Malwebolence

[ALFAModerator2]

It was trivially easy to induce moderation of the mild rebuke of "childish" just by whining about it.

Indeed I did respond to something you said was offensive and insulting, as both posts containing said rebuke were indeed partaking in name-calling, by moderating it. I would ask what standards of successful moderation you have if "unresponsive to (apperantly) injured parties" is part of a successful policy. If I'm to be making my own judgments of what's vulgar or what's offensive, I would be signing up for horribly biased moderation, as I'm clearly more likely to be offended by profanity outside of my own common usage and clearly more likely to be offended by attacks against groups I'm a part of.

[Nalo Jade]

By Argumentative do you mean I sound like I do not agree with you, or am I coming across as "emotionally charged" or aggressive or something else?

I am trying to watch the tone of my posts. I will need the help of others in order to see the err in my ways...from "my" perspective, since I can "hear" the tone of my voice it is neither argumentative nor condescending.

Please feel free to point out where I could improve. We can't have a real discussion that goes anywhere if you feel I am not using a productive tone.

[NickD]

So, what I get from that article is that trolls are kids, insane or trying to get back at the world for something that happened to them as a child.

[Burt]

So, what I get from that article is that trolls are kids, insane or trying to get back at the world for something that happened to them as a child.

That about sums me up.

[JaydeMoon]

The pendulum swings far before things stabilize.

This community has been a shining example of taking a mile when offered an inch, in terms of what how they feel entitled to behave.

While calling someone 'childish' might seem terribly mild, strict moderation will at least start people thinking about what they are saying ad how they are saying it (heaven forbid!). Once we get used to it and end up with a friendlier atmosphere, I imagine that two things will happen:

Moderation will be less ridiculous.

Moderation will be less necessary.

ZOMG! Could it ever come to pass?

[Vendrin]

No.

[Swift]

Moderation will be less ridiculous.

Moderation will be less necessary.

ZOMG! Could it ever come to pass?

What vendrin said. No, it couldn't.

All those pro moderation must be overjoyed at the overzealous nature of it, and how it is hitting the people they view as in most need of being moderated, but on what has been presented so far, i can think of tons of posts made by ALFAs most would considered to be shining examples of what our community wants to be that would have been edited out due to name calling.

Did you know you cannot even publicly call out a naive opinion as being naive (even if your 100% right), as that is now considered name calling?

Now come on, dozens of times before in threads, otherwise upstanding ALFAs have called out someone when they are being naive. Is that the kind of pendulum swing we want? When you cannot even tell someone that they really aren't right?

Regardless of how carebear the policy is trying to make the forums, we still need to be able to call a spade a spade without getting censored for it. If someones lieing, you need to be able to say so, if they are being stupid, you need to be able to say so, without a moderator jumping down your throat for name calling.

Trolling has been going on for hundreds of years, long before the internet came around and gave a more anonymous outlet for it, it was simply a different form.

Umm, no Swift. It has been around for as long as you have been alive, yes, but not for more than 25 years. The first instances of trolling presented themselves with Usenet. Such behaviors were birthed with consequence-free online communities and accompanying anonymity.

Your joking, right? You are seriously going to try and tell me that at no point in world history before the internet did anybody ever spend time baiting others for a particular response?

Sure, its useage on usenet may have been the first time it was labelled as trolling, but that doesn't mean that was the very first time it was ever undertook.

These days, the very base form of forum trolling is agitating and baiting for a particular response. That kind of behavior has been going on for thousands of years, because there has always been someone that has enjoyed getting others riled up for no other reason than personal enjoyment.

Really? So you do realize when you say 'no one,' you must also include other trolls? For example, in this thread here: http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=40212 fluffmonster latched onto a comment i made in another thread and proceeded to troll using a standard of belittling humor. From there, others participated, and then they went at each other.

That is probably the worst example you could have given, considering that after the first 2 pages were filled mostly with posts from people you no doubt consider to be trolls, it actually developed into some form of debate that you did come and rejoin.

So, you see Swift... it doesn't require the initial target of the comments to provide motivation. It just needs everyone to bandy up and pat each other on the back. A sort of oneupsmanship occurs, as what happened with the spam on spam presented by a few of our resident trollers.

Take off your blinders WW. The motivation behind ridiculing that comment was likely to make fun of your long held, personal belief that these forums should be purely about business, with no room for anything else. This is a belief you have stated many times in the past. This time, fluff decided to disagree with you in the form of humorously* ridiculing that belief.

Not everyone receives the same treatment, or mistreatment, in this community. Some receive more, others receive less, abuse. But can you honestly claim, "no harm, no foul?"

As easily as you make some of your claims that others consider wildly off base


* Whether you personally think it was humorous or not doesn't automatically make it not funny to anybody.

Edit: I also find it extremely amusing that you cannot truthfully call someones opinion naive without it getting edited for name calling, but you can get away with labelling someone as a Troll, which is name calling as well.

[Nalo Jade]

* Whether you personally think it was humorous or not doesn't automatically make it not funny to anybody.

True.

<trys not to sound argumentative while still disagreeing with the point>

I think it is more important that someone may find it not funny.

I think humor for one does not trump the possibility of offending another.

Swift I just don't think the gain of a few being amused outweighs the "potential" of driving off another potential contributer (sp).

