Is it considered abuse on boards to call some a troll?

Brown Bomber

As per title really. (edit; actually on reading the title should read "someone" rathe than "some") Thanks.

Normally I would report what I consider abuse directed at me or others to the mods but the forum mod thanked the post where I was called a troll.

So I am a little confused especially as I seen someone banned last week for calling someone a troll.

Thanks again for any clarification.

Overheal

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

Thank you for the quick response Overheal, appreciate it. The forum is the Atheist/Agnostic forum and the charter doesn't mention it. Again I would've assumed it would be covered under personal abuse in the charter previously but the mod thanking the comment muddied the issue.

So I should therefore report a post and expect some form of action?

twinQuins

Brown Bomber wrote: »

the forum mod thanked the post where I was called a troll.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

And now I am even more confused.

This the a response I got from the atheist mod minutes after your post:

Not if the person being accused is continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context and so on. In this tread, you have done all of these things and so, in this case, the accusation of trolling is useful and accurate.

I can assure you I haven't done any of the things I was accused of. My intentions were to genuinely and honestly discuss Christopher Hitchens and his legacy.

Brown Bomber

twinQuins wrote: »

Doesn't that tell you something?

That the mod was partisan. The very fact that to post anything critical of Hitchens in the atheist forum is only allowed in a thread called "Bitch about Hitchens here" should also tell you something to be fair.

Insect Overlord

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

twinQuins

Yeah, yeah come off it. If you had a clean record you might have a point but let's be honest here: you like to stir up the **** a little and have done so in A&A before. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't act like one.

Brown Bomber

twinQuins wrote: »

Yeah, yeah come off it. If you had a clean record you might have a point but let's be honest here: you like to stir up the **** a little and have done so in A&A before. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't act like one.

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. To the best of my recollection I've never recieved as much as an infraction in that forum.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

Surely being a "regular" is irrelevent? While I do appreciate you taking the time your response is rather vague.

My understanding of your post is that it's generally bad but it depends on who the mods are. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My understanding of your post is that it's generally bad but it depends on who the mods are. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

I'm not trying to be awkward but I just can't understand why it is/should be different from forum to forum.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

I would point out that I haven't done this.

Calling a warmonger (Hitchens) a warmonger is stating an easily demonstratable fact.

Is what you are saying is that this fact should be brushed under the carpet in the A&A forum because it is an uncomfortable truth?

Is the atheist and agnostic forum about discussing A&A topics or serving the interests of a particular group?

I'm fine with either, I'll just stay away from the mollycoddling if the latter is the case but the charter gives no indication that is for anything other than a neutral platform for discussing A&A topics.

Overheal

I think what you have here is an exemplification of why it is considered a bad thing to call people a troll. Here we have a pages long thread that has gone way off topic with multiple troll-calls from users, the forum mod, and an admin, and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it. No one tried to thread ban you; nobody tried to infract or warn anybody (that I could see on the brief) and everyone just carried on with a pretty informal looking argument about idontknowwhut. In short, no moderation has been done and it seems to be getting a bit awkward in there.

ed2hands

I find it odd that this has come up as an issue as i thought that speaking candidly in that particular forum was tolerared, as were trollish responses for the most part IMO.

But is it tolerated by one side only or by some regulars only?

Just look at some of the heated discussions between theists and athiests in there and you will find numerous examples of athiest posters wording their posts in a very provocative manner, aka trolling.
In fact i would say it's quite normal. So it seems a bit unfair to be falsely accused of something that is perfectly acceptable most of the time.

Are there a little bit of unofficial double standards in play, where some regular athiests get carte blanche but certain others are held to a different standard?

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

I think what you have here is an exemplification of why it is considered a bad thing to call people a troll. Here we have a pages long thread that has gone way off topic with multiple troll-calls from users, the forum mod, and an admin, and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it. No one tried to thread ban you; nobody tried to infract or warn anybody (that I could see on the brief) and everyone just carried on with a pretty informal looking argument about idontknowwhut. In short, no moderation has been done and it seems to be getting a bit awkward in there.

First of all sorry for bringing this minor issue up and you having to read through all that, can't have been much fun. Though now perhaps you can understand my problem?

