Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #48289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-06-15 07:58 -0400 |
| Last post | 2013-06-15 13:04 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Don't feed the troll... "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2013-06-15 07:58 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-15 17:12 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Nick the Gr33k <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-15 20:30 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 10:36 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 11:18 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 14:47 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-15 23:04 +0100
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-16 20:16 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-16 20:04 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-16 20:46 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ferrous Cranus <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-17 08:04 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 17:23 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-17 07:41 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-18 07:43 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-17 18:03 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-18 11:16 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-17 23:22 +0100
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-17 18:08 -0700
Problems with Python documentation [Re: Don't feed the troll...] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Problems with Python documentation [Re: Don't feed the troll...] Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 21:11 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-17 10:15 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-17 10:56 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-18 10:22 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-18 13:42 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-18 20:46 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-19 12:57 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-19 14:13 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-23 07:29 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-24 15:37 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-25 08:56 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-26 21:46 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-26 15:02 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-27 20:13 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 11:20 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-30 19:25 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-07-01 07:02 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-07-01 21:38 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-07-02 16:41 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-07-02 00:09 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-30 11:50 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-30 19:56 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 11:25 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-26 20:18 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-19 12:40 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-20 00:47 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-19 19:45 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-20 11:41 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-20 20:40 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-21 11:18 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-21 10:19 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-17 09:31 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-18 11:02 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-15 12:54 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Nick the Gr33k <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-15 23:04 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-15 13:12 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 22:52 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-06-16 20:39 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Simpleton <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-17 19:03 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-17 16:14 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Simpleton <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-17 19:19 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 21:39 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-18 17:21 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-18 13:38 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-18 19:48 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-19 03:57 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-06-18 20:49 -0700
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-19 17:07 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-19 07:27 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-19 17:33 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 11:53 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 11:49 -0600
Re: Don't feed the troll... Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-15 18:45 +0100
Re: Don't feed the troll... Andreas Perstinger <andipersti@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 19:58 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-06-17 14:39 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2013-06-17 12:35 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 18:42 +0100
Re: Don't feed the troll... Νίκος <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-17 20:52 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-06-18 22:21 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2013-06-15 13:07 -0400
Mailman forwarding (was: Don't feed the troll...) "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> - 2013-06-15 13:25 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 19:25 +0200
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-15 17:47 +0000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Nick the Gr33k <support@superhost.gr> - 2013-06-15 21:59 +0300
Re: Don't feed the troll... Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-16 09:09 +1000
Re: Don't feed the troll... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-16 00:51 +0000
CC etiquette for mailing lists (was: Don't feed the troll...) "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> - 2013-06-15 21:29 -0400
Re: Don't feed the troll... "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2013-06-15 13:04 -0400
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 23:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3497.1371507745.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48520 |
On 17/06/2013 15:41, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: > > It is NOT a matter of simply reading the documentation. > I have posted here several times as have many others about > some of the problems the documentation has, especially for > people who don't already know Python. > It's extremely easy to change the Python documentation, either raise an issue on the bug tracker or send an email to IIRC docs at python dot org. The fastest time I've ever seen between an issue being raised and the change being implemented was literally minutes. If that isn't good enough, put up or shut up. -- "Steve is going for the pink ball - and for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green." Snooker commentator 'Whispering' Ted Lowe. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5d4906f-d6ec-4b40-9587-301bb531dae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48569 |
On 06/17/2013 04:22 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 17/06/2013 15:41, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: >> It is NOT a matter of simply reading the documentation. >> I have posted here several times as have many others about >> some of the problems the documentation has, especially for >> people who don't already know Python. > > It's extremely easy to change the Python documentation, either raise an > issue on the bug tracker or send an email to IIRC docs at python dot > org. Really? Did you bother to read the link I included? Ironic that you are one of the people criticizing Nikos for not reading anything. > The fastest time I've ever seen between an issue being raised and > the change being implemented was literally minutes. If that isn't good > enough, put up or shut up. Perhaps you missed this? http://bugs.python.org/issue1397474 While the lower bound may be minutes, the upper bound is a hell of a lot longer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 22:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Problems with Python documentation [Re: Don't feed the troll...] |
| Message-ID | <51bf9299$0$29872$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #48520 |
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:41:54 -0700, rurpy wrote: > On 06/17/2013 01:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Ferrous Cranus <support@superhost.gr> >> wrote: >>> The only thing i'm feeling guilty is that instead of reading help >>> files and PEP's which seem too technical for me, i prefer the live >>> help of an actual expert human being. >> >> This is definitely a reason to feel guilty. You are asking people to >> provide live help for free, rather than simply reading the >> documentation. > > It is NOT a matter of simply reading the documentation. I have posted > here several times as have many others about some of the problems the > documentation has, especially for people who don't already know Python. This is very reasonable. And nobody -- well, at least not me, and probably not Chris -- expects that reading the documentation will suddenly cause the light to shine for every beginner who reads it. Often the official docs are written with an expected audience who already knows the language well. But in context, Nikos has been programming Python long enough, and he's been told often enough, that his FIRST stop should be the documentation, and us second. Not what he does now, which is to make us his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth stops. (Are you paying attention Nikos?) But speaking more generally, yes, you are right, the docs are not a panacea. If they were, mailing lists like this, and websites like StackOverflow, would not exist. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 21:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Problems with Python documentation [Re: Don't feed the troll...] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3501.1371517876.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48571 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano < steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:41:54 -0700, rurpy wrote: > > > On 06/17/2013 01:23 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Ferrous Cranus <support@superhost.gr> > >> wrote: > >>> The only thing i'm feeling guilty is that instead of reading help > >>> files and PEP's which seem too technical for me, i prefer the live > >>> help of an actual expert human being. > >> > >> This is definitely a reason to feel guilty. You are asking people to > >> provide live help for free, rather than simply reading the > >> documentation. > > > > It is NOT a matter of simply reading the documentation. I have posted > > here several times as have many others about some of the problems the > > documentation has, especially for people who don't already know Python. > > This is very reasonable. And nobody -- well, at least not me, and > probably not Chris -- expects that reading the documentation will > suddenly cause the light to shine for every beginner who reads it. Often > the official docs are written with an expected audience who already knows > the language well. > > But in context, Nikos has been programming Python long enough, and he's > been told often enough, that his FIRST stop should be the documentation, > and us second. Not what he does now, which is to make us his first, > second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth stops. > > (Are you paying attention Nikos?) > > But speaking more generally, yes, you are right, the docs are not a > panacea. If they were, mailing lists like this, and websites like > StackOverflow, would not exist. > > > I read the python docs. I've gone through the tutorials. If not the first time, or the second, I get that Aha moment with additional reads. Some people say they learn better by other methods than reading. In that case, google like crazy because python has lots of pycon stuff online in video form, and there is the google course. and many others. If people interaction is what you need, find, and visit your local meetup or user group. Lots of places have them. If you don't have one near you, maybe you could start one so you would have local help and back and forth (fourth?). I think its great to read a question here and get a link for an answer. gives me somewhere to go explore more. If you reject these ways of learning for the single method of asking.. fix my code. Then you will never get good at this craft anyway. Its not the answers that are important, its discovering how to find the answers that is really important. The old give a man a fish, vs teach a man to fish truism -- Joel Goldstick http://joelgoldstick.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 10:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3473.1371457602.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48492 |
Op 17-06-13 07:04, Ferrous Cranus schreef: > On 17/6/2013 6:46 πμ, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: >> I could be wrong but I don't think Nikos is a pure troll -- >> someone motivated purely by provoking reaction and discord. >> He has a real website and his problems with Python seem like >> genuine problems many beginners have. He seems to have little >> knowledge, not much concern for anyone else but a lot of >> determination to get things working. I have certainly known >> people like that in the real world. > This is the best definition of me. > It is very nice to see that someone has understood my character and > intentions. It still describes you as a jerk. Someone who acts without much concerns for others, is a jerk even if he has no malice in mind. > > The only thing i'm feeling guilty is that instead of reading help files > and PEP's which seem too technical for me, i prefer the live help of an > actual expert human being. > An yes, i'm not trolling this fine newsgroup. > If it wasn't for the help of some of the nicest fellows here my site > would be up and working neither with Python 3.3.2 nor with 2.6. Yes you are trolling this newsgroup. Intent is not magic. You just admitted to have little concerns for others. So if your behaviour happens to be rude and provoke people in behaving badly, you just don't care and continue to act essentially in the same way. That is trolling even if it is not your intention. > > Many difficulties that occurred to me when trying to write some code > were addresses here making my website actually happen. > I could have made it to Joomla(that's web design) instead of Python(web > development_ but i really like Python and the reason i ask in detail is > because i don't want only provided code that will help address an issue > i have, but i want to know "how" things work. Sure, but you don't want to make any effort yourself in getting to know how things work. You expect others to spoon feed you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 10:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3472.1371456926.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48491 |
