If it were, we would have to ban half the board.
Half? More like nineteen thirty-sevenths!
:golf clap:
Regards,
Shodan
Both are banned.
No, it isn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Despite multiple warnings following multiple suspensions some posters can just call other posters whatever they want.
Shodan, you remind me of a troll, the norse mythological character. From your threads on fitness, I know you are strong. And do I recall correctly that you have some Scandinavian blood? The one place the comparison falls short is that I believe you are quite handsome.
Goodness, if our opinions were only valid for the side we support the Republican threads would be a hell of a lot shorter.
And I’m sure you can provide examples?
[Moderating]
This thread is a question about a specific board rule. If you want to complain about the moderation of a particular posters start another thread.
I had to look it up, too.
*A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic. Concern trolling in geek feminism communities can result in continual reversion to Feminism 101 discussions in attempts to appease the troll’s concerns, frustrating attempts at more serious discussion. Concern trolls are not always self-aware; they may also view themselves as potential allies who have just, oddly, never met a feminist opinion they liked.
Concern trolls can be identified primarily because they will retreat from, rather than engage with or be convinced by, answers to the questions they pose. They may repeatedly ask a certain question in feminist discussions without ever absorbing or replying to answers from previous discussions. … Another common tactic is insisting that some subjects are more important than others, for example, that media depictions of women shouldn’t be criticised while violence against women continues.
*
Mind you, since BG didnt* quite *use that term, I could see a Note rather than a Warning.
No, I have no Scandinavian blood, but don’t be concerned about it.
Regards,
Shodan
So I cannot observe in GD that another poster is failing to engage with answers to questions? Or that they are distracting from the given topic?
I feel like I see such comments in GD pretty often.
Argue with them, not me, dude.
The issue of the OP is whether or not we can call someone a “concern troll”, not whether being a concern troll is against the rules. My sense is calling someone a “concern troll” is an insult and so clearly against the rules.
Actually there are a number of issues.
I was not aware that concern trolling by those who are not posting inflammatory remarks and have no inclination to wind people up is a reportable offense. In fact I think it should not be, since it isn’t trolling and it is not especially disruptive. It’s just a somewhat dubious argument that should be called out: that’s all.
The core question of the OP concerns the best way to characterize such behavior on this message board. I made a snarky attempt, but honestly I’m not sure how to do it. So I put out a request to SDMB wordsmiths. What’s the best way to address such a problematic argument?
The appropriateness of the warning is a side issue. It may be a relevant side issue, but it is a side issue all the same. I have no problem discussing it here, but I would also like the OP addressed by my fellow members.
ETA: Thanks Loach. I’ll address your posts when I have a little more time.
I agree. And my point is that merely observing that the phrase contains the word “troll” is insufficient. It is clearly not an accusation of trolling in the sense prohibited by the ban on calling people a troll. So to me the real question is whether it is an insult. To determine whether it is an insult, we have to agree on what it means. If you accept DrDeth’s cited definition, it is not clear to me that it is an insult–or if it is, that it is moderated as such when functionally equivalent language is used.
I’m of mixed minds about it, but mostly glad that I didn’t succumb to temptation and call someone out for some blatant concern trolling in an Elections thread last night :).
On the one hand, yeah, it gets into dangerous territory when you steer the debate toward a person’s state of mind, rather than toward their arguments. I’ve been pretty short with people in the past when they try to figure out my ulterior motives: they’re usually wrong, and it’s a distraction from the real debate. I don’t have any reason to think that I’m going to be a better mindreader of other folks than they are of me.
On the other hand, it’s pretty annoying when someone on the other side a partisan issue acts like they’re only concerned for your side and offers advice that appears to be geared toward undermining your side of the issue. Concern trolling is a dishonest argumentative style, and it appears really freaking common in Elections right now, especially the internecine fighting among progressives.
And of course, if I think someone’s concern trolling, they must be; there’s no way someone could honestly disagree with me, I can obviously read their minds, and my positions are so self-evidently correct that my opponents must be naive, concern trolls, or tragically obtuse. Right?
Wrong. Which is why I avoided the term last night, and why I come down on the side of thinking it should stay out of great debates, however common it is everywhere else on the Internet.
But see the Rational Wiki article: [INDENT]Sometimes outsiders will come by and make concern troll-like statements sincerely. Some are sincere but stupid. Some may be insightful, and justified iconoclasts, merely making valid observations unwelcome to the dominant ideology or culture of the forum (the Cassandra syndrome[2]). Often, of course, the person is misguided, wrong, and not intending to troll. However, an unsolicited tone argument is, in practical terms, not really any different. [/INDENT] Concern trolling is at bottom an argumentative style and not a personal characteristic. Or so I argue. In practice I think certain posters spews what crosses their minds without too much reflection, so multiple motives are involved. (Other posters put a great deal of thought into their posts, but are invariably slanted due to ideology. So their political advice to the opposing side trends towards the highly dubious.)
If I think someone is concern trolling, I don’t think it’s an example of “sincere but misguided” behavior; to the extent that Rational Wiki disagrees with me, I disagree with them right back :). It’s an insincere way to argue.
And I think that accusing someone of insincerity is a pretty bad idea, almost all the time, in Great Debates. I’m not pure in this regard, by any means, but I try to avoid it when I’m paying attention to what I’m doing.
Stripped of the t-word, we are essentially discussing an accusation of bias, which isn’t insulting at all. But this is bias tinged with bad faith. Bad faith is sometimes defined as lying to oneself, but can also involve duplicity. Or a dash of playfulness. Or a fair amount in between. Now if the accused is actually trolling, they should be taken to the pit and/or reported. But most concern trolls here aren’t trolls. It’s just that when a high-profile and committed ideologue offers doe-eyed advice for the opposing side, the underlying ridiculousness should be identified for the board’s edification.
It’s here that I reach for the word disingenuous or “lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity”. But I understand that other posters think that word is a synonym for lying. That’s not my take, but in the interest of communication I should probably avoid it.
How about this?
“Coming from a committed ideologue, I find your proffered strategies to reflect either saintly generosity or perhaps overly convenient advocacy of unilateral rhetorical disarmament for the opposing side. It’s hard to say which.”
At any rate, it’s not really about the poster. It’s about their argument. Sort of. I concede this touches on motives, which I agree is usually best kept out of GD. Speaking generally and concerning best practices.