New forum offense: Trollnaming

[Freedom of United Trevor]

I think this is a great idea,

We got to solve the cyberbulling epidemic.
We should still have Free Speech'' It's everybody's right" but we got to remind what's right and wrong on here.

[Alyekra]

I think this is a great idea,

We got to solve the cyberbulling epidemic.
We should still have Free Speech'' It's everybody's right" but we got to remind what's right and wrong on here.

NS is private property. Free speech does not apply.

[Esternial]

I think this is a great idea,

We got to solve the cyberbulling epidemic.
We should still have Free Speech'' It's everybody's right" but we got to remind what's right and wrong on here.

NS is private property. Free speech does not apply.

Yup

[Ethel mermania]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=200011&p=10963596&hilit=ethel#p10963596


i'm not referring to his bitching about me, but the initial post i was responding too, which he helpfully provided. Now any other conversation we have about it as a meta conversation, will violate a few forum rules. Do i have permission to do so?

Color me confused here as that's a post in Moderation... which is what we want to encourage.

First, thanks for putting up with this discussion, i do appreciate the ability to give feed back that is taken seriously

i think i was unclear in what i was referring too, not that in this instance moderation worked (which it did), but the original troll post. The post that i was responding too. In most cases trolling is not the idea that is expressed but how the idea is expressed. for example the following:


"Choronzon wrote:
Can someone tell me what the fuck a Jew is doing attacking Islam for being anti-women and filled with violent religious commandments? I've read their tribal laws."

he could have said it with other words that would have made it non trolling, he still would have been wrong on many levels but at least in a civil fashion. But that is not the point. The point is, you would rather this get reported to moderation?

By the time a moderator gets to it, its 6 hours later, and it has been overheated, requiring multiple whackings of the warn hammers, and newspapers. Do you really want to warn on everything> A quick "don't be a troll" at the time of the post by two or three posters should be enough to get the OP to say to themselves (if their intent is not to troll), "hmmm why does everyone think i am trolling". Then they can self correct. Making moderation do it, will make everyone run to moderation, tripling your work load, for no reason at all. it also will give records to folks who really do not need or deserve it.

Ultimately it is the site owners choice in how he wants his site run, i just don't think he is doing himself or his users any favors. The end result, i believe, will make the forums more contentious not less and will make the problem of flaming and trolling instead of respectful discussion increase rather than decrease.

[Condunum]

Color me confused here as that's a post in Moderation... which is what we want to encourage.

First, thanks for putting up with this discussion, i do appreciate the ability to give feed back that is taken seriously

i think i was unclear in what i was referring too, not that in this instance moderation worked (which it did), but the original troll post. The post that i was responding too. In most cases trolling is not the idea that is expressed but how the idea is expressed. for example the following:


"Choronzon wrote:
Can someone tell me what the fuck a Jew is doing attacking Islam for being anti-women and filled with violent religious commandments? I've read their tribal laws."

he could have said it with other words that would have made it non trolling, he still would have been wrong on many levels but at least in a civil fashion. But that is not the point. The point is, you would rather this get reported to moderation?

By the time a moderator gets to it, its 6 hours later, and it has been overheated, requiring multiple whackings of the warn hammers, and newspapers. Do you really want to warn on everything> A quick "don't be a troll" at the time of the post by two or three posters should be enough to get the OP to say to themselves (if their intent is not to troll), "hmmm why does everyone think i am trolling". Then they can self correct. Making moderation do it, will make everyone run to moderation, tripling your work load, for no reason at all. it also will give records to folks who really do not need or deserve it.

Ultimately it is the site owners choice in how he wants his site run, i just don't think he is doing himself or his users any favors. The end result, i believe, will make the forums more contentious not less and will make the problem of flaming and trolling instead of respectful discussion increase rather than decrease.

In that situation, "don't be a troll" still isn't necessary. A friendly reminder to calm down, or kindly reminding them that they're getting out of hand has always been acceptable.

The problem is that calling someone a troll rarely works, because it often just angers the other poster. Perhaps this isn't true for most of the regulars, but we at least know that calling new people trolls just because they seem trollish doesn't help as often as we'd like.

Just explaining to them that they need to calm down helps. If they are a troll, they won't listen, and you should probably report them. If they aren't a troll, they might notice that their words are going to get them in trouble, and double back on them, as I've seen that does get you out of some trouble with moderation.