Op 17-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/16/2013 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It >> is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it >> ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and >> it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls. > The difficulty with trying to suppress such responses is that > the flamers get just as much pleasure from having a target > to unrestrainedly spew their pent up anger and vile at, as > the troll gets from simulating that reaction. The result is > a positive feedback loop. > Well if asocial behaviour of one provokes asocial behaviour in others, you can't claim the problem is not the social behaviour of the first. > > I could be wrong but I don't think Nikos is a pure troll -- > someone motivated purely by provoking reaction and discord. > He has a real website and his problems with Python seem like > genuine problems many beginners have. He seems to have little > knowledge, not much concern for anyone else but a lot of > determination to get things working. I have certainly known > people like that in the real world. Does that matter? I don't care what Nikos's motivation is. I care about the result or effect of his behaviour and that seems to differ very little from a troll. Intent is not magic. Bad behaviour with the best of intentions still results in annoyance. The only way it which intent makes a difference is when the person with good intentions, upon learning his behaviour is bothersome, tries to adapt his behaviour. > I speculate that half of his "bad behavior" is simple "I want > now and don't care about your conventions". The rest is a > reaction to "we're the alphas, your a beta" attitude expressed > by many here and later, overt hostility directed at him. He > has changed some things -- his posting method, he's made an > effort to understand his encoding issues, etc. I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted not reading help files (because they are too technical for him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much effort of him trying to understand things on his own and without much appreciation for the time of others. > So I think Steven's approach of responding to his questions, > at least those that are coherent and don't require reading a > dozen posts over several threads to piece together, with an > actual attempt to help (not a bunch of obscure hints, links > to wikipedia, and "you're an idiot" replies) is right. A respons that is in effect reinforcing bad bahaviour. > If Nikos fails to respond with better questions, then those > that do answer will get tired of trying to help and stop > answering. In the meantime everyone else can just killfile > or otherwise ignore him rather than egging him on by > intentionally provoking him (unless of course you enjoy > the results.) In the mean time you and steve can just killfile those you think are just egging him on. > So positive reinforcement for less bad behavior, negative > reinforcement (which for trolling is NO response, not negative > responses) for more bad. Standard behavioral conditioning. It means you are still reinforcing bad behaviour. Less bad is still bad. > And if it doesn't work it will still be a much nicer and > quieter here with only Nikos' trolling than with 10x as much > garbage from the local vigilantes who are more obnoxious > than he. But not quiet enough for some people. They hope that somehow punishing Nikos for his behaviour, although it may make the environment even less nice in the short term, may help to make the environment as nice again as it was before Nikos started his quest for spoon feeders. While reinforcing bad bahaviour provides no hope at all for that. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-17 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <744948f6-85dd-4de3-a886-8282ca903816@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48505 |
On 06/17/2013 02:15 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 17-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >> On 06/16/2013 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >>> Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It >>> is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it >>> ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and >>> it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls. >> The difficulty with trying to suppress such responses is that >> the flamers get just as much pleasure from having a target >> to unrestrainedly spew their pent up anger and vile at, as >> the troll gets from simulating that reaction. The result is >> a positive feedback loop. >> > Well if asocial behaviour of one provokes asocial behaviour in > others, you can't claim the problem is not the social behaviour > of the first. Sure I can. If you have a photodetector that activates a bright light when it detects a flash, you can blame the first flash for the fact that the bright light is on all the time. Or you can say that stray flashes are to be expected now and then in the environment of this system and the fault is responding to them with a bright light. >> I could be wrong but I don't think Nikos is a pure troll -- >> someone motivated purely by provoking reaction and discord. >> He has a real website and his problems with Python seem like >> genuine problems many beginners have. He seems to have little >> knowledge, not much concern for anyone else but a lot of >> determination to get things working. I have certainly known >> people like that in the real world. > > Does that matter? I don't care what Nikos's motivation is. I > care about the result or effect of his behaviour and that seems > to differ very little from a troll. Intent is not magic. Bad > behaviour with the best of intentions still results in annoyance. > The only way it which intent makes a difference is when the > person with good intentions, upon learning his behaviour is > bothersome, tries to adapt his behaviour. As I said (and you disagree with below), I did see some attempts to adapt his behavior but it is not realistic to expect immediate acquiescence to every request made here, especially given that a lot of them were/are bullshit. >> I speculate that half of his "bad behavior" is simple "I want >> now and don't care about your conventions". The rest is a >> reaction to "we're the alphas, your a beta" attitude expressed >> by many here and later, overt hostility directed at him. He >> has changed some things -- his posting method, he's made an >> effort to understand his encoding issues, etc.' > > I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted > not reading help files (because they are too technical for > him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners > tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much > effort of him trying to understand things on his own and > without much appreciation for the time of others. See my reply to ChrisA. My personal feeling is that he tends to ask on the list too quickly, but I suspect he also does more than you're giving him credit for. He seems to be naive (eg the password event), open and honest so when he says he has been trying to fix something for hours I am prone to believe him. I think his approach to fixing is to try making changes more or less at random, in part because he doesn't understand the docs (or doesn't look at them because they haven't made sense to him in the past) and in part because he hasn't developed any skill in debugging (a skill that I think most everyone here takes for granted but which doesn't come naturally to some people) and which also accounts for the poor formulation of his questions. I'm not willing to go though twelve gazillion previous posts to try and find examples of improved behavior so I'll leave it as my personal impression and that you disagree. >> So I think Steven's approach of responding to his questions, >> at least those that are coherent and don't require reading a >> dozen posts over several threads to piece together, with an >> actual attempt to help (not a bunch of obscure hints, links >> to wikipedia, and "you're an idiot" replies) is right. > A respons that is in effect reinforcing bad bahaviour. > >> If Nikos fails to respond with better questions, then those >> that do answer will get tired of trying to help and stop >> answering. In the meantime everyone else can just killfile >> or otherwise ignore him rather than egging him on by >> intentionally provoking him (unless of course you enjoy >> the results.) > > In the mean time you and steve can just killfile those you > think are just egging him on. Unfortunately it is not a symmetrical situation. Nikos responds only in his own threads and is more killable that many of the eggers who both more numerous and respond in many other threads that are of interest. But then I seldom killfile people (always have found it trivially easy just to skip over annoying threads) so maybe I need to explore killfile options more. >> So positive reinforcement for less bad behavior, negative >> reinforcement (which for trolling is NO response, not negative >> responses) for more bad. Standard behavioral conditioning. > It means you are still reinforcing bad behaviour. Less bad is > still bad. > >> And if it doesn't work it will still be a much nicer and >> quieter here with only Nikos' trolling than with 10x as much >> garbage from the local vigilantes who are more obnoxious >> than he. > But not quiet enough for some people. They hope that somehow > punishing Nikos for his behaviour, although it may make the > environment even less nice in the short term, may help to > make the environment as nice again as it was before Nikos > started his quest for spoon feeders. While reinforcing bad > bahaviour provides no hope at all for that. Unfortunately if Nikos is a troll as you say, the "punishment" is positive reinforcement, not negative. And if I am reading Nikos right, he seems to be a "fuck you" type person: "if you're an asshole to me I'll be an asshole right back", so again, "punishment" is going to be counter productive. [*1] Now if you could hire some Sicilian mafia gangster to visit Nikos in person that *might* be more effective but three decades of internet experience shows that flaming trolls is counter productive. [*2] ---- [*1] I know the obvious response is that he is being an asshole prior to any responses but my point is that flames produce more bad behavior from him, not less. [*2] "Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: 'Please do not feed the trolls'". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Usage)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-18 10:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3514.1371543775.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48548 |
Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/17/2013 02:15 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 17-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>> On 06/16/2013 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> >>>> Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It >>>> is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it >>>> ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and >>>> it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls. >>> The difficulty with trying to suppress such responses is that >>> the flamers get just as much pleasure from having a target >>> to unrestrainedly spew their pent up anger and vile at, as >>> the troll gets from simulating that reaction. The result is >>> a positive feedback loop. >>> >> Well if asocial behaviour of one provokes asocial behaviour in >> others, you can't claim the problem is not the social behaviour >> of the first. > Sure I can. If you have a photodetector that activates a > bright light when it detects a flash, you can blame the first > flash for the fact that the bright light is on all the time. > Or you can say that stray flashes are to be expected now > and then in the environment of this system and the fault > is responding to them with a bright light. But that doesn't make sense. Your photodetector working as it does, is just as expected as the happening of stray flashes. There is no reason to differentiate between these two in terms of being expected or not. > As I said (and you disagree with below), I did see some > attempts to adapt his behavior but it is not realistic to > expect immediate acquiescence to every request made here, > especially given that a lot of them were/are bullshit. I don't care whether it is realistic or not. If he can't conform his behaviour in a reasonable way, he doesn't belong here. It is not realistic to expect someone who is just learing to swim to survive a jump in the deep. So we expect those people not to jump in the deep. We don't tolerate them jumping in the deep on the expectation that others will pull them out. That is wat Nikos keeps doing here, jumping in the deep. And a lot of people feel it is time we let him (metaphorically drown). >>> I speculate that half of his "bad behavior" is simple "I want >>> now and don't care about your conventions". The rest is a >>> reaction to "we're the alphas, your a beta" attitude expressed >>> by many here and later, overt hostility directed at him. He >>> has changed some things -- his posting method, he's made an >>> effort to understand his encoding issues, etc.' >> I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted >> not reading help files (because they are too technical for >> him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners >> tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much >> effort of him trying to understand things on his own and >> without much appreciation for the time of others. > See my reply to ChrisA. Your reply doesn't address his unwillingness to read the documentation which was IMO rather apparant. > My personal feeling is that he tends to ask on the list too > quickly, but I suspect he also does more than you're giving > him credit for. He seems to be naive (eg the password event), > open and honest so when he says he has been trying to fix > something for hours I am prone to believe him. I don't care. In the end he is still jumping in the deep expecting others to drag him out. I don't care how much he does. Just as I don't care how much energy someone has put into learning to swim. If your skills are not adequate you don't jump into the deep. > I think his > approach to fixing is to try making changes more or less at > random, in part because he doesn't understand the docs (or > doesn't look at them because they haven't made sense to him > in the past) and in part because he hasn't developed any > skill in debugging (a skill that I think most everyone here > takes for granted but which doesn't come naturally to some > people) and which also accounts for the poor formulation of > his questions. I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles you probably will fall victim to. >> In the mean time you and steve can just killfile those you >> think are just egging him on. > Unfortunately it is not a symmetrical situation. > Nikos responds only in his own threads and is more killable > that many of the eggers who both more numerous and respond > in many other threads that are of interest. Can you explain how these people can egg Nikos on in threads in which he doesn't participate? I also don't find your assymmetry of much relevance. It is just happens how history played out. There is no priciple difference. In both cases we have people being annoyed by the behaviour of others. I you want to advise others should somehow ignore the behaviour they find annoying, you should expect to be given the same advise. >> But not quiet enough for some people. They hope that somehow >> punishing Nikos for his behaviour, although it may make the >> environment even less nice in the short term, may help to >> make the environment as nice again as it was before Nikos >> started his quest for spoon feeders. While reinforcing bad >> bahaviour provides no hope at all for that. > Unfortunately if Nikos is a troll as you say, the "punishment" > is positive reinforcement, not negative. And if I am reading > Nikos right, he seems to be a "fuck you" type person: "if > you're an asshole to me I'll be an asshole right back", so > again, "punishment" is going to be counter productive. [*1] It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary skills. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-18 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kppo43$48a$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #48607 |
On 2013-06-18, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>>> I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted
>>> not reading help files (because they are too technical for
>>> him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners
>>> tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much
>>> effort of him trying to understand things on his own and
>>> without much appreciation for the time of others.
