Question about returns

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

@ Post 51

Thanks. Yeah, it looks my memory is quite consistent, for whatever that's worth.

 

6079_Smith_W

Funny, because I remember some of the loudest whining has been for trolls who were the most disruptive and abusive. It has less to do with them being "real trolls" or a common threat than whether they are seen as your trolls - in which case they can get away with pretty much anything. And those on the receiving end can fuck off.

And I think it is less a case of people pretending to hate each other than the pretense of a happy family whenever this topic rolls around.

In any case, as I recall it was after a flounce and a suspension, and a subsequent round of whining that Catchfire pointed out that it was up to Fidel whether he came back or not. And given those who are among us who have come back after suspensions, we all know that is true. Perhaps I am wrong about the specific incident, but I think it is telling that there is way more concern for those who got moderated than the far greater number who had enough and decided to walk.

 

JKR

How can one tell the difference between a “troll” and a person who may have problems psychologically?

lagatta4

Another I miss is Anne Cameron.

Returns and plonk made me think of the campaign to get the SAQ to accept bottle returns, as the LCBO does. Though the LCBO system is unfair to non-car owners, as you can't take empties back just anywhere. It should be made more eco-friendly, but we do need an otherwise similar system.

I haven't been posting much recently (very busy) so haven't been following this issue. I don't know if this is the same person as the one who wrote a long diatribe shot through with misogynist and homophobic allusions. Those are utterly contrary to rabble and babble policy.

I wish some kind of system could be created to keep rightwing trolls out of the discussions about rabble (not babble) posts.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and what about the babbler who won't/can't stop responding to the person they accuse of trolling? is this not an unhealthy obsession?

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

How can one tell the difference between a “troll” and a person who may have problems psychologically?

Well, if his posts are in violation of the forum rules, then it really shouldn't really matter if he's a troll, or someone in need of psychiatric help. 

Let's say your mental illness causes you to go to the Feminist Forum three times in an hour and post something like "Fuck off and die, ya misandric bitches!!" The mods should treat that the same way as they would treat someone who does it just because he likes to watch the outraged reaction. If the guy has underlying medical problems that are causing him to act that way, it's not the duty of this forum to provide a space for him to vent his issues.

And for what it's worth, I think a troll would evince a noticable sense of calculation that you wouldn't get from a mental patient. I might be able to believe that a guy who wanders around the downtown core muttering "goddam fucking bitches" to himself is suffering from a mental illness. But if he goes to a feminist lecture and shouts that from the audience, it seems to me he has a particular plan in mind, and he is taking rational measures to act on it, ie. he wants to make a statement against women, and has gone to a place where that statement can be delivered with maximum effect.  

WWWTT

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

For the record, that's not the thread I remember as being the one that got him banned(and until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to the history that he was banned, rather than that he departed voluntarily). As I said earlier, the topic he barged in with was nuclear weapons in French Indochina in the 1950s, and was completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. He was just carrying over an argument with another poster from another thread.  

In the 2013 thread I cited above, Fidel was "suspended" - for how long and under what conditions aren't clear. There was nothing there about him departing "voluntarily", though that notion does ring somewhat of a bell. At least your recollections are consistent.

 

Thanks for posting that. From the few Fidel comments I read, he should have not been suspended for them. In fact, fidel brought light to a subject needing it!

side note- men are raped as well, not just women and fidel may have been including this fact?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

And for the record, I don't think any of the banned posters referenced so far on this thread count as trolls under the real meaning of the word, as they were IMO all trying to express a sincere opinion. I have some ideas about a few long-gone posters who I think WERE genuine trolls, but I will keep those opinions to myself.

YMMV

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

How can one tell the difference between a “troll” and a person who may have problems psychologically?

Well, if his posts are in violation of the forum rules, then it really shouldn't really matter if he's a troll, or someone in need of psychiatric help. 

Let's say your mental illness causes you to go to the Feminist Forum three times in an hour and post something like "Fuck off and die, ya misandric bitches!!" The mods should treat that the same way as they would treat someone who does it just because he likes to watch the outraged reaction. If the guy has underlying medical problems that are causing him to act that way, it's not the duty of this forum to provide a space for him to vent his issues.

