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

And just assuming that the researchers haven't read the threads where the original flare ups haven't - which we shouldn,t, as kelli says - and assuming that we don't think that persecution for the sake of it is ok, then surely someone with a fresh eye might, in fact, have a point when they say that the response is a bit OTT.

Well, actually, assuming that they have read, but not been personally involved with the difficult threads, you could probably say they have a more objective take on the behaviour of all concerned on other threads.

Possibly, but I can also understand that it could be a teensy weensy bit irritating that after having had to interact with the trolling individual in tens if not hundreds of threads, the community most involved with that area of that site then sees someone who mainly posts in another area of the site breeze in and say look guys, you just have to be cool with each other, OK...

It's a difficult thing to do, and anyone doing it should try and weigh up the cumulative effect a bit, not take each thread as if it were a separate object.

sprout

Entirely understandable, I agree. Entirely. And I also agree about the cumulative effect of irritant postings. Doesn't make the fresh eye _wrong_ though...

>>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

Well, yes...and I'm open to counter-opinions. But it was - and remains - my opinion that religious faiths of all sorts are - how can I put it in terms that won't offend anyone...'misguided'. It's a sincere position which I am willing to debate - in the right forum. The fact that some will, inevitably, draw offence from this is very much outwith my control. What am I to do? Not express the opinion? Or express it, cause offence and - due to the offence, rather than my intention - be labelled a troll?

See what I mean? There's a world of difference between expressing a divergent opinion and deliberately setting out to disrupt. But some fail to see this.

I can't remember exactly how you expressed your opinions on the FFFF thread, Edward, but I find it helps to use phrases such as: 'it seems like', 'in my opinion', 'it would appear that' in front of possibly contentious personal statements, just to let people know for sure that this is simply your opinion.

Also, these phrases help invite discussion and debate as they leave the idea open, rather than just saying something *IS* this or that.

What do you think?


az

But....

It is a wildy different thing to say

"This is what I think and why I think it, what do you have to say about that?" and then being prepared to debate the issue from saying something like

"This is the way it is I am right" follwed by a refusal to debate and mayby some "laa, laa, laas"

I agree with azahar. You're still going to get disagreement. You're still, possibly, going to upset some people and lose a few firends. Potential friends. Whatever. But you'd be less likely to be called a troll if you say 'in my opinion you are misguided. And here's why: [list of neutrally worded points]' than 'what you believe in a a load of malarky. Full stop. Malarky, malarky, malarky.'.

And I would be better of using a different pronoun than 'you' when I'm trying to make a general point here rather giving the impression that I think the second option is what 'you' actually did, Edward. You're the language guru, aren't you? Think pragmatics?

Similpost there. Great minds think alike, Ferretbadger...

Indeed.

This is of course pertinent to the discussion. If a researcher repeated and in a variety of different threads in a variety of different places on hootoo consistantly posts via the second way, is it not inevitable that some people will start to tire of them?

Not that I am saying that would in any way vindicate bad behavior on the bored researchers part, but it would explain it.

I know from personal expereince of getting in a flame war with a particular researcher that I was soooo used to hearing un backed up opinions posted as fact, that often I missed it when they did post something fair enough. I was also in such a pattern of dismissing everything they said that I was starting to do it as a matter of ocurse.

Well, yes, if I were in tiptoeing mood, I might easily have qualified my opinion of 'malarkey'. On the other hand...to say it as a bold statement suggests that it is something that needs a more robust rebuttal than 'Well...I think different '

In the forum I'm refering to (and blicky knows which one it is), I feel that I at least present my views with sufficient humour as to suggest that I'm not making personal attacks on anyone. I'm not saying 'You are a slack-brained f---wit', merely '[such-and-such-a-philosophy] is malarkey.'

For this behaviour, I naturally expect some strong rebuttals - in fact, I'd be disappointed if I didn't get them. It mightn't be big or clever...but is it the same as trolling?

From the house rules:

"Please, no flaming or trolling. On h2g2, flaming means posting something that's angry and mean-spirited - the online equivalent of flying off the handle. It's not a pretty sight, and we recommend constructive discussion as a far more satisfying pastime. Trolls say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble - it's not polite, so please don't do it. h2g2 is an incredibly friendly place, so please help to keep it that way."


I guess it would depend on your intention, Edward.

In any case, I do see quite a difference between the two following examples:

- Your beliefs are total malarky.

- In my opinion your beliefs are total malarky.

The first is quite aggressive and insulting (imo). The second says what *you* believe to be true, but doesn't make the other person feel as if they are being personally attacked for having certain beliefs. And it opens up the possibility for them to debate with you, which the first example wouldn't.

It isn't a question of 'tiptoeing' but simply being polite and stating your opinions clearly *as* opinions and not fact.


az

>>Trolls say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble

Well...I *hope* I say deliberately provocative things to make a point, rather than just to stir up trouble. And I don't ever (I don't think) say 'your beliefs are malarkey.' I might, however, describe a certain range of beliefs as malarkey. Holders of such beliefs *may* take this as a personal attack...although for myself, I defend their right to be wrong.

But I wasn't intending simply to defend my personal debating style. The point is that as Ben said (somewhere back there) there is an automatic tendency to label people as trolls. Sometimes, could this simply be divergence of opinion or disgreement over style?


There are all sorts of public figures whose opinions I absolutely loathe and whose arguments I find specious...but provided they're amusing enough, I enjoy listening to them.

<> (Edward)

Well, as has been stated here by a few people already, there never seems to be an 'automatic tendency' to label people as trolls. And I don't think it is ever done because of a divergence of opinion, more about style. And about a style that shows itself to be very disruptive to threads.

