are ones which will improve many things about the site and I'm led to beleive they will resolve some of the longstanding nitpicks and larger issues as well, such as filtering. I think we will see these fairly soon. The "issues" brought up most recently such as the entire guest thing and all of that are simply, as Kendall put it, "Red Herrings." We have had folks trying to discuss this logically and truthfully but as soon as one issue is countered they move to the next red herring and then to the next and the next until they come back to the first. This is trolling at it's finest and we have some people here who have shown how adept they are at it in these past few days especially. They are trolling....they aren't interested in the 'Cat. They are trolling.....they know what buttons to push. They are trolling......and they get what they want here. Even after Max makes whatever changes he intends, some of these trolls will continue to circumvent the program and they will still be with us. There will be fewer, and Max will handle many of them, but the bottom line is......We must be able to handle the trolls ourselves. No matter what has been tried or said in the past, there is only one way to do this.....DO NOT RESPOND TO A TROLL. This we seem to be almost unable to do, and until we do, the trolls will feed here. Shambles started a thread asking in short, to take the pledge, so to speak, and not respond to them. Many of us have done so. Others have found reasons to feed the trolls. The bottom line is that no matter how good the reason for responding, any response feeds the trolls and they are not interested in the Mudcat, in Max, in you, in me, in music, in discussion........They are interested in trolling and they are doing a good job of it! WE allow it because WE RESPOND and as long as we do, no matter how much we want to defend something we love or the people who have made it so, we will have the trolls. Let's all stop feeding them NOW!!! I have said before that for words to be injurious you must have respect for the person saying them and have some belief that they may be correct. Do you really believe what they say?----Obviously not because we keep wanting to explain why they are wrong (secret:they aren't really interested anyway). Do you respect their opinion?----Personally no. They are strangers and I really don't have any reason to give them any credence at this point. Good Friends........Most of us care deeply for this place and for the music, knowledge, friendship, and camaraderie it has spawned. We look forward to the latest visits of 'Catters whether it's at Stony Stratford or in Toronto. We look forward to sending Kendall back to the UK and having Bill Sables and Micca back in the USA. We care because, rightly or wrongly, we have invested ourselves here. The trolls haven't, they won't, it's not a part of their agenda. To rid ourselves of them we must stop feeding them. Try it now. Do it now. Have the willpower to read the stuff they have to say and let it die.....DO NOT RESPOND! Let them make their "arguments" for all their red herring positions.....DO NOT RESPOND. Let them call you names.....DO NOT RESPOND! It really is that simple, but it takes two things.......Willpower and Time. If we start now, it will happen.....not tomorrow and not next week, but down the road it will work. Take the pledge and do it now. Spaw (Red Herring Alert-a troll will say I am hiding behind a pseudonym when everyone here knows everything there is to know about me because my life is on these threads) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 07:53 PM And BTW, this thread will undoubtedly draw the trolls in......Let's start here by taking the pledge, but NOT RESPONDING TO TROLLING POSTS no matter what or who. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:01 PM Ya... good... leaves more room for ME to!! LOL!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: John Hardly Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:21 PM Please read: If you are tempted to respond to trolls as a means of some way or another "striking back" because they have hurt you or your friends here... please consider this: Has there EVER been anything more hurtful to you than having a post of yours ignored?. Especially in those times when it seems to happen alot? Try to remember that -- ignoring trolls IS actively striking back -- in the most effective way possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:27 PM Yeah that's what everyone says : "I won't respond to trolls" then a troll comes along and elicits a response. Then the troll responds. Then someone else jumps in the mess. Troll tries to get even with them. Then the member fights the troll with nasty name calling. Before you know it - the original concept of not responding is out the window AGAIN. It's all well and good for everyone to "sign" a virtual agreement to not feed the trolls - but someone always does. Then they do it again. Then they do it again and again and again. That's why we have so many threads and posts saying "STOP feeding the trolls!" because some member will ALWAYS give in and throw them a morsel - so they come back for more. It's a nice idea - but it will never work. That has been proven time and time again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Midchuck Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:27 PM Define "Troll." Some people seem to assume it means a totally pointless nasty comment. Some seem to assume it means a position taken on any issue, other than the one approved by conventional modern liberals. Some seem to assume it means anything they, personally, disagree with. If the first definition above is the correct one, I'll buy into this thread. But I suspect an attempt to enforce a bland conformity full of insipid mutual admiration. I'm probably just paranoid. On the other hand, is paranoia not a logical approach to reality, since 9/11? Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:41 PM Peter, I go with your first ... Disagreement is not the same thing though I might agree that some see it that way. The nasty comments are generally pretty pointed and obviously meant to arouse anger far beyond any normal discussion. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jeri Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:42 PM My feeling is a troll is a comment designed to provoke a knee-jerk emotional response, usually defending yourself, someone or someTHING else. It's not any argument or debate, although those things may contain some elements of trolling such as generalizations, spurious logic and personal attacks. Nice troll, Peter. Personally, if I can find sense in something, I'll respond. If I find myself getting upset, or find that I'm arguing with someone who doesn't believe in logic, I won't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:48 PM Jerri......Your last bit generally ID's a troll. We respond and at first it may go well, but soon the logic goes out as does everything else. When the troll is shutdown on one argument, they go to the next and the next and the next and eventually back to the first. When it starts happening , then you need to stop. Most often thugh the initial post will be pretty obvious. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Murray MacLeod Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:51 PM Does this mean that political and ethical questions are now no-go areas ? And could simply asking this question be construed as trolling? Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Midchuck Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:01 PM Murray, I think you and I have the same worry. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: khandu Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:03 PM I will not respond to a troll. And I am taking it further. I will not respond to, nor read the post of, an un-named guest! If anyone will not introduce himself to me, I care not to hear what he has to say. I will skip his post! khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:06 PM Political and ethical questions are not "no-go" subjects. People disagree and sometimes it gets heated. Peter your foirst comment says "pointless" and that's not the same thing.... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Ebbie Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:08 PM Trolling, in the fishing industry, simply consists of putting an attractive, even impossible to resist, object in front of one's target. More specifically than that: if you're trolling for king salmon, you will use a different bait and present it at a different depth than you will for halibut, for instance. Our trolls are in some ways astute observers of human nature- they know their targets. It's up to us to recognize the bait and the presentation, and if we want to make the trollers go to other waters, to just ignore them. Once more- I pledge to ignore trolls. However, as I implied above, sometimes it's not easy to ID them immediately. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:14 PM The thing isn't to avoid any thread in which a troll emerges, otherwise an industrious troll with enough time on their hands should shut down every thread on the Mudcat. It's avoiding responding to anything any troll says.
And I'm aware that I tend to get pulled in very easily.