I will agree that you should be able to tell someone that they are naive, or that their post is "wrong"... but there is a way for us to do that without using humor that may make someone feel "outed" from the "cool kids".

If someone is so dramatically thin skinned that they cannot take constructive critism...we should simply ignore them if they cannot see reason.

I still have not heard a solid "positive" for swinging the moderation pendulam in favor of allowing... (I am assuming, please correct if I am wrong)

1. Spam (lolcats ect...) as an acceptable way to tell someone that their post is irrelevent.

2. Using a derrogatory(sp) descriptor to tell someone that they are wrong.

Are these the only things you would like to see allowed by moderation?

If I am wrong, again please correct me.

I am really curious to hear what changes you <those not in favor of the current level of moderation> would like to see, and most importantly, why?

[Swift]

I think it is more important that someone may find it not funny.

I think humor for one does not trump the possibility of offending another.

Swift I just don't think the gain of a few being amused outweighs the "potential" of driving off another potential contributer (sp).

So we ban everybody from posting humor of any kind because someone might not laugh at it? Yeah, that sounds like a truely awesome idea, that will have nothing but a beneficial effect on the community.

I will agree that you should be able to tell someone that they are naive, or that their post is "wrong"... but there is a way for us to do that without using humor that may make someone feel "outed" from the "cool kids".

The specific example i did not make any attempt at humor, straight up called a train of thought naive, and it got wiped out. The pendulum has swung too far, and moderators are being too over zealous in applying the as yet unposted guidelines, if indeed they even exist, which some might begin to think considering the uneven application of them so far.

[Magile]

I like this Fortuny guy. He's got the right idea on the internet, about it being better to be safe than sorry -- even if a tad overzealous.

All in all, it was an interesting article. I'd give it maybe a 3.5 out of 5, could have used a little less 4chan namedropping.

edit: Although the whole Dale Gribble-esq mannerism when it came to being hunted down was a bit irksome. Makes me wonder just how well his contingency plan is thought out.

[oldgrayrogue]

Did you know you cannot even publicly call out a naive opinion as being naive (even if your 100% right), as that is now considered name calling?

Now come on, dozens of times before in threads, otherwise upstanding ALFAs have called out someone when they are being naive. Is that the kind of pendulum swing we want? When you cannot even tell someone that they really aren't right?

Regardless of how carebear the policy is trying to make the forums, we still need to be able to call a spade a spade without getting censored for it. If someones lieing, you need to be able to say so, if they are being stupid, you need to be able to say so, without a moderator jumping down your throat for name calling.

Why on earth would you feel the "need" to call another person naive, stupid, or a liar? Surely its possible to make your point intelligently without name calling and ridicule. I think its ironic that those who want to be able to "call a spade a spade" with impunity are outraged at the very idea of being called out themselves by moderators.

Really, how difficult is it to just be civil? If you invite someone over to play a game in your home, and during the course of the evening they call you or your other guests, naive, stupid and a liar wouldn't you ask them to stop and eventually ask them to leave? And if they refused wouldn't you throw them out of your house? Its the same situation here. ALFA invites us all to play a game in its house together with its other guests. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot all control our own behavior to communicate civilly with each other about that game. Nor IMO is there any reason to be outraged when, after treating another guest or the host in less than a civil manner you are asked politely to stop, and then to leave if the conduct continues.

[Mulu]

Adorably indirect, but still a fairly harsh attack on other posters from this thread. - #2

One day ALFAns are going to learn that they are humans too. Until that time, let the perceived outsider bashing continue.

[Mulu]

Yeah, but now my last line makes no sense at all.

I'll try to rephrase the idea in a kinder and gentler way....

If trolls are annoying, so are drama queens and many other personalities here who will go undescribed.

Does that pass muster?

[Swift]

I think its ironic that those who want to be able to "call a spade a spade" with impunity are outraged at the very idea of being called out themselves by moderators.

I think its ironic that alot of those for moderation quite easily get away with doing just that, sending out broadsides against entire groups of people, ridiculing and name calling them, without any action whatsoever.

Really, how difficult is it to just be civil? If you invite someone over to play a game in your home, and during the course of the evening they call you or your other guests, naive, stupid and a liar wouldn't you ask them to stop and eventually ask them to leave? And if they refused wouldn't you throw them out of your house?

So I should, like some, write paragraph after paragraph to tell somebody i think what they posted is wrong, naive, stupid, and any other manner of things, just so we avoid the direct words that are apparently now 'offensive'? Sorry that im not some kind of intellect that feels the need to tell you, in novel form, why your wrong, but if your wrong, your wrong, and somebody is going to tell you that. If someone is acting like a dick, somebody is going to tell you.

Its the same situation here. ALFA invites us all to play a game in its house together with its other guests. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot all control our own behavior to communicate civilly with each other about that game. Nor IMO is there any reason to be outraged when, after treating another guest or the host in less than a civil manner you are asked politely to stop, and then to leave if the conduct continues.

ALFA invites nobody. People come to ALFA and express interest in playing the game, not the other way around.

Aside from that i agree with you, but only if the people asking politely are being even and fair about it, which is not currently not the case.

[Misty]

Sorry that im not some kind of intellect that feels the need to tell you, in novel form, why your wrong, but if your wrong, your wrong, and somebody is going to tell you that. .

you're, you're, you're.