Trolls!!!!

[B_Stronzo]

I know I'm asking for trouble on this, but just pointing out my observation. Racism will get you banned pretty quickly, but calling someone a "fag", even with accompanying anti-gay rhetoric, will only get you labeled as annoying. Name-calling IS annoying, but my problem with this is when people purposely go into threads of no interest to them, just to do so, which in my opinion moves into trollism.

Actually nb,

Racism (according to a very reliable source) will not get you banned. I asked this quesiton and was told by one of the moderators it is NOT grounds for banning.

For me "trolling" constitutes a poster who has nothing of real value to contribute who incessantly jumps into the thread fray to post one or two lines to disrupt the flow and pick away at the considered posts of those who really care about the thread topic.

Several members come immediately to mind in this regard.

When it's done with malice and a sort of "drive by" feel it's trolling.

 

[novice_btm]

Actually nb,

Racism (according to a very reliable source) will not get you banned. I asked this quesiton and was told by one of the moderators it is NOT grounds for banning.

Um, have you seen Webster lately? :tongue:

 

[B_Stronzo]

Um, have you seen Webster lately? :tongue:

I was unequivocally assured (since that's the reason I posed the quesiton in the first place nb) that racism did not account for his banning.

Rather it was that he spent nearly a day removing hundreds of his previous posts. That was the straw, acc. to my sources, that "broke that camel's back".

I have it on good authority too. Honest. I'm sure the individual mod in question can attest to this reality since he will read this post.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think each of us has our own idea of exactly what constitutes a "troll." Those of us who can actually write some logic into a post, without calling names, can actually do a better job of "troll patrol" than just simply having the moderators ban them. If you find someone especially offensive, ignore them. If they are annoying, then by all means "out" them. It is, of course, always tempting to respond in kind. But then again, two trolls don't make a right, right? Don't become what you claim to despise. Chase 'em out with intelligence - they don't handle that too well.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I think each of us has our own idea of exactly what constitutes a "troll." Those of us who can actually write some logic into a post, without calling names, can actually do a better job of "troll patrol" than just simply having the moderators ban them. If you find someone especially offensive, ignore them. If they are annoying, then by all means "out" them. It is, of course, always tempting to respond in kind. But then again, two trolls don't make a right, right? Don't become what you claim to despise. Chase 'em out with intelligence - they don't handle that too well.

That was beautifully eloquent and ideally correct.

But DC! Haven't you noticed that roughly once a month we get one of these individuals who incessantly refuses to read the other posts in a thread and endlessly reiterates his (for every time it appears to be a male) opinion on a topic without taking into consideration that of the others who post on a thread?

I think that's its own form of trolling too.

And I've stopped reporting posts too. When "solong" was in our midst I got told I was "reporting him too much". It's a lose-lose situation.:redface:

 

[DC_DEEP]

That was beautifully eloquent and ideally correct.

But DC! Haven't you noticed that roughly once a month we get one of these individuals who incessantly refuses to read the other posts in a thread and endlessly reiterates his (for every time it appears to be a male) opinion on a topic without taking into consideration that of the others who post on a thread?

I think that's its own form of trolling too.

And I've stopped reporting posts too. When "solong" was in our midst I got told I was "reporting him too much". It's a lose-lose situation.:redface:

Actually, yes, Stronzo, I have noticed. Unfortunately, though, I don't want to be hypocritical, so if they want to post, that's ok. I've even developed my own internal "ignore" button - when my eyes see a particular name, I automatically skip over that person's post, because I know it will be more of the same. I may respond a couple of times; if they are too dense to answer a couple of questions, that's their problem, not mine. I refuse to abase myself to their levels of ignorance. Have you noticed that from time to time, I ask a trollish person to clarify something, but they refuse to respond? There's your troll. Do I waste blood pressure points on them? Not a chance. I have bigger issues to deal with. And I can hold my own against any troll, any time.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

BIG SLIMY MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

Alright, now the definition of a troll on lpsg is
Trolling- NOT COVERED UNDER FREEDOM OF SPEECH! A "Troll" is someone who is consistently disruptive or abusive to other members in most of his or her posts (this is not meant to include humor, differences of opinion, or the occasional snarky remark). Trolls will be discussed by the moderating staff, and if agreed upon by a majority, our decision will be final and they will be banned. Spammers and advertisers will be banned without warning.