[The God-Realm]

all hail the mods for this necessary, wonderful and amazing new rule thank you so much!

i applaud you mat for saying this very good thing.

i applaud you for not using capital letters

I really like this rule too.

[Esternial]

First, thanks for putting up with this discussion, i do appreciate the ability to give feed back that is taken seriously

i think i was unclear in what i was referring too, not that in this instance moderation worked (which it did), but the original troll post. The post that i was responding too. In most cases trolling is not the idea that is expressed but how the idea is expressed. for example the following:


"Choronzon wrote:
Can someone tell me what the fuck a Jew is doing attacking Islam for being anti-women and filled with violent religious commandments? I've read their tribal laws."

he could have said it with other words that would have made it non trolling, he still would have been wrong on many levels but at least in a civil fashion. But that is not the point. The point is, you would rather this get reported to moderation?

By the time a moderator gets to it, its 6 hours later, and it has been overheated, requiring multiple whackings of the warn hammers, and newspapers. Do you really want to warn on everything> A quick "don't be a troll" at the time of the post by two or three posters should be enough to get the OP to say to themselves (if their intent is not to troll), "hmmm why does everyone think i am trolling". Then they can self correct. Making moderation do it, will make everyone run to moderation, tripling your work load, for no reason at all. it also will give records to folks who really do not need or deserve it.

Ultimately it is the site owners choice in how he wants his site run, i just don't think he is doing himself or his users any favors. The end result, i believe, will make the forums more contentious not less and will make the problem of flaming and trolling instead of respectful discussion increase rather than decrease.

In that situation, "don't be a troll" still isn't necessary. A friendly reminder to calm down, or kindly reminding them that they're getting out of hand has always been acceptable.

The problem is that calling someone a troll rarely works, because it often just angers the other poster. Perhaps this isn't true for most of the regulars, but we at least know that calling new people trolls just because they seem trollish doesn't help as often as we'd like.

Just explaining to them that they need to calm down helps. If they are a troll, they won't listen, and you should probably report them. If they aren't a troll, they might notice that their words are going to get them in trouble, and double back on them, as I've seen that does get you out of some trouble with moderation.

I honestly don't know what everyone's complaining about. Is it too hard to write a decent response to the poster to ask him/her to stop his shenanigans (and report him/her in the meantime)?

[Dyakovo]

In that situation, "don't be a troll" still isn't necessary. A friendly reminder to calm down, or kindly reminding them that they're getting out of hand has always been acceptable.

The problem is that calling someone a troll rarely works, because it often just angers the other poster. Perhaps this isn't true for most of the regulars, but we at least know that calling new people trolls just because they seem trollish doesn't help as often as we'd like.

Just explaining to them that they need to calm down helps. If they are a troll, they won't listen, and you should probably report them. If they aren't a troll, they might notice that their words are going to get them in trouble, and double back on them, as I've seen that does get you out of some trouble with moderation.

I honestly don't know what everyone's complaining about. Is it too hard to write a decent response to the poster to ask him/her to stop his shenanigans (and report him/her in the meantime)?

There seems to be an attitude among the people complaining about the rule that making a report in moderation makes you a bad person...

[Neo Art]

I honestly don't know what everyone's complaining about.

Really? I'm pretty sure I've made it abundantly clear. That it's simultaniously a nonsensically daft waste of time and energy, while being extraordinarily condescending towards the overall intelligence of nationstates users. This whole thing supposedly came about over concern that "trollnaming" was shutting down legitimate discussion.

I contend, as I have from the onset, that this is remarkably silly, as the only people who would use "you're a troll" as a means to shut down a discussion are the people who were legitimately were trying to find a way to incite in the first place. Which is the definition of trolling. Which means, as I said before, "trollnaming" only hampers discourse when it's true.

And what's even most amusing about that point? Here's the biggest set of warnings for "trollnaming" I can find. How did that thread end?

With moderation forced to admit that the player, was in fact a troll. I hope that point sinks in. We went through all the trouble of warning multiple people for calling someone "troll", only to turn him around and warn him for being a troll.

So that's what this brave new policy has accomplished. That's your shining example on the hill. Warning people for calling a troll a troll.