And for what it's worth, I think a troll would evince a noticable sense of calculation that you wouldn't get from a mental patient. I might be able to believe that a guy who wanders around the downtown core muttering "goddam fucking bitches" to himself is suffering from a mental illness. But if he goes to a feminist lecture and shouts that from the audience, it seems to me he has a particular plan in mind, and he is taking rational measures to act on it, ie. he wants to make a statement against women, and has gone to a place where that statement can be delivered with maximum effect.  

We've had a few people with mental health issues join babble over the years. One of them figured out who I was (not that hard, really) and then took up the argument we'd been having here with people I know IRL. She was banned, but babble clearly was not a good place for her to be at that time.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

And for the record, I don't think any of the banned posters referenced so far on this thread count as trolls under the real meaning of the word, as they were IMO all trying to express a sincere opinion. I have some ideas about a few long-gone posters who I think WERE genuine trolls, but I will keep those opinions to myself.

I was not suggesting this -- I was referring to a person who came here and was disruptive from the start and never contributed anything else -- like the person I began the thread about. I do not think the previous posters mentionned here fell into that category.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..and what about the babbler who won't/can't stop responding to the person they accuse of trolling? is this not an unhealthy obsession?

When someone is trolling there are different approaches and we won't always agree on them. Bringing things to a head may in fact end a longer period of disruption. People have the right to challenge statements about them and attacks on them. A chorus of people saying take your lumps cannot be enforced. As well this is a shared space, soemone who posts offensive things will create a divide between those who find those things should not be left without response as it encourages and validates them and those who want to ignore them. I think if you look at history here you will find that many of those who argue to ignore a person are the same ones to respond to another. This is not a groupthink here and respecting differences of opinion in how to respond to the unacceptable (and even defining the borders of what is acceptable) is part of accepting. Shouldn't the one who caused the question of responding or not be the focus more than what might be a half dozen others trying to figure out what to do? In many respects this is a self policing place as the mods cannot be everywhere.

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..and what about the babbler who won't/can't stop responding to the person they accuse of trolling? is this not an unhealthy obsession?

I think that's often the case.

Generally speaking, the troll who gets no response will slink away. The one who always triggers an accusation coupled with a response - mission accomplished. If you engage nonstop with the poster you accuse of trolling, it can get hard to tell the trolls from the proles. Just my opinion.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In any case, as I recall it was after a flounce and a suspension, and a subsequent round of whining that Catchfire pointed out that it was up to Fidel whether he came back or not.

I think that was in this thread.

Catchfire wrote:
I think it's very sad that this is how objecting to repeated and flagrant use of anti-feminist language -- actually, full-on attacks against feminist and women -- is getting represented by SJ here. What's sadder, of course, is that there are no women posters here anymore to object to this representation, because they've all decided, for one reason or another, to either leave for good or post increasingly sparingly. Of course, I've repeated this dilemma again and again, and I'm rewarded with redoubled accusations of capitalist coercion or tyrranical censorship. And that's just here on babble. Ok, I guess.

I am sorry to see Fidel go, but he has made it quite clear via email, his posts and other avenues that he has no interest in returning and given the tenor and content of his recent email, posts and other avenues it is not in babble or the mods' best interests to let him post in the frail hope that he will stop trolling or attacking women.

6079_Smith_W

Yup, that was the one. Thanks Magoo.

And it would be nice if all the trolls just slithered off when ignored, but if that were the case there would be no bans, would there. Sadly, it is another myth.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yup, that was the one. Thanks Magoo.

And it would be nice if all the trolls just slithered off when ignored, but if that were the case there would be no bans, would there. Sadly, it is another myth.

Here's how I suggest we should deal with trolls:

1) If they're egregiously violating our rules, or personally attacking babblers, report them to the mods. Privately.

2) If they're just being idiots or provocateurs, ignore them.

Pick one - or both - of the above, depending on the specifics of the situation.

But please do not engage them in nonstop posts and counter-posts where you accuse them of being closet Liberals, or agents of Putin, or whatever. That's what I see here in thread after thread these days. It destroys any healthy conversation, at best, and is toxic at worst. That's my opinion.

Bacchus

Given the attacks Fidel made about Babble at enmasse, he did not want to come back or would have lasted long if he did

voice of the damned

From Magoo's link above...

"I am sorry to see Fidel go, but he has made it quite clear via email, his posts and other avenues that he has no interest in returning and given the tenor and content of his recent email, posts and other avenues it is not in babble or the mods' best interests to let him post in the frail hope that he will stop trolling or attacking women."