I am not gravely insulted by being called a troll by any means, 99% of the time I'd let it slide. However, when used as a noun is literally a personal attack/ad-hominen argument and as such is an irritant and distraction. It must be double figures that I've been called a troll on that thread and I just wanted it to stop via a friendly warning, no bans/infractions or anything like that so I could discuss the topic. The only reason I came here at all is that under the circumstances of a mod of the forum thanking a troll accusation I was backed into a corner.

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse...

That's a moot point.

It may be that for a regular internet bulletin-board user the worst possible insult or term of abuse you can use is to refer to them as a "troll".

Maybe just a blanket invocation to "comment on the post content and not the poster" is what's required with questions like "Is this guy a troll?" referred to the mods would stop all the common name-calling "troll", "retard" etc.

Thoughts?

Insect Overlord

mathepac wrote: »

It may be that for a regular internet bulletin-board user the worst possible insult or term of abuse you can use is to refer to them as a "troll".

Purely speculative.

mathepac wrote: »

Maybe just a blanket invocation to "comment on the post content and not the poster" is what's required with questions like "Is this guy a troll?" referred to the mods would stop all the common name-calling "troll", "retard" etc.

Thoughts?

This part I agree with. Arguing with post-content is definitely the best approach.
The OP mentioned the term "ad hominem arguments" a few minutes ago. These should be kept out of good debates.

The trouble with blanket rules is that they have to be applied long after a debate has lost all hope of being "good"...

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Purely speculative.

I disagree. While I do consider it an over-statement to call it the "worst possible insult" it questions the targets personal integrity and is the equivalent of calling someone a liar/fraud/shill/charlatan etc.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The trouble with blanket rules is that they have to be applied long after a debate has lost all hope of being "good"...

Not necessarilly. I don't know but I assume you can't call someone a liar, for example without strong evidence as a blanket rule I don't see why the same can't work across the board with troll accusations.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The very fact that to post anything critical of Hitchens in the atheist forum is only allowed in a thread called "Bitch about Hitchens here" should also tell you something to be fair.

That's not entirely true now is it BB? Many many people (including yourself I'd imagine) have often posted criticising Hitchens in the forum going back for years. The only reason the 'Bitch about Hitchens here' thread was even required at this particular point in time however, is that people were posting deliberately antagonistic things for no other reason than to deliberately rile people (AKA trolling) in the other thread that was clearly intended as a RIP/condolence style thread.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is what you are saying is that this fact should be brushed under the carpet in the A&A forum because it is an uncomfortable truth?

Is the atheist and agnostic forum about discussing A&A topics or serving the interests of a particular group?

I'm fine with either, I'll just stay away from the mollycoddling if the latter is the case but the charter gives no indication that is for anything other than a neutral platform for discussing A&A topics.

If any argument could be made it is that the A&A forum is too accommodating! Mollycoddling it certainly isn't. Name another forum where an individual highly respected by it's users dies and people with opposing views on the person are given freedom to air those views. That's not rhetorical btw.

It is actually the amount of free speech in the forum that means that often people will rather suggest at trolling than demand someone be quietened for suspected trolling.
Also you seem to be under the illusion that your views are the reason you were accused. That would be incorrect and in fact many atheists dislike Hitchen's views on the war. It is your posting sytle which imo is more soapbox than discussion that results in those accusations. If it helps.

robindch

Overheal wrote: »

and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it.

In A+A, we have a number of posters, the majority of whom are religious, who fit the general description of trollers as I've defined in that post which BB kindly quoted above. Forum policy is generally to allow these posters to post as they wish, as their posts tend to discredit the debating points they believe they're making.

BB is one of these posters and I see nothing improper about a forum mod pointing out that a forum poster is, in broad terms, violating forum etiquette, while leaving the poster continue posting as he or she wishes.

-Chris-

To answer the OP, I consider accusing another person of trolling to be somewhere between abuse and back-seat modding.

Whether you were trolling or not (and I'm not meaning to point this at you BB, but it works for this example), it's not someone else's place to call you a troll.
If you were trolling a mod should have taken you up on it.
If someone else calls you a troll, and you were trolling, then both you and the person who called you a troll need to be addressed by a mod, as both of you have broken the rules IMHO.

All my €0.02 and it can vary from forum to forum.

robindch

-Chris- wrote: »

it can vary from forum to forum.

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I clarify forum policy in A+A.

-Chris-

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I clarify forum policy in A+A.

