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

*waves to Pin*



*perks up at the thought of a fairly standard mildly kinky fantasy*

What was it?

Er, perhaps confidential to the list concened.. .

I have found that it's far too easy to get jumped on for the slightest little comment. Despite having a reputation as a witty and intelligent poster I have on a few occasions been accused (though not always in so many words) of being stupid, incapable of making up my own mind and not seeing the "big picture".

The reason for these accusations? I saw a post, and responded honestly within the context of what I've seen.

Sometimes these things happen because I didn't fully think my post through so it was a bit unclear but most of the time I got the impression that my detractors simply couldn't be bothered to allow another opinion into their little world.

I'm generally prepared to accept anyone here, but have a low real-life tolerance for idiocy, bigotry and generalisation (especially about religion and faith) which I am more than happy to voice here. To be honest this is the only internet community where I feel I can be myself, like it or lump it.

*waves* to Ben, and Z and Sprout and Pin and Sol and anyone else who the stupid mutt has missed, or who has changed their name.
Miss Fluff just having a cold filled early morning lurk folks!
It's good to see so many old faces although I confess to have missed the thrust of the thread. Are we talking destructive creative criticism? Or are we talking personal vilification?
If the first surely we set ourselves up for it? If the second, should we expect anything else? Lord of the Flies and all that….hold on (boots has a quick phlegm filled cough as she tries to negotiate with the first cigarette of the day. Cigarette 1 Boots 0).
On a slightly less fluffy note, is there any collaborative happening at the moment? Have been doing some 'home alone, ripped apart by them wot I admire stuff' but fancy a wander.
Best line of last week was in 'Love Soup' when Gill comes across the 50th Birthday banner and balloons…"Noise pollution for the deaf." Loved it!
Best film of the week (personal interest, friend is starring) 'Everything' at the ICA. Great performances, Not bad script but let down by the 'I think I'm Tarantino' camerawork. Catch it if you can. The 'Monopoly', the 'caught in the cupboard', and the 'wife arriving' scenes are classic!
The ICA is very buzzy too. Quite exhausting for one so old but buzzy nevertheless and I'm sure talent filled.
Take care
Boots

I think, as Kea said, it would be villification of people's anti social behaviour, rather than opinions, or getting carried away with lit crit. The problem being that once identified as anti social, people tend to insist on hammering the label home before rather than after the fact in new threads? Or have I got that wrong?

Thing is, though, there have been people who do insist on going against the accepted norms of nettiquette on hootoo, are incapable of making the attempt to try to get along with others (ie modify their behaviour a bit). In real life this would mean that were they to turn up repeatedly at parties and yet again cause chaos, people _wouldn't_ keep greeting their appearance with even neutrality, let alone enthusiasm. It's not about being the only Republican in the room, it's about widdling in the punch bowl.

The point being, that past behaviour does have an impact on your place in the community. Once there was a discussion about whether being made to use our real names would improve behaviour, but my point of view there was that, for this reality 'Solnushka' is my real name. If I wanted to behave badly it would make more sense to do it under my real name, which has no meaning for anyone here. Afterall it's how people in the community view me that's important to my standing in the community, not what my RL friend, family and acquaintances, who don't come ehere, do. It cuts all sorts of ways, as Z's story indicates. On that website (and here, sweets, goes without saying) he'd have the responsibility of knowing that people pay attention to what he says, and act accordingly. Likewise, if you have behaved badly in the past here, you can't just expect people to approach you each time as though you are a different person. Perhaps a modicum of 'living it down' would be in order? Just because they can't see you doesn't mean they don't think of you as one person, if that makes any sense. Mind you, you'd hope that eventually they would be allowed to live it down.

The ACEs thing was so long ago, that I shouldn't have brought it up. Around the time of LEKZ (or however that's spelt), but not about them, you understand. There was a page for debating, officially, the future policeman role of the ACEs though. I assume, by the way, that at some point this has been quietly dropped as an idea. It was while moderation was in full cry too - every post checked. Shall we assume it was part of the whole shakedown process post BBC? What alarmed me was how keenly the directive was applied. The point was, that it didn't take much for someone to be labeled a problem. It doesn't actually mean they weren't a problem though.