END QUOTE

Wouldn't the part I bolded indicate that he was banned? "...it is not in babble or the mods' best interests to let him post..."  sounds very much like they are not going to allow him to post anymore.

And yes, maybe he himself as well had expressed no interest in doing so.

Bacchus

He expressed it at length and with vitriol and viciousness

6079_Smith_W

I think we might be missing the most important part of that quote from Catchfire (and the thread is worth going back and reading) - the bit about accusations of capitalist coercion and tyrannical censorship.

Sorry to be the odd one out, but those mentioned above who got canned had long outworn their welcome in my opinion. Maybe some of you don't mind trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but smears in response, but I consider it a real waste of time. Glad to see them gone, and I think the legacy of this has done nothing but damage to this place.

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sorry to be the odd one out, but those mentioned above who got canned had long outworn their welcome in my opinion. Maybe some of you don't mind trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but smears in response, but I consider it a real waste of time. Glad to see them gone, and I think the legacy of this has done nothing but damage to this place.

Smith and I disagreed about many things when I was here. This is not one of them.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yup, that was the one. Thanks Magoo.

And it would be nice if all the trolls just slithered off when ignored, but if that were the case there would be no bans, would there. Sadly, it is another myth.

Here's how I suggest we should deal with trolls:

1) If they're egregiously violating our rules, or personally attacking babblers, report them to the mods. Privately.

2) If they're just being idiots or provocateurs, ignore them.

Pick one - or both - of the above, depending on the specifics of the situation.

But please do not engage them in nonstop posts and counter-posts where you accuse them of being closet Liberals, or agents of Putin, or whatever. That's what I see here in thread after thread these days. It destroys any healthy conversation, at best, and is toxic at worst. That's my opinion.

Easy to say. First, you won't even know you are dealing with a troll until it has broken down -- there is an exchange and the person is replying to posts, a conversation you invested in is derailed, and you are being attacked.

I know you have said this before - but it is a little like denying that trolling is disruptive or that people have any right to respond to direct attacks on them. It suggests that baiting does not work and when it does the respondent is the one to blame.

People bait and troll becuase it works becuase they have engaged you before you saw they were a troll and you are in an exchange where someone is talking at you, about you, and interfering in the exchanges with others, in some cases burying what you have worked to put up, in some cases putting up lies, misinformation that stops the conversation that was based on a real curiosity. This activity is done becuase the way to ignore it is to give up on your conversation and give up on any exchange you were invested in because it will be gone.

We are talking about a troll in this case who had negative interactions with some 10-12 people. Many responded because they were severely provoked. We could blame all those people or we could consider that trolls are difficult to deal with and trying to ignore them - and still have your conversation -  is a problematic as responding to them. It is also a little much to be expected to say nothing when a person is attacking you or someone else.

Also you representing the responding posts as saying they are closet Liberals or agents of Putin etc. is suggesting that all these people attacked the pooor troll who responded by trolling. The exchanges tend to be angry replies to very serious and repeated provocations. Why not say it more directly -- when some attacks you directly, derails a conversation, provides offensive posts against the rules here, atttacks everyone else, seeks to gang up and bully, grin and bear it without response.

Sorry Unionist but you come up with this advice every time it is someone else in the negative exchange. That doesn't mean you never have testy exchanges with anyone yourself -- but they don't count? Everyone else cannot react or get angry but it won't apply when it is you? Please don't suggest that you have not had exchanges like this at times here and if someone attacks you that you will not respond becuase we have been here long enough to know that this is not true.

WWWTT

Sure it's easy to say Sean in Ottawa! But Unionist is ultimately correct in his post. But in my opinion he's holding back a little (probably a lot). 

These terms like trolls trolling baiting etc etc have very lose definitions and can be applied very easily to any poster. And really, we are all guilty of trolling at some time. I strongly suspect that many of us posters don't want to see other posters banned and suspended for the main reason of because we ourselves are guilty of the exact same things as those banned posters (but to a lesser extent). Cmon, we all have good days and bad days, should we banned suspended because of a bad day/week? Obviously not.

I personally think that a good sense of humour can help. I liked reading brother kropotkin's replies to montgomery (guilty pleasure because ignoring for the most part is the way to go). Kropotkin and I seen right through montgomery and knew how to deal with it. 

swallow

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sorry to be the odd one out, but those mentioned above who got canned had long outworn their welcome in my opinion. Maybe some of you don't mind trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but smears in response, but I consider it a real waste of time. Glad to see them gone, and I think the legacy of this has done nothing but damage to this place.