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I state that's all IMHO, that I'm specifically addressing the original post, and also where I then try and distance my opinion from general site policy twice (both with IMHO and also the "my €0.02" comment) :)

stovelid

Skilful trolls want you to say it to them as you get rapped on the knuckles for pointing it out and they stay under the radar.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. To the best of my recollection I've never recieved as much as an infraction in that forum.

You haven't received any sanctions in A&A for the same reason people are allowed say if they think someone is trolling. We treat people like they are all adults and can defend themselves for the most part. We try to not step in.

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

That's not entirely true now is it BB?

It is true. Now at least. I can't speak of what when on before.

strobe wrote: »

Many many people (including yourself I'd imagine) have often posted criticising Hitchens in the forum going back for years. The only reason the 'Bitch about Hitchens here' thread was even required at this particular point in time however, is that people were posting deliberately antagonistic things for no other reason than to deliberately rile people (AKA trolling).

If the truth is "antagonistic" then it shouldn't be mentioned in the A&A forum?
And if this uncomfortable truth is mentioned then it should be only permitted in a perjoratively titled thread and those mentioning said truth can be legitimately abused?
Is this what you are saying?

strobe wrote: »

in the other thread that was clearly intended as a RIP/condolence style thread.

A RIP thread? Is there a boards policy on RIP threads for warmongers? I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum. Like I said before if you want a private atheist club and have books of condolences for your idols I don't mind, but that is not what the A&A forum is ostensibly about.

What qualifies someone for mod protection in their RIP thread in A&A? If I started a gushing rememberance thread on famous atheists like Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin on their anniversaries in A&A can I demand that only positive things are posted about them?

Can I start a "bitch about Stalin here thread" and if anyone does "bitch" can I constantly refer to them as being a troll and expect mod thanks?

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

You haven't received any sanctions in A&A for the same reason people are allowed say if they think someone is trolling.

This is really unfair comment. I haven't recieved any sanction because I haven't broken any rules.

Dades wrote: »

We treat people like they are all adults and can defend themselves for the most part. We try to not step in.

And to give you your dues I consider A&A generally one of the better forums that I have visited.

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

If any argument could be made it is that the A&A forum is too accommodating! Mollycoddling it certainly isn't. Name another forum where an individual highly respected by it's users dies and people with opposing views on the person are given freedom to air those views. That's not rhetorical btw.

You mean discussion right? Yet somehow dissenting views = trolling when the dissenting views focus on "an individual highly respected by it's users".

Which goes back to my point. Hitchens apparently is "highly respected" by atheists but certainly not by all.

Should atheists be protected from criticism of their idols?

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is actually the amount of free speech in the forum that means that often people will rather suggest at trolling than demand someone be quietened for suspected trolling.

I see it as a like-minded clique of mods and regulars who see it as their own personal fiefdom.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also you seem to be under the illusion that your views are the reason you were accused. That would be incorrect and in fact many atheists dislike Hitchen's views on the war. It is your posting sytle which imo is more soapbox than discussion that results in those accusations. If it helps.

I make no apologies for speaking passionately about a needless and illegal war which destroyed a country and left mountains of corpses. However, speaking passionately can under no reasonable defintion be considered trolling.


Glen Greenwald at salon.com explains my "soapboxing"/trolling far better than I can.

Nobody should have to silently watch someone with this history be converted into some sort of universally beloved literary saint. To enshrine him as worthy of unalloyed admiration is to insist that these actions were either themselves commendable or, at worst, insignificant. Nobody who writes about politics for decades will be entirely free of serious error, but how serious the error is, whether it reflects on their character, and whether they came to regret it, are all vital parts of honestly describing and assessing their work. To demand its exclusion is an act of dishonesty.

Nor should anyone be deterred by the manipulative, somewhat tyrannical use of sympathy: designed to render any post-death criticisms gauche and forbidden. Those hailing Hitchens’ greatness are engaged in a very public, affirmative, politically consequential effort to depict him as someone worthy of homage. That’s fine: Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing. But demanding in the name of politeness or civility that none of that be balanced or refuted by other facts is to demand a monopoly on how a consequential figure is remembered, to demand a license to propagandize

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/

UPDATE: The day after Jerry Falwell died, Hitchens went on CNN and scorned what he called “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan,” saying: ”I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” As I said, those demanding that Hitchens not be criticized in death are invoking a warped etiquette standard on his behalf that is not only irrational, but is one he himself vigorously rejected.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

In A+A, we have a number of posters, the majority of whom are religious, who fit the general description of trollers as I've defined in that post which BB kindly quoted above. Forum policy is generally to allow these posters to post as they wish, as their posts tend to discredit the debating points they believe they're making.