I think that also has to mean avoiding acknowledging or responding to any non-troll who is responding to troll, which means if a thread takes on that quality, it's best to avoid it, or cease posting to it. If it's a subject worth pursuing there is bound to be another thread on the topic, or you can start one.
Once again, I've tended to fall down on that one too.
As for the definition of troll. Mt feeling is that the essential quality is that the intention is to cause a discussion to turn rancorous and bad tempered, as an end in itself. A true troll doesn't really care one way or anther about the issue supposedly under diuscussion.
This doesn't always show up in the initial post, but it normally becomeeds pretty clear soon enough, and there are innumerable ways in which it is achieved by them.
I don't think it is trolling in itself to say something that may be controverisal, or to raise a topic on which there is disagreement. But the aim and the time should always be to get a discussion, and express a real point of view, not to generate a fight. W ought to be saying things we actually believe, or maybe in some cases articulating a point of view that we might not aggree with, but which we genuinely think deserves to be examined.
And all this can in principle happen just as much in music threads as in in music threads, because that is something most of us care a great deal about, and where we have a lot of differences.
I think when we explore our differences and get to understand why it is that other people disagree with things that to us seem blindingly obvious, that can be valuable. It's possible to do that in this forum in ways that are hard or impossible outside it.
And if sometimes posts that I have made have had the effect of turning discussions into arguments and fights, I really am sorry. That has never been my considered intention. I think, like other people, I've probably often enough posted in anger and repented in private. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jeri Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:16 PM This is the best definition of a troll I've seen, although originally a Usenet term, it sure holds true around here. At Dick Gaughan's Website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Feb 02 - 09:21 PM Reads like a winner to me Jeri. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 15 Feb 02 - 12:05 AM
Never plan to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 15 Feb 02 - 12:14 AM
What pleasure ............
each |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 02:08 AM Spaw (and others): Please look at the thread Paddy O'Brien's Sets - Tunebook online and tell me what you think of the way I handled a flamer. I had been having a polite discussion with an anonymous guest up until 10:46 AM when things suddenly turned nasty. Of course I can't know with certainty whether the guest who posted at 10:46 and afterwards was the same guest who had been participating up until then, but I'm inclined to think he was. I did respond to the flame, but it was a rather minimalist response. It is very unusual to see flaming in music threads. Also, this GUEST seems unusual in that he started out by saying some reasonable things, and only started flaming after he saw that my opinion differed from his. Most other obnoxious guests, it seems, are obnoxious from the very beginning. Granted, I haven't been reading many non-music threads lately, up until Max's "open letter," which piqued my interest in the troll/flamer problem, and I have been reading about them ever since. Would you call this guy a troll? Does it matter? Is there any way I could have recognized him as a troll sooner than 10:46? Do you think my response was too much? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Liz the Squeak Date: 15 Feb 02 - 02:35 AM "A true troll doesn't really care one way or another about the issue supposedly under discussion." That's a valid point. Witness the thread and multiple thread entries on the same day (can't remember which) concerning the relative dimensions of my gluteous maximus. That was posted deliberately to get a response. There are other postings that are continuations of previous arguments. I think there needs to be a bit of leeway for the argumentative/discussive guest, but the rude ones need to be stamped on pretty quickly before they do anyone some psychological damage. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Don Firth Date: 15 Feb 02 - 02:56 AM I checked the link, Jim, and the way you handled the situation looks right to me. Henceforth (placing my hand on my copy of Carl Sandburg's American Songbag), I pledge to obey Mr. Sandburg's Eleventh Commandement, "Thou shalt not commit nincompoopery," and do as you have done. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,bewildered Date: 15 Feb 02 - 05:24 AM i've been wondering how to identify these mythical trolls. now i've followed up jim dixon's battle with a troll and i have suddenly realised wht youre all talking about. its someone who makes cheap jibes about bodhran players. so basically troll= any musician in a pub |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Feb 02 - 05:32 AM Assuming it's the same GUEST all the way through in the threads Jim linked us to, I wouldn't call that a troll. That is because it seems pretty clear it is someone with a real interest in the music, and in tye point at issue. A prickly and ill-tempered someone, and there's probably a word for that as well. Pillock is one that comes to mind.
(And the paradox is that on the actual disagreement that blew up, I'd incline to have some sympathy with the nameless GUEST's position - none whatsoever with the way it was expressed and developed.) The nameless aspect here turns what would normally be a spat between two people with a different point of view into something worse. It makes it impossible to shake and make up, even if both parties wish to, and I'm sure it encourages people to be nastier than they otherwise might.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Feb 02 - 06:28 AM Been doin' it for ages - It's hard sometimes but together we can beat it...;-) I like to think of the latest spate of trolling etc. as some sort of virus. I don't think they are real people anyway. It is some sort of rougue code on the Mudcat site that attaches itself to random threads and starts generating complete bollocks. I am leaving it to Max or Joe to install the latest anti-gobshite patch! What should I do next time I see you under a bridge with your wooly hat pulled over your eyes though, Spot? Eh? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: The Shambles Date: 15 Feb 02 - 06:31 AM - unnamed thread is the thread referred to. There are plenty of links on it to many threads where the issue has and could be discussed.
The idea was to present many opportunities to respond and enable new on older posters alike see the problem referred to and demonstrate how effective the only measure is.
And to bring attention to how many people were/are already doing this.
It shows clearly how totally pathetic these folk are, when you see them talking to themselves and not getting any response (or very little) and/or encouragement. This above thread can simply be linked to, when needed.
It has all been said............Let us just take action.
If you wish to talk about it more, there are PMs where only members can see what is being said and there is no danger of stirring it all up again.
Has the Mudcat finally come of age?