Funny, I thought truth was a defense.

Oh well, might as well add "blatantly contradictory to long standing policy" to "utterly pointless" "complete waste of time" and "somewhat insulting really" to the list of why this is a patently silly idea.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I contend, as I have from the onset, that this is remarkably silly, as the only people who would use "you're a troll" as a means to shut down a discussion are the people who were legitimately were trying to find a way to incite in the first place. Which is the definition of trolling. Which means, as I said before, "trollnaming" only hampers discourse when it's true.

This, so many times.

[United Dependencies]

I certainly will miss being able to call poe's law on people.

[Neo Art]

I contend, as I have from the onset, that this is remarkably silly, as the only people who would use "you're a troll" as a means to shut down a discussion are the people who were legitimately were trying to find a way to incite in the first place. Which is the definition of trolling. Which means, as I said before, "trollnaming" only hampers discourse when it's true.

This, so many times.

What continues to just amuse me is, on Thursday, I made a post on this thread basically saying "I find this policy silly as it's rather insulting to the NSG community at large implying they don't know a troll when they see one.

a bunch of people got warned for "trollnaming" pretty much at the same exact time.

On Saturday I reitterate my point, the only time "trollnaming" could actually side track conversation was when it was actually true.

Within two hours of me making that point, the OP of the thread where several people were warned for "trollnaming" was declared, by moderation, to be a puppet troll (and lest anyone get ideas, no, it wasn't me).

I thought it would take at least a FEW days for my point to be proven. I didn't expect two HOURS.

Sometimes, it's good to be right.

[Jormengand]

Sometimes, it's good to be right.

Others, being right is a really, really bad thing.

[Ethel mermania]

I honestly don't know what everyone's complaining about. Is it too hard to write a decent response to the poster to ask him/her to stop his shenanigans (and report him/her in the meantime)?

There seems to be an attitude among the people complaining about the rule that making a report in moderation makes you a bad person...

I am a bad person, that part doesn't worry me, I just don't want an offical smacking for someone, when a simple "don't be a troll", will suffice. Moederation should be for when self policing fails.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This, so many times.

What continues to just amuse me is, on Thursday, I made a post on this thread basically saying "I find this policy silly as it's rather insulting to the NSG community at large implying they don't know a troll when they see one.

a bunch of people got warned for "trollnaming" pretty much at the same exact time.

On Saturday I reitterate my point, the only time "trollnaming" could actually side track conversation was when it was actually true.

Within two hours of me making that point, the OP of the thread where several people were warned for "trollnaming" was declared, by moderation, to be a puppet troll (and lest anyone get ideas, no, it wasn't me).

I thought it would take at least a FEW days for my point to be proven. I didn't expect two HOURS.

Sometimes, it's good to be right.

I posted something along those lines a few hours ago and then decided not to even bother and erased it. I tend to stick by Moderation rulings but this one is... well, I think you covered it far more concisely than me.

In other words, I agree with your stated point. The only time trollnaming hampers debate is when it's actually true.

[Ostroeuropa]

I certainly will miss being able to call poe's law on people.

That's more of an observation that someone is EITHER a troll, or actually believes the stuff they are saying, and that it's impossible to tell which.
It's borderline...but I wouldn't try it until a mod has said their piece on it

[Esternial]

I honestly don't know what everyone's complaining about.

Really? I'm pretty sure I've made it abundantly clear. That it's simultaniously a nonsensically daft waste of time and energy, while being extraordinarily condescending towards the overall intelligence of nationstates users. This whole thing supposedly came about over concern that "trollnaming" was shutting down legitimate discussion.

I contend, as I have from the onset, that this is remarkably silly, as the only people who would use "you're a troll" as a means to shut down a discussion are the people who were legitimately were trying to find a way to incite in the first place. Which is the definition of trolling. Which means, as I said before, "trollnaming" only hampers discourse when it's true.

And what's even most amusing about that point? Here's the biggest set of warnings for "trollnaming" I can find. How did that thread end?

With moderation forced to admit that the player, was in fact a troll. I hope that point sinks in. We went through all the trouble of warning multiple people for calling someone "troll", only to turn him around and warn him for being a troll.

So that's what this brave new policy has accomplished. That's your shining example on the hill. Warning people for calling a troll a troll.

