NationStates Jolt Archive

It's been an issue greatly discussed here on NSG, but I'd like to revisit it for a momentico s'il vous plait.

In this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13598037&postcount=223), when accused of being an admitted troll, the poster replies:

i prefer to think of myself as someone who stimulates debate by taking a rather extreme position then defends it amiably until i inevitably break character... since trolling is frowned upon here. the spelling and grammatical errors are real however, a curse that tends to exclude me from the most serious of discussions... meh serious discussion require to much intellectual rigor anyway.

Now, I know we've asked before if we could...step out of ourselves a bit and create a 'character' as a kind of devil's advocate. No one as strong and flame-baity as HerPower perhaps, but sometimes, it's a fantastic exercise to argue a point you don't actually believe in. Invariably the answer has been..."Go ahead and try it, we'll roast marshmallows over your DEATed corpse".

Taking extreme positions that are bound to rile people up, however 'amiably' they are presented (and in the case of this poster, methinks that claim is a little forced) has been counted as flame-baiting and trolling. But where really can the line be drawn between trolling and playing the devil's advocate? Do we have to post something with a disclaimer? Like "I am playing the devil's advocate here, please note that these are not my real opinions"?

I'm sure the mod decision on this one will be interesting, but from my point of view, having been here for years now, and other on sites before this one, the difference is how you present it.

If you write a huge essay on how African Americans are really genetically inferior and should be put into slavery to reduce crime, for instance, then yes, there is going to be a huge uproar against you. People are going to hate you. Hundreds are going to post in reply. However, that, while way ridiculous, is playing devil's advocate in my opinion. Trolling, mind you, would be more along the lines of "Oh come on, we all know N*****s can't do shit but kill each other. Enslave 'em." and warrant a forum ban and the like.

Now granted that is a VERY extreme example, but I think it gets the point across. If you truly have a crazy point of view, or simply want to, like you said, play devil's advocate on it, then if you do so in a very mature way (good grammar, keeping your cool, facts with sources) it should work. However, if you just throw out "zingers" that still enrage the community but do nothing to add to debate, that's trolling.

EDIT: NOT A MOD. Just an informed opinion.

<snip>I know we've asked before if we could...step out of ourselves a bit and create a 'character' as a kind of devil's advocate ... Invariably the answer has been..."Go ahead and try it, we'll roast marshmallows over your DEATed corpse".

I didn't know that was the policy, Neesika, so you'll have to wait for a more experienced mod to comment on that aspect (I'll be a bit surprised if it is.) I can only give you the rule of thumb I've been using: it's the trolling and flamebait that causes the poster trouble. The question of what nation they're using to do it doesn't enter into it.

In the WA forum it's not unusual for a poster to have two nations with wildly differing views. The convention there is that you don't post with both nations in the same thread. This avoids situations where a poster sets up a feeble patsy to put opposing arguments, then rolls over it with his main nation, creating the impression that the side he favours is stronger than it actually is. Mod action is seldom needed on such things because the community grinds them up and spits them out without help.

General usually seems to handle it by having a poster declare his split personality -- the way Nobel Hobos, whose current incarnation I can't remember (sorry, NH) has one nation for posting with while sober and another for posting with while drunk. I've also seen posters say, "I'll just play devil's advocate for a minute here: that point you raised earlier about ... (etc)". But as long as a player is keeping to the rules, I don't check to see which other nations they run.

The corollary is, of course, that if the puppet sins, the poster pays. But that's the way it is on all the forums.

I kind of doubt that starting a thread called "Religious Extremists target Cultural Event" is an example of "Devil's advocate". Playing Devil's Advocate, if I'm not much mistaken, is taking a position one doesn't believe in for the sake of a well-rounded debate. It usually comes in form of questions challenging an opposing position, not in baseless accusations.

*snip*
I know I've specifically asked if I could create a different nation to argue positions that I as Neesika (or Sinuhue) would not generally support. I was told by Kat that this would be extremely risky behaviour to engage in. Then again, this was probably around the time of DCD's deletion. In a public thread we discussed this too...no way am I going to be able to find it. I know it's a judgment call, but it seemed as though mod consensus was that if they knew you weren't the kind to argue that sort of thing, it was probably trolling on your part. For those of us who have run into trouble here and there, it's sort of a big risk to take, but the idea of a 'devil's advocate nation' is still appealing.

