That simply never works and never has. It is a tired old platitude and doesn’t work here on the Dope and I doubt it works anywhere online where more than 30 people post. Trolls are very good at getting a rise out of people. Further, some posters enjoy engaging the trolls.
Thus this thread. **nelliebly **is asking a good question, your answer doesn’t work.
Not really. Most threads I’ve seen here, there are still posters who question/answer according to the topic regardless of other posters “derailing” the thread or posters responding to the derailment. You can scroll past anything that is off topic and any responses to that off-topic derailment and look for others that are still discussing the topic at hand. And if not? so what. It’s a message board. Start another thread with what you want to talk about.
No one can “get a rise out of” ANYONE. Maybe they can in person. With a weapon. On the internet: never.
THIS is the problem.
Wrong. It is the only thing that will work for people who want trolls to stop. If people enjoy engaging with them, well, that’s not a problem for them, and therefore no solution is needed.
Honestly, I have no doubt some of the criticism against you is due to political animosity, but I’m also certain that most of that is due to your methods. Whether you do this deliberately or not (and I can’t help believing it’s deliberate, based on the many, many times I’ve seen it), you need to recognize that you do this and stop doing it. And that means not assuming it’s all or even mostly simple political antagonism.
I’m tempted to cite examples, but I don’t want this to get derailed. So let me illustrate this another way. Once I was at the SLC airport and a guy came stomping through glaring irately at everyone he passed, including me. I was taken aback. What the heck? Then I realized many people were laughing at him. Apparently he assumed this was because everyone was rude. Maybe he thought they didn’t like men in suits. Whatever the case, he was ticked. If he’d considered the possibility there was good reason for the laughter, he might have noticed the three feet of toilet paper stuck to his shoe. Moral of the story: consider that people may have a legitimate reason for their reactions instead of assuming they’re all against you.
This sounds like the “sticks and stones may break my bones” argument. Of course it is perfectly possible for people to get a rise out of others on the Internet. It’s why 4chan exists, it’s why China pays its wumao trolls, it’s why anyone bothers trolling at all in the first place.
No, you’re wrong and my cite is this Board and its entire history.
Here’s an example. In response to someone who made an inapt analogy between confronting a whistleblower (which the accused doesn’t get to do), and confronting the cop who issued you a speeding ticket (which they do get to do), I wrote:
Nobody objected: I explained in calm, complete terms why I thought the analogy didn’t work, and then I offered to make it more apt.
You, responding to the same analogy, wrote:
This still reads to me like you’re accepting that there’s a right to confront a whistleblower (in the second independent clause). To the extent that you show a flaw in the analogy, it’s in that final snarky cryptic txtspk sentence.
Lots of folks, looking at that second independent clause–AND ALSO REALIZING THAT THIS HAD BECOME A MAJOR GOP TALKING POINT–thought you were defending the reverse of the analogy–that “the right to face one’s accuser” included both facing the ticket-writing cop and Trump’s whistleblower. Folks corrected you on it.
Rather that saying, “Oh shit, I see where it sounded like I was saying that Trump has a right to face the whistleblower, I wasn’t, I was just being snarky and pedantic at an irrelevant point,” you spent the next few pages telling people what bad readers they were.
There is no way that this series of posts made the thread better. Instead, it comprised a multi-page derailment, as people grew increasingly irritated at your shifting the blame for your poor communication onto them.
You do this so often–derailing threads about Trump’s corruption with penny-ante bullshit–that it looks deliberate.
The mods seem to think it’s not. I don’t disagree; I just disagree on whether your intentions are relevant, given your continued propensity to do this.
Contrast this against Max S’s series of posts in that thread. He’s caught some pushback, it’s true, but overall I find his posts thought-provoking and intelligent and honestly presented, if sometimes infuriating :).
Report the post. If it is trolling it will get moderated. If the mods don’t think it’s trolling, but you do, just don’t engage or respond. Frankly one of the benefits of this board to me is occasionally getting annoyed by a post. Makes me think. There also are posters where them annoying me is of zero value to me. To me they are trolls in their behavior. Mods don’t (yet?) agree. So I ignore them.
Hey, and that way, we don’t need ANY rules! Just let people post whatever garbage they want, no matter how disgusting and reprehensible, and IGNORE them! Uh-huh. Sure.