Funny, I thought truth was a defense.

Oh well, might as well add "blatantly contradictory to long standing policy" to "utterly pointless" "complete waste of time" and "somewhat insulting really" to the list of why this is a patently silly idea.

All this complaining seems like a waste of time, especially because they're about a waste of time; making it double the waste.

This rule states that only Moderators get to determine who is a troll and who isn't, because everyone's individual definition of "troll" will probably mix things up. What I might consider as a troll may not be what you see as a troll, so the entire 'trollnaming' rule business - in my eyes - carries too much potential for trouble for what it's worth. You can just as easily achieve the same goal without directly calling someone a troll.

The Mods are here to do determine who trolls from now on; and we should let them. During these unsure times we should offer them the chance to prove their value, because otherwise Max might sack them and they'll lose their dental.

So, why can't we avoid using the word 'troll' when we want to stop a troll from trolling? Because I feel everyone is making too big of a deal out of this rule.

[Neo Art]

All this complaining seems like a waste of time, especially because they're about a waste of time; making it double the waste.

I do think I, and I alone, am the only one qualified to speak as to whether my time is "wasted" in making my own posts. I'm the one speaking, I'm the one talking, the only person's time I can waste making these posts is my own.

I have no job on this forum. No role. No responsibilities. The time that I choose to spend on this forum is mine to choose, to say what I wish, where I wish, when I wish, on the topic of my choosing. My only restriction in that is that I adhere to the rules, and I do not believe anything I have posted in this thread violates any rule.

In short, my posts on this forum can not be "wasting time" on this forum, because the only person whose time is utilized in making them is my own, and since I carry absolutely zero obligation to anyone on this forum, my time on said forum literally can not be wasted, because no other person has a claim to it, and I have no obligation to do anything other than post where, how, when, and what I please, within the confines of the ruleset.

Moderators, on the other hand, by their own choice DO have other responsibilities on this forum, and I still contend that enforcing this triviality of a policy is a waste of time, time that could better be spent fulfilling the commitments they made. Namely, enforcing rules that are actually useful.

My time cannot, by definition, be "wasted" in this thread because I have no other obligations to do anything else, at least vis-à-vis NSG. The only function my posts provide to me is to amuse myself. If others enjoy them, that's good. If other's dont, that really doesn't change the balance. I post to amuse myself, that is the sole purpose. There is literally nothing "more constructive" for me to do with my time on NSG, because there literally is nothing more to do than that. I post where it amuses me to post, on topics that it entertains me to discuss. At the moment, it's this thread, and this topic.

And there is absolutely nothing in the rules against that.

Moderators however do have some degree of obligation, one willingly entered into, to ensure at least some of their time is spent doing things actually constructive. Which enforcement of this rule is most certainly not.

So, why can't we avoid using the word 'troll' when we want to stop a troll from trolling?

Of course I can do that. I'm capable of a great many things. My point is, and has always been, there's really no good reason that I should have to.

It's a silly rule with a silly justification. And if that's the rule then so be it, that's the rule. They're certainly empowered to make rules, and are under no obligation to make rules that actually make sense.

[United Dependencies]

So, why can't we avoid using the word 'troll' when we want to stop a troll from trolling? Because I feel everyone is making too big of a deal out of this rule.

It seems like micromanagement. I think we can weed out the people who are using troll as a distraction instead of an argument under the existing rules without preventing people from calling out legitimate trolls.

[Esternial]

Moderators, on the other hand, by their own choice DO have other responsibilities on this forum, and I still contend that enforcing this triviality of a policy is a waste of time, time that could better be spent fulfilling the commitments they made. Namely, enforcing rules that are actually useful.

And they're entitled to determine what is useful and what isn't, regardless of your personal opinion.

Of course I can do that. I'm capable of a great many things. My point is, and has always been, there's really no good reason that I should have to.

It's a silly rule with a silly justification. And if that's the rule then so be it, that's the rule. They're certainly empowered to make rules, and are under no obligation to make rules that actually make sense.

And your justification for not doing it out of your free will is because you don't want to?

That's a pretty good reason for making a rule; if people don't stop trollnaming out of their own free will, make them. I'm sure the Mods have enough reason to add this rule at the time they did. No matter how many examples you have in favor of allowing people to keep openly declaring trolls, any proof against it justifies this rule.

