 sj |
||
|
||
Dealing with Flamers
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST,Paul Mitchell@work Date: 07 Sep 01 - 01:10 PM I don't contribute a lot to Mudcat, but it is the only place on the internet I do add stuff. I'm just brain storming here too, perhaps a thread that is a flame war, troll pit or the like could have it's title presented in a different colour? Like red or something. That might stop poor saps like me feeling obliged to read something 'cause of our right on views.. then fighting ourselves to stop responding.. Just a thought. Thanks muchly to ALL who keep the cat going. Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Uncle Jaque Date: 07 Sep 01 - 01:02 PM We note that on this thread already, we have the dictum that anyone who dares dissent from this Guest's particular opinion, position, vision or "view" instantly becomes fair game for attack, intimidation, embarrassment, and who-knows-what else, no holds barred. Now does this meet the criterion for "flame", and qualify the "contributor" for the "pretend-he's-not-there" treatment? Just wondering. By the way, Amigos; we (regular Mudcatters) are not the only ones who browse this forum, many anonymously, and form lasting impressions of it - and us - on the basis of what they read. Are they going to "ignore" our detractors/flamers as well? When we step in the dog doo-doo, do we just ignore it, hoping others will as well, until it wears off and goes away, or do we hobble over to the hose and try to clean our sneakers? Far be it from me to whine over "controversial" or passionate, sometimes contentious topics; those of you who are familiar with this old Yankee "Uncle" know that there are certain donnybrooks which I just can't seem to resist pitching into, despite the probability of getting lugged back out on a stretcher before the last table tips over. That's not, it seems, what most of us are concerned with here (although many I know wish we'd take it out back by the dumpster), and I thinks most of us knows about where the line is. What I see a need for is community dialouge (like what is happening here) leading to a modicum of consensus, followed by appropriate, reasonable, consistant standards. The future of this valued community may well rely on it. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Sep 01 - 01:00 PM On the subject of flaming per se.... Lets look at the number of insults in one short post by a regular mudcatter. Even discounting the foul language don't you think this is flaming. The pity is, I agree with many of his points but that insulting, condescending attitude is quite grating. If I leave MudCat, it will be because of behavior like this.
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Big Mick Date: 06-Sep-01 - 10:11 PM Shop: O Death I am more
The other day the GUEST, made a pathetic attempt to draw me back in the other day. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Jon Freeman Date: 07 Sep 01 - 12:46 PM A correction to UJ's second post: While Paltalk does provide locked and private rooms, most of the music rooms (I don't go elsewhere) are open and retain a freindly atmosphere. In fact some previously locked rooms went open with no problems when Paltalk started to charge for the "private functions" without problems. Paltalk do of course provide a bounce facility to get rid of trouble makers and, overall, they soon learn. Paltalk does however present a different problem to Mudcat as it involves live chat in real time. If the majority of room owners and admins manage to operate happily in an open environment and deal with the occasional real time interuption on a microphone, one would have thought it would be a rather more simple matter for people to skip over a post or a thread here. Justa Picker said: People are NOT going to stop posting to the threads in question no matter how many times you ask, tell, or chastise them from doing it. They seem to manage to do just that in other unmoderated music newsgroups I read. The level of trolling in this place is at high at a moment and I can't help but think a big part of the reason is that people are so easy to bait round here - this place must be a trolls paradise. Many newsgroups have no one to turn to (except maybe complain to an ISP when there is repeated spam) and people seem to have learned the art of ignoring threads. Perhaps some people thinking "Max should do this", others thinking "Joe should do that", etc. is part of the problem - perhaps in the absence of a "father figure", people have succesfully learned to grow up more quickly. There is of course the question of members posting as guests for reasons other than simple trolling here but I still see ignoring as the best policy. If it came to the push, the only sure way I can see of tightening up round here would involve a member only posting system which at least would allow the removal of a troublesome members but I feel we would lose out on a lot of good material if such a policy was adopted. It would IMO be a tragedy to see that openness lost for what is probably mostly caused by and certainly not helped by inability of members to ignore posts they don't like. Can't people at least try the ignoring policy which works elsewhere and is documented in many places on the internet as being the solution for a while before screaming for control measures? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Sep 01 - 12:42 PM I'm not really sure what you all mean by troll. If people get entertainment from discussing one another's personality flaws. That is their business. I realize that I am not forced to participate. However, I don't like to see abusive, condesending language like the following (see appendix 1). This individual was obviously baiting Joe. Joe answered in a patient clinical amnner. But the indidual's point was made by the fact that Joe answered at all. Since by my estimation, more than 1/2 of the abusive language on this forum comes from Anon. Guests like this one I'd like to see them forced to register so that they can be dealt with as individuals. Max et. al. have stated that they believe this would be too much of a burdenon legitimate Anon. posters. I think, that in excange for the service rendered by mudcat it be a small price to pay. Appendix 1 Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST Date: 06-Sep-01 - 07:59 PM Ah, it is so gratifying to see the absolute worst, most duplicitous Mudcat flamers posting here saying they'll never do it again. And you'll ignore the flamers when pigs fly. I do get a chuckle out of the lot of you. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel around here. Hey Joe, since you can't even follow your own good advice, what the hell makes you think you're going to get people to stop behaving badly? Maybe they will when you will. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe you're right, my friend, but maybe not. There are times when I have to take action, and I usually find it's best to give some explanation. I try to do that without attempting to argue with flamers and trolls, but sometimes I give in to temptation. Still, I think that the flamers and trolls are only part of the problem - the bigger problem is caused by those who respond to them. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: CarolC Date: 07 Sep 01 - 12:31 PM GUEST, I think you bring up a good point. In the veggies/prat thread, I could have assumed that because the person who started it is a member, s/he is therefore not trolling. Conversely, there are plenty of posts from GUESTS that are helpful and constructive. So I think you're right that the content of the post is important, whether it comes from a member, or a GUEST. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST Date: 07 Sep 01 - 12:20 PM "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, act ii, Scene 2
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." -- Schoolyard comeback An excerpt from a speech by John F. Kennedy also seems apropos to Mudcat: We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolph Hitler "Judge a post on the merit of the words it contains. -- Anonymous |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Sep 01 - 12:16 PM I agree that there can be a fine line between a troll and a good controversial topic.....Susan's point is well taken regarding the history of a particular poster. Sometimes it pays to check and you'll see that what sounds like troll is just a hot topic.....and vice versa! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: SharonA Date: 07 Sep 01 - 11:43 AM I like the ideas proposed in WYSIWYG's 07-Sep-01 - 08:58 AM post and in Uncle Jaque's 07-Sep-01 - 10:29 AM post. I also like the idea of locking flame-threads so that they cannot be refreshed and brought to the top ot the Forum's thread list. I'm with Big Mick: I'm going to just sit back and laugh at the pathetic attempts of flamers to make us post anything in reaction to their antics. We've been their entertainment, by the admission of at least some of them; it's about time they entertained us. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Steve in Idaho Date: 07 Sep 01 - 11:43 AM I agree with WYSIWYG - terms of membership and keep it safe and sane. The editors do a fine job of keeping this forum open and removing the really nasty items. The other side of this is that Folk music comes from flamers and trolls. People that raised the hackles on various items indigenous to people. And nearly always not popular! I occasionally respond to flamers, probably have been a troll (though not conciously), and thoroughly enjoy the open piece of this forum. Peace - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Skipjack K8 Date: 07 Sep 01 - 10:34 AM Sounds very Richard Thompson. "Dealing with flamers, and losers in love" Skipjack |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Uncle Jaque Date: 07 Sep 01 - 10:29 AM Hmm.. now I didn't see that "Veggies" thread at all "flameish", since