>>
>> See my reply to ChrisA.
>
> Your reply doesn't address his unwillingness to read the
> documentation which was IMO rather apparant.
It's not only apparent, he explicitly stated that he refused to go
read the references he has been provided because he prefers to have
his questions answered by a "live" persion. IMO, anybody who behaves
like doesn't deserve any more responses.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I guess you guys got
at BIG MUSCLES from doing too
gmail.com much STUDYING!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-18 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b48bc678-2f80-4511-9438-ed9b93d4f2d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48607 |
On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >> On 06/17/2013 02:15 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> Op 17-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>>> On 06/16/2013 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>>>> Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It >>>>> is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it >>>>> ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and >>>>> it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls. >>>> The difficulty with trying to suppress such responses is that >>>> the flamers get just as much pleasure from having a target >>>> to unrestrainedly spew their pent up anger and vile at, as >>>> the troll gets from simulating that reaction. The result is >>>> a positive feedback loop. >>> Well if asocial behaviour of one provokes asocial behaviour in >>> others, you can't claim the problem is not the social behaviour >>> of the first. >> Sure I can. If you have a photodetector that activates a >> bright light when it detects a flash, you can blame the first >> flash for the fact that the bright light is on all the time. >> Or you can say that stray flashes are to be expected now >> and then in the environment of this system and the fault >> is responding to them with a bright light. > But that doesn't make sense. Your photodetector working as > it does, is just as expected as the happening of stray > flashes. There is no reason to differentiate between these > two in terms of being expected or not. I was using the photodetector/light system as a emotion-free analog of the troll/troll-feeders positive feedback system for which you claimed it was clearly the troll's fault for initiating the feedback condition. My intent was to point out that cause and effect are intertwined in feedback systems and it is equally valid to blame those responding to the troll for the end result as to blame the troll. And, since occasional trolls are to be expected, one is even justified in putting the preponderance of blame on the responders. >> As I said (and you disagree with below), I did see some >> attempts to adapt his behavior but it is not realistic to >> expect immediate acquiescence to every request made here, >> especially given that a lot of them were/are bullshit. > I don't care whether it is realistic or not. If he can't conform > his behaviour in a reasonable way, he doesn't belong here. It > is not realistic to expect someone who is just learing to swim > to survive a jump in the deep. So we expect those people not > to jump in the deep. We don't tolerate them jumping in the deep > on the expectation that others will pull them out. That is > wat Nikos keeps doing here, jumping in the deep. And a lot of > people feel it is time we let him (metaphorically drown). see "Drowning" below >>>> I speculate that half of his "bad behavior" is simple "I want >>>> now and don't care about your conventions". The rest is a >>>> reaction to "we're the alphas, your a beta" attitude expressed >>>> by many here and later, overt hostility directed at him. He >>>> has changed some things -- his posting method, he's made an >>>> effort to understand his encoding issues, etc.' >>> I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted >>> not reading help files (because they are too technical for >>> him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners >>> tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much >>> effort of him trying to understand things on his own and >>> without much appreciation for the time of others. >> See my reply to ChrisA. > Your reply doesn't address his unwillingness to read the > documentation which was IMO rather apparant. My reply certainly did address that and did so explicitly. Now if you mean that you don't care *why* he doesn't want to read them, the only thing that matters is that he doesn't/won't, them we have different standard for evaluating people and I don't accept yours. To me the reason does matter as it affects my evaluation of how they may adapt in the future. >> My personal feeling is that he tends to ask on the list too >> quickly, but I suspect he also does more than you're giving >> him credit for. He seems to be naive (eg the password event), >> open and honest so when he says he has been trying to fix >> something for hours I am prone to believe him. > I don't care. In the end he is still jumping in the deep > expecting others to drag him out. I don't care how much > he does. Just as I don't care how much energy someone has > put into learning to swim. If your skills are not adequate > you don't jump into the deep. see "Drowning" below. >> I think his >> approach to fixing is to try making changes more or less at >> random, in part because he doesn't understand the docs (or >> doesn't look at them because they haven't made sense to him >> in the past) and in part because he hasn't developed any >> skill in debugging (a skill that I think most everyone here >> takes for granted but which doesn't come naturally to some >> people) and which also accounts for the poor formulation of >> his questions. > I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills > or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning > to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in > a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without > those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles > you probably will fall victim to. *Drowning: I can understand your feeling but being realistic (whether you care about that or not) it happens all the time and other aspects of society accept that. Around where I live we have mountain rescue units to retrieve both competent people who have had bad luck and total idiots who shouldn't be outside without a guardian. There are places the penalize the idiots in various ways but both the practice and the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk are controversial. I don't accept you drawing the line for me, especially when I have my own line formed by my own experience. >>> In the mean time you and steve can just killfile those you >>> think are just egging him on. >> Unfortunately it is not a symmetrical situation. >> Nikos responds only in his own threads and is more killable >> that many of the eggers who both more numerous and respond >> in many other threads that are of interest. > Can you explain how these people can egg Nikos on in threads > in which he doesn't participate? I also don't find your > assymmetry of much relevance. It is just happens how > history played out. There is no priciple difference. In both > cases we have people being annoyed by the behaviour of others. > I you want to advise others should somehow ignore the behaviour > they find annoying, you should expect to be given the same > advise. Those who are annoyed excessively by Nikos can (relatively) easily ignore him by filtering him and his threads and continue to participate in the group as it was before Nikos. However, those who aren't bothered (as much) by him and are willing to read or participate in his threads can not easily ignore anti-Nikos hate posts because they can't easily filter out those while leaving the non-hate ones and without also filtering non-Nikos threads. (Perhaps there are newsgroup readers that allow one to killfile an individual but only in certain threads but I doubt they are common.) Now its pretty clear that (in general) such hate-posts do not serve to drive away their target and often increase the volume and prolong the miscreant's stay. So their main utility is to drive away those who wish to participate in Nikos' threads. While you may consider that a good thing, I consider it coercion and an attempt to forcibly restrict my free choice. It is also the same behavior you accuse Nikos of -- being offensive to force others to do what you want. If you want me to go along with your proposal then convince me with rational arguments. The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by filtering out what you don't want to see. Another asymmetric aspect is that the cure you propose can be implemented anytime -- if Nikos continues to be offensive your proposal is still available a month from now and likely with more support. This is not true of the alternate approach though -- you can't decide to try being helpful once someone is gone [*1]. So if there is any doubt about the best approach, prudence argues for delay. I hope this explains more clearly my mention of asymmetry and why it *is* relevant. >>> But not quiet enough for some people. They hope that somehow >>> punishing Nikos for his behaviour, although it may make the >>> environment even less nice in the short term, may help to >>> make the environment as nice again as it was before Nikos >>> started his quest for spoon feeders. While reinforcing bad >>> bahaviour provides no hope at all for that. >> Unfortunately if Nikos is a troll as you say, the "punishment" >> is positive reinforcement, not negative. And if I am reading >> Nikos right, he seems to be a "fuck you" type person: "if >> you're an asshole to me I'll be an asshole right back", so >> again, "punishment" is going to be counter productive. [*1] > It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most > adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course > he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole > behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole > as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time > he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary > skills. Fine, that is your opinion. And you may be right. But I don't find people who state with certainty what other people will do in the future to be very convincing. Nor does the exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in most of anti-Nikos posts make for a good case. People jump into lots of things without the necessary skills all the time. I have myself more than once. I see nothing wrong with lending a helping hand when possible and I don't feel qualified to sit as judge and jury as to whether he should or should not be running a web site. He says his clients are his friends. And after Chris' shenanigans, if they continue to stay with him, it is certainly their choice. As for community standards, I think you should have more faith in the participants here -- what will likely be effective in causing Nikos to leave, is not hate mail but inability to get help here -- and that will be the natural result if he continues to annoy people and, one by one, those willing to help give up and stop. There is no need for you to coerce those willing to try to deal with him to speed things up when you have the tools to mostly ignore him. ---- [*1] This assumes your approach is successful of course but then, that is what *you* are claiming it will be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-19 12:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3579.1371639454.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48680 |
Op 19-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > I was using the photodetector/light system as a emotion-free > analog of the troll/troll-feeders positive feedback system for > which you claimed it was clearly the troll's fault for initiating > the feedback condition. My intent was to point out that cause > and effect are intertwined in feedback systems and it is equally > valid to blame those responding to the troll for the end result > as to blame the troll. And, since occasional trolls are to > be expected, one is even justified in putting the preponderance > of blame on the responders. I don't remember making such a claim. What I do remember is you among others claiming that the problem was not (so much) the troll (Nikos) but the others. I only made the remark that you can't claim the troll is not a problem if he provokes behaviour you find problematic. And your last conclusion is unsound. You forget to include the fact that once a troll appeared, people reacting badly to the troll is also to be expected. So with regards to this aspect there is no difference between the troll and the responders, both being expected and so no ground to put the preponderance of blame on the responders. >> I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills >> or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning >> to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in >> a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without >> those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles >> you probably will fall victim to. > *Drowning: > I can understand your feeling but being realistic (whether > you care about that or not) it happens all the time and other > aspects of society accept that. Around where I live we have > mountain rescue units to retrieve both competent people who > have had bad luck and total idiots who shouldn't be outside > without a guardian. There are places the penalize the idiots > in various ways but both the practice and the line between > acceptable and unacceptable risk are controversial. I don't > accept you drawing the line for me, especially when I have > my own line formed by my own experience. Well others don't appreciate you drawing the lines for them either. If you think others have no business drawing the line for what is acceptable on this mailinglist/newsgroup then you have no business drawing such a line yourself. > Those who are annoyed excessively by Nikos can (relatively) > easily ignore him by filtering him and his threads and > continue to participate in the group as it was before Nikos. > > However, those who aren't bothered (as much) by him and are > willing to read or participate in his threads can not easily > ignore anti-Nikos hate posts because they can't easily filter > out those while leaving