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

>> Also, saying stuff like <> could be read as somewhat dismissive and insulting. As could stating <>

They were intended to be.

Well, dismissive anyway. If people are insulted by that then that's their call.

B

Oh, tig redux?

I'd been just about to unsub when I noticed the modded posts. The biter bit.

It is possible that this thread might get.

B

Interesting.

It is possible that this thread might get interesting.

Well one thing I wil say is that I sincearly hope they actually apply the proper transgressions procedure this time.

<>

You mean the same as how people respond to the use of the impersonal pronoun?


Re tig - he's here too.

F116629?thread=1243306&post=14347487#p14347487


az

>> You mean the same as how people respond to the use of the impersonal pronoun?

Nnno-o-o-o-o

As I understood it you claimed that using the impersonal pronoun was not offensive, and by implication that to be offended by it was unreasonable.

I agree that what I said was dismissive, and by implication that it was reasonable to be offended by it if someone so chose.

B

Please do not use this thread to track tig.

<>

What I said was that my use of the impersonal pronoun in that situation was not meant to cause offense, and I don't recall using the word unreasonable about people who took it otherwise. Linketty link?


az

Sorry, I thought you said you were interested in tig. Apologies, will not post any more about him here.


az

No.

The whole point of this thread is that I am interested in how we deal with people like tig.

I honestly thought that was clear to anyone who read my original journal post.

B

>> Linketty link?

"by implication" - ie something which is implied and hence not explicit - therefore no link.

I accept that it may be my inference and not your implication, but I inferred a very strong implication.

B

I did come across this journal entry (uncharted's) last night

>>
I've had enough!
3 Days Ago

Every second thread I go into lately seems to be one that's either full of trolls or spammers, or people complaining about trolls or spammers, or people complaining about the people who are complaining about the trolls and spammers!
<<

F2122520?thread=1217999

"Well one thing I wil say is that I sincearly hope they actually apply the proper transgressions procedure this time."

That's the one thing I find interesting about the tig situation at the moment--the only mention I've seen of him being banned, rather than on pre-mod or suspended, was from Mr. Dreadful.

I notice that the House Rules do say:
"Please note that the BBC reserves the right to terminate accounts immediately at its discretion (in the event of such things as criminal behaviour or personal abuse of BBC staff, for example)," as specific exceptions to the normal transgressions procedure. What I saw from tig would certainly justify premoderation or suspension, but not an outright ban--if he has definitely been banned, it may have been for abuse of staff by email rather than for the posts that were yikesed.

Azara

Please excuse the linkety link but,

*The whole point of this thread is that I am interested in how we deal with people like tig.*

F96988?thread=1243163&post=14370919#p14370919

Well that's how I deal with them.

Whereas if you'd used the complaints button instead of replying, the entire thread would have magically disappeared from your Personal Space.

I'm thinking of having T-shirts printed - USE THE COMPLAINTS BUTTON.

In large, friendly letters, of course.

Yes, it's a pity that Ben replied to their post on my PS as I was planning on doing just that. Hey ho.

Does everyone know that if you yikes a thread started on your PS (or I think anywhere) while there is still only one (the original) post on it that the thread can be removed? But if even one person replies to it then it has to stay. Or so I've been told. Is that information posted anywhere, Jimster?


az

Well, one lives and learns. No, I didn't know that. I do know, unless I forget of course.

*waves to Jimster*

B

Shame Nighthoover didn't know that.

A lot of listening done, but the noises are a bit repetitive.

So here’s what I think. I’m still not sure that I ought to think like this, but you can’t choose your impulses. Anyway, there isn’t much alternative wisdom being offered.

Before we get on to the trolls, let’s think about the general community. We’re a touchy lot. Maybe, just maybe, we have a high proportion of cleverer-than-average but socially-awkward individuals who are sensitive about being taunted and ridiculed. It’s bad enough being a geek in RL. Being subjected to the same kind of dissing in our safe and comfortable virtual haven does perhaps tend to precipitate an over-reaction.

I subscribe to an anything-goes view of hootoo. It’s a bit like the on-off switch point about TV censorship : if you come here, you’ve implicitly accepted the principle of being morally, emotionally and intellectually challenged. The site’s strength is the high store it puts by the intellectual challenge. All three kinds of challenge are intrinsically linked, though. You up one bar, you up them all.

If you accept this perception, it leads to a lot of thought-provoking corollaries. I’m just going to point out two :

- The idea of netiquette is not only futile; it’s actually insidious. It frustrates diversity. It is not an answer to trolling, or to anything else. It doesn’t assure anything except homogeneity of thought and behaviour (and I happen to think that homogenised thought and behaviour is very bad for the species).

- We should respond to those who might or might not be trolls by applying the challenge idea as a filter. We should ask ourselves : is this person’s fixation giving me anything to think about, or any kind of positive stimulation? Moreover, might they reasonably do so for others in my community?
If we take the trouble to think about this and conclude that the answer is definitely no (in which case the troll is just a fun-spoiler), then rejection is in our community’s interests. If the answer is yes, or even if it’s just uncertain, then rejection diminishes us collectively.

Even if we correctly identify a troll, though, we need to be careful about babies and bathwater in our reaction. Making a fuss about trolling has much the same effect as trolling itself. It creates an atmosphere of depression and low-grade anger around our site.

I don’t know if my views are unusual or mainstream. I do know that I can spot a troll when I see one, in much the same way that I can spot a wasp at a picnic. The wasp, in my world, is just part of nature. The picnickers’ reaction to the wasp is what sets the mood.

If you create a fuss, you might well get stung. More to the point, you spoil the picnic. Conversely, wasps are very easy to ignore, unless, of course, you’re a complete wimp.

The nice thing about this, though, is that some people think I’m a wasp, and that’s cool by me. Vive la difference. We just might be improved by our so-called trolls.

(Ben’s original point seemed to implore us to think about the feelings of the maybe-troll. That’s a whole new dimension. Anyone up for telling us how it feels to be a wasp?)

Pin

Definition
netiquette
noun [U] SPECIALIZED
the set of rules about behaviour that is acceptable when writing an email or talking to people in a chat room (= an address on the Internet where people can talk to each other using email):
It's considered bad netiquette to use capital letters in an email because it looks like YOU ARE SHOUTING.(From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary).

(ped)

Are you saying that courtesy and consideration are now negative qualities?