This is rather arrogant and patronising.

robindch wrote: »

BB is one of these posters and I see nothing improper about a forum mod pointing out that a forum poster is, in broad terms, violating forum etiquette, while leaving the poster continue posting as he or she wishes.

I also see nothing wrong with a forum mod pointing out violations of forum etiquette. However, that is not my issue. You only did that after this feedback thread had been started. You had no problem with another poster making troll accusations in every single post they made (which surely must be trolling itself!) and thanked a post where they made no other point than the troll accusation and therefore I was unfairly backed into a corner where I could have zero confidence in the mods acting appropriately and objectively to actual trolling should I report the post.

(I would also add that due to this I was dissuaded from reporting another, later post made by a moderator, sadly, that labelled another user a "retard" which I find a particuraly ugly term of abuse)

Is having dissenting views and speaking passionetely trolling? (Ironically that would make Hitchens a troll. )Because I am guilty of nothing else despite your own empty, unsupported claims made against me.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean discussion right? Yet somehow dissenting views = trolling when the dissenting views focus on "an individual highly respected by it's users".

Which goes back to my point. Hitchens apparently is "highly respected" by atheists but certainly not by all.

Should atheists be protected from criticism of their idols?

Nope and unlike other forums in the spirituality section you are free to criticise atheism and agnosticism. It's welcomed. However an example imo where you could be seen as trolling was your quote you posted on the favourite hitchens quote thread (later moved I believe) from 30+ years ago when he said something in support of Saddam. The thread was very much set up as a commemorative thread and not one to discuss his opinions on Iraq but you were likely to derail it by posting such.
Now in the Christianity forum there is a favourite bible passage thread. If I posted in there and listed mine, which is Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (it explains how much a man must pay his rape victims father before being forced to marry her) as it is an example of how vile I think the bible is, I would expect to be carded because it is clearly a thread for believers to pick passages that make them feel good and I would be trolling.

I make no apologies for speaking passionately about a needless and illegal war which destroyed a country and left mountains of corpses. However, speaking passionately can under no reasonable defintion be considered trolling.

Indeed but doing so in every thread derails other people's discussions about Hitchens. We get it, every regular user knows your view and why you hold it and your mind is not for changing so repeating it in any thread to do with Hitchens (regardless of the threads link to his views of the Iraq war) is if not trolling, derailing and unhelpful.

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

Nope and unlike other forums in the spirituality section you are free to criticise atheism and agnosticism. It's welcomed.

Welcomed...? Evidently not.

ShooterSF wrote: »

However an example imo where you could be seen as trolling was your quote you posted on the favourite hitchens quote thread (later moved I believe) from 30+ years ago when he said something in support of Saddam.

So in your opinion it's trolling to post a Hitchens quote in a thread titled "Favourite Hitchens Quotes"? WTF?

ShooterSF wrote: »

The thread was very much set up as a commemorative thread and not one to discuss his opinions on Iraq but you were likely to derail it by posting such.

Now it makes more sense. I was trolling because I was posting a Hitchens quote in a thread specifically for Hitchens quotes because Hitchens is "highly respected" and the quote didn't present him in a favourable light?

Yet you think criticism is "welcomed"? That's laughable. The non-hero-worship Hitchens quote I posted was removed without cause because it was non-hero-worshiping. This is censorship and biased moderation and is the polar opposite of criticism being "welcomed".

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed but doing so in every thread derails other people's discussions about Hitchens. We get it, every regular user knows your view and why you hold it and your mind is not for changing so repeating it in any thread to do with Hitchens (regardless of the threads link to his views of the Iraq war) is if not trolling, derailing and unhelpful.

I'm sorry. but how is it "derailing" by discussing the topic i.e. Hitchens? And you are misrepresenting the situation. You are trying to suggest I am shoehorning the same point when I am discussing the topic. I made my point and some people responded and then I in turn responded to them and so on. It's called debate.

-Chris-

It's pretty clear at this point BrownBomber, that your OP was pursuing a particular angle/point, rather than just asking a question.

Can you please clarify this in your OPs in future? If you've an axe to grind or a point to make, it's only fair on other posters to allow them the opportunity to not walk into the crossfire...

