h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I never said oxygen was fluffykerfuffle. It may or may not be the same researcher. It does not matter, for purposes of this thread.

All I said was that it was a returning researcher, who said so itself. Therefore, said researcher knows how this community works, and knows how disruptive it is being by its postings.

The identity of oxygen does not matter - the status of oxygen (newbie or not) does.

>>Does the identity of oxgyen matter in these arguments?

Of course not. What matters is that they are a returning researcher who disrupted the community before and is exhibiting the same behaviour now.

I strenuously object to being called a troll in this thread Z and I'm going to ask you to explain what you mean.

I also object to this being portrayed as a mob forming. I've spoken up and expressed my feelings and stated what action I am going to take. Peanut took some independant action. Mala expressed her thoughts as did MB. Is four people independently being in agreement with each other now mobbing?

What interests me is if (a) you don't agree that oxygen is that researcher or (b) you think she's never caused problems here.

I refuse to aquiesce to the idea that she is a victim here.

>>Does the identity of oxgyen matter in these arguments?<<

I think it does, because oxygen has made a deliberate attempt to deceive. If their identity wasn't important then they'd have simply posted as their master account, instead of setting up the sock puppet.

If it is indeed flufflykerfuffle, then it's worth taking into account that that researcher has a history of using alternate accounts to troll, sometimes in concert with their master account, sometimes not.

One of the main attractions of this place is we are mostly ourselves and mostly honest. Personas and monikers tend not to change (which is why Effers is still Effers, Ed is still Ed and SoRB is still SoRB, despite extended name changes) and that leads to an openness and honesty that makes hootoo very sticky. Someone attempting to subvert should be treated with suspicion.

(Thanks Mina, just to be clear I wasn't having a go or owt, I just wasn't sure what your reasoning was and, really, I'm still not. Can you explain how the existing 'adult' articles are okay, but future ones may not be? As that's the impression I'm getting from you.

Flaunting was a poor choice of word on my part. And I never said there was anything at all wrong with leather.

And, really, we don't know what the is wearing other than a helmet and scarf .)

Iago - well said.

Look, the is naked entirely! Quick, slap some on it!

(Thanks, Mina, that does clear up your reasoning on adult content)

And, kea, can you explain to me exactly where the OP was causing trouble because looking back at it I can't see it.

I did have a good look, and couldn't see what was wearing really, but chose to use it to illustrate my point anyway.

I really haven't said adult-themed entries aren't okay, and I haven't said any future ones aren't okay either. I promise. Perhaps I was overreacting to a one off comment which didn't deserve the weight I am throwing at it that seemed to say we shouldn't have under 16s on the site because they want to talk about anything they like in any way they like and they don't want that interfered with. (that's how I read it anyway).

This is mine for Bob's sake... I'm not expecting CBBC... A5176

>>
And, kea, can you explain to me exactly where the OP was causing trouble because looking back at it I can't see it.
>>

I could post a list of classic troll behaviour, but honestly I think you will only see it if you know about her history.

1. asks lots of questions that are semi rhetorical. They imply an openness and need for engagement with other, but over time it is demonstated that there is no intention to engage meaningfully, and the thread goes round and round in circles.

2. mixes up me and Aterlil, conflating our respective actions and using them inaccurately to reinforce victimhood.

3. Doesn't go so far as to say she isn't someone old returning, when she could very easily

4. accuses Asterlil of attacking her, when she wasn't

5. casts herself as the victim but offers no way for that to be resolved (Classic Della)

6. makes a really big deal out of perceived misunderstandings without attempting to change that in any useful way. Then complains that all her attempts to speak truth are met with attacks, even when people try and be kind and supportive. This also ends up going round and round in a situation that reinforces perpetual victimhood and the rest of the community being wrong.

Mina we are obviously misundering each other, I am understanding you now, are we good to leave it at that

on the other issue and agreeing with Kea and Genoa.

As the thread title has been changed and 'that' word removed I'll post something here.
It seems folk have forgotten the golden rule when trolls appear. Its simple enough, "don't feed the troll" Starve them of the oxygen of publicity, they soon get fed up and stop.

Well, that's true. I think I've wasted too much of my time and energy on this thread already.

Trouble is that they don't always get fed up and stop

I wrote a long, well composed reply to kea, and then accidently closed the window.

Anyway.

Firstly I'm sorry for inadvertently accusing people of trolling or mobbing. Particularly Kea and Malabrasia.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that. I was in a hurry and just wanted to press a like button on Mr D's post, and now I've had to waste a half hour of my day composing an apology, which means working through my lunch hour to catch up.

My post was quoting Mr Ds and indicating that I agreed with him. I'm rapidly learning that I can't post on h2g2 in an 100% personal capacity any more. It wasn't 100% what I would have thought, not was it the words that I have choosen. But you're asking me to defend them not Mr D.

My personal opinion is that I think that Oxgyen is a returning researcher who has probably returned with an axe to grind. If that was the case I would rather ignore her/him than engage with him/her (do not feed the troll etc). But that's my choice about how I spend my limited h2g2 time, not Official Orders.

If we look at this from the outside, without knowing the context it looks like a slightly unsavoury fight, with established researchers attacking a person rather than discussing the issues. The issues btw which are really interesting and valuable and worth discussing.

I would have thought that the best way to tackle it was to ignore the people and discuss the issues.

Kea - you also asked what you should do if you see someone trolling and want to tackle them? I have no idea whatsoever, other than the above, and that's not very good.

I fully agree with Mr D and Z here. We've had various debates about how important it is to discuss the issue, not the person. If you think somebody is a troll - don't interact with them. I know it is hard. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt to prove it. But it *is* possible.

>Trouble is that they don't always get fed up and stop<
Thats when the moderation procedures come into play. If a troll is going from thread to thread deliberately disrupting things that is a clear breach of house rules and the T & C's of the site. Under the new moderation rules I daresay the mods will look at everything the troll does and act accordingly. Its a pattern of behaviour that is easy to see afterall. Ignoring is easy, just refer to the post above the troll when replying in a thread, ignore the post he/she/it has made. If a known troll starts a new thread don't post to it, no matter the topic/subject.
As Mu Beta says, Trolls are easy to spot, they can't help themselves and give themselves away very quickly.

Thanks Z.

While I have some sympathy for the do not feed the troll strategy, it only works if everyone does it. But if there are people who don't recognise the troll for what it is, then they will inadvertently feed it and that food will give the troll more energy and reward to keep on trolling. This is why I felt it was important to speak up and say how I saw it.

For me if someone is trolling then it's important to not avoid naming that and keep discussing the original topic, because that just gives the troll more food. In this case, the thread is already derailed, by the presence of the troll. I agree that the topic is important and interesting, and will be happy to talk about that, but in this thread it's now secondary to the importance of naming the trolling every time it happens.

I posted in haste back there, and should not have accused kea, Mala, et al of trolling.

I still stand by my point of not fighting fire with fire though... accusing someone of stirring does no good if you then pick up your own ladle and have a go.

>>Under the new moderation rules I daresay the mods will look at everything the troll does and act accordingly. <<

Well, only if somebody complains about the posts. The moderators won't (and can't) survey researchers who the community thinks are trolls.

Protocols have to be abided by. If there are no complaints, no action can be taken - that's what I understood and that's what I'd expect.

Bel, I've been there, done that too, and watched as the person keeps on trolling regardless


BMT, she's not that kind of troll. She posts within the HRs enough that it's hard to complain about in a regular mod system way.

>>As Mu Beta says, Trolls are easy to spot, they can't help themselves and give themselves away very quickly.
<<

I think this thread demonstrates that trolls aren't necessarily easy to spot