Anyway. Howdy boots! Glad to see you again!

Pants. There goes my grammar as well as my spelling and ability to type without error. Sorry: 'Once someone has been identified as being anti social, people thend to insist...'

One thing I will say that is there is not a necessary connection between unconventional/different views and the sort of "Pariah/Troll" status that some researchers have been getting.

Regardless of the rights/wrongs of the issue I think it is common to see two people on the same thread espousing the same view. One gets slayed the other one doesn't. The difference *tends* to be presentational. IMHO anyhow.

'presentational': The way they say it? Or the way they are percieved?

The whole 'hootoo as a text based medium' thing is important. Learning how to communicate here without terminally making other people cross is a social skill, just as communicating in RL is. People seem to get very cross about having to learn to do it though.

In fact, people get very cross about having to abide by any kind of 'rules' on the Internet. The 'I can behave any way that I want' syndrome, which is usually the prompt for accussations of being a troll. Thing is, they can, of course, but then they shouldn't expect to be welcomed. Which, oddly enough, they do, often. Perhaps that's what marks them out as socially inept rather than a troll? They aren't doing it on purpose to upset? They genuinely don't see why it's not going to win them friends?

A positively 'orchidesque' slip of the digits! So sorry to hear that bad manners have been intruding. Missed the ACE's thing completely, (obviously boots is bad mannered too) . Will spend more time on site and try and unravel some threads. Is there a meet planned this year Sol?
Take care
Boots

Umm, considering I missed the last one through being too terminally disorganised to notice there was one coming up, probably not the best person to ask! Don't we do one around Xmas tide? I strongly suspect it would be 2legs' page that would be the place to find out as he usually organises them. Do come! No really don't look up the ACEs thing! [don't press this button...]. It really is old and irrelevant business, except in as much as it still, apparently, happens.

<> (Solnushka)

Exactly!

<> (Solnushka)

I've seen instances when a person has come back to a thread after 'widdling in the punch bowl' (usually with an apology or explanation) and be given a fair chance to 'live it down'. Well, as long as their behaviour remained undisruptive.

<> (Solnushka)

I guess it would depend on subsequent behaviour. I think that someone who would 'widdle in the punch bowl' in the first place probably has problems in other areas of their life, not just on internet forums, which probably contribute to their erratic behaviour. Meaning that it might be hard for some to maintain nondisruptive, inoffensive thread behaviour. But if they could then I can't imagine why they would not be allowed to live it down by the rest of the community. After all, I don't think there are many of us here who have never 'sinned' . . .


az

It is also a bit of a knee jerk reaction to react badly to repeatedly having your nose rubbed in your indescretions, though. It's one thing to save face yourself and grandly acknowledge your mistake and be forgiven (this tends to take me a while and a bit of a breathing space anyway, and by this time you could be well in the middle of a loud argument), and quite another for everyone else to keep pointing it out to you.

I'm not saying that this happens after one toe going a fraction across the line, but then the point at which people are being repeatedly told to face up to their mistakes is the point at which they _definitely_ ain't gonna. At which point it is persecution really.

What are the alternatives to persecution?

Is persecution justified in some situations?

*

I did notice in a recent thread that the people who continually spoke out against the villifying of a certain researcher weren't actually in the relevant threads that much. I do appreciate people presenting a different view on a troll/pariah, as it makes me rethink my own position. But I also think that those people who feel most affected by the troll have a unique perspective.

It's a tricky thing though, because most of the collective responses to trolls/pariahs I've seen have gone past a point that I feel comfortable with. But then nothing else was being done either so it's hard to see how else it could be handled.

There have been times when I have been afraid to post to threads in case I was considered a troll. Actually, if I'm being honest, I have that fear whenever I post to *any* thread. Either that or being ignored completely because people don't 'know' me and so there is little perceived value to any comments I may make (or people just have a preference for conversing with others that they already know and feel comfortable with? Which is human nature, after all.)

