NationStates Jolt Archive

From this rather questionable topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523561&page=4) comes a simple question of integrity. In a world where there are so many people parodying and misrepresenting what perceive to me to be clearly mistaken positions, how can we tell the difference between someone who wants to try express a serious personal belief and who deliberately wants to get others worked up? And is it fair to punish people for representing a particular view just because it resembles one that is perceived to be deliberately provokative?

(Note; I have no sympathy for the views and opinions expressed in the linked thread)

From this rather questionable topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523561&page=4) comes a simple question of integrity. In a world where there are so many people parodying and misrepresenting what perceive to me to be clearly mistaken positions, how can we tell the difference between someone who wants to try express a serious personal belief and who deliberately wants to get others worked up? And is it fair to punish people for representing a particular view just because it resembles one that is perceived to be deliberately provokative?

(Note; I have no sympathy for the views and opinions expressed in the linked thread)

Yep.

While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs.

Yep.
Can I ask whether this is fair?

Can I ask whether this is fair?

If you have to ask .... :D

I think there's some slip on that where a decent or intelligent argument is provoked and continued, even if a person uses extreme measures to prod the "debate".
The Red Arrow comes to mind, for example. Often some very good threads to argue, but that particular entity got pissed about the selective nature of mod intervention at the time and just got more and more trollish through different noms de plume.

it can be difficult to tell a true troll from one post or even one thread.

however, a troll does have a pattern of posting that will clearly show that he is not in the business of putting forth his opinion but rather in it only to piss people off.

he might be in denial about his motives, but it doesnt take long to realize that he never makes a substantive post if he can post flamebait instead. that he quickly leaves off the defense of his opinion to home in on the personal attack of a vulnerable poster. he always posts the most outrageous and hyperbolic of opinions.

sometimes such a person is just a pathetic attention whore. but if he doesnt try to get anyone to sympathize with him or even to like him, hes a troll.

Can I ask whether this is fair?
I think so. The mods are usually fair, and won't ban something just for holding a minority viewpoint. The rules are fairly clear:

Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

It would appear that anyone can espouse an opinion that no one else on NS General supports - as long as that poster does not use invective.

I.E., as long as there's a modicum of reasonable behavior from the poster, you can't shout him down as a troll.

It would appear that anyone can espouse an opinion that no one else on NS General supports - as long as that poster does not use invective.

I.E., as long as there's a modicum of reasonable behavior from the poster, you can't shout him down as a troll.

This is a good thing.

The problem is, sometimes, the criteria of some mods about it. After all, the choice of mods regarding intent is like democracy, it is the worst system we could apply, except for all those applied before.

Naming people trolls after a certain point of view is explained should be labeled as flaming, too. And for example, certain posters, as Soviestan, or Eve Online, or IDF, or a handful of others, start threads with the only purpose of following a controversial agenda and create reject through invectives, and yet, as they are old posters, they are not labeled as trolls. Looks like certain..."age" on the forums gives people a certain inmunity against the so called "troll label".

I once posted a thread where I argued that left-handed people were an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to get married. It was done to parody the homophobes but quite a few people seemed to take me seriously. :(

I once posted a thread where I argued that left-handed people were an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to get married. It was done to parody the homophobes but quite a few people seemed to take me seriously. :(

Yeah, it was trolling. Parody or not. Should we allow trolling trying to parody? Let me know so I can start right now.

I once posted a thread where I argued that left-handed people were an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to get married. It was done to parody the homophobes but quite a few people seemed to take me seriously. :(

It is only in the last 50 years or so that lefthandedness has been accepted. It used to be openly discriminated against, and still is, in many parts of the world. :(

It is only in the last 50 years or so that lefthandedness has been accepted. It used to be openly discriminated against, and still is, in many parts of the world. :(

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I picked it to use as an example: prejudice against the left-handed is obviously ridiculous to the vast majority of people in the west today (I think some Arab nations still consider the left-hand to be 'dirty') but the idea of discrimination against them is realistic enough to make the thread relevant.

The problem is, sometimes, the criteria of some mods about it. After all, the choice of mods regarding intent is like democracy, it is the worst system we could apply, except for all those applied before.

Naming people trolls after a certain point of view is explained should be labeled as flaming, too. And for example, certain posters, as Soviestan, or Eve Online, or IDF, or a handful of others, start threads with the only purpose of following a controversial agenda and create reject through invectives, and yet, as they are old posters, they are not labeled as trolls. Looks like certain..."age" on the forums gives people a certain inmunity against the so called "troll label".

Did these older posters call people names?

Yeah, it was trolling. Parody or not. Should we allow trolling trying to parody? Let me know so I can start right now.

If you're writing to parody then no, I don't consider it to be trolling and it should be allowed. I'm not sure what the Mods' position is but they didn't lock or delete my thread.