the non-hate ones and without also > filtering non-Nikos threads. (Perhaps there are newsgroup > readers that allow one to killfile an individual but only in > certain threads but I doubt they are common.) I find this a very one-sided view. Those annoyed excessively by Nikos can't easily ignore him without a cost. There may be people involved in such a tread they value and like to read. They can't easily filter the valuable contributions in such a thread from the nth repeated answer to the same question either. You ask of others they should tolerate this cost Nikos brings on for them but you protest when you have to take on this kind of cost yourself. As far as I see you have just the same options as those bothered by Nikos. Make some kind of cost benefit analysis and decide on that basis whether you consider it worth your while to continue reading/contributing to a particular thread. > Now its pretty clear that (in general) such hate-posts do not > serve to drive away their target and often increase the volume > and prolong the miscreant's stay. So their main utility is to > drive away those who wish to participate in Nikos' threads. I don't know it is that clear. I have the impression it can be rather effective in cases where the whole community makes it clear trolls are not welcome. Of course if part of the community is more bothered by those making trolls feel unwelcome than by the trolls themselves, such strive will of course attract them. > While you may consider that a good thing, I consider it coercion > and an attempt to forcibly restrict my free choice. It is also > the same behavior you accuse Nikos of -- being offensive to > force others to do what you want. If you want me to go along > with your proposal then convince me with rational arguments. No I don't particularly consider that a good thing. I just find your view one-sided. Yes indeed it is in some way the same behaviour I accuse Nikos of. What they are doing is upping the cost for you in participating in some threads, just as Nikos is upping the cost for them in participating in some threads. The main difference is for whom those costs go up. In the first case it is for the Nikos botherers and in the second case it is for you. And when the costs go up for others, you somehow thinks they should deal with the unpleasant choice life has dealt them, but when the costs goes up for you it suddenly is about coercion and forcibly restricting free choice. Personnaly once a troll shows up, I prefer others to make him feel unwelcome. There is nothing wrong with making someone feel unwelcome if he is behaving in a way that is annoying a substantial part of the community. And if others are somehow behaving in a way that will contribute to that annoying behaviour, there is nothing wrong in making those feel unconfortable in continuing with that, either. > The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your > choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by > filtering out what you don't want to see. I don't appreciate it when you decide for others which alternatives are restricting their choice significantly and which do not. Others can have a very different appreciation of things than you have. > Another asymmetric aspect is that the cure you propose can be > implemented anytime -- if Nikos continues to be offensive your > proposal is still available a month from now and likely with > more support. This is not true of the alternate approach > though -- you can't decide to try being helpful once someone > is gone [*1]. So if there is any doubt about the best approach, > prudence argues for delay. What I propose is to stop encouraging his trollish behaviour. In point of fact Steve has already began doing so by demanding Nikos somehow shows he has done relevant work himself before wanting to help him further. Which I am perfectly fine with. > >> It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most >> adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course >> he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole >> behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole >> as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time >> he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary >> skills. > Fine, that is your opinion. And you may be right. But I > don't find people who state with certainty what other people > will do in the future to be very convincing. Nor does the > exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in most of > anti-Nikos posts make for a good case. That can be true but I find a significant part of exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in those who want to deal with the Nikos bothered too. > People jump into lots of things without the necessary skills > all the time. I have myself more than once. I see nothing > wrong with lending a helping hand when possible and I don't > feel qualified to sit as judge and jury as to whether he should > or should not be running a web site. He says his clients are > his friends. And after Chris' shenanigans, if they continue > to stay with him, it is certainly their choice. Sometimes the best hand you can lend to someone is making it clear they are not ready because they lack the basics. Helping a hand in that case can help them muddy on somehow but can also move them into the direction of a bigger disaster than before you decided to lend a helping hand. And what about you lending a hand in behaviour that is annoying others? If someone is not fit to drive and doesn't know how to get the engine started, will you help him with that so that he can then annoy the others in traffic with his erratic driving? > As for community standards, I think you should have more faith > in the participants here -- what will likely be effective in > causing Nikos to leave, is not hate mail but inability to get > help here -- and that will be the natural result if he continues > to annoy people and, one by one, those willing to help give up > and stop. There is no need for you to coerce those willing to > try to deal with him to speed things up when you have the tools > to mostly ignore him. There is no need for those willing to help Nikos, to do so in a way that encourages his assholery behaviour. There is no need to coerse people into making a choice between leaving the thread and missing out on some valuable contributions on the one hand and staying and trying to find the worth while contributions on the other hand. Somehow this lack of need is not enough for you to stop but you do seem to expect it is enough for others to stop. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-19 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3207a22f-846a-41a8-8165-79c25e3c4285@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48704 |
On 06/19/2013 04:57 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 19-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>> I was using the photodetector/light system as a emotion-free
>> analog of the troll/troll-feeders positive feedback system for
>> which you claimed it was clearly the troll's fault for initiating
>> the feedback condition. My intent was to point out that cause
>> and effect are intertwined in feedback systems and it is equally
>> valid to blame those responding to the troll for the end result
>> as to blame the troll. And, since occasional trolls are to
>> be expected, one is even justified in putting the preponderance
>> of blame on the responders.
> I don't remember making such a claim. What I do remember is
> you among others claiming that the problem was not (so much)
> the troll (Nikos) but the others. I only made the remark that
> you can't claim the troll is not a problem if he provokes
> behaviour you find problematic.
> And your last conclusion is unsound. You forget to include the
> fact that once a troll appeared, people reacting badly to the
> troll is also to be expected. So with regards to this aspect
> there is no difference between the troll and the responders,
> both being expected and so no ground to put the preponderance
> of blame on the responders.
No, "blame" implies assumption of a particular point of
view. From a troll's viewpoint, newsgroup participants that
*don't* respond are to blame because they deprive the troll
of his fun.
Our viewpoint is that of newsgroup participants. We assume
they have volition, else this whole thread is pointless.
Since they have a choice of how to respond, then if they
chose to respond in a way that produces an undesirable outcome,
then it is fair "blame" them.
The troll is outside the volition of the group and so his
appearance is effectively an act of nature.
>>> I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills
>>> or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning
>>> to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in
>>> a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without
>>> those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles
>>> you probably will fall victim to.
>> *Drowning:
>> I can understand your feeling but being realistic (whether
>> you care about that or not) it happens all the time and other
>> aspects of society accept that. Around where I live we have
>> mountain rescue units to retrieve both competent people who
>> have had bad luck and total idiots who shouldn't be outside
>> without a guardian. There are places the penalize the idiots
>> in various ways but both the practice and the line between
>> acceptable and unacceptable risk are controversial. I don't
>> accept you drawing the line for me, especially when I have
>> my own line formed by my own experience.
> Well others don't appreciate you drawing the lines for them
> either. If you think others have no business drawing the line
> for what is acceptable on this mailinglist/newsgroup then you
> have no business drawing such a line yourself.
I am not "drawing the line for them", I am drawing it for
me. I think you see a non-existent conflict because you are
assume there is only one line. I do not make that assumption.
If you think Nikos has crossed your line, then I acknowledge
your right not to help him. I even acknowledge your right
to flame him and encourage others to do so.
My argument is that if you exercise your right (the flamage
part) the results on the newsgroup, when considered on a
best outcome for the most people basis, will be less good
than if you choose not to exercise your right.
>> Those who are annoyed excessively by Nikos can (relatively)
>> easily ignore him by filtering him and his threads and
>> continue to participate in the group as it was before Nikos.
>>
>> However, those who aren't bothered (as much) by him and are
>> willing to read or participate in his threads can not easily
>> ignore anti-Nikos hate posts because they can't easily filter
>> out those while leaving the non-hate ones and without also
>> filtering non-Nikos threads. (Perhaps there are newsgroup
>> readers that allow one to killfile an individual but only in
>> certain threads but I doubt they are common.)
> I find this a very one-sided view. Those annoyed excessively
> by Nikos can't easily ignore him without a cost. There may
> be people involved in such a tread they value and like to
> read. They can't easily filter the valuable contributions
> in such a thread from the nth repeated answer to the same
> question either.
> You ask of others they should tolerate this cost Nikos
> brings on for them but you protest when you have to take
> on this kind of cost yourself.
The costs are different in magnitude. Roughly:
1.People willing to read and possibly respond helpfully
to Nikos.
2.People annoyed by Nikos who want him gone and don't want to
see anything by him or in his threads.
(and if people find you convincing)
3.People annoyed by Nikos but willing to read his threads in
order to send antagonistic posts.
If people ignore your call to spam Nikos with antagonistic
posts (and stop the considerable amount of such activity
already occurring) then the costs (difference compared to
a no-Nikos newsgroup) might be:
Group 1: 0
Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads
when encountered.)
If people continue to send both unhelpful and antagonistic
posts to Nikos:
Group 1: 5 (can't killfile posters because they post in other
non-Nikos threads. Have to skip large volume of junk
posts based on visual peek at contents or recognition
of poster as a vigilante.)
Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads
when encountered.)
As for those annoyed by Nikos but who
> "can't easily filter the valuable contributions
> in [a Nikos] thread from the nth repeated answer to the same
> question"
how is that different from any non-Nikos thread other than that
your proposed action that makes it harder?
Of course all the above is not to be taken seriously beyond
the general point I'm trying to illustrate (that the costs
are non-symmetrical). Nor taken as complete -- other factors
like freedom of expression also need consideration.
> As far as I see you have just the same options as those
> bothered by Nikos. Make some kind of cost benefit analysis
> and decide on that basis whether you consider it worth your
> while to continue reading/contributing to a particular
> thread.
Of course. We all do that subconsciously every time we
read a newsgroup. But that is not what we are discussing
We are discussing the effects of two different policies
of different interest groups on the newsgroup. You advocate
a policy of not responding helpfully and responding aggressively
to those exhibiting "undesirable" behavior where "undesirable"
is defined by you or some vague group consensus.
I advocate a policy not responding aggressively at all and
responding helpfully or not at all based on a personal evaluation
of the "undesirable" behavior.
So the question to answer is: how do those different policies
affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one
leads to the greatest good for the most?
>> Now its pretty clear that (in general) such hate-posts do not
>> serve to drive away their target and often increase the volume
>> and prolong the miscreant's stay. So their main utility is to
>> drive away those who wish to participate in Nikos' threads.
> I don't know it is that clear. I have the impression it can be
> rather effective in cases where the whole community makes it
> clear trolls are not welcome. Of course if part of the community
> is more bothered by those making trolls feel unwelcome than by
> the trolls themselves, such strive will of course attract them.
