Is it considered abuse on boards to call some a troll?

Brown Bomber

As per title really. (edit; actually on reading the title should read "someone" rathe than "some") Thanks.

Normally I would report what I consider abuse directed at me or others to the mods but the forum mod thanked the post where I was called a troll.

So I am a little confused especially as I seen someone banned last week for calling someone a troll.

Thanks again for any clarification.

Overheal

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

Thank you for the quick response Overheal, appreciate it. The forum is the Atheist/Agnostic forum and the charter doesn't mention it. Again I would've assumed it would be covered under personal abuse in the charter previously but the mod thanking the comment muddied the issue.

So I should therefore report a post and expect some form of action?

twinQuins

Brown Bomber wrote: »

the forum mod thanked the post where I was called a troll.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

drags threads off topic to do so and is generally against a forum's charter.

in fact I cant think of any forums that it isn't. Leading me to wonder if it's not just a site policy thats just reiterated in most charters.

And now I am even more confused.

This the a response I got from the atheist mod minutes after your post:

Not if the person being accused is continually ignoring questions, misrepresenting other people's points of view, soapboxing, taking quotes out of context and so on. In this tread, you have done all of these things and so, in this case, the accusation of trolling is useful and accurate.

I can assure you I haven't done any of the things I was accused of. My intentions were to genuinely and honestly discuss Christopher Hitchens and his legacy.

Brown Bomber

twinQuins wrote: »

Doesn't that tell you something?

That the mod was partisan. The very fact that to post anything critical of Hitchens in the atheist forum is only allowed in a thread called "Bitch about Hitchens here" should also tell you something to be fair.

Insect Overlord

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

twinQuins

Yeah, yeah come off it. If you had a clean record you might have a point but let's be honest here: you like to stir up the **** a little and have done so in A&A before. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't act like one.

Brown Bomber

twinQuins wrote: »

Yeah, yeah come off it. If you had a clean record you might have a point but let's be honest here: you like to stir up the **** a little and have done so in A&A before. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't act like one.

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. To the best of my recollection I've never recieved as much as an infraction in that forum.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse.

Calling someone a troll, however, is considered back-seat moderating in most forums. Also, as Overheal puts it above, it drags threads off-topic, which is not desirable in a post.

That said, not all forums are the same. Different modding styles work better in different forums. If the regulars call troll and the mods agree with them, then chances are someone needs to revise the posting-style they're using in that forum.

Surely being a "regular" is irrelevent? While I do appreciate you taking the time your response is rather vague.

My understanding of your post is that it's generally bad but it depends on who the mods are. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My understanding of your post is that it's generally bad but it depends on who the mods are. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's generally bad, but it depends on which forum you're posting in.

I'm not trying to be awkward but I just can't understand why it is/should be different from forum to forum.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Pissing off the natives is another way of describing it. If you're posting somewhere, it's advisable not to deliberately phrase things in such a way that will annoy the regulars/natives.

I would point out that I haven't done this.

Calling a warmonger (Hitchens) a warmonger is stating an easily demonstratable fact.

Is what you are saying is that this fact should be brushed under the carpet in the A&A forum because it is an uncomfortable truth?

Is the atheist and agnostic forum about discussing A&A topics or serving the interests of a particular group?

I'm fine with either, I'll just stay away from the mollycoddling if the latter is the case but the charter gives no indication that is for anything other than a neutral platform for discussing A&A topics.

Overheal

I think what you have here is an exemplification of why it is considered a bad thing to call people a troll. Here we have a pages long thread that has gone way off topic with multiple troll-calls from users, the forum mod, and an admin, and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it. No one tried to thread ban you; nobody tried to infract or warn anybody (that I could see on the brief) and everyone just carried on with a pretty informal looking argument about idontknowwhut. In short, no moderation has been done and it seems to be getting a bit awkward in there.

ed2hands

I find it odd that this has come up as an issue as i thought that speaking candidly in that particular forum was tolerared, as were trollish responses for the most part IMO.

But is it tolerated by one side only or by some regulars only?

Just look at some of the heated discussions between theists and athiests in there and you will find numerous examples of athiest posters wording their posts in a very provocative manner, aka trolling.
In fact i would say it's quite normal. So it seems a bit unfair to be falsely accused of something that is perfectly acceptable most of the time.

