what about limiting certain areas the site until someone has been a member "x" long?

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Yes, the tone of the post gave the impression that the poster was thrusting a point of view onto the debate. But in itself, like Sparrow I didn't read anything there that was troll-like.

It takes more than one post before a pattern emerges, unless I am naive in thinking that sensible posters are not allowed to hold certain views in case they upset others.

Which leads to the question of how can we as a group have sensible conversation, or debates, without someone being accused of trolling.

To me a troll is someone who deliberately starts with a provocative statement and then accelerates that point of view through the debate - but is that not, also, what a convincing debater would do.

It's a fine line between the two, and unless the poster is a definite newbie, it is difficult to judge.

Apart from being somewhat patronising in the opening statement, I honestly did not find it troll-like.

There were some threads that, in my opinion were closed too soon. This was done, again in my opinion, not because the original poster was abusive, but because the responders were.

Even though some of the readers of MR may be teenagers, any subject should be able to be discussed without being inflammatory. You know......like adults!!
MR is unique, in that it is the first site that most new ebook readers come to to learn, and then go into the Lounge for other discussions and ideas.

Let's make it a pleasant stay.

Cheers.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

Apart from being somewhat patronising in the opening statement, I honestly did not find it troll-like.

There were some threads that, in my opinion were closed too soon. This was done, again in my opinion, not because the original poster was abusive, but because the responders were.

Even though some of the readers of MR may be teenagers, any subject should be able to be discussed without being inflammatory. You know......like adults!!
MR is unique, in that it is the first site that most new ebook readers come to to learn, and then go into the Lounge for other discussions and ideas.

Let's make it a pleasant stay.

Cheers.

But I go back to what I previously suggested - that what should be able to be discussed is not what, via experience, can be discussed without devolution. Thus, the Religion and Politics guideline (why those threads often end up closed). Although not always clear-cut, topics on religion and politics are defined against in the Guidelines. Strictly speaking they cannot be closed too soon.

I'm not sure about the teenager thing. Are you suggesting that teenagers are often the cause of trouble, or talking about topics too "adult" for teens?

Cheers,
Marc

[nohmi2]

[QUOTE=montsnmags;1137449]But I go back to what I previously suggested - that what should be able to be discussed is not what, via experience, can be discussed without devolution. Thus, the Religion and Politics guideline (why those threads often end up closed). Although not always clear-cut, topics on religion and politics are defined against in the Guidelines. Strictly speaking they cannot be closed too soon.

I'm not sure about the teenager thing. Are you suggesting that teenagers are often the cause of trouble, or talking about topics too "adult" for teens?

Cheers,
Marc[/QUOTE

*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.

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.

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

I do know that I didn't participate

[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

[nohmi2]

Point(s) noted.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I'll acquiesce that the post might not count as "trolling" in the sense of a troll being "a person who said something that he does not believe but says it only with the intent of causing discord"--

Quite frankly, I feel that this definition applies more to the original post by AprilHare than to anything the banned people posted.

[nohmi2]

Hey!! Has anybody here read any good books lately??

Okay.....just asking.

Cheers

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

Hey!! Has anybody here read any good books lately??

Okay.....just asking.

Cheers

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10108

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

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).

I respect the Mods' decisions, they do a difficult job superbly well, but I sometimes think a bit more explanation would be useful in the closure announcement.
It's not always obvious to me what the final straw was; and spelling it out would help clarify what is acceptable, or not, for future reference.

[GeoffC]

admirably put ....


what !


you mean we could learn from our mistakes !?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I respect the Mods' decisions, they do a difficult job superbly well, but I sometimes think a bit more explanation would be useful in the closure announcement.
It's not always obvious to me what the final straw was; and spelling it out would help clarify what is acceptable, or not, for future reference.

yes, I agree wholeheartedly. there seems to be a great deal of arbitrariness and "kick the dog" sort of decision making when threads get locked. I definetly get the feeling at times that the decision is *I* (the mod taking the action) am tired of this thread, therefore it is locked. there doesn't seem to be a real hard and fast rule as far as the use of profanity either which gets a little confusing.

[GeoffC]

I doubt very much that one mod would make the decision alone - that's surely what the Star Chamber is for .... ?

Only one mod will have the right on his ownsome, and that's Alex

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I doubt very much that one mod would make the decision alone - that's surely what the Star Chamber is for .... ?

Only one mod will have the right on his ownsome, and that's Alex

that is definetly NOT the impression I have gotten more than a few times

[GeoffC]

Ah -

Mods may speak with one voice .... though I've seen occasions when two have gone onto a thread, one after the other and yelled at the posters .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

yes, I agree wholeheartedly. there seems to be a great deal of arbitrariness and "kick the dog" sort of decision making when threads get locked. I definetly get the feeling at times that the decision is *I* (the mod taking the action) am tired of this thread, therefore it is locked. there doesn't seem to be a real hard and fast rule as far as the use of profanity either which gets a little confusing.

Exactly. And it is especially bad when the moderator that closes the thread participates in the discussion. To me this always seems like "I do not like this discussion anymore so know I am closing it" since usually no reason is given for closing a thread.