Surely you know better. Mods aren’t going to stop not-quite-trolling because (Drum roll, please!) it’s not…quite…trolling! That’s the whole point of not-quite-trolling. It does everything that trolling does but won’t get modded because it’s not…quite…trolling. And this isn’t a dig at the mods, who have a thankless and difficult job. It
Wrong. I know it’s easier on the ego to believe this, but I want conservative viewpoints on here. What I don’t want are people who almost-troll their viewpoints. A few conservatives–or people posing as conservatives–continue to almost-troll. Then they duck behind the “It’s because we’re conservatives!” shield. If you spot liberals doing the same thing, you’re entitled to point it out, AS LONG AS you’re not using the “If they do it, I get to do it!” ploy OR using it as a “See! They’re hypocrites so ignore what WE’RE doing!” gimmick.
I respect your opinions and usually agree with you, but I don’t here. Of COURSE it would work if everyone stopped engaging with them. That doesn’t mean people ENJOY doing so; as I stated in the OP, these almost-trollers are very, very good at ticking people off to the point they feel compelled to respond. Please don’t characterize that as enjoyment. And while ignoring them might eventually work (They also may just get a kick out of getting their garbage out there, knowing that if it’s read and not responded to, it’s still read.), expecting that everyone, including newbies, will know enough to ignore them is unrealistic. And it’s not working.
I don’t know better. I’m not a mod. Perhaps mods don’t stop “not-quite-trolling” because that could mean anything to anyone?
For instance, what if I said your post was “not quite trolling”?
Are you saying that if I, as someone who wants trolls to go away, ignores them, and at the same time you, as someone who enjoys engaging with them, doesn’t ignore them, and someone else, who hates trolls but doesn’t always control who pisses them off gets mad at them - the troll will simultaneously go away, be engaged, and also be a half alive cat in a box?
(All pronouns used in a hypothetical way, of course)
You haven’t reported anything because you didn’t actually see comparable behavior, and/or you don’t care about board standards.
I truly thought you knew better because you’ve been on these boards long enough to recognize the behaviors–the subjects of other ATMB threads–about posters who manage to skate just up to the line but not over the line of what’s allowed. I’m not going to try to educate you. If you don’t see it or choose not to, then you don’t. But kindly don’t assume that because you don’t understand, it’s a practice that applies to everyone one disagrees with.
Personally ignoring them is the worst possible response. Except for all the others.
Seriously the behavior unavoidably derails because someone always takes the bait and their back and forth chokes out the subject of the thread. Ignoring them does not work. But anything else only both feeds the trolls and gets you the subject of mod attention. If the mod loop gives jerkish behaviors by certain jerks a pass, for whatever reason, the rest of us are just stuck with skipping those posts as our least poor option. The option still sucks.
No. It’s because I try (I don’t always succeed, but I try) to interpret everyone else’s posts in the most charitable way I can. A lot of people, I think, interpret HD’s posts in the least charitable way they can, and then act as though they’ve isolated the only possible interpretation.
For instance, the least charitable way to interpret your post would be that you were calling me a liar (“didn’t actually see comparable behaviour”) or a troll (because “you don’t care about board standards” fits my (also uncharitable) understanding of the OP’s definition of ‘not-quite-trolling’. Since, in context, ‘not-quite-trolling’ is clearly just another way of calling someone a troll, you were, by the transitive property, calling me a troll. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C etc…)
I would thus report your post.
Now, of course, that’s an insanely uncharitable reading of your post. But I see people reading HD’s posts that way all the time. If everyone treated everyone’s posts the way some people treat HD’s posts this place would be unendurable.
HD doesnt really bother me too much, as do none of the resident “troublemakers” here. One thing I have to say tho, assuming the worst of HD and his intentions here, what sort of perverse disincentive has all this nonstop discussion, arguing and attention to all things “Hitka” been for him to somehow alter (in any way) his behavior? Or is this all just an attempt at “banning by overwhelming pestering and nonstop bitching”?
You *could *do so via PM…
You are aware that he’s been suspended for ignoring moderator instructions, yes?
Just within the past few days, he again ignored those same instructions but was inexplicably only given a note.
What’s the purpose of having more than one moderator in a forum if they’re not going to enforce each other’s instructions or refuse to explain why the instructions were not enforced?
I’m not going to put labels on you, but for some reason you seem to have a keen interest in rule boundaries, such as here and here and numerous other queries on ATMB that I couldn’t be bothered to search for. And sometimes it doesn’t work out.