it is (if you are familiar with "Veggie Tales") a musical topic, and the contributor seems to want to confirm if she is the only one who finds their music "prattish" or if others concur. Now I'm not just what "Prattish" means exactly, but it does not strike me as being particulary obscene, inflamatory or degrading. Critical perhaps, but not (since the "Veggies" are fictional cartoon carachters) rising to the level of a "personal attack". It seems that all of us are not using the same definitions or criterion for appplication of the terms "Flame", "Troll", and the like. I have noticed on some web-based mail servers that acceptable vs. non-acceptable conduct and content is pretty specifically spelled out in the "terms of use" or "licensure" agreement which users are required to indicate acceptance of prior to using the service. Although I haven't really seen it happening here much, one form of content that should never, IMHO, be tolerated, is any direct or implied personal threat against any person or organization. It came really close, if not putting some toes over the line, just recently here, and that is something that can get way out of hand really fast, with serious destructive potential. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Cllr Date: 07 Sep 01 - 09:48 AM "Dont feed the Trolls" It says it all really, I have tried to make some wise cracks in some of the threads and I have found some of the thread drift entertaining but in future I will ignore trolls and flamers Cllr
|
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:58 AM Here's a thought-- do a quick Usersearch on new members you see posting when you get that "uh-oh" feeling that it might not be quite a nice post. Out of five or six posts so far, only one of Whippet's is a positive, helpful contribution about music. Re-usable copy from a Mudcat official is needed to send them in a PM, and a designated volunteer to do it-- a friendly word of advice, then if it persists a copy of a cease-and-desist notice, then a stern last-chance warning, then loss of membership. Membership has its privileges, and also IS a privilege. In e-mailed acknowledgments of membership, to activate passwords and memberships at other websites, there is sometimes a "Terms of Membership" included. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:51 AM Yeah Carol....Good catch. I saw that one and that was when I refreshed this, but perhaps a bit late. "Whippet" has started an couple of at least "bigoted and controversial" threads, if not outright trolls. Glad you picked up on it, better late than never. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: CarolC Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:41 AM Oops. I just posted a joke to the veggie/prat thread which, after thinking about it for a bit, I realize is probably a troll thread. Sorry. Won't do it again. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 07 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM Dear Joe, surely it's difficult to keep out flamers in such an open electronic medium; I often was annoyed finding mails in the threads which had nothing to do with the themes about music and singing. The best way, as so many have proposed, is: IGNORE! The stronger form, and this is a contribution to the litotes-debate, is found in the German expression: Garnet ignorieren = never ignore, in which case the double negation means a stronger negation, composed of "never mind" and "ignore". This expression is well known in my county. Don't give up, Joe, and continue your work I appreciate so much! Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Sep 01 - 07:58 AM Refresh in light of a couple of new threads and older ones still being stirred..... Please try to avoid them folks! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Sep 01 - 05:46 AM Maybe if there was some kind of mechanism by which it was possible for the rest of us to have the option of posting to a thread without refreshing it that might help. It would stop the process by which the threads that have gone wrong get repeatedly refreshed by people saying "stop posting to this thread" and so forth.
Whether that's possible I don't know.
I suppose this process of achieving the opposite of what you are doing is similar to the way in which you can get people demanding that there should only be music threades, and doing this by posting repeatedly to non-music threads. Or trying to defend the Mudcat in ways that damage it and drive good people away.
|
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:26 AM JOE - MAX
Take TIGHT control....return to the roots.
If it ain't MUSIC...it ain't M.C....and it certainly isn't DT....
I can sincerely say that the vast majority of my personal "Trolling" has come from a sincere attempt to "scare/humiliate/belittle/squelch" (a.k.a be a Gargoyle) those (cats, wiccans, and critters) who strayed from my view of Dick and Susan's original vision. (To hell with Max...he was a Johnny come lately.)