Brown Bomber

-Chris- wrote: »

It's pretty clear at this point BrownBomber, that your OP was pursuing a particular angle/point, rather than just asking a question.

Can you please clarify this in your OPs in future? If you've an axe to grind or a point to make, it's only fair on other posters to allow them the opportunity to not walk into the crossfire...

In all sincerity it was never my intention to bring any of this up. All I was interested in was the official boards position on troll accusations so I would possibly have something to fall back on when I reported the posts that the mod who would be dealing with had publically supported.. I even site-searched boards.ie with a combination of keywords to find my answer before I started this thread.

Steve

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In all sincerity it was never my intention to bring any of this up. All I was interested in was the official boards position on troll accusations so I would possibly have something to fall back on when I reported the posts that the mod who would be dealing with had publically supported.. I even site-searched boards.ie with a combination of keywords to find my answer before I started this thread.

In fairness, this thread seems to have wandered from a site policy question to a forum policy question.
In that case you should suggest to the mods of the forum concerned that they allow a local feedback thread for it - I've done it in forums I mod and it works great for beating out local issues that don't necessarily need sitewide attention.

Dades

Brown Bomber, do you think Boards should enforce a site-wide ban on accusations of trolling?

Should all forums be compelled to uphold this?

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Welcomed...? Evidently not.

Threads open on the first page of the forum:
"Atheists are just as intolerant, if not more so, than most religious" - discuss
Is agnosticism reasonable?
Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?
Why do athiests commit suicide at such a high rate compared to religous people
Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

Thats just the first page. Where people have been free to question and offer criticisms.

So in your opinion it's trolling to post a Hitchens quote in a thread titled "Favourite Hitchens Quotes"? WTF?

Depending on the quote. Your question here is why you get accused of trolling. You and I both know that posting "a Hitchens quote" is not the problem but posting one to antagonise other posters. I gave you a perfect examply re: the bible quotes thread. Do you agree that that would be trolling? Please don't skip this question. It is not rhetorical.

Now it makes more sense. I was trolling because I was posting a Hitchens quote in a thread specifically for Hitchens quotes because Hitchens is "highly respected" and the quote didn't present him in a favourable light?

You'll find most favoutire quote topics are people the OP was fond of and wants to remember their favourite quotes of the individual so yes.

Yet you think criticism is "welcomed"? That's laughable. The non-hero-worship Hitchens quote I posted was removed without cause because it was non-hero-worshiping. This is censorship and biased moderation and is the polar opposite of criticism being "welcomed".

Shifting goal posts, another similarity your style shares with trolls. I said criticism of Atheism and Agnosticism was welcome. Criticism of Hitchens is also welcome on the forum but is contained in one thread so those that want to discuss your and others criticisms can while those that want to discuss Hitchens positives can do so too without it being derailed.

I'm sorry. but how is it "derailing" by discussing the topic i.e. Hitchens? And you are misrepresenting the situation. You are trying to suggest I am shoehorning the same point when I am discussing the topic. I made my point and some people responded and then I in turn responded to them and so on. It's called debate.

Hitchens is not a topic. There are multiple threads discussing different topics in regard Hitch. Again, making your point in a thread that had nothing to do with the iraq war is derailing it because others will respond.
Another trait tolls rely on. I just offered my opinion and people replied and then the thread went down that road.

Not that you'll take this advice but if a lot of people think you are a troll either you're a troll or your posting style is troll like by coincidence and you should probably work on it...

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Brown Bomber, do you think Boards should enforce a site-wide ban on accusations of trolling?

Like I said and IMHO I think accusations of trolling should be dealth with in the same manner as accusations of lying. Not made on a whim, to ridicule or to avoid debate. The accusations should be specific and supported (unlike Robin's vague smears). I think people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt also regarding trolling claims, innocent until rreasonably proven guilty.

These are the examples of the accusations made against me in that thread alone:

1. "Nil points, troll harder. "

2. "Troll harder. "
3. "you're just posting crap looking for attention, which makes you a troll."
4. "Tsk, more trolling."
5. "Keep fishing troll. "
6. "Carry on troll. "
7. "Misrepresentation, a trait of the troll. "
8. "which is why you're a troll."
9. "Not if the person being accused is continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context and so on. In this tread, you have done all of these things and so, in this case, the accusation of trolling is useful and accurate."

Your happy to allow this abuse? Because it is conducive to good debate? And FWIW I (the troll) never responded in kind.