Did these older posters call people names?

Like "repugnant acts", by the late poster?

Yep, they have. They have said even worst things, regarding "liberals", "feminists", "muslims" and other postures.

Like "repugnant acts", by the late poster?

Yep, they have. They have said even worst things, regarding "liberals", "feminists", "muslims" and other postures.

Can you link to an example for each of the names you mentioned?

I am assuming, of course, that "invective" means saying things like

"Oh you *f*ing liberal!"

or

"Oh you faggot!" or the like

I do not, however, view "I believe profiling by the police based on <fill in the blank here> is good and right" as invective.

If you're writing to parody then no, I don't consider it to be trolling and it should be allowed. I'm not sure what the Mods' position is but they didn't lock or delete my thread.

So, then readers must always guess the declaration of intent. couldn't I write something hoping to troll, and then allegate a clear intent of parody on those muslimswomenamericanseuropeansblacksjews?

I was one of those who didn't find your thread funny. Mostly because thanks to your "opening" intent to parody, that thread got jumped by people who actually started bashing left handed people for real, hiding behind the parody façade. We should deny them such opportunities, don't you think?

I think too often that people call a controversial opinion trolling so as to try and prove their own case, and that is an ad hominem attack. Which is quite deliciously ironic, actually.

Edit: I do consider it to be trolling when people just start to curse like crazy, it conveys to me a lower level of thinking.

I am assuming, of course, that "invective" means saying things like

"Oh you *f*ing liberal!"

or

"Oh you faggot!" or the like

I do not, however, view "I believe profiling by the police based on <fill in the blank here> is good and right" as invective.

I didn't find any of these "invectives" in the thread linked by the OP. I found similar invectives to the ones linked by the OP in posts of those posters.

The fuck word, amongst others, like faggot, is more related to open flaming than to trolling.

I didn't find any of these "invectives" in the thread linked by the OP. I found similar invectives to the ones linked by the OP in posts of those posters.

The fuck word, amongst others, like faggot, is more related to open flaming than to trolling.

Give me an example for each poster.

Aelosia, I've just looked through some OPs by Soviestan and Eve Online in relation to this statement in the OP:

And is it fair to punish people for representing a particular view just because it resembles one that is perceived to be deliberately provokative?


It would appear to me that they represent views that while provocative, do not appear to be just done to mess with people.

Give me an example for each poster.

Hang around for a day, I'm not in the mood perusing the archives just to find something that is going to be written today.

Aelosia, I've just looked through some OPs by Soviestan and Eve Online in relation to this statement in the OP:



It would appear to me that they represent views that while provocative, do not appear to be just done to mess with people.

Well, I have seen OPs of Eve quoting an article on a murder, with involved muslims, then assuming "Now can you defend that islam doesn't lead to violence?". Or the american liberals, in similar fashion. Gathering of the Eagles, for example, was clearly provocative.

For me, that is open trolling due to unrelated content.

Soviestan does it regarding women, sometimes Israel. IDF does it regarding muslims, palestinians, and the arab world in general.

Well, I have seen OPs of Eve quoting an article on a murder, with involved muslims, then assuming "Now can you defend that islam doesn't lead to violence?". Or the american liberals, in similar fashion. Gathering of the Eagles, for example, was clearly provocative.

For me, that is open trolling due to unrelated content.

Soviestan does it regarding women, sometimes Israel. IDF does it regarding muslims, palestinians, and the arab world in general.

It looks to me like they are posting their opinions. In their opinion, these things are related.

None of that is "invective". In fact, it appears to be argument (however ill formed) on their part.

Just because you disagree with their sentiments doesn't mean you have the right to stifle what they say by calling it "trolling".

If you have to ask .... :D

I think there's some slip on that where a decent or intelligent argument is provoked and continued, even if a person uses extreme measures to prod the "debate".
The Red Arrow comes to mind, for example. Often some very good threads to argue, but that particular entity got pissed about the selective nature of mod intervention at the time and just got more and more trollish through different noms de plume.

Not to get too far off topic, but TRA and his various incarnations got away with rather a lot before being banned.
As I recall, TRA itself was banned for spamming copy/paste topics, not trolling.

Anyway...

NS is far more neutral than it once was. Back in the day, NS was a cesspool of dirty communists, liberals and assorted pinko's. Compared to that point in time, NS nowadays is practically conservative.
Of course...there's still Fass...but he's really more of a force of nature :P
Tangents aside, I think the general idea is that NS welcomes 'reasonable debate', where 'reasonable' means 'people can debate this topic and not just go, 'YOURE WRONG IM RIGHT STFU FAG' and so forth. This tends to happen anyway, but usually there IS a debate going on somewhere in the background.
For example, a topic on, let us say, nuclear disarmament. This can be reasonably debated, and its actually an issue.
A topic on 'ZOMGZ GEORGE BUSH IZ STOOPID' cannot be reasonably debated. The tone set by the OP is likely to be so extreme as to negate any serious or non-flame responses in a flood of parody and spam.