An over-exaggerated comparison: Even if nine out of ten people don't drown a kitten, that one person is still wrong.

There's a risk trollnaming might backfire, one the Mods don't seem to be willing to take.

Of course, I'm just speculating. Your arguments make (some) sense.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Moderators, on the other hand, by their own choice DO have other responsibilities on this forum, and I still contend that enforcing this triviality of a policy is a waste of time, time that could better be spent fulfilling the commitments they made. Namely, enforcing rules that are actually useful.

And they're entitled to determine what is useful and what isn't, regardless of your personal opinion.

Still not seeing why he can't present his opinion on the subject, even if he's not a mod. It's a debate forum and this topic is open for debate.

[Esternial]

And they're entitled to determine what is useful and what isn't, regardless of your personal opinion.

Still not seeing why he can't present his opinion on the subject, even if he's not a mod. It's a debate forum and this topic is open for debate.

I don't recall ever mentioning he couldn't, though...

[Neo Art]

And they're entitled to determine what is useful and what isn't, regardless of your personal opinion.

Of course they are. They're the moderators here, not me. As I said, couldn't get me within 100 feet of the job, especially not for free.

They're the moderators. They're absolutely entitled to make whatever rule they want, I've never, in the slightest bit, even implied otherwise.

THey're entirely entitled to determine what is useful. They're wrong in this case, but it's well within their rights to be wrong.

And your justification for not doing it out of your free will is because you don't want to?

My justification for doing everything on this forum is "because I want to".

That's a pretty good reason for making a rule; if people don't stop trollnaming out of their own free will, make them.

What a silly idea. I'm sure people wouldn't stop using words with the letter "e" of their own free will either. Mods COULD, if they wanted, ban anyone for using any word containing the letter "e".

Attempting to enforce that rule would, however, result in the death of NSG overnight.

Mods are, of course, perfectly within their rights to compell people to do anything they want to compel them to do. Doesn't mean they should

I'm sure the Mods have enough reason to add this rule at the time they did.

Yes, they've made it quite clear in this very thread what their reasons are. And I am of the opinion that their reasons are silly.

The fact that they're silly doesn't make it outside their right to do so of course. But the fact that they have the right to do it doesn't make it any less silly.

[Esternial]

And they're entitled to determine what is useful and what isn't, regardless of your personal opinion.

Of course they are. They're the moderators here, not me. As I said, couldn't get me within 100 feet of the job, especially not for free.

They're the moderators. They're absolutely entitled to make whatever rule they want, I've never, in the slightest bit, even implied otherwise.

THey're entirely entitled to determine what is useful. They're wrong in this case, but it's well within their rights to be wrong.

And your justification for not doing it out of your free will is because you don't want to?

My justification for doing everything on this forum is "because I want to".

That's a pretty good reason for making a rule; if people don't stop trollnaming out of their own free will, make them.

What a silly idea. I'm sure people wouldn't stop using words with the letter "e" of their own free will either. Mods COULD, if they wanted, ban anyone for using any word containing the letter "e".

Attempting to enforce that rule would, however, result in the death of NSG overnight.

Mods are, of course, perfectly within their rights to compell people to do anything they want to compel them to do. Doesn't mean they should

I'm sure the Mods have enough reason to add this rule at the time they did.

Yes, they've made it quite clear in this very thread what their reasons are. And I am of the opinion that their reasons are silly.

The fact that they're silly doesn't make it outside their right to do so of course. But the fact that they have the right to do it doesn't make it any less silly.

Hmm, I see your point.

But don't you agree that trollnaming is an uncertain practice? You can never know the outcome, and I believe that is what this rule tries to avoid: the bad kind of outcome.

It's like a bucket of liquid that you don't know the contents of. Every time a small fire starts, you use a bucket, but you never know if one holds ethanol instead of water.

Plus it's so uncivilized *cleans monocle*

[The Lone Alliance]

This rule is most likely going to back fire horribly on NSG
really, I still cannot see anything good coming from this I mean our board gets trolled easily and if the trolls posts just inside the line then it leaves us with only reporting and hoping moderation locks the thread.

I just hope that there's some other way people will realize that it's a troll thread before we get a 30 page thing of people getting mad trying to 'correct' the troll.