There is such a close-knit central community on HooToo that the worry will always be that you're going to tread on the toes of someone 'important'. Well, it is for me, which is silly really...

Are the people that are being called 'trolls' or 'pariahs' simply people that are not afraid to post what they think / wherever they like because they don't have this same concern, or are they simply braver than I am about being 'rejected' or ignored?

*quivering in the corner whilst trying to develop a thick skin*

I have to say I haven't ever seen acusations of troll like behaviour occur for no good reason at all. I mean, there has always been some kind of stepping across the line, wherever that line is percieved to be. And that doesn't mean expressing unpopular opinions. I doubt you are in any danger whatsoever, Ancrene.

I suppose it's true though that if you really get under the skin of someone with friends you are more likely to get comeback than if you irritate someone who, say, hasn't been around long and therefore doesn't have so many connections. I guess also that the longer you've been around the more fixed views you have about how people should behave, and therefore the quicker you are to notice if someone doesn't do that. Mostly, though, I am really intriegued as to who is important on hootoo these days...

In my early hootoo days, I was pretty much accused of trollism ( isn't that 3-way sex ) for my contributions to one of the religiously-themed forums. As a Fundamentalist Atheist, I saw no reason not be dismissive of all sorts of faiths - which I tended to describe in comical terms (eg: mumbo-jumbo; malarkey).

By some members, this was regarded as intolerant, offensive and 'not in the spirit of the debating style favoured in the forum.' Luckily I *do* have a thick skin - plus I had God on my side - so I stuck my ground and defended my right to be disrespectful. I'm pretty much tolerated now, and I like to think that the forum's tone has become less po-faced.

But the key to it was that I really had to be patient and makes sure my responses were calm. I could easily have been driven away, though (no great loss, others might say). Now - in this case, it was a (perceived) troll against the old lags. But I really thing the same applies to us all: If you see something you don't like, either ignore it...or respond to it calmly and rationally. There's no point having a debate that's one sided. If you don't think that your reasoned arguments are strong enough to stand against an opponent's...well...should *you* really be involved?

To be fair though, if you are going to use the words 'malarky' and the like repeatedly about the beliefs close to someone's heart, you are asking to be called on it. As you say, it's the response you make to that that counts. Particularly as athiests would be expected to be more rational about these kinds of arguments and therefore more able to control themselves (do we all have a picture in our heads of a raving hair shirt foaming at the mouth yet? Yes? Right, I'll move on . Now that's trolling...).

Have you stopped using words like that in response to others views, or did you merely bend the others to you will. Or a bit of both? Please say a bit of both...

<> (Solnushka)

I would second that, Ancrene, as I don't recall you ever posting anything even remotely 'trollish'. In fact, it seems to me that the community tends to be quite patient with those people who post unpleasant nonsense (at first). It's only when it becomes continued disruptive behaviour that people tend to lose patience as this can (and often does) totally ruin a thread.

I also don't think it's a question of people and their 'connections & friends' somehow 'ganging up' on any particular researcher solely because they are friends. It makes more sense to say that, being friends, these people probably share similar opinions and so it might appear that way if suddenly several researchers are disagreeing with someone.

<> (Ancrene)

I've certainly had that experience here, and I think it is, as you say, simply human nature. But it can feel a bit intimidating. Especially when you join in on a long-running thread. This used to happen a lot on what became known as the 'God Thread' and so what I started doing there was to make a point of welcoming every new person and acknowledging their first post - and I'm happy to report that this caught on and soon everyone was doing it.


az

"I did notice in a recent thread that the people who continually spoke out against the villifying of a certain researcher weren't actually in the relevant threads that much. "

How do you know what is or isn't being read by any researcher?

Kea, you seem to be saying that apalling behaviour by a group of researchers towards an individual in a thread where that individul has not caused a problem is ok if 'the group' perceives the individual to be a pariah because of behaviour elsewhere.