...
Wow, that was longer than I intended it to be.

It looks to me like they are posting their opinions. In their opinion, these things are related.

None of that is "invective". In fact, it appears to be argument (however ill formed) on their part.

Just because you disagree with their sentiments doesn't mean you have the right to stifle what they say by calling it "trolling".

Then I can't see why the thread linked in the OP constitutes trolling neither. What I am criticizing here, is the lack of a standard. Do you get my point now, or should I bring the crayola and the blackboard?

Then I can't see why the thread linked in the OP constitutes trolling neither. What I am criticizing here, is the lack of a standard. Do you get my point now, or should I bring the crayola and the blackboard?

The MTAE thread isn't trolling to me. He's not calling the other posters names, or reacting violently to them.

There seems to be a standard here. It's just that you don't agree with it, because you only want to see things posted here on NS that you agree with.

So, then readers must always guess the declaration of intent. couldn't I write something hoping to troll, and then allegate a clear intent of parody on those muslimswomenamericanseuropeansblacksjews?

Not for long. You might be able to get away with it for one thread (although I doubt it) but if you start repeated threads on the subject then your real intentions will quickly become clear.

I was one of those who didn't find your thread funny. Mostly because thanks to your "opening" intent to parody, that thread got jumped by people who actually started bashing left handed people for real, hiding behind the parody façade. We should deny them such opportunities, don't you think?

Given the way that rules are applied on this forum I don't think that many people need to plead parody to escape censor. Meanstoanend advocated the reinstatement of slavery, Soviestan has suggested that the Jews benefitted from the Holocaust, Eve Online and The Potato Factory have started countless Muslim-bashing threads, all without any kind of censorship from the mods.

Often was the case, though, that Eve Online had misrepresented the event or issue or even the text of the article itself in order to make his conclusion. And at that point it becomes something else. Most of the time when his discrepency was found he'd either bail on the thread all together to start another one on a similarly shaky basis or he would lash out at invisible flies to obscure the fact that the thread was based not on the facts stated.

It's not the viewpoint, it's how the viewpoint is presented.

Given the threads I've read today, I don't see a lot of factual representation out of most posters here. Obviously not a trolling offense, either.

It looks to me like they are posting their opinions. In their opinion, these things are related.

None of that is "invective". In fact, it appears to be argument (however ill formed) on their part.

Just because you disagree with their sentiments doesn't mean you have the right to stifle what they say by calling it "trolling".

Often was the case, though, that Eve Online had misrepresented the event or issue or even the text of the article itself in order to make his conclusion. And at that point it becomes something else. Most of the time when his discrepency was found he'd either bail on the thread all together to start another one on a similarly shaky basis or he would lash out at invisible flies to obscure the fact that the thread was based not on the facts stated.

It's not the viewpoint, it's how the viewpoint is presented.

The MTAE thread isn't trolling to me. He's not calling the other posters names, or reacting violently to them.

There seems to be a standard here. It's just that you don't agree with it, because you only want to see things posted here on NS that you agree with.

Not really, darling. I do not openly criticize every thing I am opposed here on NS. Not do I think everyone opposed to my views is trolling. Smunkeeville, for example, amongst thousands of others, is perhaps my complete opposite, and yet I firmly believe she's not a troll, but a decent poster.

Ariddia, for example, holds political views radically opposed to my own, and yet he is not a troll. I could go on, but well, I think it is already covered.

There is a difference between talking out of ones ass and missrepresenting.

Sure, there is a lot of ass talk that goes on around here, but a long pattern of missrepresentation means that the town folk won't come a' runnin' next time 'wolf' is cried.

And frankly, your short searches and surveys, judging from the time between your posts, aren't enough. It's a long pattern with posters who have been here a while and none of us have the patience to go through all of it to show you.

You want to believe that posters with certain viewpoints are persecuted? Knock yourself out. We've had more than our share of crossbearers here. You asked us, we told you. You don't believe us, give it time.

Well, this is the Internet, and if there are no links, it doesn't exist.

Given the threads I've read today, I don't see a lot of factual representation out of most posters here. Obviously not a trolling offense, either.

There is a difference between talking out of ones ass and missrepresenting.

Sure, there is a lot of ass talk that goes on around here, but a long pattern of missrepresentation means that the town folk won't come a' runnin' next time 'wolf' is cried.

And frankly, your short searches and surveys, judging from the time between your posts, aren't enough. It's a long pattern with posters who have been here a while and none of us have the patience to go through all of it to show you.