Nothing involving human behavior is totally clear. There are
certainly those who advocate responding aggressively to trolls.
My impression, supported by the widespread use of the phrase
"don't feed the troll", along with the rationality of the main
argument for it, "trolls seek attention so not responding is the
most effective way of getting them to leave", is that that is
still the majority view.
Of course that presupposes the goal is getting the troll to leave.
I said, trolls can feed group participants too by providing
an excuse to vent anger and it is possible to conceive of other
goals that some might have as well.
And in the current case, I am not convinced that Nikos is a troll
although he does engage in behavior that comes across as trollish.
>> While you may consider that a good thing, I consider it coercion
>> and an attempt to forcibly restrict my free choice. It is also
>> the same behavior you accuse Nikos of -- being offensive to
>> force others to do what you want. If you want me to go along
>> with your proposal then convince me with rational arguments.
> No I don't particularly consider that a good thing. I just find
> your view one-sided. Yes indeed it is in some way the same behaviour
> I accuse Nikos of. What they are doing is upping the cost for you
> in participating in some threads, just as Nikos is upping the cost
> for them in participating in some threads. The main difference is
> for whom those costs go up. In the first case it is for the Nikos
> botherers and in the second case it is for you.
Again no, my point was the costs are not the same.
> And when the costs go up for others, you somehow thinks they should
> deal with the unpleasant choice life has dealt them, but when
> the costs goes up for you it suddenly is about coercion and forcibly
> restricting free choice.
It's coercion because its *only* significant effect is to
raise the cost for me.
> Personnaly once a troll shows up, I prefer others to make him feel
> unwelcome. There is nothing wrong with making someone feel unwelcome
> if he is behaving in a way that is annoying a substantial part of
> the community. And if others are somehow behaving in a way that
> will contribute to that annoying behaviour, there is nothing wrong
> in making those feel unconfortable in continuing with that, either.
Being somewhat anarchistic myself, I have a certain sympathy
for that point of view.
Of course you'll grant me the same right, yes? When another
substantial part of the community is annoyed by your part's
obnoxious and hostile posts you will accept our right to respond
with obnoxious and hostile posts directed at your part, right?
And I certainly will expect anyone annoyed by my posts to your
part to respond in kind with lots of obnoxious posts to me and
my part. And so on...
Does that really sound to you like good policy to advocate?
>> The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your
>> choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by
>> filtering out what you don't want to see.
> I don't appreciate it when you decide for others which alternatives
> are restricting their choice significantly and which do not. Others
> can have a very different appreciation of things than you have.
Right. Which is why tolerance is so important.
Tolerance involves not reacting to every irritation with
a hostile response likely to provoke more of the same.
It also implies not assuming what seems like trolling to
you is trolling to me.
>> Another asymmetric aspect is that the cure you propose can be
>> implemented anytime -- if Nikos continues to be offensive your
>> proposal is still available a month from now and likely with
>> more support. This is not true of the alternate approach
>> though -- you can't decide to try being helpful once someone
>> is gone [*1]. So if there is any doubt about the best approach,
>> prudence argues for delay.
> What I propose is to stop encouraging his trollish behaviour.
> In point of fact Steve has already began doing so by demanding
> Nikos somehow shows he has done relevant work himself before
> wanting to help him further. Which I am perfectly fine with.
No, What you were proposing was total boycott on any helpful
responses to Nikos and to continue and to increase the flood
of antagonistic posts to Nikos to drive him out.
I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy
with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by
post basis. If fact, I think I've been saying that all along.
>>> It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most
>>> adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course
>>> he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole
>>> behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole
>>> as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time
>>> he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary
>>> skills.
>> Fine, that is your opinion. And you may be right. But I
>> don't find people who state with certainty what other people
>> will do in the future to be very convincing. Nor does the
>> exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in most of
>> anti-Nikos posts make for a good case.
> That can be true but I find a significant part of exaggeration,
> fact-twisting and emotionalism in those who want to deal with
> the Nikos bothered too.
I haven't noticed that so much but maybe that because the
posts from those willing to deal with Nikos have been a tiny
fraction of those from the vigilante side.
>> People jump into lots of things without the necessary skills
>> all the time. I have myself more than once. I see nothing
>> wrong with lending a helping hand when possible and I don't
>> feel qualified to sit as judge and jury as to whether he should
>> or should not be running a web site. He says his clients are
>> his friends. And after Chris' shenanigans, if they continue
>> to stay with him, it is certainly their choice.
> Sometimes the best hand you can lend to someone is making it
> clear they are not ready because they lack the basics.
> Helping a hand in that case can help them muddy on somehow
> but can also move them into the direction of a bigger disaster
> than before you decided to lend a helping hand.
> And what about you lending a hand in behaviour that is annoying
> others? If someone is not fit to drive and doesn't know how
> to get the engine started, will you help him with that so that
> he can then annoy the others in traffic with his erratic driving?
As I said above, we all have our own lines. Your hypothetical
would be over the line for me because of the high risk of death
or injury to others. Someone creating new newsgroup threads that
can be ignored does not rise to that level of seriousness and
does not cross my line. Nor does the fact that he might create
an insecure website when weighed with his right to try and (I
hope eventually) learn.
>> As for community standards, I think you should have more faith
>> in the participants here -- what will likely be effective in
>> causing Nikos to leave, is not hate mail but inability to get
>> help here -- and that will be the natural result if he continues
>> to annoy people and, one by one, those willing to help give up
>> and stop. There is no need for you to coerce those willing to
>> try to deal with him to speed things up when you have the tools
>> to mostly ignore him.
>
> There is no need for those willing to help Nikos, to do so in a
> way that encourages his assholery behaviour.
But you've said you believe *any* helpful response to Nikos
will "encourage his assholery behaviour". So there in no "need"
to provide any helpful response to Nikos. But then, I guess
that is a true statement for responding to anyone here,
depending on what "need" means.
> There is no need
> to coerse people into making a choice between leaving the thread
> and missing out on some valuable contributions on the one hand
> and staying and trying to find the worth while contributions on
> the other hand.
And yet you are the one advocating diluting any valuable
contributions in the thread with hostile and negative replies;
your advocated action is the source of that coercion.
> Somehow this lack of need is not enough for you to stop but
> you do seem to expect it is enough for others to stop.
It's not the lack of "need", it is the harmful consequent effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-21 21:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3668.1371843235.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48752 |
Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/19/2013 04:57 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 19-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>> On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> I don't remember making such a claim. What I do remember is >> you among others claiming that the problem was not (so much) >> the troll (Nikos) but the others. I only made the remark that >> you can't claim the troll is not a problem if he provokes >> behaviour you find problematic. >> And your last conclusion is unsound. You forget to include the >> fact that once a troll appeared, people reacting badly to the >> troll is also to be expected. So with regards to this aspect >> there is no difference between the troll and the responders, >> both being expected and so no ground to put the preponderance >> of blame on the responders. > > No, "blame" implies assumption of a particular point of > view. From a troll's viewpoint, newsgroup participants that > *don't* respond are to blame because they deprive the troll > of his fun. > > Our viewpoint is that of newsgroup participants. We assume > they have volition, else this whole thread is pointless. > Since they have a choice of how to respond, then if they > chose to respond in a way that produces an undesirable outcome, > then it is fair "blame" them. > > The troll is outside the volition of the group and so his > appearance is effectively an act of nature. This seems a rather artificial division. Especially because the immediate cause that led to this discussion is Nikos. As the situation is now I see very little reason to exclude Nikos from the group. He has made a substantial number of contribution and has received a substantial number of replies. So on what grounds would you put Nikos outside the volition of this group? > I am not "drawing the line for them", I am drawing it for > me. I think you see a non-existent conflict because you are > assume there is only one line. I do not make that assumption. > > If you think Nikos has crossed your line, then I acknowledge > your right not to help him. I even acknowledge your right > to flame him and encourage others to do so. > > My argument is that if you exercise your right (the flamage > part) the results on the newsgroup, when considered on a > best outcome for the most people basis, will be less good > than if you choose not to exercise your right. Possibly. But I don't consider utiltarism such a good measuring stick for these kind of situations. Too easy to neglect the concerns of individuals or small groups. > The costs are different in magnitude. Roughly: > > 1.People willing to read and possibly respond helpfully > to Nikos. > 2.People annoyed by Nikos who want him gone and don't want to > see anything by him or in his threads. > (and if people find you convincing) > 3.People annoyed by Nikos but willing to read his threads in > order to send antagonistic posts. > > If people ignore your call to spam Nikos with antagonistic > posts (and stop the considerable amount of such activity > already occurring) then the costs (difference compared to > a no-Nikos newsgroup) might be: > > Group 1: 0 > Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads > when encountered.) > > If people continue to send both unhelpful and antagonistic > posts to Nikos: > > Group 1: 5 (can't killfile posters because they post in other > non-Nikos threads. Have to skip large volume of junk > posts based on visual peek at contents or recognition > of poster as a vigilante.) > Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads > when encountered.) I don't accept this as the way costs should be compared? Why are you adding the costs of the flamers together? Each flamer is an individual who should only be responsible for his own contribution. As such it seems that the cost each flamer is inducing is comparable to the cost Nikos is inducing. > As for those annoyed by Nikos but who > > "can't easily filter the valuable contributions > > in [a Nikos] thread from the nth repeated answer to the same > > question" > how is that different from any non-Nikos thread other than that > your proposed action that makes it harder? It is different because Non-Nikos threads in general don't contain so many repeated questions as Nikos threads. > Of course. We all do that subconsciously every time we > read a newsgroup. But that is not what we are discussing > > We are discussing the effects of two different policies > of different interest groups on the newsgroup. You advocate > a policy of not responding helpfully and responding aggressively > to those exhibiting "undesirable" behavior where "undesirable" > is defined by you or some vague group consensus. > > I advocate a policy not responding aggressively at all and > responding helpfully or not at all based on a personal evaluation > of the "undesirable" behavior. > > So the question to answer is: how do those different policies > affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one > leads to the greatest good for the most? And I don't think that is the right question. It leads to people who are less annoyed by this kind of behaviour to ignore or brush of people who are more annoyed and attempts by the former to make the latter shoulder the full burden while not bearing any costs themselves and even behaving in such a way as to increase the annoyance