Am I now fully within my rights to call Magicmarker a troll based on my most recent exchange?

My post
Quickly summarised: A genuine and on-topic attempt at addressing his prior points and questions which included a sourced quotation I'd taken the time to find for his benefit.

His Response

So you are a hypocrite then. It's okay to kill innocent people so long as they're on the other side. Got it.

Reverting back to Robin's defintion of a troll "continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context" his post ticks all these boxes.

Can I now call him a troll? And will a mod then thank my post? And what possible purpose will this all serve?

Dades wrote: »

Should all forums be compelled to uphold this?

Personally I can't think of a good reason as to why there should be a different policy forum-to-forum on how to deal with troll accusations regardless of what the policy is. Consistency is good.

Nodin

....better to be labelled a troll than banned for trolling, I would have thought.

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

Threads open on the first page of the forum:...
Thats just the first page. Where people have been free to question and offer criticisms.

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Depending on the quote. Your question here is why you get accused of trolling. You and I both know that posting "a Hitchens quote" is not the problem but posting one to antagonise other posters.

So Hitchens' own words can antagonise other posters in a thread that is specifically setup to share Hitchens' own words?

ShooterSF wrote: »

I gave you a perfect examply re: the bible quotes thread. Do you agree that that would be trolling? Please don't skip this question. It is not rhetorical.

If it genuinely was a favourite Biblical passage then no, it's not trolling.

ShooterSF wrote: »

You'll find most favoutire quote topics are people the OP was fond of and wants to remember their favourite quotes of the individual so yes.

And therefore only approved quotes are allowed? OP's get to make their own rules. A forum that is supposed to be accesible to all boards.ie members is only available to those of certain viewpoints. The OP get's to moderate by excluding dissenting POV's and various other make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules. Yet you still somehow cling to the notion that dissenting opinion is welcome in A&A ???

With respect, haven't we just had this conversation?

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

Frowned upon in one thread as another thread specifically existed for criticism. Repeating this sense of censorship just doesn't wash when the facts are presented.

I have to say my response to someone complaining of being called a troll, would be to not post in the manner of a troll. And sorry - but posting that quote in that thread was exactly that.

ShooterSF's analogy of the Favorite Bible Quotes is apt. Your response that it would be okay if it actually was your favourite quote is a nonsense, and we both know it. There's a concept behind such "favourite quotes" threads that assumes you like or agree with the actual content of the quote rather than posting it to make a point about your dislike of the quoted.

There was a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens which you ignored in favor of getting a rise by posting it elsewhere.

This has already turned into a DR thread despite the fact that your only gripe is that you got called a troll, but to answer your thread-title question, I would say "it depends".

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

Frowned upon in one thread as another thread specifically existed for criticism. Repeating this sense of censorship just doesn't wash when the facts are presented.

I have to say my response to someone complaining of being called a troll, would be to not post in the manner of a troll. And sorry - but posting that quote in that thread was exactly that.

ShooterSF's analogy of the Favorite Bible Quotes is apt. Your response that it would be okay if it actually was your favourite quote is a nonsense, and we both know it. There's a concept behind such "favourite quotes" threads that assumes you like or agree with the actual content of the quote rather than posting it to make a point about your dislike of the quoted.

There was a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens which you ignored in favor of getting a rise by posting it elsewhere.

This has already turned into a DR thread despite the fact that your only gripe is that you got called a troll, but to answer your thread-title question, I would say "it depends".

I don't want to keep repeating myself. Ill just say this:
1. There was no "other thread" when you forbade any discussion of Hitchens' views on the Iraq invasion
2. You very unfairly conflate any accusation of trolling with actual trolling.
3. I don't know why you are qualified to tell me what is and isn't my favourite quote.
4. I had no intention of "getting a rise". If I did I would have added a comment. I did not. I provided a quote. No more, no less.
5. It was not my "opinion" but exclusively Hitchens' own words.
6. I can't "post freely" if I am getting constantly harrassed for trolling when I am not in fact trolling. And this harrasment is being thanked and approved by moderators.
7. My gripe is not that I was called a troll but repeatedly called a troll.

Actually, I have a suggestion for you that you could make as an act of good faith. Re-naming the "Bitch about Hitchens thread here" to something like "Hitchens' legacy frankly discussed here".

