MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - what about limiting certain areas the site until someone has been a member "x" long?

montsnmags · 09-25-2010, 07:38 PM

Worldwalker, they are my thoughts on trolls too.

I have a problem with the label "trolls" because it is too easy to use. For my mind, a troll is intentionally trying to goad people. A couple of the recent bannings could be hypothesized as being trolls, but as longer-termers they could also be just expressing their actual views. In which case calling them "trolls" is almost as unhelpful as the views themselves, as it is, to me, another form of namecalling, which always degrades discussion.

This, of course, doesn't preclude there being actual trouble-making trolls - brand new folk (as KK is talking about) or post-ban sockpuppets (again as KK is talking about) who are playing the "Obvious troll is obvious" game (even though they don't realize how obvious they are, at least most don't). That's what, I think, KK is specifically talking about seeing as, for instance, a couple of the recently-banned would have been able to post in The Lounge under the suggested conditions. My issue is that I think The Lounge is the room after the Introduce Yourself anteroom, where new folk can get an "in" quickly and with fewer parameters and topic-knowledge requirements. I worry that setting any "qualification" on the more casual Lounge may have a greater impact in MR (by discouraging new member participation) than any troll or sockpuppet issues do.

I would say that I think if the recent two topics involved hadn't migrated to discussion of religion they would not have been affected so. For my mind it was hard (though most managed) to avoid discussing that topic because of the subject matter...perhaps it was inevitable. Knowing our Guidelines on religion (and politics), perhaps enforcement of them should have occurred much earlier. While I appreciate the ability of people to have such discussions in a polite and adult fashion, in my view that guideline is there as a preventative, with the awareness that, whether through trolling or sockpuppetry or "zealotry" or just strong feeling, such topics often end up the way those two did. Theoretically I think those two recent topics could have stayed on-topic without resorting to religious disagreement, and perhaps more immediate interjection by Moderators to encourage people to avoid religious argument would have helped there. I personally am only just on the "yes" side of the line that thinks those topics should have been okay to go ahead, at least under the Guidelines as they stand. I could be talked into "No" though, because I'm a worrier.

Which is all to say, perhaps the problem with the sockpuppets and trolls, and with topics going skewed, is less about the people permitted to post and more about the topic posted. Perhaps noting it's a risky topic at the start, offering direction, or just stopping it early, would in many cases be more effective, without precluding newbie presence in the (generally very friendly) Lounge. IMO, those topics should not have got to where they did if the Guideline on religion was acknowledged/enforced. (I do not comment on the Guideline itself - but only that it is a Guideline)

Cheers,
Marc

09-25-2010, 07:38 PM	#36
montsnmags Grand Sorcerer Posts: 10,155 Karma: 4632658 Join Date: Nov 2007 Device: none	Worldwalker, they are my thoughts on trolls too. I have a problem with the label "trolls" because it is too easy to use. For my mind, a troll is intentionally trying to goad people. A couple of the recent bannings could be hypothesized as being trolls, but as longer-termers they could also be just expressing their actual views. In which case calling them "trolls" is almost as unhelpful as the views themselves, as it is, to me, another form of namecalling, which always degrades discussion. This, of course, doesn't preclude there being actual trouble-making trolls - brand new folk (as KK is talking about) or post-ban sockpuppets (again as KK is talking about) who are playing the "Obvious troll is obvious" game (even though they don't realize how obvious they are, at least most don't). That's what, I think, KK is specifically talking about seeing as, for instance, a couple of the recently-banned would have been able to post in The Lounge under the suggested conditions. My issue is that I think The Lounge is the room after the Introduce Yourself anteroom, where new folk can get an "in" quickly and with fewer parameters and topic-knowledge requirements. I worry that setting any "qualification" on the more casual Lounge may have a greater impact in MR (by discouraging new member participation) than any troll or sockpuppet issues do. I would say that I think if the recent two topics involved hadn't migrated to discussion of religion they would not have been affected so. For my mind it was hard (though most managed) to avoid discussing that topic because of the subject matter...perhaps it was inevitable. Knowing our Guidelines on religion (and politics), perhaps enforcement of them should have occurred much earlier. While I appreciate the ability of people to have such discussions in a polite and adult fashion, in my view that guideline is there as a preventative, with the awareness that, whether through trolling or sockpuppetry or "zealotry" or just strong feeling, such topics often end up the way those two did. Theoretically I think those two recent topics could have stayed on-topic without resorting to religious disagreement, and perhaps more immediate interjection by Moderators to encourage people to avoid religious argument would have helped there. I personally am only just on the "yes" side of the line that thinks those topics should have been okay to go ahead, at least under the Guidelines as they stand. I could be talked into "No" though, because I'm a worrier. Which is all to say, perhaps the problem with the sockpuppets and trolls, and with topics going skewed, is less about the people permitted to post and more about the topic posted. Perhaps noting it's a risky topic at the start, offering direction, or just stopping it early, would in many cases be more effective, without precluding newbie presence in the (generally very friendly) Lounge. IMO, those topics should not have got to where they did if the Guideline on religion was acknowledged/enforced. (I do not comment on the Guideline itself - but only that it is a Guideline) Cheers, Marc Last edited by montsnmags; 09-25-2010 at 07:41 PM.