[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

*Sigh*
Marc,

Firstly, teenagers today could possibly teach us a thing or three. Merely that across the board let a certain amount of politeness prevail.....if possible.

I was not making any judgements on the "teenager" comment. I was just trying to establish what was meant, to best respond to it. I tend to agree with the above, and I am of the experience that teenagers today most often show themselves to have the same degree of "adulthood" as any I speak to (or rather, most frequently, the age of the individual is only discovered after the fact. Whether this says something about those folk, or just about my own "maturity"... ).

There are some in the chatroom who felt that their choice of of subject was being curtailed. How long were the trolls allowed to carry on? If the choice of subject was forbidden, why not stop it quick smart? It lingered like bad-breath.

It is often not a clear-cut decision to make, even putting aside the logistics in the Star Chamber (e.g. sufficient participation and agreement for consensus on actions). We often have to put the act of people wanting the subject curtailed up against the desires of the majority in a thread who were having a reasonable discussion otherwise. Also, religion and politics isn't always clear-cut (it's hard to call a thread specifically areligious in title - "atheist zealots" - a religious thread, though then that's where it goes).

From the Star Chamber viewpoint - shutting down too soon/immediately; not shutting down fast enough - it can feel like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't (note the "feel like"...intellectually it's far more measured than this generalised cliché, and I only use it as a touchstone for simplistic description).

But I repeat, the responders were more offensive than the poster.

I do know that I didn't participate

This is arguable (and by that I mean that I personally do see its merit in the discussion), but that's the thing with perceived trolling - the responders may be more offensive, but they also may be more offended than the otherwise apathetic (perceived-) troll. This is not to excuse it - the Guidelines don't say "Be polite, unless you think someone is being rude to you in which case question their family tree" - but rather to say that I think it's the permanent problem with "trolls" (or "not-trolls"): pragmatically-speaking, people will respond.

Workable solutions are hard to come by and agree to. I tend to see much in the subtle wording of GlennBarrington - "it's the internet". Like spam, trolling will always find a way, because in the end it too is patient and is meant to look credibly genuine. Terrazoids looked that way - it's possible he wasn't even (consciously) trolling from the start. This is to say, we might just have to deal...reporting, and then mods playing whack-a-troll as necessary. It's why I like KK's suggestion, even if I disagree with it, because it has this acceptance of inevitability (trolls will come) and tries to find a harm-minimisation measure.

I would say that I do think there is much to be drawn from the first Guideline: Discuss Things Politely. For us members here who are aware of these guidelines, I reckon there's much constructive merit in us considering them first before jumping in to respond to a perceived troll, or just to someone outright rude. The Guideline doesn't have that "unless they started it" bit on it, and it's much easier for Moderators to address rudeness and trolling and such, especially when it continues, if people aren't jumping in to be impolite back - that's what often makes things a thread-issue rather than a poster-issue.

Cheers,
Marc