If you wish to respond to me about anything I have said here, please send me a PM? LOL
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:01 AM Ah, the Paddy O'Brien thread. I was going to stay above the fray here, but... The guest's thread banter in that thread is a good illustration of why Mudcat has problems with anon guests. The guest is clearly knowledgeable about the music, and engages in thread banter in a "slagging" sort of style you would hear in any pub or house sessions in Ireland or the UK--and also is typical of the on-line banter style seen in uk.music.folk, for instance. Guest seems to have a low tolerance for the eejits, and the eejits seem to be very thin skinned. I mean, c'mon people...go to google & type in the words "Liz Carroll" as I just did, and you'll see that the query about Liz Carroll was a bogus one, and the response to it by guest was well met. It is obvious the person requesting the information hadn't bothered to look before asking. So they got the response they deserved, eh? It seems to me that a lot of the problems with Mudcat is too many thin-skinned primadonnas, believing that no one on the internet should be able to get away with making them look the fools they are, and then getting vehement when they are caught out. I can't believe someone would associate the guest in that thread with trolling or flaming. But it does speak volumes that people here think it is. Because then you DO have the problems which are endemic here--someone called me a fat arse, so I'm runnin' home to tell me mum, Max. Or starting a new thread to taunt the person who was mean to me. It is all so childish. This is the internet. If members haven't learned the cardinal rule of always wearing an asbestos suit, they bloody well need to now. This forum is growing all the time. The more members, the more eejits, flamers and trolls. I happened to love the guest's banter in that thread. I get really tired of reading through posts that sound like the second grade teacher talking--it is insulting to have everything so bloody dumbed down for the sake of a few clueless feckin' Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,bewildered Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:19 AM maire couldnt agree more. whats wrong with throwing in a few remarks here and there. oooooooh the naughty man said a joke about about a bodhran. run and tell mummy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:41 AM i can see there was a well planted troll at the start of this thread LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:45 AM Guest, bewildered... so basically troll= any musician in a pub. ROTFLMAO. Please join up. Always room for more wit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:58 AM Pathetically, any demonstration of wit=flaming in the Mudcat group mind, I'm afraid gnu. I don't believe there is ANY room for wit in this place. Plenty of room for fart jokes though. Or crude attempts at striking back at the witty sorts with connect-the-dot insults using the off-color vocabulary of a 12 year old boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Feb 02 - 09:02 AM I can't see that as being a troll although it was a very mild flame. Assuming it was the same guest, it reads to me as a knowledgebale guest who had strong feeings on a subject. Guest said:
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be so insensitive to Paddy as to begrudge him the way he wants his life's work to be shared with the world. Good for Paddy not cooperating with your friend, I say. Not everything in this life is about the money, or making things easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,even more bewildered Date: 15 Feb 02 - 09:14 AM yes, why shouldnt you reply to pompous moral holier-than-thou lectures with a bodhran joke? but more to the point what does ROTFLMAO stand for? excuse my ignorance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 02 - 09:21 AM Nay bewildered guest, it wasn't just the pompous moral holier-than-thou lecture the guest was being subjected to. Let us not forget the holier-than-thou one said his friend was trying to make money off of Paddy O'Brien's life work, and then insinuated it was Paddy being cheap about it! The nerve, eh? The only reason why people here are defending the holier-than-thou one, is because he is their good friend. You see, the dark side of the group mind is that when one individual in the group is an eejit, and someone calls them out on it, the entire group mind feels persecuted and under attack. So they lash out at the source, just like a very big group of eejits, to protect one of their own, who made them all look like a bunch of eejits. There is flaming by the Mudcat group mind, and then there is the art of flaming. The anon guest was engaged in the art of flaming. The Mudcat group mind was just reactionary flaming. Are you getting a better picture of how this all works now bewildered guest?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 09:40 AM GUEST,Maire: Since you have said some thought-provoking things in your post, I have decided, for the time being, to assume you're not a troll, with some hesitation on my part. The "slagging" you speak of is common enough here in the US (although we don't use that term) but it generally only happens among close friends who know each other well enough to trust that there is no hostile intent. And calling people "eejits" would definitely be crossing over a line of civility, if used in the wrong context. (To be understood, you'd have to pronounce it "ID-ee-ut.") If you called a stranger an "idiot" to his face in some American bars, you'd risk losing some teeth. Not the kind of bars where civilized folksingers hang out, though. But if you didn't apologize, you'd probably be shunned. And if you did that in most private homes, you wouldn't be invited back. But your post raises the interesting question of whether a cultural difference is involved. Maybe the word "eejit" doesn't carry the same connotations in Ireland that "idiot" does in the US. Could that be the cause of all the problems? I don't think so. For one thing, I get the impression, from spelling and so forth, that most of our trolls are American, and they are arguing with Americans. Secondly, if it were merely a matter of cultural misunderstanding, or even a difference in individual temperament, it would be easy enough to mend fences with a simple apology. You'd only have to say, "Hey, I didn't mean it that way. Please don't take offense." Yet I rarely see apologies in Mudcat threads. Come to think of it, the only apologies I've ever seen in Mudcat threads came either from members of long standing or from people who identified themselves with an email address, never from anonymous guests. If you'll notice, the guest in the Paddy O'Brien thread didn't apologize. Instead, he flung out another insult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:05 AM Jim, I have now read further through the thread and although I can see a POSSIBLE reason for the post you had pointed us to, the reason for the rest is less than clear - perhaps not the same person? Whatever, from your side, to say that you are not prepared to be part of mud slinging would seem to be reasonable. Assuming my suggested interpretation of your post was how Guest had read it, Guest may have felt him?self to be the injured party. If that is the case, up to there we have no more than an internet missunderstanding and sometimes the party that recieves the flame can help matters by clarifying what they mean't rather than how it was interpreted. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:10 AM "GUEST,even more bewildered": ROTFLMAO stands for "rolling on the floor laughing my ass off." Jeez, guests, why don't you join Mudcat so you can have permanent, exclusive, consistent handles so I can tell you apart? You've got me all conflicted about whether I should reply to you, and if I do, how does anyone know which guest am I replying to? I see my meaning is being twisted way beyond what I had in mind in the original Paddy O'Brien thread. I never said Paddy was "cheap." I think a musician has a perfect right to make money off his own work. (Everybody has to make money somehow.) If money had been the issue, I would certainly respect him for that. I was merely trying to find out whether money was the issue. Likewise, a person who transcribes recorded music onto sheet music, as long as no copyright is being violated, also has a right to make money off his work. I don't see how one kind of work is more honorable than the other. And although Paddy's tunes are probably not under copyright, my friend decided to respect Paddy's wishes and NOT pursue the grant she had hoped for. I think that's HIGHLY honorable. And as for being holier-than-thou, I am at a loss to understand how I could have expressed a simple opinion without seeming holier than thou (if that is the impression I gave). Would anyone care to enlighten me by paraphrasing my remarks in a manner that is NOT either ridiculous or holier than thou? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jeri Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:11 AM We have folks here with all sorts of personalities, and some who've demonstrated very poor anger control and/or a tendency to get abusive. It helps to have a grown-up in such a situation, who doesn't come up with a "BUT MA, THEY STARTED IT!!!" excuse. Personally, it also helps me if I don't respond right away, but try to figure out if there might be other ways the person meant what they wrote. Even if I can't come up with a kindler, gentler intention on their part, I've had a chance to cool off and I've probably realized I don't want to turn the thread into a personal argument/fight. Not a troll, just somebody who got mad in the middle of an on-topic discussion and insulted you. S/He was reasonable before the 10:46 post, and I think your response was just right. It could have gone on as an off-topic, personal flaming match, but it didn't because of your response.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: heric Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:33 AM This thread is more interesting than most on this subject (though I haven't read most.) I think Midchuck hit the nail on the head, AND, I think his point leads me to an understanding as to why trolling and flaming will continue at high levels. I'm glad to see Mr. Dixon responding to Guest, Marie. It shows the open mindedness that will reduce trolling. I wouldn't say, otherwise, what I think about this: The "troller" got the better of Mr. D., and took a little jab. Mr. D., knowing he took a little hit, then had options. His choice was better than most would do, but still not the best. He was indignant, acknowledging his sense of victimization. He could have taken a little jab back, but he was up against a live one, and it probably wouldn't have played out well. A joke would have been the best response, in my humble opinion. The good thing here is that the worst (and common) scenario didn't play out, which is another member stepping in with some garbage because a guest got the better of a member. (Hence the relevance of Midchuck's observation.) I think that is high protein troll food. Points off on the guest for his follow up that you won't be sorely missed. Still not worth anyone getting their knickers bunched up, though. (As it didn't.) The guest made a personal insult, but was still fundamentaly an on-topic issue debater. Very different from the graffitti form of flaming, and certainly not a troll. BTW, has anyone noticed that spaw has limited his form of humour that has caused complaints, rather discretely. Extra points to spaw for that. People are trying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,even more bewildered Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:40 AM no im not american. and i do think you were benga bit holier than thou , jim, and deserved alittle joshy slap on the wrist. it ddidnt affect the flow of a very interesting discussionwith a lot to be said on both sides,except you suddenly got ratty . these things happen, especially on tjhe internet. try to read things in a humorous badinage sort of way nd they come out better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:40 AM Gee, all I did was compliment a guest and shit rains down. Maire... talk to you when you become a member. Otherwise, GFY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,even more bewildered Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:44 AM "it goes against one of the axioms I live by". That was what started it off,Jim, not the bodhran joke he replied with. If that is not holier-than-thou I don't know what is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:54 AM I know, I know... sorry. A momentary lapse. But it felt good. Anyway, guess I'll try to get some sleep now. Apparently, the vitamin C and hot tea are not helping my flu. My head feels like I have a troll banging a gong in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: SharonA Date: 15 Feb 02 - 11:59 AM gnu says: "...A momentary lapse. But it felt good." And therein lies the problem, at least for me: those momentary lapses. I took a similar pledge not to respond to flamers/trolls back innnnnnnn...... was it August?? But I've been "backsliding" lately. So now I can only renew my previous pledge, and try to do a better job of keeping that pledge from here on out. Sharon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Feb 02 - 12:16 PM "the cardinal rule of always wearing an asbestos suit" - and as we now know, asbestos can be a killer. A very apt analogy.
The significant thing for me about the interchange between Jim Dixon and his unnamed GUEST was the way that a disagreement that wasn't that serious was escalated by the fact that it was asymetrical - one party identifying himself, the other declining to do so.
It's a different issue from trolling, but it does relate to the reason why, for a lot of people, unnamed GUEST posting does at times seem to do unnecessary harm, for no discernable benefit, either to the individuals concerned or to the Nudcat as a whole.
One last point though - this an international forum we are on, and that can lead to misunderstandings. And we've just had one over the word "eejit".
Obviously it is related to the word "idiot", in that it's another way of spelling the word, indicating a different pronunciation - but in Ireland, and in fact in the rest of the British Isles, it has taken on a very different weight.
It just is not the same thing to call someone an "eejit" and to call them an "idiot". In fact most times it doesn't have any insulting meaning at all. It's the same as withg other words like "bugger" and "bastard", which don't necessarily imply any hostility at all, let alone any connection with the original meanings.
There's the story about the cricket tour in Austalia back in the 30s at a time when "bastard" as an insult was a lot more serious in England than it is now. The English captain complains to the Australian captain that one of the Ozzies has called on of his men "a bastard".
The Australian captain apologises, and calls his team together. "Now which one of you bastards was it called that English bastard a bastard?" he asks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:17 PM Did I say eejits? I meant bloody eejits. ;-) Jim Dixon, I notice by your posting history you've been here for nearly two years. You seem to be a fairly intelligent man (but you can correct me if I'm mistaken about that). Since this is a fairly intimate on-line forum with a number of British and Irish posters, I find it very hard to believe that you've never heard the word "eejit" or understand the context of a bodhran joke when you hear one. Now then, this is a prime example of the "if we were really in a pub/bar in a Irish trad music session, be it in North America, Britain, Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand, you would be the one looking the idiot--and I use that word in the context you gave for it--and would be the one shunned for pompous arrogance. And you know what else? If you were on the bar stool next to me, I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face either. Maire Born, raised, and lived in the US all her life |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:20 PM arrrrghhhhh... I can't help it !!! Maire... all your life ? Does that mean you are dead ? Thank goodness, you ig... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:24 PM gnu--feck off and go take the bloody pledge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:29 PM Well, if it's true that "It goes against one of the axioms I live by" is what ticked off the guest in the Paddy O'Brien thread, then maybe I owe him an apology. So now, how do I get in touch with him to apologize? Dang! That's another disadvantage to carrying on discussions with anonymous Guests. If he were a member I could send him a personal message. Nevertheless, if there's a consensus among people posting here that I should apologize, I will do so. I will refresh the Paddy O'Brien thread and place my apology there, in case he sees it. And I will bear the risk of being attacked by other anonymous guests who see an apology as a sign of weakness and will decide to pile on. But I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Now, "GUEST,even more bewildered" I am surprised by your statement "except you suddenly got ratty." First of all, is that a singular "you" meaning me, Jim Dixon, or a plural "you" meaning both me and the guest? Secondly "ratty" is also a word we don't use over here, at least not in that sense. A piece of clothing might be called "ratty" meaning it's dirty and tattered, as if rats had used it for nesting material, but I've never heard a person called "ratty." I suppose I could take offense at that too, but I'll chalk it up as another cultural difference. (Bingo! Now I get it! "Ratty" must mean the equivalent of "nasty!") But if you mean that I suddenly got nasty, all I can say is that my perception is different from yours. Actually, the idea that "more opportunities are better than fewer" is a basic axiom of mine is something I had never thought of before. It just occurred to me while I was pondering the question of why Guest and I, and perhaps Paddy and I, had different perceptions. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "axiom." Maybe it would have been more accurate to say "unquestioned assumption." I meant to convey that, although I had never questioned it before, I was willing to question it now, if only someone would give me a reason to question it. Does that seem more reasonable? Still, if that's what the issue is all about, then I marvel at the fact that offense can be taken at such a fine nuance of meaning. Is "axiom" all that different from an "unquestioned assumption?" Anyway, if I'm going to apologize, I want to first have a clear idea of what I should apologize for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:38 PM Maire, I'm sad to say this because up until now I thought we were having an intelligent and fair-minded discussion, but your last post DEFINITELY crosses over the line of good taste, and as such, no further response is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:40 PM Excuse me, I should have said your second-to-last post. Dang, it's hard keeping up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jeri Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:46 PM ...and I took it as humor. Personally, I'd rather take it as humor, but it seems like in this case, they're having fun insulting one another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: SharonA Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:48 PM When in doubt, look it up (That's my axiom – 1. a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2a. a proposition regarded as a self-evident truth b. postulate Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973. I don't think it's that word that set people off, Jim. Perhaps it was the inference that everyone should take the attitude that "more opportunities are better than fewer"? Some people aren't comfortable with the idea of having an opportunistic lifestyle, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:53 PM Jim, I don't think there is anything wrong with your wondering and I don't feel that you have anything to apologise for. Unfortunately it is a fact of life on the internet that interpretations that were not meant by the originator can be attached by a reader and a bad situation can develop from nothing more than missunderstanding. I may be wrong but your example did read to me as if it could be one such case. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jeri Date: 15 Feb 02 - 01:57 PM ...and I was talking about the latter post, not the one with the "pompous arrogance" bit. See - other people (like me) get involved, and it blows up...BOOM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: gnu Date: 15 Feb 02 - 02:23 PM Well, I was talking about this post : "Pathetically, any demonstration of wit=flaming in the Mudcat group mind, I'm afraid gnu. I don't believe there is ANY room for wit in this place. Plenty of room for fart jokes though. Or crude attempts at striking back at the witty sorts with connect-the-dot insults using the off-color vocabulary of a 12 year old boy." Which is what set me off in the first place. I thought there was room for some good natured banter, but that really pissed me off because it was not only rude, but, most certainly, uncalled for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: DougR Date: 15 Feb 02 - 02:38 PM Khandu: I posted a thread a few weeks suggesting that no one respond to a Guest thread that was clearly designed to cause dissension. It went nowhere. I'm going to practice what I preach. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 15 Feb 02 - 03:01 PM ax·i·om n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim. 2. An established rule, principle, or law. 3. Abbr. ax. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. op·por·tu·ni·ty n., pl. op·por·tu·ni·ties. 1.a. A favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances. b. A favorable or suitable occasion or time. 2. A chance for progress or advancement. op·por·tun·ist n. One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences. --op"por·tun"ism n. --The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, CD-ROM version. Actually, I was using "axiom" in the third sense: something you normally don't try to prove, because you can't, or you don't know how; so you just take it for granted and argue from there. I suppose my background in mathematics caused me to use it that way. An axiom in mathematics has no moral implications whatsoever! And, dang it, it does seem like a good axiom that "more opportunities are better than fewer" because almost everyone LIKES to have lots of opportunities. Some people like to limit other people's opportunities, and those people always make me suspicious that they are doing so for selfish reasons. And I don't think having opportunities or advocating others' having opportunities is the same thing as being opportunistic. (Dang dictionary doesn't have an entry for "opportunistic.") I'm for opportunities, and against opportunism, because of that "no regard for principles or consequences" clause. But I wouldn't accuse anyone in this story of being opportunistic, because I don't know enough about their motivations. The opportunity I had in mind, of course, was the opportunity to learn a tune from sheet music. But the opportunity to make money from one's work is also worthy of consideration. One has to be weighed against the other. But look how hard it is to get to that part of the discussion without quibbling over words!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: SharonA Date: 15 Feb 02 - 03:14 PM That's the problem with words: they're so easily misunderstood and misconstrued, and yet it's awfully hard to have a discussion without 'em! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Ebbie Date: 15 Feb 02 - 04:43 PM Opportunites = Choices, and who can be against that. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Feb 02 - 04:44 PM Maybe the logic of this is that not only is it not only best to avoid acknowledging or responding to a troll, but that it's also best not to respond to anything that is preceived as a flame.
You have to have a certain closeness to anyone before you can really have a proper quarrel. My understanding (maybe even what I see as an axiom...) is that to be properly seen as a flame the attack should come from someone who is essentially a stranger, or is seen as such. (Which would mean that any kind of insult by an unnamed GUEST has to qualify.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 02 - 04:59 PM It seems to me that your friend attempting to get a grant to transcribe Paddy's life work might have been perceived as opportunistic, especially if they had presumed Paddy would cooperate, and then didn't. Friendly piece of advice, Jim. You have a very formal style of writing for a casual group like this. I don't know how regularly you participate in sessions, but the tone in one would be more like the guest's banter than your formal tone, if that is any help to you. Also, you might want to be less thin-skinned, as someone else mentioned--the asbestos suit is worn by everyone I know who is a veteran of internet forums. And loosen up. What do you care what a complete stranger (whether anonymous or pseudonymous or known by their own name) thinks, really? Remember, this is ONLY the internet. Don't take it all so seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Herga Kitty Date: 15 Feb 02 - 06:17 PM FWIW Jim, "ratty" in England = irritable, pissed off, usually describing a temporary frame of mind, rather than permanent nastiness, though might have been prompted by underlying thin-skinnedness. Or possibly just by being temporarily rat-arsed (= intoxicated). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Feb 02 - 06:28 PM Or alternatively Ratty is a character in the Wind in the Willows. Who is not at all ratty most of the time.
This thread is drifting, but that's OK I think. We've had a set of expressions which aren't offensive over here, but feel like they are to Americans. Any examples of the other - things that seem mild and friendly to Americans, but could gve real offense elsewhere?