Your only other alternative, is to let ALL chaos break loose. It should be stated UP FRONT...that this is a "Moderated Discussion Board" the option to edit and delete threads and postings is maintained by the managment. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Peter Kasin Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:06 AM As you know, Joe, I took the "no response to flamers, except in very rare, extreme cases" pledge in a PM to you. I'll just repeat that pledge here. An extreme case could be a slanderous statement aimed at a specific member, or some other nasty comment that might need a short, tempered response. I would emphasize rare, though, and will follow the general principle of no response. I used to advocate turning the subject around in a flame thread, but don't anymore. It just prolongs the thread title and initial flame, keeping it high on the column. -chanteyranger |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Áine Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:30 PM I'm with Justa Picker, too. Seems to me that we have encountered the ignoble impasse of 'too many (silly) little indians, and not enough chiefs' -- that is to say, when the kiddies (of whatever age, but of the same immature emotional state) can (1) target, and (2) take over, a site like the Mudcat, it's time for someone to act like an adult and send the children to their rooms with no supper. The toll of valued and respected 'Catters who have left this community as a result of trolls, flamers, etc., has become too high to tolerate any longer. Freedom has now become chaos . . . We don't need a 'Big Brother' or a 'benevolent dictator'; we need someone to enact some level-headedness around here. When the Mudcat was smaller, the 'no rules is good rules' philosophy worked; however, now we're just exposing our weak flank to the cretinous lambastings of congenital sociopathic wannabes and pimply-faced 'net vandals'. Let's rein these ponies in before the barn burns down while we're not looking. -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:15 PM A few people have raised the question, If Joe responds to flamers, why shouldn't I? I guess it's a legitimate question. My answer is that I do it very sparingly and I try to do it dispassionately - and I also do it as an addendum to a previous message, so my message does not bring the thread to the top of the menu again. There are times when a brief remark might be an effective way to respond to a flamer - but that's something for Pene and me to decide on. With all these Mudcatters jumping in to try to save the day, Pene and I feel like paramedics who have to fight off the onlookers before we can get to the scene of the accident. If people were silent in response to flames, there's very little "fixing" we'd have to do. It's the Mudcatters who respond who are most of the problem, not the flamers. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: katlaughing Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:13 PM I totally agree with you JP. If the main flamers are members as has been said, they ought to get their privileges yanked. They are destroying this site. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Allan C. Date: 06 Sep 01 - 11:10 PM Every time one of those threads appears, the posts that follow remind me of a group of little kids. One says, "The next one who talks is a rotten egg!" "But YOU just talked, that means that YOU'RE a rotten egg!" says another. "Hah! Another voice says YOU are a rotten egg because YOU just talked too! Yet another says "You are ALL rotten eggs!!" And so it goes. All but the very newest of us know that simply not posting is the thing to do and yet there are always some who continue to post and to bring these embarrasments to the Mudcat to the top of the pile where they are the first thing a visitor will see. Hell! It is just like trashing your front walkway while swearing to all that the house is just wonderful inside. I don't know why folks can't understand that there are no clever words, there are no clever comebacks, there is NOTHING you can say that will get rid of the nastiness faster than ignoring the offending thread and thus damn it to oblivion as it drifts off the thread list. I am sick of having to wade through the trash to get to the good stuff that I know is still here. Hey, if "Killing the Thread" can finally drift off the main page, surely some of this crap can as well - IF WE LET IT!!!!! Joe, Jeff, thank you for your many efforts toward making this a better place. I hope we can find ways to make your tasks easier. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall) Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:50 PM Ok, we're all on the same page. Now let's see how long this lasts! I've seen threads going awry and screamed at the computer screen "Why are you people buying into this shit!?!?" And then I do the same thing on another thread, because I think I have the perfect answer (even though, in times of clear thought, we all know the perfect answer is silence) Let's try to cooperate this time around. Thanks, Joe Rich |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Justa Picker Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:47 PM Very likely no one here is going to publicly agree with me on this, but for this "time capsule" called Mudcat, I will go on record and state the oh so painfully obvious, at least to me. Two words. Moderators and Censorship. Joe and Pene have proven themselves practical, rational and persons we can trust, who are endowed with an abundance of common sense, and an unflinching dedication of their own time and resources to this forum. People are NOT going to stop posting to the threads in question no matter how many times you ask, tell, or chastise them from doing it. Perhaps these are idealistic child-like qualities, but something should be done to protect "children" from themselves for the greater good and well being of this place. Oh...what's this now? Free speech threatened? The right to express my opinion?...yatta yatta yatta Sorry. Anyone who verbally vandalizes this place with flagrant and obvious racist and/or anti-semitic dogma, or publicly attempts to belittle or shame another member, i.m.o. forfeits these so-called rights. I am sick to death about perpetrators "rights" whether in a cyber community or criminals or vandals in real life. You cross the line, you relinquish those rights. So fucking simple it's sickening. As for the whiners who complain about the deletions and censorship - fuck them. Delete their posts too. Any clear minded, rational and reasonable person knows which threads and posts I refer to. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. You're damn right I think it's time Big Brother did more than just watch this place. It's going to hell in a hand basket, and there's no Captain at the helm steering the ship. This place is no longer capable of policing itself and is a rudderless boat drifting in the water. Aren't you glad I'm not Max? :-) [Rant off.] |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:36 PM What a time to lose your cookie! Honest! I'm not a flamer. I shall immediately go back and retrieve it. *G* Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Uncle Jaque Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:26 PM A few suggestions, for what it's worth; * A link to submit "concerns" to Admins about a certain thread or posting which seem to meet the criterion for a "flame". When a predetermined number of gripes are registered, said offending posting could be replaced with "Removed by Membership Request" or to a locked limited-access "crypt". Downside: pain in our good Admin's glutes to keep up with, I would suspect, and you guys deserve better. No doubt a hue and cry of "censorship" of be raised.. one person's "censorship" is anothers' hygene and security, and as even the lowest level of Politician knows; ya can't keep 'em all happy! * Limit access to Member's personal pages, addresses, photos etc.to cookie-holding accountable Members in good standing. A lot of havoc can arise from having that out beyond the perimeter, Mates! * Probationary period for "Newbies"? Peer evaluation? Ja, I know... can-O-worms potential there, but I'm brainstorming. * Also concur with the suggestion for selective "locked" or "by invitation only" threads, similar to PalTalk's "Rooms". Participants could PM those invited with password. Paltalk found it neccessary to keep the skunks out and keep things civil, and apparantly many if not most other public forums have had to resort to similar systems just to maintain a semblance of common decency. Is decency still "Common"? God, I hope so... |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Big Mick Date: 06 Sep 01 - 10:11 PM I am more disgusted by those that respond to these miscreants than I am by the miscreants themselves. Maybe I am getting cranky in my old age, but when I see responses to this shit, I think less of the fools that just have to respond. As if the flamer gives a shit that you are pissed. In fact, they are tickled to death that you are pissed. I have pointed out several times now, that these smart asses just love watching you all dance. The GUEST above just confirmed it when s/he said it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Wise up, Mudcatters. The other day the GUEST, made a pathetic attempt to draw me back in the other day. It made me laugh. They are so simple. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Don Firth Date: 06 Sep 01 - 09:28 PM It would be impossible to thank Joe and Pene and the various Joe Clones enough for the work they do around here--and Max, et al, for making the whole thing possible. I don't think it's really possible to get rid of flamers and troublemakers entirely, because they can post to just about any thread -- in fact someone tried it on a couple of threads where serious discussions were going on -- and thereby hangs an object lesson. The participants in the threads were so intent on what they were discussing that the would-be troublemaker was just ignored. Getting no response, he/she/it just went away. I get steamed and respond to flamers too damned much, even when I know better. But from here on, I take the pledge. No more response to trolls and flamers! For those who have trouble doing this, maybe there's a 12-step program? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: AliUK Date: 06 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM Jim. I don't know how to take your post but... I suppose I must apologise at my conduct in a couple of the threads. I do not in any way consider myself a flamer, just a gbloke who has been around the Mudcat off and on for a few years and who doesn't like to see people that he likes ridiculed. I try to resist, but soemtimes can't stop the response. From now on I will ignore those types of threads. Sorry Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:56 PM All good there Jim, but i've admitted repeatedly that I know they may be getting their jollies, but so am I!! The "anger" is never there whereas what I really enjoy and most people dislike is sarcasm and sarcastic humor. I like playing the dozens ya' know? But this thing truly has gotten past the point of doing anything but simply ignoring the whole thing. I said once that if they were enjoying it, we should too.........mistake. The only thing to do is to ignore them........but I still like the vile, smartassed, sarcasm. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Jim Dixon Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:48 PM It seems to me that flamers and the people who respond to them have a lot in common. Just because you know a person's name doesn't mean he isn't a flamer. Just because a person only posts to threads, but doesn't start them, doesn't mean he isn't a flamer. Just because a person defends Mudcat, or defends another Mudcatter, doesn't mean he isn't a flamer. Just because a person stands up for "politically correct" principles doesn't mean he isn't a flamer. A flame-thrower is still a flame-thrower no matter which direction it is pointed. What makes a flamer a flamer is the amount of anger that comes out in his messages. It doesn't matter who provokes it, or how it is provoked. Oddly, SOME trolls/flamers seem to have more self-awareness than the people who respond to them. SOME trolls/flamers admit that they get some satisfaction out of what they're doing. People who respond to flamers seem unaware that they're getting any satisfaction. But what else could explain the fact that they do the same thing over and over? Isn't there something gratifying about getting angry at someone who *really* deserves it? |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:19 PM I suppose the thing to do might be to take the good point, without giving any acknowledgement to where it came from, and use it in a post - "Now it could be suggested that...But..."
