On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
dicks:
No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
totally subjective word
As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
that I would not use in a rational discussion.
I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word
that most accurately describes their behaviour?
I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be
bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be
trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative
statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be
making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to
genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe
often intoxicated way.
So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a
meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
Certainly not.
The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
the same.
[...]
How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
nobody has anything to add"?
Because you sent them private email telling them that?
My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
* send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
(when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
* if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
benefit:
* block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
have to be seen, preferably publicly.
When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three,
just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
[...]
If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
you know to change your behaviour?
If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
view (your's) is acceptable.
As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I
follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad
behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has
the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
"ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
You would be bordering on delusional by
thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case,
it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the
behaviour is unacceptable.
The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from
following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than
trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but
trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have
the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful
posts.
But even if you had a more rational response
*raises eyebrow*
and saved that reaction for
actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I mentioned?
As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is
merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has
changed his behaviour, at least for now.
Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and
defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to
admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but
ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not
necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond
directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is
guarded and on sufferance.
And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so
far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
post.
You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit
boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
acceptable behaviour?
The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all
white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like
me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian,
atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of
cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run
like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of
his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and
those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where
smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply
common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't;
cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an
act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a
thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military
service.
What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
repugnant without talking about it?
I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them
-- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who
consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms
others might prefer.
Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by
Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his
possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to
agree with me.
[1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there
is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the
time, against all people.
[2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich
and the filthy poor.
[3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to
indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