Now this is all fine and dandy... but suppose a member of the group, choses to make rude comments to others only on occasion... Is it ok to just let assholes lay around here?

An example... your opinion members... should they be banned or be allowed to stay?



OR


The identity of the poster doesnt' matter, but I would just like some clairification, on why some people are allowed to stay, when they choose to insult people at random, even if it is just once or twice?

Does that mean that I have the right to call someone a Peice of shit, fagboy, N*word, or a combination of insults, just because it would only be the minority of my posts? OR better yet, Mock a moderator or two because I didn't get the response I wanted?

I think the worst part is, the person may not be liked by people due to his/her ridiculous rants, and comments that appear to be as fake as a 3 dollar bill, but that is beside the point. The point is... I think the poster is an asshole, and a troll, and he/she should be banned...

OH, and feel free to add other examples if you want.....

Easy, just devise an anti-troll program of the Billy goats gruff, and implement it every time these li'l pissants get rowdy.

 

[novice_btm]

...If they are annoying, then by all means "out" them. It is, of course, always tempting to respond in kind. But then again, two trolls don't make a right, right? Don't become what you claim to despise. Chase 'em out with intelligence - they don't handle that too well.

Yes, you'll find in my responses to suspected trolls, I get very logical, and there's not a single name called. Actually, you'll find that the only time I ever call anyone names (and rarely at that), it's kidding, and it's only with friends that I know well. Hmm, "Intelligence... it's troll Kryptonite." Kinda has a ring to it. I'm trademarking that. :wink:

 

[novice_btm]

I was unequivocally assured (since that's the reason I posed the quesiton in the first place nb) that racism did not account for his banning...

OK, OK, I'm letting it go. But, racism was the reason given to the masses, so you can see my confusion. :wink:

Hmm, in THAT case, I need to rephrase... While trollism is stated as an offense in the TOS, the only thing that'll really get you banned is being under-aged, or proven to have multiple accounts. That more accurate? :tongue:

 

[B_Stronzo]

Actually, yes, Stronzo, I have noticed. Unfortunately, though, I don't want to be hypocritical, so if they want to post, that's ok. I've even developed my own internal "ignore" button - when my eyes see a particular name, I automatically skip over that person's post, because I know it will be more of the same. I may respond a couple of times; if they are too dense to answer a couple of questions, that's their problem, not mine. I refuse to abase myself to their levels of ignorance. Have you noticed that from time to time, I ask a trollish person to clarify something, but they refuse to respond? There's your troll. Do I waste blood pressure points on them? Not a chance. I have bigger issues to deal with. And I can hold my own against any troll, any time.

Perfect.

I've only begun to skip over in just that same way. It's tremenously effective DC and I concur about 'holding your own' against them.

I can too (albeit less effectively than you) but to have an endless "rat-a-tat-tat" is a study in indulgence.

Very recently in fact there was someone who responded (was it to a post of yours?) something to the tune of "I'm simply not going to respond to you anymore" since you made so much sense! :tongue:

Well done.

 

[B_Stronzo]

OK, OK, I'm letting it go. But, racism was the reason given to the masses, so you can see my confusion. :wink:

Hmm, in THAT case, I need to rephrase... While trollism is stated as an offense in the TOS, the only thing that'll really get you banned is being under-aged, or proven to have multiple accounts. That more accurate? :tongue:

I know nb.

That's why I took it to mod pm. I think more that racism was assumed to be the reason when in fact it wasn't. Since the mod in question said "we cannot ban anyone for ignorance" I believe it to be the truth. So there you have it.

