…I just fear equating different ideas and disagreement to trolling to be problematic. Someone shouldn't be banned for having an opposing viewpoint.
This is where a solid definition of trolling would be really helpful. The current most common definition is that a “troll” posts not to communicate, whether in agreement or disagreement, but rather with the deliberate intent to disrupt the communication process. There is no reference in the trolling definition to different ideas, only to the concept of a deliberate intent to disrupt. Moderators have to look across multiple posts to assess this, which is what trolls in the past counted on. If they could sneak a single post past a mod as borderline acceptable, they could continue to disrupt overall, without any single post giving them away. They could also point to single posts as being apparently acceptable, to fight accusations of trolling. Looking at overall intent is much harder, in my opinion, but it needs to be done.
(RI, i can copy this to the rules thread if you’ve already moved stuff.)
I haven't yet, but if we could migrate the discussion there, that would be wonderful.
In my reading, I found lots of different definitions of trolling and observations that there was no one agreed definition. It struck me that the definition depends on the context. So, any definition of trolling we adopt should be based on the nature of the forum and it's purpose. Does that make sense to you?
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
This is where a solid definition of trolling would be really helpful. The current most common definition is that a “troll” posts not to communicate, whether in agreement or disagreement, but rather with the deliberate intent to disrupt the communication process. There is no reference in the trolling definition to different ideas, only to the concept of a deliberate intent to disrupt. Moderators have to look across multiple posts to assess this, which is what trolls in the past counted on. If they could sneak a single post past a mod as borderline acceptable, they could continue to disrupt overall, without any single post giving them away. They could also point to single posts as being apparently acceptable, to fight accusations of trolling. Looking at overall intent is much harder, in my opinion, but it needs to be done.
(RI, i can copy this to the rules thread if you’ve already moved stuff.)
I haven't yet, but if we could migrate the discussion there, that would be wonderful.
In my reading, I found lots of different definitions of trolling and observations that there was no one agreed definition. It struck me that the definition depends on the context. So, any definition of trolling we adopt should be based on the nature of the forum and it's purpose. Does that make sense to you?
I’ve taken that into account from the very first comments I made about research, sorry, I should have been more clear about that. The definitions I’ve posted and commented on here have all been from research into trolling that is taking place in online forums and online communities organized around a concept. The basic rules particular to a forum are assumed to always hold, and within that framework, deliberate intent to disrupt communication is defined as trolling. Invariably it’s a skirting of the rules just enough for an individual post to be acceptable, while still indicating an intent to disrupt across multiple posts, which is tougher to catch and define.
I haven't yet, but if we could migrate the discussion there, that would be wonderful.
In my reading, I found lots of different definitions of trolling and observations that there was no one agreed definition. It struck me that the definition depends on the context. So, any definition of trolling we adopt should be based on the nature of the forum and it's purpose. Does that make sense to you?
I’ve taken that into account from the very first comments I made about research, sorry, I should have been more clear about that. The definitions I’ve posted and commented on here have all been from research into trolling that is taking place in online forums and online communities organized around a concept. The basic rules particular to a forum are assumed to always hold, and within that framework, deliberate intent to disrupt communication is defined as trolling. Invariably it’s a skirting of the rules just enough for an individual post to be acceptable, while still indicating an intent to disrupt across multiple posts, which is tougher to catch and define.
Gotcha. Thanks.
And thanks for moving your posts over here. Much appreciated!
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
I’ve taken that into account from the very first comments I made about research, sorry, I should have been more clear about that. The definitions I’ve posted and commented on here have all been from research into trolling that is taking place in online forums and online communities organized around a concept. The basic rules particular to a forum are assumed to always hold, and within that framework, deliberate intent to disrupt communication is defined as trolling. Invariably it’s a skirting of the rules just enough for an individual post to be acceptable, while still indicating an intent to disrupt across multiple posts, which is tougher to catch and define.
Gotcha. Thanks.
And thanks for moving your posts over here. Much appreciated!
You're quite welcome. (Tiny different feature of new board - you can delete your own post as long as its the last in a thread. )
Giving this a bump to help posters add their thoughts and suggestions.
UR # 8 modification
Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, trolling, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means.
UR #13 Supports moderator discretion for any and all mod decisions.
Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
Giving this a bump to help posters add their thoughts and suggestions.
UR # 8 modification
Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, trolling, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means.
UR #13 Supports moderator discretion for any and all mod decisions.
Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view.
Thanks. I’m not sure I understand your second point. Certainly it gives us discretion to reject arguments based only on literal compliance with the rules. Does what you’re saying go beyond that?
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, trolling, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means.
UR #13 Supports moderator discretion for any and all mod decisions.
Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view.
Thanks. I’m not sure I understand your second point. Certainly it gives us discretion to reject arguments based only on literal compliance with the rules. Does what you’re saying go beyond that?
I'm suggesting a rule modification to include trolling where discretion (which is supported by UR #13) is left up to the moderators to determine whether or not it disrupts the smooth operation of this message board.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
Thanks. I’m not sure I understand your second point. Certainly it gives us discretion to reject arguments based only on literal compliance with the rules. Does what you’re saying go beyond that?
I'm suggesting a rule modification to include trolling where discretion (which is supported by UR #13) is left up to the moderators to determine whether or not it disrupts the smooth operation of this message board.
Ah, got it. Thanks!
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
I'm suggesting a rule modification to include trolling where discretion (which is supported by UR #13) is left up to the moderators to determine whether or not it disrupts the smooth operation of this message board.
Ah, got it. Thanks!
You're welcome. I don't think I have much else to say at this point.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
This way the status quo, or the elite regular posters that feel their opinions and narratives supersede all others, can control what is written on the site. When a poster receives a predetermined amount of negative points, they are automatically suspended or banned. This way you can have an “army of trailer park warriors” so to speak, that can take complete control of Spirit Paradise and ban those that disrupt their happy place.
And if Shades, a man who gave most of us a place to heal while we struggled with our exit from a cult…a place to let our wounds scar, decides to visit and share his opinions, he would be welcomed as long as he did not offend the elite.
I could put this in a much easier way..like . . ..” Just destroy Shades vision because you are selfish, soft skinned insecure folks that can’t ignore what you don’t like.” Hell, I could be wrong but his dedication to this site and caring enough to provide a forum for others to heal might even have effected his marriage? I know when I use to post here all the time it took valuable time away for my family.
)