Just so we are forewarned, and don't think we are being flamed when we aren't.(So it's not really thread drift after all.) I suspect that, what with American films and TV, we have probably been exposed to most of them, so that we won't take offence where it's not meant - but who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Feb 02 - 06:47 PM I've read it all and there isn't much to say that hasn't been said. We make so much out of this because for many, the 'Cat is far more than a website......for better or for worse..........your mileage may vary. In my first post I said, and it's been reiterated several times in other posts down the thread, for words to hurt, you have to have some knowledge of and respect for the speaker. If you have neither, ignore it.....or at least avoid going into "Strike-Back" mode. That never works in any situation as it just leads to more of the same......and that's true in real life too. When we get drawn into these sillyass and pointless conversations about what is right or wrong about the 'Cat or the DT or Max or the size of Lizzie's ass, we're not thinking straight and we are simply feeding a troller/flamer. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Bobert Date: 15 Feb 02 - 07:25 PM Danged, ol hillbilly bobert wonderin' now it he's a troll hisself. A couple of months back I started this thread entiltled "Department of Peace". Now I knew that folks might have different ideas about such a concept, but I thought it was an interestin' concept which was suitable for thought and discussion. And I think it did that. But now that I read the definition of "troll" Iz wonderin' if maybe I would be thought of as a "troll"?' Then there was this Enron thread and me and DougR got into it pretty good but in the end we just agreed to disagree, which was fine with me 'cause we were wearing each other out. I didn't start that thread, just jumped in when I had something to say. Was the person who started that a "troll"? Askin' how much time a Catter spends in the Catbox and if he or she visits other sites don't seem like trollin' to me. WHAT AM I MISSIN' HERE? AM I A TROLL? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 07:29 PM Would you trust the Beeb, then? For those of you who need it spelled out fer ye--here is this from the BBC E-cycolpedia website: Thursday, 8 November, 2001, 12:38 GMT Eejit: Northern Ireland's idiot wind eejit • n, noun, excessively foolish fellow, stereotypical Irish insult. Plain "idiot" according to the Oxford English Dictionary. USAGE: "The people will decide who's playing the eejit," David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionists, referring to parties and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who had been trying to prevent his re-appointment as first minister VERIFICATION: assembly speaker Lord Alderdice ruled "eejit" not to be "un-parliamentary" language after assembly member Billy Hutchinson's assertion: "You'll never find me hiding behind anyone, you eejit, shut up." CITATION: Irish comedian Sean Hughes, who in Alan Parker's classic 1991 film The Commitments played Dave, an A&R man for Eejit Records; cemented term as almost being too Irish to be true. CITATION 2: as used in three priests and a little lady comedy Father Ted, viz, Dougal: "I've been drinking like a mad eejit! " (See Internet links for audio) CONNOTATION: comic citations confirm affectionate use of eejit as word connoting almost lovable rogue, old duffer, oaf. As such, its use between rival characters in Northern Ireland politics may be considered incongruous - firstly due to the gravity of the situation, and secondly because despite advances in peace process, actual affection between players has not yet been widely displayed. Could it be an early sign of traditional political insults - croppy boy, Provo lover - being put permanently beyond use?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Feb 02 - 07:54 PM Hey Bobertz....You're only a troll in the funsense...people often disagree and the arguments can be fun. If no one bothered to read Jeri's link on a troll definition she (and I) like, here it is:(the italics are mine) Trolling is posting a message in a newsgroup with the deliberate intent of starting heated discussion. There are people who imagine that trolling is always a Bad Thing. Bad trolling is definitely a bad thing but I have seen many intelligent and entertaining trolls. When it is done properly it can be compared to gently winding people up or stirring things for fun, as you would find people doing every night in your local bar. Where trolling becomes bad is when it is done by a stranger to the group who has no real interest in the group's topic and is there purely to hurt or disrupt the normal flow of discussion. A troll feeds on responses, taking any serious attempts at debate and turning them round to feed the fire - this is one of the ways in which a real troll can be identified. When it becomes clear that one of these is at work, the correct response is to post a short message exposing them as such and thereafter, ignore the thread. Of course, if the troll is entertaining and harmless, you can have some fun by joining in. Bobertz, I'd figure you to be an "intelligent and entertaining troll.".........Well, entertaining anyway......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,catspaw50 Date: 15 Feb 02 - 07:54 PM For a thread meant for folks to take a pledge, it seems to be dissolving into a flamer war not to mention a personal attack war. Ahhhhhhh you people. Even when you're supposed to be agreeing to NOT do this - you can't help yourselves. This is why flamers and trolls will always be here - it's because you actually WANT them here. Don't even TRY to deny it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:10 PM Any discussion about things that matter and where people disagree is liable to get heated at times. But the heat is a by-product, not the purpose of the exercise - and that's where it differs from trolling.
I have sometimes posted things which I knew were likely to give rise to a discussion which would bring out sharp disagreements, and anticipating that this discussion might indeed get heated. But always the discussion was what I'm hoping for, not the heat. And I do mean what I say, I never say it just because someone else is going to disagree with it. Someone engaged in destructive trolling sets out to generate the heat, and doesn't care about the issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,Maire Date: 15 Feb 02 - 08:27 PM And then, there is the supergroup Folkin' Eejits, band website found here: http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings/eejits/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Bobert Date: 15 Feb 02 - 10:22 PM Spawz: Thanks fir the resounding statement of support. I was worried that Iz was gonna have to turn in my Catbox Card and walk back to Tweezerburg an' have to tell 'em that I got kicked out. Over there, I cause lots of trouble and they never call me no names. Okay, they duct tape the poor ol bobert's butt to nasty stuff. But, no names. Now, on a more serious side. Ol bobert woke up one day a long time ago and discovered, much to his dismay, that he was a social worker in adult services in Richmond, Va. Well, I pinched myself and pinched myself but there weren't enough pinches in this word to change the fact. Well, my case load consisted of about 75 folks who were in and out of mental institutions and it was my job to keep an eye on them betweeen their stays at Central State Mental Hospital. Well, I got real good at dealing with them and I learned real quick not to got too bogged down in their insanity but just deal with their sanity. Most folks with mental probles have a sane part of their "being" and that is really the only part with which one can possibly communicate. Better said, "You can't argue with a sick mind." I'm not exactly sure how this fits into this discussion but.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: DougR Date: 16 Feb 02 - 12:46 AM McGrath, post of February 15, 4:44 P.M.; Spaw, post of 7:45 P.M. and many other posts: Duh! Sorry, but how many times has that been said? Answer: many times. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 Feb 02 - 03:04 AM Bobert! You're a genius! Your post clarifies a lot for me! Now if I could only get better at distinguishing the sane part from the insane part, I think I'd have this troll problem licked! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 02 - 09:31 AM Spaw said: "for words to hurt, you have to have some knowledge of and respect for the speaker." I agree with that. But I don't think that is the problem here in Mudcat, as I said above. The problem here in Mudcat with the flame/troll thing has to do with what happens when a flame hits it's target, and the target is a participant in the Mudcat group mind. There is a group mind thing at Mudcat that some regulars (both members and guests) are part of--and if one of the group mind members is perceived to be insulted by someone who isn't a group mind participant, the group mind lashes out at the source of the insult collectively in a reactionary way. The group mind doesn't think about the context, the group mind doesn't think about the possibility that the source of the insult may have been insulted first, that sort of thing. It isn't a question of accepting what the source of the insult thinks about the person they are insulting. What matters in the group mind flame wars is that one of the group mind members (to it's way of thinking) has been made to look foolish, or is humiliated, in front of the entire forum. I think the majority of the flame/troll problems here in the past year or so, has to do with a very thin skin of the group mind folks, who are easily embarrassed, and some of whom are easy to make fools of because their forum behavior is so predictable. People who are easily embarrassed, and who are extremely sensitive to be being embarrased in front of a group, are the real "problem posters" here. They become more paranoid and more reactionary with every flame war. They make an easy target because the group mind is so noticeable here. They never see the humor or the wit in the barbs and insults that are a routine part of the low level flame banter in a lot of informal forums of this type (and no, not just music forums). They certainly can't laugh at themselves when someone gets the better of them in an exchange. Now, not all the Mudcat regulars participate in the group mind thing here. But there are some people who's names you know you are going to find repeatedly, when you open up a flame thread here. And some people who's names you know you will never see in them. And any really artful flamer or troll who reads the forum for a day or two is going to be able to identify the people to target, because their egos are so big and their blinders so large, they can't seem to find their way out of their self-defeating negative internet behavior pattern. HINT: the answer isn't paranoia about anonymous guests! That just exacerbates the problem! Too many people have tried to blame the anon guests for the problem, when Mudcat's flame/troll problem isn't random outsider flamers and trolls. Mudcat has had the occasional problem here and there over the years, but it really hasn't been plagued with a serious troll problem in quite awhile. It is however, plagued with a serious reactionary group mind that is easily embarrassed and humiliated. The group mind isn't very aware of all the cultural contexts and nuances exhibited here on a daily basis, and so I think there is a real problem with that too. There seem to be a core group of people who are very ignorant of the cultures they are surrounded by IN THIS VERY FORUM on a daily basis, that they have managed to ignore. The Paddy O'Brien thread discussion in this thread is a prime example of it. And it isn't just Americans who are guilty of this either. Now, it is pretty inconceivable to some of us that even regular posters here who come from cultures outside the mainstream Anglo dominant cultures in Britain and America could be so invisible to the group Mudcat mind, but there you have it. We see it happen a lot here. But what is so bizarre about this place is that some of the group Mudcat mind people are so set in remaining ignorant about the people all around them, that it really is a problem for those of us from the minority cultures here. How could anyone posting here for any length of time not know what the word "eejit" means? How could anyone think that the only correct spelling of "bollocks" is just that, and that the spelling "bollix" is totally wrong? Cultural ignorance and ethnic prejudice is the answer. And when you throw that into the mix with the group mind problem, it makes for a pretty volatile mix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 02 - 11:43 AM Guest@9:31......Without going into specifics, I tend to agree very much with the overall "message" of your post. When I said (somewhere) that for a lot of us this place is more than a website, it was those situations which I was thinking about. In 3D, no one likes to se their friends or perhaps their favorite hang-out insulted.......so very often we speak up and defend or argue about it. THAT is where the nature of the internet gets involved because inflections and things we rely on in verbal conversation cannot always be transmited through cyberspace. Several years ago I pretty much quit taking any of it seriously regarding flamers and was having a lot of fun "flaming back".....but what I couldn't transmit was that I wasn't upset as much as I was having fun....."Have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up." I eventually realized that your point is correct and that a lot of people are in fact truly pissed off. In that case, as it currently is with the flame/troll situation, the best "defense" with can give to a friend or this place is to ignore the crap and send the member a PM. Hopefully, and it has been the case when I've done it, the member appreciates the PM and sees the logic of not responding. Ain't the net a weird place? The reaction we would give in 3D can't be done here many times and we have to find appropriate ways of maintaining the sense of "community" that we have here, much of that built on member 3D meetings, while not falling into the pitfalls of the net......ie, flame wars of one sort or another. Ya' know most of the flame/trolls would not do what they do in 3D so we cannot treat the situation the same as we would in 3D either.....it's the net. So much as we would like to maintain the community feeling, we have to understand that the way to do that is by taking the workings of the net into account as opposed to our 3D responses....even though we want to feel Mudcat is a 3D place............Get's complicated when you really think about it. But in truth, it's quite simple.....to maintain what we love we need to play by the "rules" of the net and that includes ignoring the negative trolls and flames. Ah well.........I ramble........What the hell? It's the net! Spaw |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: HYPERBOLE From: Herga Kitty Date: 16 Feb 02 - 11:52 AM Was it Oscar Wilde who described England and America as two nations divided by a common language? I think McGrath was right to point out that words perceived as inoffensive in one country and culture might give offence in another (and since Maire says she's USA born and bred, possibly within the same country). Bill Bryson (born and raised in Iowa, but spent many years in England married to an Englishwoman) observed on returning to the USA that his new neighbour lacked a sense of irony, which Bill had taken for granted in England. If you know the person you're talking to reasonably well, you usually know whether what you're saying will give offence or be misinterpreted or not. Otherwise you're running the risks described in the following song by the late Dave Houlden. If you're English, you can tell it was written by an Englishman because of the references to an English brewery (Breakspear), morris dancing, the Tory party and an English hero (Lord Nelson). It's probably crying out for an American version.... Kitty HYPERBOLE
Speaking hyperbolically brightens up your talk CHORUS
I never meant to be taken literally I never thought she would
I went out with the morris; we got into a row
I came home from work last week, the missus said to me
Two canvassers came to my house before the last election
At doing song accompaniments I've not had much success |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Feb 02 - 02:11 PM I'm reminded of a declamation someone used to say sometimes ("declamation" well, it's too short for a monologue, and it isn't really a joke...):
"Shit!" said the King.And since in those days, the King's word was law, a nation strained as one.
I was looking through that timewarp archive, and what struck me was - I wonder what the people who like to sign in as just GUEST did in those days. I mean you'd have thought they'd have clocked in without any name at all - but there just don't seem to be anybody who did that, that so far as I could see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Annie144 Date: 16 Feb 02 - 05:30 PM To Guest 9.31a.m. 16 Feb I've been reading your posts with interest. You seem to have been posting quite a lot and making many useful points. I think I recognise your style of writing in other posts on the forum. But I'm not sure that it's you. Why not identify yourself in some way so that readers can string together what you are saying in its entirety rather than letting each individual post stand on its own merits? I realise that any guest label is open to imitators and abusers, but at the moment anything that you say is regarded in the same way as any post by any passing trolling or disruptive guest. You spend quite a lot of time composing missives with many cogent points but the effect is wrecked by any passing trouble making clown who posts a few messages later in whatever thread and also uses the simple "guest" tag. More generally I've been wondering about the whole guest situation. "There must be some way out of here said the Joker to the thief". Would it be possible to generate random names / numbers / labels for guest posters each time they posted? They could then refer to the temporary name in subsequent posts. I realise that is open to abuse but isn't everything if people are really determined to cause trouble? A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: John Routledge Date: 16 Feb 02 - 05:41 PM Nice to see positive thoughts from a new mudcatter. Cheers John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Feb 02 - 06:13 PM Random names - tied in with that site that provides hobbit names maybe...