of the latter group. > It's coercion because its *only* significant effect is to > raise the cost for me. That seems a non sequitur to me. >>> The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your >>> choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by >>> filtering out what you don't want to see. >> I don't appreciate it when you decide for others which alternatives >> are restricting their choice significantly and which do not. Others >> can have a very different appreciation of things than you have. > > Right. Which is why tolerance is so important. > > Tolerance involves not reacting to every irritation with > a hostile response likely to provoke more of the same. > It also implies not assuming what seems like trolling to > you is trolling to me. This hardly seems fair. We are not talking about some one who did a faux pas and was instantly flamed. We are talking about someone who ignored multiple attemps pointing out where his behaviour was unacceptable, who even seemed to think we should just accept his antisocial behaviour because his intention were good but showed no concern for the frustration he was causing. Even with those who were willing to help him. Trying to frame those that reacted to all this with flames, as people with low tolerance who react to every irritation with a hostile response doesn't look like an accurate description. >> What I propose is to stop encouraging his trollish behaviour. >> In point of fact Steve has already began doing so by demanding >> Nikos somehow shows he has done relevant work himself before >> wanting to help him further. Which I am perfectly fine with. > > No, What you were proposing was total boycott on any helpful > responses to Nikos and to continue and to increase the flood > of antagonistic posts to Nikos to drive him out. I have said something that can be interpretted as the first. But I made it clear because Nikos had allready receiced a ton of help like links of which he showed very little interest in actually reading. My boycot was meant for until he could show some results of him actively trying to solve his problems instead of us keeping to spoon feed him. > I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy > with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by > post basis. If fact, I think I've been saying that all along. But that is not enough for me. If someone is behaving in a trollish way, those continuing to help this person even after it has been shown he is insensitive to attempts to correct his behaviour, are becoming part of the problem. We are now talking of people in the community enabling trollish behaviour and so are contributing to the discomfort of a substantial part of the group. You can't ask restrain from this subgroup of people for the good of the whole group while at the same time showing no concerns for the discomfort of this subgroup you are contributing to. >> There is no need for those willing to help Nikos, to do so in a >> way that encourages his assholery behaviour. > > But you've said you believe *any* helpful response to Nikos > will "encourage his assholery behaviour". So there in no "need" > to provide any helpful response to Nikos. But then, I guess > that is a true statement for responding to anyone here, > depending on what "need" means. People could make it clear that they will only answer contributions of Nikos in which he doesn't behave like an asshole. In that case behaving like an asshole would not be encouraged and Nikos would still have a chance of having his questions answerd. As it was a number of people seemed too eager to help Nikos no matter how much he was behaving like an asshole. Like for the upteenth time changing his identity, thwarting all persons who killfiled him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-23 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5a698d6-4b8f-4260-a626-dbd4588012f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48879 |
On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >> On 06/19/2013 04:57 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> Op 19-06-13 05:46, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>> I don't remember making such a claim. What I do remember is >>> you among others claiming that the problem was not (so much) >>> the troll (Nikos) but the others. I only made the remark that >>> you can't claim the troll is not a problem if he provokes >>> behaviour you find problematic. >>> And your last conclusion is unsound. You forget to include the >>> fact that once a troll appeared, people reacting badly to the >>> troll is also to be expected. So with regards to this aspect >>> there is no difference between the troll and the responders, >>> both being expected and so no ground to put the preponderance >>> of blame on the responders. >> >> No, "blame" implies assumption of a particular point of >> view. From a troll's viewpoint, newsgroup participants that >> *don't* respond are to blame because they deprive the troll >> of his fun. >> >> Our viewpoint is that of newsgroup participants. We assume >> they have volition, else this whole thread is pointless. >> Since they have a choice of how to respond, then if they >> chose to respond in a way that produces an undesirable outcome, >> then it is fair "blame" them. >> >> The troll is outside the volition of the group and so his >> appearance is effectively an act of nature. > > This seems a rather artificial division. Especially because the > immediate cause that led to this discussion is Nikos. As the > situation is now I see very little reason to exclude Nikos > from the group. He has made a substantial number of contribution > and has received a substantial number of replies. So on what > grounds would you put Nikos outside the volition of this group? "made contributions"? I think you mean "asked questions". He has not (as far as I tell) been a participant here in the past, has not tried to help or participated in any other threads, seems to be interested only in getting his own problems solved, and not shown many signs of concern with any form of group consensus(es), not responded to requests. Isn't all that in large part the basis of your objection to him? "Outside the volition of this group" seems like a reasonable description to me. >> I am not "drawing the line for them", I am drawing it for >> me. I think you see a non-existent conflict because you are >> assume there is only one line. I do not make that assumption. >> >> If you think Nikos has crossed your line, then I acknowledge >> your right not to help him. I even acknowledge your right >> to flame him and encourage others to do so. >> >> My argument is that if you exercise your right (the flamage >> part) the results on the newsgroup, when considered on a >> best outcome for the most people basis, will be less good >> than if you choose not to exercise your right. > > Possibly. But I don't consider utiltarism such a good measuring > stick for these kind of situations. Too easy to neglect the > concerns of individuals or small groups. And your alternative that doesn't "neglect concerns of individuals or small groups" would be what? Something that neglects the concerns of the majority? I would love to see a proposed solution that satisfies the concerns of every individual and group here. And of course since you maintain above that trolls themselves are legitimate members of the newsgroup, it should also satisfy their desires as well. But sadly, in the real world there are conflicting desires so I don't think your alternative exists. >> The costs are different in magnitude. Roughly: >> >> 1.People willing to read and possibly respond helpfully >> to Nikos. >> 2.People annoyed by Nikos who want him gone and don't want to >> see anything by him or in his threads. >> (and if people find you convincing) >> 3.People annoyed by Nikos but willing to read his threads in >> order to send antagonistic posts. >> >> If people ignore your call to spam Nikos with antagonistic >> posts (and stop the considerable amount of such activity >> already occurring) then the costs (difference compared to >> a no-Nikos newsgroup) might be: >> >> Group 1: 0 >> Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads >> when encountered.) >> >> If people continue to send both unhelpful and antagonistic >> posts to Nikos: >> >> Group 1: 5 (can't killfile posters because they post in other >> non-Nikos threads. Have to skip large volume of junk >> posts based on visual peek at contents or recognition >> of poster as a vigilante.) >> Group 2: 1 (killfile Nikos and kill or skip his new threads >> when encountered.) > > I don't accept this as the way costs should be compared? Why are > you adding the costs of the flamers together? Each flamer is > an individual who should only be responsible for his own > contribution. I haven't a clue what you mean by this. What does "responsible" have to do with it? They are "added" because each flame post imposes a cost to skip so the total cost is roughly the sum of the individual posts skipped. > As such it seems that the cost each flamer > is inducing is comparable to the cost Nikos is inducing. Each post by Nikos stimulates several flames so the aggregate cost of the flame posts is several times Nikos' posts. And if you've killfiled Nikos the cost of Nikos' posts are roughly zero. >> As for those annoyed by Nikos but who >> > "can't easily filter the valuable contributions >> > in [a Nikos] thread from the nth repeated answer to the same >> > question" >> how is that different from any non-Nikos thread other than that >> your proposed action that makes it harder? > > It is different because Non-Nikos threads in general don't contain > so many repeated questions as Nikos threads. But whatever that difference is, your proposed solution increases the cost since it raises the ratio of garbage posts to valuable posts. Whatever the ratio was before the intervention of your vigilantes, it will be higher after. >> Of course. We all do that subconsciously every time we >> read a newsgroup. But that is not what we are discussing >> >> We are discussing the effects of two different policies >> of different interest groups on the newsgroup. You advocate >> a policy of not responding helpfully and responding aggressively >> to those exhibiting "undesirable" behavior where "undesirable" >> is defined by you or some vague group consensus. >> >> I advocate a policy not responding aggressively at all and >> responding helpfully or not at all based on a personal evaluation >> of the "undesirable" behavior. >> >> So the question to answer is: how do those different policies >> affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one >> leads to the greatest good for the most? > > And I don't think that is the right question. It leads to people > who are less annoyed by this kind of behaviour to ignore or brush > of people who are more annoyed and attempts by the former to > make the latter shoulder the full burden while not bearing any > costs themselves and even behaving in such a way as to increase > the annoyance of the latter group. Addressed in more detail below. No "brushing off" involved, only an attempt at the most reasonable tradeoff for everybody (which means not agreeing to the vigilantes desire to engage in flame wars with people that annoy them.) >> It's coercion because its *only* significant effect is to >> raise the cost for me. > > That seems a non sequitur to me. Sorry, it was out of order. It was in response to: >>> And when the costs go up for others, you somehow thinks they should >>> deal with the unpleasant choice life has dealt them, but when >>> the costs goes up for you it suddenly is about coercion and forcibly >>> restricting free choice. which was snipped in your quote. I.e., responding to your assertion that my characterization of the effect of your "flame 'em to hell" policy as coercion was just a rhetorical trick. No, there is legitimate reason to call it coercion. >>>> The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your >>>> choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by >>>> filtering out what you don't want to see. >>> I don't appreciate it when you decide for others which alternatives >>> are restricting their choice significantly and which do not. Others >>> can have a very different appreciation of things than you have. >> >> Right. Which is why tolerance is so important. >> >> Tolerance involves not reacting to every irritation with >> a hostile response likely to provoke more of the same. >> It also implies not assuming what seems like trolling to >> you is trolling to me. > > This hardly seems fair. We are not talking about some one who > did a faux pas and was instantly flamed. We are talking about > someone who ignored multiple attemps pointing out where his > behaviour was unacceptable, who even seemed to think we should > just accept his antisocial behaviour because his intention > were good but showed no concern for the frustration he was > causing. Even with those who were willing to help him. > Trying to frame those that reacted to all this with flames, > as people with low tolerance who react to every irritation > with a hostile response doesn't look like an accurate description. >>> What I propose is to stop encouraging his trollish behaviour. >>> In point of fact Steve has already began doing so by demanding >>> Nikos somehow shows he has done relevant work himself before >>> wanting to help him further. Which I am perfectly fine with. >> >> No, What you were proposing was total boycott on any helpful >> responses to Nikos and to continue and to increase the flood >> of antagonistic posts to Nikos to drive him out. > > I have said something that can be interpretted as the first. > But I made it clear because Nikos had allready receiced a > ton of help like links of which he showed very little interest > in actually