Author Topic: Rules Discussion & Refinement  (Read 1973 times)

eigen

  • A function of something...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • CHE Posts: 1477
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2019, 09:39:41 AM »

Moreover, I feel like you keep bringing baggage from years ago into current threads where it has no bearing. Maybe it’s time to let it go?

What you're calling baggage and implying has no place in the discussion is already here. You're making a specific rule that says the presence of trolls is guaranteed. But honestly that's not a shocker to me. I've been to forums where the phrase 'right wing troll' is considered common usage and others where it's 'left-wing troll' It's how people with similar politics and agenda find each other and consolidate.
But you may be right, time to let it go, one reason being the poster I referred to may have learned by now that what they were doing on those threads wasn't winning them new fans.

Eh? I’m one of the people that runs the forums, and I don’t remember doing any of that... perhaps you don’t understand how these forums are being run?


You don't remember egging on or enabling a troll? Me neither.

This is an online forum that anyone can register for and post on. The presence of trolls is, at some point, guaranteed. Sometimes it's a bored undergrad, sometimes it's someone with an ax to grind against academics, sometimes it's someone who wants to spin tales of illicit affairs with a professor.

Perhaps you're reading something more personal into the rule that isn't there?

mahagonny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2019, 06:40:02 PM »

This is an online forum that anyone can register for and post on. The presence of trolls is, at some point, guaranteed. Sometimes it's a bored undergrad, sometimes it's someone with an ax to grind against academics, sometimes it's someone who wants to spin tales of illicit affairs with a professor.

Perhaps you're reading something more personal into the rule that isn't there?

Oh, well...academics as a group couldn't possibly be guilty of anything.

Just about all pseudonymous forums have a mob that identifies trolls who turn out to have similar beliefs and also dignifies their own bullies. This one should do it too. You're right, let it go. We have no obligation to be better than the rest.

But we can agree that when someone is obviously nothing but disruptive they are a troll.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 07:35:26 PM by mahagonny »

namazu

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 104
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2019, 10:25:31 PM »

This is an online forum that anyone can register for and post on. The presence of trolls is, at some point, guaranteed. Sometimes it's a bored undergrad, sometimes it's someone with an ax to grind against academics, sometimes it's someone who wants to spin tales of illicit affairs with a professor.

Perhaps you're reading something more personal into the rule that isn't there?

Oh, well...academics as a group couldn't possibly be guilty of anything.

Just about all pseudonymous forums have a mob that identifies trolls who turn out to have similar beliefs and also dignifies their own bullies. This one should do it too. You're right, let it go. We have no obligation to be better than the rest.

But we can agree that when someone is obviously nothing but disruptive they are a troll.
Do you have a constructive suggestion as to how we could address this problem more effectively, mahagonny? 

(It seems to me that the current "Do not feed the trolls" rule expressly advocates against mobbing or otherwise calling attention to perceived trolls. This should prevent anyone who may be unfairly identified by any given member as a troll from suffering as a result of this misidentification.)

Or do you just want to continue doing what you've ostensibly been railing against for the past umpteen posts (i.e. passive-aggressively, and without naming names -- but still very conspicuously -- singling out a forum member whose presence/arguments you find odious and whom you wish to see marginalized)?

I have not noticed mob behavior here (yet), though I agree that it sometimes got out of hand at the old forum.  The one-offs thread did bring out ugly behavior in people at times; of course, sometimes people were independently, but simultaneously, venting understandable frustration in the least-disruptive way they could muster. 

Perhaps you might consider these fora a chance for a fresh start -- not only for yourself, but also for others. 

mahagonny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2019, 04:31:11 PM »

Do you have a constructive suggestion as to how we could address this problem more effectively, mahagonny? 


Yes, I made it already: 

If we don't tell each other who the trolls are, and let each reader decide for himself, I think it will be a better forum.