Surely it's more appropriate and without the sexist connatations?

ed2hands

The word troll is used pejoratively, as demonstrated above by Magic Marker.
Type the word into search on the A+A forum and you'll get about 4 pages of hits in the last week.
Even a thread started by an Admin no less discussing the matter..

This from a forum in which many athiest regulars positively revel in being as offensive/provocative/whatever you want to call it as possible?

Iwannahurl

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

I am occasionally accused of being a troll, and some Mods don't seem to regard this as either personal abuse or back-seat moderating.

On the other hand, I have sometimes accused posters of trolling and consequently received a Mod warning.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no objective definition of "troll" on Boards and I am now hesitant to make such a call.

The "regulars/natives" issue is key, IMO.

"We were here first" is a fundamental tenet of Boards culture I reckon.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70044911&postcount=52
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69499726&postcount=122

You're on a sticky wicket if you shout "troll" in a forum where there is an established dominant group, especially if the post/poster you are challenging aligns with the group-think. Conversely, you're unlikely to get much support if you're called a troll by a Regular Native, especially one who has status in a particular forum.

In my opinion, the vertical structure of Boards forums promotes a 'silo mentality'. A key feature of Boards 'silos', IMHO, is that Regular Natives of certain forums are not exposed to things they don't want to hear. Insisting on expressing unpopular viewpoints in these forums is not welcome, and may well be seen as trolling, especially if the perpetrator is a low-status 'outsider' (which may well be a tautology).



.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is true.[...] mod thanks?

Just on a basic human level of decency and understanding I would have thought that posting things, in a thread clearly meant for condolences, for no other reason than to annoy those giving them, would be considered distasteful by most.

My point was that your claim '(paraphrasing) any criticism of X is disallowed in Y forum except for Z thread' is untrue and you fukking well know that is untrue. It was one specific circumstance as outlined in my first fukking paragraph and you know that is the case.

You were being disingenuous (see: Lying) to try and further your point. It is a pet peeve of mine.

========

Personally I agree with you (despite the fact that the forum in question is by it's nature less strict in terms of allowing people to 'make accusations' on all sides), that people shouldn't make accusations of trolling. It can be quite annoying, in any forum, when your honestly held views are dismissed off hand as such.

========

But my original post was about your post I quoted. And you know that post was crap and that you didn't post it in good faith.

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

Just on a basic human level of decency and understanding I would have thought that posting things, in a thread clearly meant for condolences, for no other reason than to annoy those giving them, would be considered distasteful by most.

My point was that your claim '(paraphrasing) any criticism of X is disallowed in Y forum except for Z thread' is untrue and you fukking well know that is untrue. It was one specific circumstance as outlined in my first fukking paragraph and you know that is the case.

You were being disingenuous (see: Lying) to try and further your point. It is a pet peeve of mine.

========

Personally I agree with you (despite the fact that the forum in question is by it's nature less strict in terms of allowing people to 'make accusations' on all sides), that people shouldn't make accusations of trolling. It can be quite annoying, in any forum, when your honestly held views are dismissed off hand as such.

========

But my original post was about your post I quoted. And you know that post was crap and that you didn't post it in good faith.

On reflection and re-reading our communication it does indeed appear you were trying to be helpful and I was over-defensive and therefore humbly apologise for my knee-jerk reaction.

While I do respect your candid and passionate post you should be careful...someone will report you for "soapboxing"

All that said I can't neglect to mention this point. Your speculating that I am posting about Hitchens' mistakes to get a rile out of people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was motivated into posting by reading the I Love Hitch thread and was disgusted that a warmonger was being celebrated. That is a genuine, non-trolling motivation IMO.

Also, I am not familiar with the concept of a "RIP" thread and have never seen one on boards before and am therefore unfamiliar with the unwritten rules surrounding it. I am however familiar with the concept of "not speaking ill of the (recently) dead" though someone dying would never change my opinion of them but was prepared to make an exception on Hitchens due to his own history of this.

Brown Bomber

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Insisting on expressing unpopular viewpoints in these forums is not welcome, and may well be seen as trolling, especially if the perpetrator is a low-status 'outsider' (which may well be a tautology).