Smith and I disagreed about many things when I was here. This is not one of them.

Really wish you were still here. And agreed.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Why not say it more directly -- when some attacks you directly, derails a conversation, provides offensive posts against the rules here, atttacks everyone else, seeks to gang up and bully, grin and bear it without response.

You don't think the mods are capable of dealing with that kind of situation?

6079_Smith_W

It's a bit of a contradiction if when they do make those difficult decisions people here undercut them and tell them they got it wrong.

As Catchfire said in that thread, it isn't they who should be enforcing civility. That is the job of people who post here. And the fact is none of these dear departed were outliers. They were long-time posters. And although they overstepped in some things they were also part of an adversarial culture that is alive and well.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Why not say it more directly -- when some attacks you directly, derails a conversation, provides offensive posts against the rules here, atttacks everyone else, seeks to gang up and bully, grin and bear it without response.

You don't think the mods are capable of dealing with that kind of situation?

They are no omnipresent. And abuse unless there is a reply is usually not attended to. Of course that is difficult to prove becuase there is almost always a reply here despite what you are suggesting.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It's a bit of a contradiction if when they do make those difficult decisions people here undercut them and tell them they got it wrong.

As Catchfire said in that thread, it isn't they who should be enforcing civility. That is the job of people who post here. And the fact is none of these dear departed were outliers. They were long-time posters. And although they overstepped in some things they were also part of an adversarial culture that is alive and well.

 

 

 

I think largley when a person is attacked here if they do not reply nothing will be done about it.

The question is whether for the sake of peace we should recommend that those who are attacked should just shut up and take it without response. I don't think having a place that encourages people to abuse by having a convention that you are wrong if you respond is the kind of place we should be looking for.

It's okay if the majority want this but if that is the name of the game I think a number of people will not want to participate.

The mods are too busy. I have in the past sent messages to the mods before replying. When I don't get an answer back then replying is certainly an option. Often after doing that the original problem gets looked into.

It really depends on whether the babble rules and right to not be attacked are more or less important than keeping the peace.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sorry to be the odd one out, but those mentioned above who got canned had long outworn their welcome in my opinion. Maybe some of you don't mind trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but smears in response, but I consider it a real waste of time. Glad to see them gone, and I think the legacy of this has done nothing but damage to this place.

Smith and I disagreed about many things when I was here. This is not one of them.

If you're still able to post, doesn't that mean your time here has not actually ended?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

..txs for popping by. nice to see you again.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Why not say it more directly -- when some attacks you directly, derails a conversation, provides offensive posts against the rules here, atttacks everyone else, seeks to gang up and bully, grin and bear it without response.

You don't think the mods are capable of dealing with that kind of situation?

They are no omnipresent.

Who said "wait for the mods to notice and react"?????

I said Contact the mods. By private message.

I do so on rare occasions, and have never failed to get a response.

What did I say that was so ambiguous?

Do not reply to abusive personal attacks. Contact the mods. This is babble policy, and it's not particularly abstruse.

Unionist

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sorry to be the odd one out, but those mentioned above who got canned had long outworn their welcome in my opinion. Maybe some of you don't mind trying to have a conversation and getting nothing but smears in response, but I consider it a real waste of time. Glad to see them gone, and I think the legacy of this has done nothing but damage to this place.

Smith and I disagreed about many things when I was here. This is not one of them.

ODA!! You're still here!!! Please stay!

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Why not say it more directly -- when some attacks you directly, derails a conversation, provides offensive posts against the rules here, atttacks everyone else, seeks to gang up and bully, grin and bear it without response.

You don't think the mods are capable of dealing with that kind of situation?

They are no omnipresent.

Who said "wait for the mods to notice and react"?????

I said Contact the mods. By private message.

I do so on rare occasions, and have never failed to get a response.

What did I say that was so ambiguous?

Do not reply to abusive personal attacks. Contact the mods. This is babble policy, and it's not particularly abstruse.

Maybe they respond right away to you. That has not been everyone's experience. This would explain a very different way of seeing this. They seem to be stretched to thin perhaps I don't know.

I do it extremely rarely and sometimes it works and sometimes not.

Pages