I can imagine that might really irritate the attention seeking creeps. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:06 PM Kevin, we all have a bad habit of responding to an obvious troll in an otherwise fine thread.....often they have one legit point and we might respond to that. Don't do it. when you want to carry on with the thread, simply carry on without referencing the flame/troll even if they have a great question in the middle of the bullshit.....skip it. That's tough I know, but it's the way to do it....sad but true. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:59 PM Ah, it is so gratifying to see the absolute worst, most duplicitous Mudcat flamers posting here saying they'll never do it again... And you'll ignore the flamers when pigs fly. I do get a chuckle out of the lot of you. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel around here. Hey Joe, since you can't even follow your own good advice, what the hell makes you think you're going to get people to stop behaving badly? Maybe they will when you will. Maybe you're right, my friend, but maybe not. There are times when I have to take action, and I usually find it's best to give some explanation. I try to do that without attempting to argue with flamers and trolls, but sometimes I give in to temptation. Still, I think that the flamers and trolls are only part of the problem - the bigger problem is caused by those who respond to them.
|
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Geoff the Duck Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:49 PM Apologies for responding to some crap on another thread earlier tonight. I'll try to just ignore the bastards! Geoff! |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:47 PM But there's still the problem that a stay-away-from-the-garbage policy, if consistently applied, would mean that a couple of well placed anonymous posts could close down a thread.
And that could as easily happen in music threads, which can also turn quite sour sometimes.
We should avoid being provoked into posting by these people.But at the same time we need to avoid being silenced by them. It's a difficult balance, and I know I haven't got it right myself a lot of times. It seems to come in spats, which are unpleasant, but they pass. Putting up with it is a price for having the Mudcat. Going too far in the direction of active preventive measures would be too high a price for tackling this irritation. And there are always ways for those so minded to sneak round any set of defences anyway. Good point, Kevin- |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Gareth Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:14 PM As one who can be controversial. Though I hope not to the same extent as a napalm pwered flamer, and as one who has difficulty not treading on a trailed coat I have had difficulty followinhg Joes instructions in the last few days. But joe's right ingnore the buggers and they will disappear. Gareth - chewing his fingernails in frustration. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:13 PM What we refer to as trolling and flaming represent distress patterns that are not possible to evaluate, treat, or even respond to accurately in an online medium. What we realize AFTER the fact has been an unhelpful reaction FEELS, when you are engaged in it, quite logical. There's the rub-- The distress pattern depends on pushing someone's button. The definition of whether a button has been successfully pushed is, did it overwhelm our sense and provoke response? Once that has occurred, what we have is hindsight, to help us try to do better next time the effort has made. I am an example-- it's lots harder to push my buttons now, and I write almost exclsuively now in music threads. But I not only decided it, I had to work through it and work on it. Anyway, once we have responded, we are within whatever distress pattern WE have, that makes response seem like SENSE. But this is human nature. When it was suggested at one point that I do a prayer website, I cruised the Net far and wide looking at forum designs (and sent Max samples of the competition), looking for a spot that might serve. So I saw some neat features. One thing many places do, that we don't, is move threads. Another is, they LOCK threads. They lock them sometimes and leave them viewable, but not postable, so people can see that no censorship of what was said had occurred. But the locked thread makes it clear that it has been decided that additional response, for that thread, is simply beyond the limits of the host's willingness to give space to the event. And it is entirely within a host's purview to choose what they will host-- to what they will allocate bandwidth. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: GUEST,Hille Date: 06 Sep 01 - 07:05 PM I must apologise - replied to the Gay racist Morris thread without thinking, well, was actually thinking back to the almighty fun we had with "Eminen Rules" thread. So, I apologise in this instance (and of, course I do ignore the offensive stuff - really depriving them of "the oxygen of publicity" is the only thing that works.) |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:55 PM I agree with Lepus Rex, I think if members are messing about surely they dont deserve to be members.Just my opinion.john |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Lepus Rex Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:44 PM Well, after this week, I'll promise not to respond to anonymous flamers anymore. Not that this week has been worse than some others I can remember, but it's just getting old. Avoiding these threads might also keep me from acting like a complete bastard. (No, it won't) :) One thing bothers me, though: Like Joe said, these people are usually members dropping their cookies to act like dicks. Joe, couldn't you guys just 'out' the members who are doing this? ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Uncle Jaque Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:31 PM As I recently mentioned in a PM to those concerned, "There is a downside to inclusivity...". The big tent with the open door can make for an interesting party, but don't be surprised if some unwelcome and unsavory "guests" show up to try and pillage, plunder, and generally spoil the fun for everyone else. "Human nature", I suppose. Shucks, even the lofty ideal of "Freedom" I've been known to spout off about on occasion has it's dark side, don't we know. But I digress... I heartily concur with WYSIWYG re. a "disclaimer". A question of potential civil liability to both the Mudcat and one of us was raised - and quite rationally so - after another organization mentioned was promtly - and warantlessly - savaged by a flamethrowing "guest" who went so far as to threaten to lodge bogus "complaints" against the organization. A representative of this organization who was invited to participate in the forum, needless to say, was not favorably impressed and much appology, explanation and damage control was required to assure them that this ogre was not, in fact, representative of the average Mudcatter. No doubt some of these lurking deviants are quite skilled at making life miserable for others in order to gratify some perverted pathological "need", and it might behoove us to install some reasonable level of self-protection. As it is, we are pretty vunerable, and that alone is sufficient to attract flocks of sociopaths. Lovely world we live in... but it's the best we've got, eh? Any 'Catters out there of the Legal proffession? some input might be timely, here. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:08 PM Bill D makes what I see as a very useful distinction - Heated discussions among friends and acquaintences can make a lively, interesting forum, but baiting and personal attacks are not productive.
The tricky thing is avoiding having the one turn into the other, and there are some people out there who do their best to try and get that to happen.
We don't want to find ourselves in situation where, just by a bit of judicious flaming, someone who wants to is able to in effect close off a topic where a useful discussion might otherwise happen.
Anyway, Joe and Pene are doing a great job in trying to contain and clean up this sort of thing, and I promise to try and avoid doing anything that makes it harder. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: katlaughing Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM I agree, M. Ted, with your posting suggestions. Maybe someday we'll see that change. |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Kernow John Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:58 PM Joe & Pene Thanks KJ |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:46 PM Yeah, Spaw, the SOS messages in flame threads really puzzled me - they just served to bring the flame thread to the top again. What's the logic in that? By the way, we know full well that our most prolific flamers are regular Mudcatters who like to cause a little trouble when they feel they haven't been getting enough attention. Sick, isn't it? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Sep 01 - 05:39 PM Well posted Joe...How about we keep this one up top for a few days until we all get a chance to see it.....Everyone around the joint is guilty and even the humor end of it has lately gone wrong.....Changing the subject doesn't do it as Sorch found out and as always known, the only thing that does is not responding. So me and the "Inner Clique" will take the pledge and not post to the SOS threads (kat's "Same Old Shit")......We oughta' have a "Cussin' Can" thing, every post to a troll or flamer costs a buck to the 'Cat.......... Spaw |
| Share Thread: |