You want to believe that posters with certain viewpoints are persecuted? Knock yourself out. We've had more than our share of crossbearers here. You asked us, we told you. You don't believe us, give it time.

Not really, darling. I do not openly criticize every thing I am opposed here on NS. Not do I think everyone opposed to my views is trolling. Smunkeeville, for example, amongst thousands of others, is perhaps my complete opposite, and yet I firmly believe she's not a troll, but a decent poster.

Ariddia, for example, holds political views radically opposed to my own, and yet he is not a troll. I could go on, but well, I think it is already covered.

exactly.

there are people here who are interested in intelligent discussion of various viewpoints. some i agree with; some i dont. even when (rarely) i am in a heated discussion with someone i know the difference between trolling and disagreeing. a passionate defense of your position is the point of coming to NSG.

there are some people here who are only interested in winding people up. with eveonline that tends to be the nazz. EO seems perfectly content to post something stupid just so that nazz can bust him for it. in the vast majority of his thread he is uninterested in discussion or honest debate. if you make a reasoned response to his OP, he will ignore it. his only responses are to those people he is working on upsetting. thats trolling.

Well, this is the Internet, and if there are no links, it doesn't exist.

if this is an honest question, you will see the truth of the situation soon enough.

if you want to, use the search feature yourself and read through half a dozen threads started by Eve online, freedom and glory, and perhaps means to an end (the infamous MTAE). what they are doing is glaringly obvious.

You can troll while still holding the belief. It's not a matter of being a liar. Trolling is a certain set of behaviors and since no one is telepathic, the mods (and anyone else) just have to use their best judgement in determining what is a trolling thread and what isn't.

You can troll while still holding the belief. It's not a matter of being a liar. Trolling is a certain set of behaviors and since no one is telepathic, the mods (and anyone else) just have to use their best judgement in determining what is a trolling thread and what isn't.

Apparently then, Soviestan, Eve Online, MTAE, and a few others aren't trolls in the eyes of the mods. Some here believe they are trolls, but they only wish they were mods.

Is that it?

Of course...there's still Fass...but he's really more of a force of nature :P

What an indecorous thing to say.

Apparently then, Soviestan, Eve Online, MTAE, and a few others aren't trolls in the eyes of the mods.

MTAE's threads were closed down for trolling from time to time.

So he is indeed a troll.

And just because a mod hasn't made a specific total ruling over a poster doesn't mean anything. Generally the mods treat instances of rule violation, and try to give individuals chances to redeem themselves, rather than "condemning" a poster with a label like "troll."

In short, they judge what is "trolling," not who is "a troll."

And yes, the mods can have their opinion, which is necessarily more lenient and cautious, and other users can have their opinion as well. Doesn't mean anything about "wish they were a mod," and quite frankly the only reason I think you are so obviously angry and self-righteous about this is because you're a troll yourself and you don't enjoy the label.

In a world where there are so many people parodying and misrepresenting what perceive to me to be clearly mistaken positions, how can we tell the difference between someone who wants to try express a serious personal belief and who deliberately wants to get others worked up?
If you like the view, he's a lone hero going against the crowd. If you are indifferent, he's someone lacking conformity. If you don't like the view, he's a troll.

Apparently then, Soviestan, Eve Online, MTAE, and a few others aren't trolls in the eyes of the mods. Some here believe they are trolls, but they only wish they were mods.

Is that it?

yes, in a nutshell

except that the mods DID delete mtae for trolling. soviestan has been warned for bad behavior. i dont know about EO but he has run into some mod trouble in past incarnations.

the mods only delete trolls for egregiously trollish behavior. that they arent removed doesnt mean they arent trolls.

And yes, the mods can have their opinion, which is necessarily more lenient and cautious, and other users can have their opinion as well. Doesn't mean anything about "wish they were a mod," and quite frankly the only reason I think you are so obviously angry and self-righteous about this is because you're a troll yourself and you don't enjoy the label.

I think you're projecting here - I'm neither angry, nor self-righteous.

And certainly not a troll. I think that anyone who provokes a reaction here is considered a troll, regardless of how nice he is about it.

I think you're projecting here - I'm neither angry, nor self-righteous.


Yet you make accusatory threads with biased polls angrily lashing out at, in your typical unspecified manner, the entire forum.

And your responses to responses are typically angry and self-rigtheous.


And certainly not a troll. I think that anyone who provokes a reaction here is considered a troll

Nonsense. Considered by whom? Again you have no specifics, you just want to stir up some sort of martyrdom.

Yet you make accusatory threads with biased polls angrily lashing out at, in your typical unspecified manner, the entire forum.

And your responses to responses are typically angry and self-rigtheous.


I'm not angry, nor self-righteous. Can you show me a link please?