Fora Rules

[mahagonny]

2. Do not feed the trolls. Let them carry on with little fanfare.

This is different from the approach taken by the old CHE forums. They said 'refrain for name calling even if you think someone is a troll.'  Which potentially gives the benefit of a doubt to the poster the someone thinks is a troll. Whereas your rule is pretty close to asserting that who is trolling is a settled question that all non-trollers agree on. No room for difference of opinion about who or what is trolling and who or what is not. As if a troll stands out like a puppy in a flock of geese, And the person 'feeding the troll' is now another violator. I think the rule you have could give the appearance that the forum has a political agenda, like you're trying to break up discussion between posters who share the same unpopular viewpoint.

[marshwiggle]

2. Do not feed the trolls. Let them carry on with little fanfare.

This is different from the approach taken by the old CHE forums. They said 'refrain for name calling even if you think someone is a troll.'  Which potentially gives the benefit of a doubt to the poster the someone thinks is a troll. Whereas your rule is pretty close to asserting that who is trolling is a settled question that all non-trollers agree on. No room for difference of opinion about who or what is trolling and who or what is not. As if a troll stands out like a puppy in a flock of geese, And the person 'feeding the troll' is now another violator. I think the rule you have could give the appearance that the forum has a political agenda, like you're trying to break up discussion between posters who share the same unpopular viewpoint.

I'd see this the other way around; if you see someone as a troll, then don't engage with them. If everyone followed that, then everyone would only engage in what they considered productive exchanges. This should implicitly result in the elimination of name-calling since people will, by definition, only interact if/when they have a modicum of respect for each other.

[mahagonny]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

[mouseman]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

Do you think that the forum should force people to interact with members who they find annoying and tedious? I guess we really could run it like a kindergarten "it doesn't matter that little Johnny tells you that you're bad and that he doesn't like you, you still have to play with him".

[mahagonny]

hi

[mahagonny]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

Do you think that the forum should force people to interact with members who they find annoying and tedious? I guess we really could run it like a kindergarten "it doesn't matter that little Johnny tells you that you're bad and that he doesn't like you, you still have to play with him".

I do think an assistant provost for diversity should be forced to read posters who think his job should be eliminated, while the poster should be as concise as possible.

[eigen]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

Do you think that the forum should force people to interact with members who they find annoying and tedious? I guess we really could run it like a kindergarten "it doesn't matter that little Johnny tells you that you're bad and that he doesn't like you, you still have to play with him".

I do think an assistant provost for diversity should be forced to read posters who think his job should be eliminated, while the poster should be as concise as possible.

Wait, you think people on an online forum that is not a direct part of their job should be forced to read posts from people? That seems bananas to me.

[mamselle]

I've done this for the past year or so on CHE, and even more steadily than before (although I did try to ignore provocative posts through 2-3 iterations before commenting, I'd usually fold and say something just to offer an alternative view; finally decided I didn't need the added aggravation, or the extra post numbers).

So, yeah, in Forgiveness and Reconciliation training, it's even a thing: you teach people how to listen past the provocative issues and pay attention to the understory. That often means ignoring the chaff and waiting for the actual grains to appear.

And if they never appear, then you just go on.

I got so I didn't even need an "ignore" button. I'd see a post and just click past it.

M. 

[mahagonny]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

Do you think that the forum should force people to interact with members who they find annoying and tedious? I guess we really could run it like a kindergarten "it doesn't matter that little Johnny tells you that you're bad and that he doesn't like you, you still have to play with him".

I do think an assistant provost for diversity should be forced to read posters who think his job should be eliminated, while the poster should be as concise as possible.

Wait, you think people on an online forum that is not a direct part of their job should be forced to read posts from people? That seems bananas to me.

You're right, it is. He's really into diversity, so he'd be doing it already.

[eigen]

Well, if a discussion gets heated enough, name calling will start. Academics just do it differently from others. I was more interested in a forum community's tendency to ostracize posters.

Do you think that the forum should force people to interact with members who they find annoying and tedious? I guess we really could run it like a kindergarten "it doesn't matter that little Johnny tells you that you're bad and that he doesn't like you, you still have to play with him".

I do think an assistant provost for diversity should be forced to read posters who think his job should be eliminated, while the poster should be as concise as possible.

Wait, you think people on an online forum that is not a direct part of their job should be forced to read posts from people? That seems bananas to me.

You're right, it is. He's really into diversity, so he'd be doing it already.

I feel like you're bringing some very specific baggage into this discussion.

[mahagonny]

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.

[eigen]

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.

Yes? Nothing other than your comments in this thread has anything to do with telling people who the trolls are.

As has been pointed out, the rule as proposed tells people not to purposefully antagonize (feed) those they think are trolls. It doesn't say anything about who is or isn't a troll.

It's also worth mentioning that this isn't a new thing: See the DNFTT thread on the old forums.

https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=64218.0

[mahagonny]

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.

Yes? Nothing other than your comments in this thread has anything to do with telling people who the trolls are.

As has been pointed out, the rule as proposed tells people not to purposefully antagonize (feed) those they think are trolls. It doesn't say anything about who is or isn't a troll.

It's also worth mentioning that this isn't a new thing: See the DNFTT thread on the old forums.

https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=64218.0

What happens here remains to be seen. The old forum serves as a useful negative example as far as I'm concerned. people congregated on the 'one-off's' thread and exchanged messages that served to identify posters the clique identified as trolls. meanwhile the poster who essentially runs this forum relentlessly rained anti-faculty negativity on adjunct advocacy discussions, with no repercussions.

[eigen]

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.

Yes? Nothing other than your comments in this thread has anything to do with telling people who the trolls are.

As has been pointed out, the rule as proposed tells people not to purposefully antagonize (feed) those they think are trolls. It doesn't say anything about who is or isn't a troll.

It's also worth mentioning that this isn't a new thing: See the DNFTT thread on the old forums.

https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=64218.0

What happens here remains to be seen. The old forum serves as a useful negative example as far as I'm concerned. people congregated on the 'one-off's' thread and exchanged messages that served to identify posters the clique identified as trolls. meanwhile the poster who essentially runs this forum relentlessly rained anti-faculty negativity on adjunct advocacy discussions, with no repercussions.

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?

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?

[mahagonny]

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.