Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00283)

Dear Perry,

There are many fine nuances but the bottom line is that someone who 
initiates hostile arguments by pushing buttons deliberately-- and 
interferes with attempts to discuss matters in a friendly way-- is a 
troll. Theos-talk has rarely been an environment in which a single 
troll terrorizes the group, but rather one sets off another who'd 
rather fight than discuss, and then another chimp swings into the 
feud, and it's all downhill from there.

As for rules, one of the really standout aspects of theos-talk 
compared to most other fora I read is the great number of posts 
coming from a few listmembers, and the use of personal names and 
aggressive punctuation in those from one. Posting way more than 
anyone else is calling "flooding" and has a negative influence on 
the atmosphere of a list. Even when the content is not over the top 
trolling material, the volume of it can get in the way of normal 
discussion. So, no personal names in headers with aggressive tone, 
and no more than ?5 posts daily would improve the tone. But I don't 
think Eldon is open to suggestions that involve moderation.  
Guidelines, maybe.

Anand can't sustain these sectarianfeudingtheosophist train wrecks 
all by himself!

Paul

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and All,
> This issue of `trolls' on the internet seems to keep coming up.
> 
> What is fair and reasonable argument?
> What methods are acceptable and what are not?
> 
> I would suggest that being part of a theosophical internet group  
any hypnotises put 
> forward should be open to reasoned challenge and debate.
> 
> If we put forward a proposition and the logic in it is flawed, is 
it not reasonable and 
> acceptable for others to point out these inconsistencies out and 
ask for clarification?
> 
> If we are voluntarily coming onto this group and making statements 
be they historical, 
> philosophical or otherwise, should we not expect those statements 
if inconsistent or 
> flawed, to be challenged?
> 
> In other what is the line one crosses from using genuine and 
legitimate philosophical tools 
> of debate and logic, to being a `troll'.
>  
> As a suggestion cant we as group put forward a set of rules for 
what is and what is not 
> acceptable behaviour and practice in this group.
> 
> If `trolling' is a problem then perhaps it can be first identified 
and then the moderator of 
> the group deal with it appropriately according to whatever rules 
we as a group come to 
> consensus over.
> 
> Just a suggestion 
> 
> Best wishes to you and to all for Christmas !
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" 
<kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> >
> > a word to the wise:
> > 
> > Here is an excellent article on Internet trolls, explaining the 
> > phenomenon:
> > 
> > http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
> > 
> > which helps explain certain patterns on theos-talk. Some 
relevant 
> > points from the article:
> > "An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord 
on 
> > the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments 
and 
> > upset people.
> > Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues 
for 
> > their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they 
are 
> > hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite 
> > human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they 
feel 
> > no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the 
greater 
> > the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as 
they 
> > see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows 
> > trolls to flourish."
> >
>