Thank you for your insightful comments. I think you've nailed it FWIW.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

While I do respect your candid and passionate post you should be careful...someone will report you for "soapboxing"

All that said I can't neglect to mention this point. Your speculating that I am posting about Hitchens' mistakes to get a rile out of people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just for the record BB I didn't mean that you personally were posting purely to get a rile out of people (I wholeheartedly believe you mean what you say), that was directed towards others. I was just trying to explain why an 'alternate' thread was required. It was because others clearly were doing that. Not because 'no criticism of X allowed in this forum' which is what you seemed to be alluding to. And which, at the risk of soapboxing, you know is not true.

Also, I am not familiar with the concept of a "RIP" thread and have never seen one on boards before and am therefore unfamiliar with the unwritten rules surrounding it. I am however familiar with the concept of "not speaking ill of the (recently) dead" though someone dying would never change my opinion of them but was prepared to make an exception on Hitchens due to his own history of this.

Well man the 'RIP' threads do come up from time to time, they do exist and when they have done in AH for example it has on occasion been common for mods to put in an on thread warning to people pointing out that the thread was not for taking the piss. But regardless of that, like I said, surely in a thread like that I would have thought it would just be a matter of having a little class not to choose that specific thread to take a pop at someone, ye know? Comes off a little like a low grade version of picketing a funeral, whether it is meant like that or not.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And? This shows that the A&A forum may allow some form of criticism. I've given you an example where criticism of an atheist icon was forbidden in a thread. Therefore criticism is not "welcomed", Simple as that.

I'm only doing this at this point because it may be all coincidence that you don't realise your posting style is so trollish! criticism of someone is a thread commemorating that person when another thread is available is not "criticism forbidden". Hell it is more than you get on AH when a celeb dies. Try posting criticism there and see what happens!

So Hitchens' own words can antagonise other posters in a thread that is specifically setup to share Hitchens' own words?

As the bible's can in a bible thread. The thing to realise is that such threads are there to celebrate the person in question. You would do well to follow the don't be a dick rule there and not post. It was not a thread set up for debate.

If it genuinely was a favourite Biblical passage then no, it's not trolling.

There in seems to lie your problem. It would most definitely be trolling as the thread was set up to pick out the nicest part of the bible for bible lovers to share. My posting would share nothing with the users and would rile many of them up. In short I would be breaking the don't be a dick rule. I'd also likely derail the thread and get a tonne of off topic reactions. Something I should be held responsible for as it was foreseeable. For the same reason a court would convict me of murder if I went out one day with no intent to kill anyone but at the same time chose to fire a gun off in random directions. The "all I did was x" defence is again a tool of trolls.

And therefore only approved quotes are allowed? OP's get to make their own rules. A forum that is supposed to be accesible to all boards.ie members is only available to those of certain viewpoints. The OP get's to moderate by excluding dissenting POV's and various other make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules. Yet you still somehow cling to the notion that dissenting opinion is welcome in A&A ???

Not approved quotes no but in the spirit if the thread. And again the forum is accessible to all though some would be best not to post in some threads. Similar again to say the bible thread or to stop picking on the Christians if there was a thread in rock and metal (music) about people's favourite GNR song someone who hates the band would be better off not pointing that out in that thread. Similarly a political thread discussing your favourite FF leader would best avoided by most users. It doesn't mean Music or Politics forums are off limit.
I'm still amazed that you find such issue with the A&A forum by the way. How much criticism of Christianity have you tried to post in the Christian forum or how much criticism of Islam have you posted in the Islam forum. I'd wager they are no more lenient and if I wasn't a dick I'd say a lot less lenient. Hell look at the hearing god thread (just happened to be at the top when I clicked into Christianity) and you will see atheist's advice less than welcome there too.

With respect, haven't we just had this conversation?

Oh unfortunately we did and to share another favourite quote of mine this time from the great Tim Minchin,

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you’ll change your mind.

Brown Bomber

You've changed your tune...:p

21-10-2011 11:00

ShooterSF wrote: »

I would have liked a separate thread but I'll be honest and say it would only be to prove the ridiculousness of the [condolences only] threads we get every time some famous person kicks it where you can't dare point out the negatives of said person. Too soon and respect the dead and all that crap.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056426597

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

surely in a thread like that I would have thought it would just be a matter of having a little class not to choose that specific thread to take a pop at someone, ye know? Comes off a little like a low grade version of picketing a funeral, whether it is meant like that or not.

FWIW I do very much get where you are coming from. Though in this case my respect for the thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead which I hold Hitchens partially and indirectly responsible for overrides my respect for Hitchens in death, of which there is some.