Are there a little bit of unofficial double standards in play, where some regular athiests get carte blanche but certain others are held to a different standard?

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

I think what you have here is an exemplification of why it is considered a bad thing to call people a troll. Here we have a pages long thread that has gone way off topic with multiple troll-calls from users, the forum mod, and an admin, and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it. No one tried to thread ban you; nobody tried to infract or warn anybody (that I could see on the brief) and everyone just carried on with a pretty informal looking argument about idontknowwhut. In short, no moderation has been done and it seems to be getting a bit awkward in there.

First of all sorry for bringing this minor issue up and you having to read through all that, can't have been much fun. Though now perhaps you can understand my problem?

I am not gravely insulted by being called a troll by any means, 99% of the time I'd let it slide. However, when used as a noun is literally a personal attack/ad-hominen argument and as such is an irritant and distraction. It must be double figures that I've been called a troll on that thread and I just wanted it to stop via a friendly warning, no bans/infractions or anything like that so I could discuss the topic. The only reason I came here at all is that under the circumstances of a mod of the forum thanking a troll accusation I was backed into a corner.

mathepac

Insect Overlord wrote: »

"Troll" isn't a term of personal abuse...

That's a moot point.

It may be that for a regular internet bulletin-board user the worst possible insult or term of abuse you can use is to refer to them as a "troll".

Maybe just a blanket invocation to "comment on the post content and not the poster" is what's required with questions like "Is this guy a troll?" referred to the mods would stop all the common name-calling "troll", "retard" etc.

Thoughts?

Insect Overlord

mathepac wrote: »

It may be that for a regular internet bulletin-board user the worst possible insult or term of abuse you can use is to refer to them as a "troll".

Purely speculative.

mathepac wrote: »

Maybe just a blanket invocation to "comment on the post content and not the poster" is what's required with questions like "Is this guy a troll?" referred to the mods would stop all the common name-calling "troll", "retard" etc.

Thoughts?

This part I agree with. Arguing with post-content is definitely the best approach.
The OP mentioned the term "ad hominem arguments" a few minutes ago. These should be kept out of good debates.

The trouble with blanket rules is that they have to be applied long after a debate has lost all hope of being "good"...

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Purely speculative.

I disagree. While I do consider it an over-statement to call it the "worst possible insult" it questions the targets personal integrity and is the equivalent of calling someone a liar/fraud/shill/charlatan etc.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The trouble with blanket rules is that they have to be applied long after a debate has lost all hope of being "good"...

Not necessarilly. I don't know but I assume you can't call someone a liar, for example without strong evidence as a blanket rule I don't see why the same can't work across the board with troll accusations.

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The very fact that to post anything critical of Hitchens in the atheist forum is only allowed in a thread called "Bitch about Hitchens here" should also tell you something to be fair.

That's not entirely true now is it BB? Many many people (including yourself I'd imagine) have often posted criticising Hitchens in the forum going back for years. The only reason the 'Bitch about Hitchens here' thread was even required at this particular point in time however, is that people were posting deliberately antagonistic things for no other reason than to deliberately rile people (AKA trolling) in the other thread that was clearly intended as a RIP/condolence style thread.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is what you are saying is that this fact should be brushed under the carpet in the A&A forum because it is an uncomfortable truth?

Is the atheist and agnostic forum about discussing A&A topics or serving the interests of a particular group?

I'm fine with either, I'll just stay away from the mollycoddling if the latter is the case but the charter gives no indication that is for anything other than a neutral platform for discussing A&A topics.

If any argument could be made it is that the A&A forum is too accommodating! Mollycoddling it certainly isn't. Name another forum where an individual highly respected by it's users dies and people with opposing views on the person are given freedom to air those views. That's not rhetorical btw.

It is actually the amount of free speech in the forum that means that often people will rather suggest at trolling than demand someone be quietened for suspected trolling.
Also you seem to be under the illusion that your views are the reason you were accused. That would be incorrect and in fact many atheists dislike Hitchen's views on the war. It is your posting sytle which imo is more soapbox than discussion that results in those accusations. If it helps.

robindch

Overheal wrote: »

and not one actual incidence of actually trying to do something about it.