Which says to me that you have never trolled (deliberately trying to stir up trouble). And the fact that you quite enjoy people debating with you seems to infer that you say certain things in order to stir up debate, rather than trouble.

So? It's your own style and if you are happy with how people respond to you then there is probably no problem. For you.


az

One man's bold statement is another man's freedom fighter type of thing?

Thing is, style is everything, when all you've got to go on are the text and smileys. It's interesting that it does seem to be new researchers who it gets done to. Is there any example of it happening to someone who, after six months of fitting in just fine, suddenly acquires the label? I mean, now presumably everyone would go 'Oh there's Edward with his robust debating style, good old Edward' sort of thing, but when they don't know you, perhaps a bit of circumspection?

Think how you ease into a group of friend/ new colleagues before letting the full force of your personality hit them. I had a colleague say rather wonderingly - after I've worked with her for about 1 and a half years - '...and to think, for the first six months I thought you were really quiet and demure.' Or is this just me?

Not just you, Sol. People usually think I'm a sweet-hearted sugar-puff for about a week, then they tend to see me as a benevolent talking encyclopaedia with no off-switch, and then when they see my first low-blood-sugar fuelled (un-fuelled) ballistic fight with the Today Programme...

Anyway *lurk lurk*

Not to pick on your personal debating practices, Edward, but using that *style* of debate in general as a basis for discussion.

I have to agree with Azahar that such strongly worded challenges are potentially inflammatory, and therefore open to attracting the label 'troll' as defined in the H2G2 rulebook.

Now the hypothetical individual concerned may have no intention whatsoever of causing personal offence with their phraseology, simply to encourage vivacious discussion, *but* there has to be an awareness that some people are more sensitive to comments that may be construed as an "attack" on their position than are others.

This is the same online as in RL. However, it is far easier in RL to be able to walk away from a discussion than online, since such a discussion is perceived to be more public an argument when in an open forum such as this; peoples' pride may force them to continue an argument online that in RL life they would walk away from (theoretically).

The other side of the coin is that some people may have better developed debating skills than others. Does it mean that, because they have not learned these skills yet, they should abstain from participating? I know that I personally have already learned a great deal since joining HooToo, but acknowledge that I still have a long way to go. Participating in discussions is probably the best way to learn debating etiquette - so long as the individual is willing to learn, of course.

Unfortunately in an online forum where text is the main means of communication such misunderstandings are likely to be more common; there is no way of reading your 'opponents' body-language or facial expression. And smileys are equally as open to ironic use as to 'genuine' use.

There may be a point in any researcher's existence that they could potentially be labelled a troll. To take Edward as a representative here shows that the label may be applied, challenged and - thankfully in this instance - revoked; Edward has been granted absolution following his confessed style of posting (sorry - couldn't resist applying the Christian twist! )

BTW - I am not labelling Edward a troll, merely using circumstances as an example!

IMHO someone should only be considered a troll when their manner have been challenged - as politely as possible - by other researchers and they still refuse to accept that their behaviour causes problems and amend their style accordingly. A troll, to me, is someone who is deliberately rude and excessively inconsiderate, and such a one should be censured for the good of the community at large.

Well instead of beating around the bush I will use a proper example:-

The researcher currently known as "tig", formerly "shifty" and "shiftyshug" is IMO a Troll.

That is not to say that he is incapable of posting something that isn't trolling, but, it seems to me that his entire purpose on hootoo is to try to annoy people. It seems (when I looked through the convos on his thread) that that is all he does here.

Now if this is the case (and I accept that I might be wrong) then surely it is reasonably legitimate for people to *think* of him as a Troll?

Tig is definitely a troll.

Simplified version of an exchange between me and him.
Tig: I hate gay people and they should be locked up.
Me: There's no reason to hate gay people, it's perfectly natural, maybe you're subconsciously afraid of them.
Tig: Maybe you're gay.

And so on.

<> (Solnushka)

The only example I can think of is Della, but only some people ever accused her of trolling. I've never considered her to be a troll. It seems that most people (on certain threads) - including myself - just found her behaviour totally exasperating.

The latest 'troll' I can think of was tig/shifty. He posted and posted and posted on certain threads, often with quite abusive and homophobic comments, he didn't usually partake of or actually contribute to the debates, his behaviour was clearly disruptive. At other times he would just post 'this thread is boring' over and over again on certain threads. So I think in this case, the label 'troll' fit because his behaviour was of the trolling sort. Though apparently he had other light and friendly chat threads going on with his hootoo friends. So it seemed he had some sort of 'chip on his shoulder' about so-called 'serious threads' and he apparently felt some sort of need to f**k them up, if he could.

I don't think he was a new researcher when he started behaving this way. It seemed rather that he stumbled onto other threads that somehow got his back up.

I'd find it rather odd if someone who had been on the site for some time and had been contributing to various threads suddenly became a 'troll'. To me it seems like the sort of behaviour one adopts when they first come to a forum after feeling somehow threatened or intimidated and then feel a need to lash out.

LW is an interesting case of someone who exhibited a lot of trolling behaviour when he first joined h2g2, but after some time has come to modify what he does and I think he is now enjoying that most people are willing to 'forgive and forget' his original 'transgressions'.


az

<>

There was a similar thing in the Atelier a little while ago, redpeckham appeared and started telling us we were boring and that h2g2 shouldn't have serious threads and then denied trying to cause trouble! She has settled down lately though and is now capable of composing multi-sentance serious posts.