I kind of doubt that starting a thread called "Religious Extremists target Cultural Event" is an example of "Devil's advocate". Playing Devil's Advocate, if I'm not much mistaken, is taking a position one doesn't believe in for the sake of a well-rounded debate. It usually comes in form of questions challenging an opposing position, not in baseless accusations.

I was responding to the general question, not to the specific one you appear to be asking, ie, "Is (quoted thread)" trolling"?

I read the title early on in that thread's life, and took it as an advertising ploy, rather than trolling -- what extremists? where? being enough to make people read the first post. I haven't been keeping an eye on it; if you want to query it, let's have a separate thread. (Possibly also a separate mod, as I just logged in briefly while having a late-assignment-session coffee break.)

s'il vous plait.

*gasp* Your lack of circumflex is an atrocity.

*gasp* Your lack of circumflex is an atrocity.
I apologise, I'm not yet used to this new keyboard.

If you write a huge essay on how African Americans are really genetically inferior and should be put into slavery to reduce crime, for instance, then yes, there is going to be a huge uproar against you. People are going to hate you. Hundreds are going to post in reply. However, that, while way ridiculous, is playing devil's advocate in my opinion. Trolling, mind you, would be more along the lines of "Oh come on, we all know N*****s can't do shit but kill each other. Enslave 'em." and warrant a forum ban and the like.

I would argue that the Troll vs. Devil's Advocate distinction lies rather in the view that is expressed, than in the way it is expressed. Wrapping racism in a well-written essay vs. in a badly-spelled one-liner does not make it less inflammatory.

A Devil's Advocate is someone who incites enlightened debate. A Troll is someone who incites a flame-war.

An enlightened debate could result from the controversial and somewhat xenophobic claim that "immigration harms the economy and should be limited/stopped". Counter-arguments could be brought, statistics cited. From the racist claim that "other religions/skin colors are inferior and should be enslaved", no constructive debate can result, and the one who calls himself a "Devil's Advocate" is being disingenuous and acting in bad faith. They know that they're starting a flame war.

IANAM (here).

My opinion is that Devil's Advocacy should be fine as long as you don't make an @$$ of yourself. Even someone arguing a racist POV could evoke some excellent discussion. And I could see using a puppet to protect your (hypothetical) good reputation, though obviously it wouldn't protect you from the Hand of Mod if you crossed the line. The problem is determining the line between Devil's Advocate and flamer/flamebaiter.

Just another non-modly opinion.

I also disagree that it's the view expressed that defines trolling versus playing the devil's advocate (actually holding the viewpoint in question). There are plenty of people out there who hold extreme opinions that are not widely accepted...but they don't hold them just for the sake of riling other people up. They actually believe them. If they can express them in a manner that is beyond "Lol I think wimmin iz bitches and they should clean mah boots with their tongues", then all for the good. Which is what I think people playing the devil's advocate should be doing, and should be allowed to do here.

However, if you are a well known poster with well known opinions and you create a puppet to flex your devil's advocate muscles...will you be DEATed into oblivion?

Tis the question.

However, if you are a well known poster with well known opinions and you create a puppet to flex your devil's advocate muscles...will you be DEATed into oblivion?

Tis the question.

There's no clear cut answer.

If the puppet was created for the sole purpose of 'riling other people up', they've been outed and deleted. If their purpose was to provide an alternative, even unpopular opinion, but they kept it civil and informative, they are fine.

Other posters have done precisely that, and they have met with different ends. The outed puppet "JesusSaves' was deleted not because of the positions he held, but because of the way he 'defended' those positions. No significant attempt was made to defend, argue, or rationalize those positions. He just dropped into a thread, dropped a cryptic, often inflammatory verse or statement into the fray, and ran away. In the opinion of the mods who made that ruling, that was trolling.

Nazis and pedophiles have made their cases here and been allowed to post for far longer than my personal taste would allow. As long as they kept the discussion civil and within the other rules, they could post here despite overwhelming opposition. As a rule, we forumbanned more opponents than proponents to rulebreaking, as some of our players seem to think that Max gave the right not to be offended. Eventually most of the proponents crossed one line or another and ceased to exist. Such is the nature of forum life.

So your answer, Neesika, is that we can't give you a blanket answer. It's your behavior that determines whether you survive or not, and we can't pre-judge what you'd do or say. The posted rules haven't required substantive changes in the past several years, so if you stick by the One Stop Rules Shop guidelines, you'll most likely be fine.