And I'll add, most of the time accusations of trolling end up being instances of mobbing while academia is nothing if not self-infatuated with its sense of diversity appreciation. So it would be a little weird to go around saying 'who are the trolls?' Though as you say, it doesn't seem to be happening yet. I think the rules are OK. I was just making an observation. It's an inexact art, as has been noted.

Quote
Or do you just want to continue doing what you've ostensibly been railing against for the past umpteen posts (i.e. passive-aggressively, and without naming names -- but still very conspicuously -- singling out a forum member whose presence/arguments you find odious and whom you wish to see marginalized)?

I don't know what should be done about it. Probably not more repetition.  But if you have the same cosseted person or people accepting tenure track unions but simultaneously working overtime to snuff out adjunct unions, you don't have a pro faculty forum; you have something else. I can't change facts like these.
But as you say also, it's a new era, and maybe give it a chance to develop.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 04:50:51 PM by mahagonny »

eigen

  • A function of something...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • CHE Posts: 1477
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2019, 04:39:38 PM »
One person does not a forum make. You seem to keep conflating the opinions of one poster with a position of the forum, which is made up of many posters.

I would hope people are free to have and express opinions that any of us dislike here.

mahagonny

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2019, 10:15:33 AM »
Instead of an 'ignore user' feature a 'block user' feature would be useful if it could enable you to identify a poster and seal off your posts so they are not visible to that person. Like FB does. Otherwise, in order to choose to be in the company of the forum, you have to invite all off them or none. You wouldn't run your social life that way.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 10:23:21 AM by mahagonny »

Scout

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • CHE Posts: 900
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2019, 11:41:39 AM »
No, but if you walked into bar and someone you didn’t like was there you wouldn’t yell “don’t look at me!” either. You’d ignore them and keep your conversations separate as best you can. You can’t control who sees you in a basically public space.

Facebook is not set up as a public space unless you choose to go to public groups. Facebook is designed as invitation only (friending) space, so it makes sense you could defriend/block someone.
Once upon a time I dreamt I was named yeastie.

polly_mer

  • Smiling and Waving
  • Senior Moderator
  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • Welcome! So nice to see you here.
  • CHE Posts: lots!
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2019, 12:33:54 PM »
Instead of an 'ignore user' feature a 'block user' feature would be useful if it could enable you to identify a poster and seal off your posts so they are not visible to that person.

How would that work in a public venue where posts are visible to the world?  You aren't obligated to respond to any posts.  We have an ignore user feature so that you don't have to see everyone's posts and thus cannot read what people write in response to your posts.  You are welcome to make use of the PM feature and only converse with people with whom you want to converse out of public view.  You are also free to read posts and choose not to respond.

The question remains: do you want to participate in extended discussions on topics of interest with multiple views being presented or do you really only want to interact with people who agree with you or at least have to pretend that only some views are of enough value to discuss?  One way could change the world; the other way practically guarantees that whomever has power or will soon have power probably doesn't have all the views.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 12:41:45 PM by polly_mer »
Do whatever you want--I'm just the background dancer in your show!

ciao_yall

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Rules Discussion & Refinement
« Reply #53 on: September 08, 2019, 02:11:08 PM »
Instead of an 'ignore user' feature a 'block user' feature would be useful if it could enable you to identify a poster and seal off your posts so they are not visible to that person.

How would that work in a public venue where posts are visible to the world?  You aren't obligated to respond to any posts.  We have an ignore user feature so that you don't have to see everyone's posts and thus cannot read what people write in response to your posts.  You are welcome to make use of the PM feature and only converse with people with whom you want to converse out of public view.  You are also free to read posts and choose not to respond.

The question remains: do you want to participate in extended discussions on topics of interest with multiple views being presented or do you really only want to interact with people who agree with you or at least have to pretend that only some views are of enough value to discuss?  One way could change the world; the other way practically guarantees that whomever has power or will soon have power probably doesn't have all the views.

"Ignore user" works if you are in a thread, but not if you are looking at "All Recent Posts."