I wondered, as you have, why gay-bashing was permitted where racism (since I thought Webster had been removed for it too) was not. That was the answer I received.

It is the truth? I assumed it was.

 

[D_alex8]

I know nb.

That's why I took it to mod pm. I think more that racism was assumed to be the reason when in fact it wasn't. Since the mod in question said "we cannot ban anyone for ignorance" I believe it to be the truth. So there you have it.

I wondered, as you have, why gay-bashing was permitted where racism (since I thought Webster had been removed for it too) was not. That was the answer I received.

It is the truth? I assumed it was.

I think there needs to be an official ban on TheDarkVenetian to show that this policy is being implemented consistently.

http://www.lpsg.org/new-member-introductions/24546-the-dark-venetian-official-thread.html

 

[B_Stronzo]

Holy FUCK alex.

I'm just going on what I was told but I see your point.

 

[novice_btm]

Holy FUCK alex.

I'm just going on what I was told but I see your point.

Um, ok, then again, I bring up Webster. Why wasn't DarkV also banned?

(No, have no pro/con stance on Webster, he's just an example.)

 

[B_Stronzo]

agreed nb...

I see inconsistency too.

 

[novice_btm]

agreed nb...

I see inconsistency too.

Yeah, I've had banning explained a few times, but I don't get how it's done, or not done, in practice. Also, I'd love to see:
I was banned! - underage
I was banned! - trollism
I was banned! - racism
I was banned! - multi-accts
etc...

There are a few people that I've had great exchanges with, that I didn't see any odd posts from, that were banned the next day, and I have no idea why.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Well in truth nb I was one of the few who was willing to give Webster a break. Was he a racist in the strictist sense of the word. I suspect he was. Was he any more so than others who were less willing to give their honest take? Absolutely not.

That's why I inquired about his banned status.

It's my understanding he'd been banned previously too and that his "Webster" reincarnation here was "iffy" at best for that reason too.

 

[novice_btm]

Well in truth nb I was one of the few who was willing to give Webster a break. Was he a racist in the strictist sense of the word. I suspect he was. Was he any more so than others who were less willing to give their honest take? Absolutely not.

That's why I inquired about his banned status.

It's my understanding he'd been banned previously too and that his "Webster" reincarnation here was "iffy" at best for that reason too.

Hmm, interesting. I only bring him up at all as a general example. I actually chatted with him quite a bit, and he was one of the first and few people to welcome me here. I wasn't in the thread where the racism came out, so I was never exposed to it, but he wasn't really who I was refering to in the other cases of "mystery" banning. :wink:

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Until this thread, I wasn't quite certain what trolling meant in LPSG context. The few bozos who spew their venom here are pathetic and don't necessarily warrant First Amendment protection at this site. I consider this place similar to a social gathering. If someone were obnoxious or racist or homophobic at my place, I'd give them the boot.

I learned a lot from this thread, BTW.

 

[jeff black]

Until this thread, I wasn't quite certain what trolling meant in LPSG context. The few bozos who spew their venom here are pathetic and don't necessarily warrant First Amendment protection at this site. I consider this place similar to a social gathering. If someone were obnoxious or racist or homophobic at my place, I'd give them the boot.

I learned a lot from this thread, BTW.

I am glad you did, COLjohn. I put it up hoping to get some advice as well as maybe shed some light on the fact that there are people here who are VERY "TROLLISH" and get away with it on a regular basis.

I am learning things as well.:biggrin1:

Something I thought of, but am not sure if it would work....

What if there was a thread of Members who should be banned, much like this one.. where members cna voice their opinion, and comment on people who really dont belong here?

I mean, this is a community, and if you don't like the neighbour, you throw a ham at their window... right

It would be INCREDIBLY MEAN, but it is not as bad as what some of these posters are doing, randomly insulting others and coming up with all kinds of comments that are inappropriate.