In A+A, we have a number of posters, the majority of whom are religious, who fit the general description of trollers as I've defined in that post which BB kindly quoted above. Forum policy is generally to allow these posters to post as they wish, as their posts tend to discredit the debating points they believe they're making.

BB is one of these posters and I see nothing improper about a forum mod pointing out that a forum poster is, in broad terms, violating forum etiquette, while leaving the poster continue posting as he or she wishes.

-Chris-

To answer the OP, I consider accusing another person of trolling to be somewhere between abuse and back-seat modding.

Whether you were trolling or not (and I'm not meaning to point this at you BB, but it works for this example), it's not someone else's place to call you a troll.
If you were trolling a mod should have taken you up on it.
If someone else calls you a troll, and you were trolling, then both you and the person who called you a troll need to be addressed by a mod, as both of you have broken the rules IMHO.

All my €0.02 and it can vary from forum to forum.

robindch

-Chris- wrote: »

it can vary from forum to forum.

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I clarify forum policy in A+A.

-Chris-

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I clarify forum policy in A+A.

Have a read of my post, just above yours, where I state that's all IMHO, that I'm specifically addressing the original post, and also where I then try and distance my opinion from general site policy twice (both with IMHO and also the "my €0.02" comment) :)

stovelid

Skilful trolls want you to say it to them as you get rapped on the knuckles for pointing it out and they stay under the radar.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I actually have no idea what you are talking about. To the best of my recollection I've never recieved as much as an infraction in that forum.

You haven't received any sanctions in A&A for the same reason people are allowed say if they think someone is trolling. We treat people like they are all adults and can defend themselves for the most part. We try to not step in.

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

That's not entirely true now is it BB?

It is true. Now at least. I can't speak of what when on before.

strobe wrote: »

Many many people (including yourself I'd imagine) have often posted criticising Hitchens in the forum going back for years. The only reason the 'Bitch about Hitchens here' thread was even required at this particular point in time however, is that people were posting deliberately antagonistic things for no other reason than to deliberately rile people (AKA trolling).

If the truth is "antagonistic" then it shouldn't be mentioned in the A&A forum?
And if this uncomfortable truth is mentioned then it should be only permitted in a perjoratively titled thread and those mentioning said truth can be legitimately abused?
Is this what you are saying?

strobe wrote: »

in the other thread that was clearly intended as a RIP/condolence style thread.

A RIP thread? Is there a boards policy on RIP threads for warmongers? I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum. Like I said before if you want a private atheist club and have books of condolences for your idols I don't mind, but that is not what the A&A forum is ostensibly about.

What qualifies someone for mod protection in their RIP thread in A&A? If I started a gushing rememberance thread on famous atheists like Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin on their anniversaries in A&A can I demand that only positive things are posted about them?

Can I start a "bitch about Stalin here thread" and if anyone does "bitch" can I constantly refer to them as being a troll and expect mod thanks?

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

You haven't received any sanctions in A&A for the same reason people are allowed say if they think someone is trolling.

This is really unfair comment. I haven't recieved any sanction because I haven't broken any rules.

Dades wrote: »

We treat people like they are all adults and can defend themselves for the most part. We try to not step in.

And to give you your dues I consider A&A generally one of the better forums that I have visited.

Brown Bomber

ShooterSF wrote: »

If any argument could be made it is that the A&A forum is too accommodating! Mollycoddling it certainly isn't. Name another forum where an individual highly respected by it's users dies and people with opposing views on the person are given freedom to air those views. That's not rhetorical btw.

You mean discussion right? Yet somehow dissenting views = trolling when the dissenting views focus on "an individual highly respected by it's users".

Which goes back to my point. Hitchens apparently is "highly respected" by atheists but certainly not by all.

Should atheists be protected from criticism of their idols?

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is actually the amount of free speech in the forum that means that often people will rather suggest at trolling than demand someone be quietened for suspected trolling.

I see it as a like-minded clique of mods and regulars who see it as their own personal fiefdom.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also you seem to be under the illusion that your views are the reason you were accused. That would be incorrect and in fact many atheists dislike Hitchen's views on the war. It is your posting sytle which imo is more soapbox than discussion that results in those accusations. If it helps.