I'm still puzzling over why GUESTS who were perfectly happy to use a pseudonym before the GUEST tag came in (to stop people posting under the names of other Mudcatters and bringing them into disrepute) are so coy about it now.
I can't remember any cases of people who insisted on posting with blanks where their names should be and who asserted that this was a necessary act of individual self-assertion or whatever.
And looking through the timewarp Mudcats I haven't come across any either. Maybe there is some metaphysical distinction which means that coming in as GUEST is better than coming in as ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 02 - 08:12 AM The name McGrath of Harlow was already taken , thus we need to be GUEST. It's available to us - therefore we use it. It's best that you all stop complaining about us posting as GUEST because it is your 'Cat creators that allow it to be. therefore. we are GUEST. Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Feb 02 - 08:29 AM McGrath, if there really has been an increase in posts with no names attached, it is probably a function of the member complaints about the practice - round here, it can be a pretty good troll in itself. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Feb 02 - 08:59 AM The implication, Jon, would be that posting as GUEST-without-a-pseudonym is in itself done with the aim of trolling, and is in fact nothing to do with any wish to post without a name.
The fact that posting without a name doesn't seem to have happened before the introduction of the GUEST tag serves to confirm that interpretation, which has always seemed the most likely one.
So, on that basis, if people decide to refuse to respond to any trolling, that implies a decision to decline to respond to any posts from those GUESTs who choose not to use a pseudonym. (For as long as we still have them.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Rollo Date: 17 Feb 02 - 09:11 AM Oh my god... what a stupid, stupid, stupid bunch you are, alltogether! Why do you spend so much energy to discuss this bullshit!!! Why can´t you just take that advice spot started this thread with! I just came in, saw ANOTHER troll-problem-thread and the more I read the more I moaned... you have not learned anything. Thousand variations of "define troll" or "maybe you are a troll but maybe you meant it serious so I respond" or suchlike idiot comments... no, not eejit. I meant idiot. Troll food, troll, food, troll food. The only thing that keeps them coming is response, weather direct or indirect response, when will you learn this simple truth! and no, you don't need to define troll. you cannot tell me that you dont recognice them when they fart into your face! have you ever thought about how much serious discussion we could have had while you were making troll soup? Now can we discuss some interesting matters? Today the sun is shining very nicely around here in northern germany. Hope it will be warmer, too, when I leave home in a minute. (you know the sun? that white light outsinde the windows producing so unwelcome disturbance on your monitor?) Rollo Rollo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Feb 02 - 09:15 AM Not quite McGrath, there may be people who prefer to post that way for genuine reasons (not that I understand them) and there may be people who do it to annoy. The point I think is not to make a big issue of it as that, if anything, would only encourage others with intentions to annoy. If someone posts something and you wish to respond, do so otherwise ignore it (and hopefully we will all learn to recognise and ignore a blantant troll by the content of the post not by the name (or otherwise) of the poster). Much of the troll and flame problem in Mudcat is because of the responses they get, especially the "group mind" reponses mentioned by an earlier guest. Max may be building his fence but in doing so, to some degree he will be protecting ourselves from ourselves. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 02 - 09:17 AM McGrath - remember , just because you say something is so doesn't make it a fact. Your ideas on the Guest tag are just that - YOUR ideas. Just because we won't put a name with it does NOT mean we are automatically trolling. Give it a rest. Rollo - you are RIGHT ON!!!!!!!! You're the only one I think who has any sense here. Guest |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST,sulli Date: 17 Feb 02 - 10:39 AM OK, I admit I haven't got time to read all the comments in the thread so I'm sorry if I repeat someone else. If this a public forum then surely contributors can say what they want, you don't have to respond if you don't want. If many of you are so thin skinned its not much wonder people respond annon as guests, espcially when they don't agree with what you say. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! Forums are always going to attract trolls & flammers. Being a guest to a board makes no differance, AOL UK's boards are the worst for flamming & the participants are all members! I've been lurking & posting on boards for a long time & I've noticed that US boards are far more sensitive than UK ones on what can be said before the moderators step in. If someone insults you, either on a forum or in the real 3D world, you have three choices - ignore them, answer calmly or shout insults back. The choice you make is what decides whether a thread turns into a flame war (or real life into a punch up!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 02 - 02:45 PM Prior to the member/guest log-in, the From: line remained blank if you didn't enter something. I saw a number of these posts when perusing the archive Mcgrath, but I'm not going to bothered with going back and looking up specific ones to "prove" the point. The posts are there, go have another look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 02 - 06:39 PM Goodness gracious. Try to start a sensible discussion here and you get damned collonials trying to be clever (and failing) and the Irish getting above their station. What next? Wogs, Ities and Dagoes joining in? I think I'll leave the mudcat in a fit of peak and make everyone feel miserable for months... God save the Queen
Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Feb 02 - 06:46 PM Yes, yes, yes, I know... It REALLY is me. Just some damned jumped up working class oik trying to deny me my God given right to walk rough-shod over every non-WASP on the list. In fact it was probably a women as well. Oh no, guess not. They couldn't figure out things as complicated as computers. The sooner we get the riff-raff off here the better!
Dave the REAL gnome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: I will not respond to a troll From: InOBU Date: 18 Feb 02 - 07:42 AM Hiya gang! In the tradition of the Plug-o-matic... and because our band needs EVERY fan we can get... Guest Maire sounds like one of the chosen who like our music (well everyone seems to like our music, but we like synical fans on the margins of the American society who presume that the American Dream is the rest of the world's nightmare... ) SO, Maire, in short you WIN A SORCHA DORCHA CD!!! Now, as you are not a member here, ( think about joining, it is painless and makes it possible to send personal messages to all your friends here) you can send me an email at InOBU@aol.com, and let me know where I can mail it, check past posts to see varrious reviews of our work. On this CD is the Ballad of Amadou Diallo, Yvette's Song (about the forced assimilation of Canadian Natives and the way NY's energy policies are destroying native land in Canada) Engine 33 about the loss of a quarter of our firefighters at our local firehouse (McGrath has a lovely version on his CD as well...) And some songs I didn't write... But, one of the rewards of membership is the CD trade that goes on, but don't feel this is a bribe to get you to join the cat, rather, it is a bribe to try and build an audience for an underbooked and remarkable band (he said with great humble modesty...) Is mise, le meas agus le haigh nil ain focal na trollanach... Larry |