I make no apologies for speaking passionately about a needless and illegal war which destroyed a country and left mountains of corpses. However, speaking passionately can under no reasonable defintion be considered trolling.


Glen Greenwald at salon.com explains my "soapboxing"/trolling far better than I can.

Nobody should have to silently watch someone with this history be converted into some sort of universally beloved literary saint. To enshrine him as worthy of unalloyed admiration is to insist that these actions were either themselves commendable or, at worst, insignificant. Nobody who writes about politics for decades will be entirely free of serious error, but how serious the error is, whether it reflects on their character, and whether they came to regret it, are all vital parts of honestly describing and assessing their work. To demand its exclusion is an act of dishonesty.

Nor should anyone be deterred by the manipulative, somewhat tyrannical use of sympathy: designed to render any post-death criticisms gauche and forbidden. Those hailing Hitchens’ greatness are engaged in a very public, affirmative, politically consequential effort to depict him as someone worthy of homage. That’s fine: Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing. But demanding in the name of politeness or civility that none of that be balanced or refuted by other facts is to demand a monopoly on how a consequential figure is remembered, to demand a license to propagandize

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/

UPDATE: The day after Jerry Falwell died, Hitchens went on CNN and scorned what he called “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan,” saying: ”I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” As I said, those demanding that Hitchens not be criticized in death are invoking a warped etiquette standard on his behalf that is not only irrational, but is one he himself vigorously rejected.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

In A+A, we have a number of posters, the majority of whom are religious, who fit the general description of trollers as I've defined in that post which BB kindly quoted above. Forum policy is generally to allow these posters to post as they wish, as their posts tend to discredit the debating points they believe they're making.

This is rather arrogant and patronising.

robindch wrote: »

BB is one of these posters and I see nothing improper about a forum mod pointing out that a forum poster is, in broad terms, violating forum etiquette, while leaving the poster continue posting as he or she wishes.

I also see nothing wrong with a forum mod pointing out violations of forum etiquette. However, that is not my issue. You only did that after this feedback thread had been started. You had no problem with another poster making troll accusations in every single post they made (which surely must be trolling itself!) and thanked a post where they made no other point than the troll accusation and therefore I was unfairly backed into a corner where I could have zero confidence in the mods acting appropriately and objectively to actual trolling should I report the post.

(I would also add that due to this I was dissuaded from reporting another, later post made by a moderator, sadly, that labelled another user a "retard" which I find a particuraly ugly term of abuse)

Is having dissenting views and speaking passionetely trolling? (Ironically that would make Hitchens a troll. )Because I am guilty of nothing else despite your own empty, unsupported claims made against me.

ShooterSF

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean discussion right? Yet somehow dissenting views = trolling when the dissenting views focus on "an individual highly respected by it's users".

Which goes back to my point. Hitchens apparently is "highly respected" by atheists but certainly not by all.

Should atheists be protected from criticism of their idols?

Nope and unlike other forums in the spirituality section you are free to criticise atheism and agnosticism. It's welcomed. However an example imo where you could be seen as trolling was your quote you posted on the favourite hitchens quote thread (later moved I believe) from 30+ years ago when he said something in support of Saddam. The thread was very much set up as a commemorative thread and not one to discuss his opinions on Iraq but you were likely to derail it by posting such.
Now in the Christianity forum there is a favourite bible passage thread. If I posted in there and listed mine, which is Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (it explains how much a man must pay his rape victims father before being forced to marry her) as it is an example of how vile I think the bible is, I would expect to be carded because it is clearly a thread for believers to pick passages that make them feel good and I would be trolling.

I make no apologies for speaking passionately about a needless and illegal war which destroyed a country and left mountains of corpses. However, speaking passionately can under no reasonable defintion be considered trolling.

Indeed but doing so in every thread derails other people's discussions about Hitchens. We get it, every regular user knows your view and why you hold it and your mind is not for changing so repeating it in any thread to do with Hitchens (regardless of the threads link to his views of the Iraq war) is if not trolling, derailing and unhelpful.