reading. My boycot was meant for until he could > show some results of him actively trying to solve his problems > instead of us keeping to spoon feed him. What you see as a "ton of help like links" I submit did not seem that way to Nikos. Consider the "help" in one thread: |> This is all you need to read: |> http://docs.python.org/2/reference/expressions.html#boolean-operations Ignoring that the link is to Python2 while Nikos was using Python3 (and clearly did understand enough about the differences to assume it was still relevant), the contents start with "In the context of Boolean operations..." when Nikos' confusion (IIRC) was due to not understanding even the concept of a "boolean context" and the distinction between True/False and true/false (which is not even documented there but rather in http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#truth-value-testing although not too clearly if you don't already get it.) As I pointed out previously the Python docs are not a good reference for people who don't understand the basic concepts or terminology. Same is true of Wikipedia which is great for citations to support claims or for looking up specific facts if you know what you want, but as a learning resource is awful. And when he replies explicitly that he found the links "too technical" that is interpreted as "refused to read". [*1] Even serious attempts to help are often not helpful since it is difficult for someone with a lot of experience to adopt the mindset a beginner, possibly one who does even understand basic programming concepts or things like how to isolate a problem. But when the recipient of the help still doesn't understand, they are told, "it has been explained to you multiple times, you must be trolling". Similarly when they fail to do something because they don't understand the point of doing it or because they resist being commanded to do it, or the reason was explained in a way that made no sense to them. As for other links like esr's Smart Questions, it has some good advise but it is also in some places a very elitist and abrasive document. Offering it as something to be read, fine. Insisting that someone acknowledge and adhere to every point therein -- I too might well respond hostily to such a demand. Besides the inappropriate technical level of much of the "help" is also the question of english ability. These days that can be an issue with many posters, both with their understanding of answers and in phrasing responses that don't meet the "respectfulness" standards demanded by some here. And there are personality issues like Aspergers and dyslexia and other traits. There are cultural differences with the nature and expectation of politeness being varied. So what is obvious "help" to you may not be so much so to the recipient and in the face of all these differences IMO tolerance is very helpful. Again I'm not claiming that my interpretation of Nikos' responses must be correct; I may be wrong and he may be reading this and laughing his ass off at my naivete, but I reject your certainty that your reading as pure troll is the only correct one. And even if I am wrong in this particular case, I think tolerance is helpful for maintaining a non- hostile environment in general. >> I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy >> with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by >> post basis. If fact, I think I've been saying that all along. > > But that is not enough for me. If someone is behaving in a trollish > way, those continuing to help this person even after it has been > shown he is insensitive to attempts to correct his behaviour, are > becoming part of the problem. We are now talking of people in the > community enabling trollish behaviour and so are contributing to > the discomfort of a substantial part of the group. > You can't ask restrain from this subgroup of people for the good of > the whole group while at the same time showing no concerns for the > discomfort of this subgroup you are contributing to. Which, were it true, applicable equally to you of course. But you are again misrepresenting things in claiming I have "no concern". Of course I do. That after thinking about various options and concluding that the one I favor will have overall the best results, and that yours won't, in no way means I have "no concern". >>> There is no need for those willing to help Nikos, to do so in a >>> way that encourages his assholery behaviour. >> >> But you've said you believe *any* helpful response to Nikos >> will "encourage his assholery behaviour". So there in no "need" >> to provide any helpful response to Nikos. But then, I guess >> that is a true statement for responding to anyone here, >> depending on what "need" means. > > People could make it clear that they will only answer contributions > of Nikos in which he doesn't behave like an asshole. You are not stating clearly what you mean. I am guessing that you want *everyone* here to not answer *any* questions until *all* behavior you and the vigilantes define as "asshole" behavior by the miscreant stops. And of course in the meantime you and the vigilantes will engage in a flame war against the miscreant. While you object to some people "enabling" trolls by trying to be helpful, you seem to see nothing wrong with you and fellow vigilantes enabling trolls by engaging in insult, ridicule and pseudo-help flame wars with them. And you seem to have no concern for the many people who will be discomforted by the large volume of negative and unpleasant posts your enabling produces [*2]. I get that you believe what you say, but the way to see it implemented is to convince me and others that you are right by making a good logical case for it, something I think you are failing at. The way not to do it is with intimidating responses to those who disagree with you, like, "you have been asked not to enable (by our definition) trolls, and if you persist, we will treat you as a troll." > In that case > behaving like an asshole would not be encouraged and Nikos would > still have a chance of having his questions answerd. As it was > a number of people seemed too eager to help Nikos no matter how > much he was behaving like an asshole. Like for the upteenth time > changing his identity, thwarting all persons who killfiled him. Looking at a few samples it looks to me like he has posted under only two identities: support@superhost.gr and nikos.gr33k@gmail.com. Many people here do the same (eg from work and home for example). I don't think you have grounds to complain about that. As for him changing his display name all the time, yes it is a problem for those of us using inferior tools like Google Groups that show only the name without email address. One could respond the same way I have often been responded to: use a decent tool. But I don't consider that a legitimate response so I agree with you and had intended to ask Nikos to stop changing the name the next occasion I had to interact with him. But one has a choice of how to do that. 1. "You keep changing your email account. Use one account and stop being an asshole, troll!" 2. "Stop changing your email name." 3. "There are people here want to be able to filter out your threads but it is hard to do because you often change your email name. Would you please just pick one or two names and use them consistently? Not only will that help reduce the number of people who make angry posts because they are pissed off but you are likely to get more helpful answers because the people reading your threads are people willing to look at your issues." (1) is wrong, unfair, aggressive and provocative and likely to result in more flamage in response and no change in behavior. (2) is aggressive. The poster has no authority to order Nikos or anyone else here to do something. (This kind of response is unfortunately common here and I wish the people doing it would stop.) (3) is IMO the most likely to be effective, particularly if combined with a serious attempt to provide a helpful answer. It may have to be repeated more than once. And it might well be ineffective if there are also a lot of (1) and (2) type responses. Of course if the behavior persists, particularly without any attempt to explain why, then one ups the "trollness" rating a few notches and when it exceeds one's threshold, stops trying to help. Soon, with neither help nor flamage to respond to there is no reason for the troll to remain. Problem solved but with less overall disruption and negativity (since you've been filtering his threads having made the troll determination earlier than me). ---- [*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/car7cJJjZdE/ib3p8-uHz9oJ [*2] There was an entire thread on the issue a short time ago: "Aggressive language on python-list", 2012-10-13 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.lang.python/RfhmqYgBxu8/discussion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-24 15:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3747.1372081062.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #48982 |
Op 23-06-13 16:29, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>> The troll is outside the volition of the group and so his >>> appearance is effectively an act of nature. >> >> This seems a rather artificial division. Especially because the >> immediate cause that led to this discussion is Nikos. As the >> situation is now I see very little reason to exclude Nikos >> from the group. He has made a substantial number of contribution >> and has received a substantial number of replies. So on what >> grounds would you put Nikos outside the volition of this group? > > "made contributions"? I think you mean "asked questions". > He has not (as far as I tell) been a participant here in > the past, has not tried to help or participated in any other > threads, seems to be interested only in getting his own > problems solved, and not shown many signs of concern with > any form of group consensus(es), not responded to requests. > Isn't all that in large part the basis of your objection > to him? "Outside the volition of this group" seems like > a reasonable description to me. What do you mean with not a participant in the past? As far as I can see his first appearance was in dec 2011. That is over a year ago. It also seems that he always find people willing to engage with him. Is how the group treats him not also an aspect in deciding whether he belongs or not? But if you want to classify Nikos as somehow incorrigible and hope for better from others, I can understand that. I just have a harder time understanding why you seem to make it some kind of priority that people in the group should still be able to communicate with this person with only a minimum of hassle. >> Possibly. But I don't consider utiltarism such a good measuring >> stick for these kind of situations. Too easy to neglect the >> concerns of individuals or small groups. > > And your alternative that doesn't "neglect concerns of individuals > or small groups" would be what? Something that neglects the concerns > of the majority? I would love to see a proposed solution that > satisfies the concerns of every individual and group here. And > of course since you maintain above that trolls themselves are > legitimate members of the newsgroup, it should also satisfy their > desires as well. But sadly, in the real world there are conflicting > desires so I don't think your alternative exists. Are you trying to have a meaningful conversation or going for debating points? I didn't claim to have a solution that will satisfy everyone. But I do think there are better ways in handling this kind of situation other than one group of people by some kind of introspection coming to a conclusion of how best to deal with it, simply trying to argue others into compliance. Especially if this solution puts none of the burden on their own shoulders but all on others. >>> So the question to answer is: how do those different policies >>> affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one >>> leads to the greatest good for the most? >> >> And I don't think that is the right question. It leads to people >> who are less annoyed by this kind of behaviour to ignore or brush >> of people who are more annoyed and attempts by the former to >> make the latter shoulder the full burden while not bearing any >> costs themselves and even behaving in such a way as to increase >> the annoyance of the latter group. > > Addressed in more detail below. No "brushing off" involved, > only an attempt at the most reasonable tradeoff for everybody > (which means not agreeing to the vigilantes desire to engage > in flame wars with people that annoy them.) Yes, brushing off. Your attempt seems to consist solely on some kind of intropspection in which you came to some kind of conclusion and attempts to argue people into compliance. As far as I can see you didn't try to understand the view of others but just tried to convice them of the truth of your conclusion. That looks like brushing off to me. >> I have said something that can be interpretted as the first. >> But I made it clear because Nikos had allready receiced a >> ton of help like links of which he showed very little interest >> in actually reading. My boycot was meant for until he could >> show some results of him actively trying to solve his problems >> instead of us keeping to spoon feed him. > > What you see as a "ton of help like links" I submit did > not seem that way to Nikos. Consider the "help" in one > thread: > |> This is all you need to read: > |> http://docs.python.org/2/reference/expressions.html#boolean-operations > Ignoring that the link is to Python2 while Nikos was > using Python3 (and clearly did understand enough about the > differences to assume it was still relevant), the contents > start with "In the context of Boolean operations..." when > Nikos' confusion (IIRC) was due to not understanding even > the concept of a "boolean context" and the distinction > between True/False and true/false (which is not even > documented there but rather in > http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#truth-value-testing > although not too clearly if you don't already get it.) > > As I pointed out previously the Python docs are not a good > reference for people who don't understand the basic > concepts or terminology. Same is true of Wikipedia which > is great for citations to support claims or for looking up > specific facts if you know what you want, but as a learning > resource is awful. > > And when he replies explicitly that he found the links "too > technical" that is interpreted as "refused to read". [*1] > > Even serious attempts to help are often not helpful since > it is difficult for someone with a lot of experience to > adopt the mindset a beginner, possibly one who does even > understand basic programming concepts or things like how to > isolate a problem. But when the recipient of the help still > doesn't understand, they are told, "it has been explained to > you multiple times, you must be trolling". Similarly when > they fail to do something because they don't understand > the point of doing it or because they resist being commanded > to do it, or the reason was explained in a way that made > no sense to them. > > As for other links like esr's Smart Questions, it has some > good advise but it is also in some places a very elitist > and abrasive document. Offering it as something to be read, > fine. Insisting that someone acknowledge and adhere to > every point therein -- I too might well respond hostily > to such a demand. > > Besides the inappropriate technical level of much of > the "help" is also the question of english ability. > These days that can be an issue with many posters, both > with their understanding of answers and in phrasing > responses that don't meet the "respectfulness" standards > demanded by some here. And there are personality issues > like Aspergers and dyslexia and other traits. There are > cultural differences with the nature and expectation of > politeness being varied. > > So what is obvious "help" to you may not be so much so to > the recipient and in the face of all these differences > IMO tolerance is very helpful. > > Again I'm not claiming that my interpretation of Nikos' > responses must be correct; I may be wrong and he may be > reading this and laughing his ass off at my naivete, but > I reject your certainty that your reading as pure troll is > the only correct one. And even if I am wrong in this particular > case, I think tolerance is helpful for maintaining a non- > hostile environment in general. What certainty? I don't claim certainty in Nikos being a pure troll. I state that it doesn't matter to me. As I said earlier intend is not magic and even if Nikos would not be a troll but still behaves largely as one, especially after over one year of presence I wonder what meaningful difference there is between a real troll and someone who just behave very troll like? You raise a number of valid concerns. And maybe a number of people were jumping to conclusions but that is a risk people like Nikos will run when they continue to behave in a way that wears peoples patience thin. And somehow you seem to expect we should tolerate Nikos wearing peoples patience thin, but then you have little patience yourself for those people whose patience ran out. >>> I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy >>> with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by >>> post basis. If fact, I think I've been saying that all along. >> >> But that is not enough for me. If someone is behaving in a trollish >> way, those continuing to help this person even after it has been >> shown he is insensitive to attempts to correct his behaviour, are >> becoming part of the problem. We are now talking of people in the >> community enabling trollish behaviour and so are contributing to >> the discomfort of a substantial part of the group. >> You can't ask restrain from this subgroup of people for the good of >> the whole group while at the same time showing no concerns for the >> discomfort of this subgroup you are contributing to. > > Which, were it true, applicable equally to you of course. > > But you are again misrepresenting things in claiming I have > "no concern". Of course I do. That after thinking about > various options and concluding that the one I favor will > have overall the best results, and that yours won't, in no > way means I have "no concern". You should read more carefully. First of all, you can have many concerns and still have no concern for a specific group. The concerns you mentioned above, doesn't contradict you having no concerns for the flamers. Second having concerns and showing them are two different things. It may be possible that you have a lot of concerns for the flamers, that doesn't mean you actually showed them. So I'll stand by my statement that you show no concern for the discomfort of this group you are contributing to. As far as I can see your only concern is make them behave according to the solution, you arrived at without any contribution from themselves. >> >> People could make it clear that they will only answer contributions >> of Nikos in which he doesn't behave like an asshole. > > You are not stating clearly what you mean. I am guessing > that you want *everyone* here to not answer *any* questions > until *all* behavior you and the vigilantes define as > "asshole" behavior by the miscreant stops. I would already be content when the specific contributions in which he behaves like an asshole would be largely ignored or responded too in a way that made it clear he has to get his act together if he wished to be helped. > And of course in the meantime you and the vigilantes > will engage in a flame war against the miscreant. > > While you object to some people "enabling" trolls by trying > to be helpful, you seem to see nothing wrong with you and > fellow vigilantes enabling trolls by engaging in insult, > ridicule and pseudo-help flame wars with them. You see that wrong. I don't mind people enabling trolls that much. You can go right ahead. Just don't complain about others enabling trolls just because it annoys you. Or complain as much as you like, I'll just ignore you. I just think that if you would like others to stop certain kinds of behaviour you have to be willing to empathies with the reason of the behaviour, be willing to look at your role in causing this behaviour and show a willingness to help those others in behaving in a way you find more agreeable. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen you showing any kind of willingness in these regards. > And you seem > to have no concern for the many people who will be discomforted > by the large volume of negative and unpleasant posts your > enabling produces [*2]. I see no reason to show concern for those who show very little of it themselves. > I get that you believe what you say, but the way to see it > implemented is to convince me and others that you are right > by making a good logical case for it, something I think > you are failing at. I don't care that much for a good logical case in these kind of circumstances. Too many people having trouble looking at things from an other perspective, causing them to be overcomfident in their assumptions and thus resulting in them taking too much stock in their conclusions. > The way not to do it is with intimidating responses to those > who disagree with you, like, "you have been asked not to enable > (by our definition) trolls, and if you persist, we will treat > you as a troll." I don't think that just stating that some group of people are somehow to blame according to some conclusion that logically followed from assumptions you could choose, and that thus this other group has to adapt its behaviour while you can carry on as usual, is such a good way either. >> In that case >> behaving like an asshole would not be encouraged and Nikos would >> still have a chance of having his questions answerd. As it was >> a number of people seemed too eager to help Nikos no matter how >> much he was behaving like an asshole. Like for the upteenth time >> changing his identity, thwarting all persons who killfiled him. > > Looking at a few samples it looks to me like he has > posted under only two identities: support@superhost.gr and > nikos.gr33k@gmail.com. Many people here do the same (eg from > work and home for example). I don't think you have grounds > to complain about that. You have missed at least nikos.kouras@gmail.com and nagia.retsina@gmail.com. > As for him changing his display name all the time, yes it > is a problem for those of us using inferior tools like Google > Groups that show only the name without email address. One > could respond the same way I have often been responded to: > use a decent tool. > > But I don't consider that a legitimate response so I agree > with you and had intended to ask Nikos to stop changing the > name the next occasion I had to interact with him. I appreciate that. > But one has a choice of how to do that. > > 1. "You keep changing your email account. Use one account and > stop being an asshole, troll!" > > 2. "Stop changing your email name." > > 3. "There are people here want to be able to filter out your threads > but it is hard to do because you often change your email name. > Would you please just pick one or two names and use them > consistently? Not only will that help reduce the number of > people who make angry posts because they are pissed off but > you are likely to get more helpful answers because the people > reading your threads are people willing to look at your issues." > > (1) is wrong, unfair, aggressive and provocative and likely to > result in more flamage in response and no change in behavior. > > (2) is aggressive. The poster has no authority to order Nikos > or anyone else here to do something. (This kind of response is > unfortunately common here and I wish the people doing it would > stop.) > > (3) is IMO the most likely to be effective, particularly if > combined with a serious attempt to provide a helpful answer. > It may have to be repeated more than once. And it might > well be ineffective if there are also a lot of (1) and (2) > type responses. You sure seem awful careful with regards to someone you view as being outside the volition of the group while a the same time seeing nothing wrong with being very blunt about some subgroup of people you seem to consider inside the volition of the group, and whith which you have a particular problem. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-25 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed6d860d-75eb-432d-b0b7-aa0bcc1fdcd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49046 |
On 06/24/2013 07:37 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 23-06-13 16:29, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
>[...]
Note: although I clipped the "group volition"
paragraphs, thank you for pointing out that Nikos posts
go back to dec 2011. I was not aware of that.
>>> Possibly. But I don't consider utiltarism such a good measuring
>>> stick for these kind of situations. Too easy to neglect the
>>> concerns of individuals or small groups.
>>
>> And your alternative that doesn't "neglect concerns of individuals
>> or small groups" would be what? Something that neglects the concerns
>> of the majority? I would love to see a proposed solution that
>> satisfies the concerns of every individual and group here. And
>> of course since you maintain above that trolls themselves are
>> legitimate members of the newsgroup, it should also satisfy their
>> desires as well. But sadly, in the real world there are conflicting
>> desires so I don't think your alternative exists.
>
> Are you trying to have a meaningful conversation or going for debating
> points? I didn't claim to have a solution that will satisfy everyone.
> But I do think there are better ways in handling this kind of situation
> other than one group of people by some kind of introspection coming to
> a conclusion of how best to deal with it, simply trying to argue others
> into compliance. Especially if this solution puts none of the burden on
> their own shoulders but all on others.
I put forward what I thought was a rational way of thinking
about the problem that balances the competing desires. You
reject it with, "too easy to neglect the concerns of individuals
or small groups". I point out that I don't see any way of
satisfying the concerns of "individuals or small groups" and
the majority and you accuse me "going for debating points".
If you don't wish to address the issue directly then, please
do so indirectly by telling how your solution, to inundate the
offender (and group in general) with a deluge of flames, somehow
satisfies the "concerns of individuals or small groups" and of
the majority.
The only rational conclusion I can draw is that you either
don't care about the majority or you think the majority of
people here have no problem with masses of flamage and hostile
and aggressive posts.
>>>> So the question to answer is: how do those different policies
>>>> affect the cost/benefits of the different groups and which one
>>>> leads to the greatest good for the most?
>>>
>>> And I don't think that is the right question. It leads to people
>>> who are less annoyed by this kind of behaviour to ignore or brush
>>> of people who are more annoyed and attempts by the former to
>>> make the latter shoulder the full burden while not bearing any
>>> costs themselves and even behaving in such a way as to increase
>>> the annoyance of the latter group.
>>
>> Addressed in more detail below. No "brushing off" involved,
>> only an attempt at the most reasonable tradeoff for everybody
>> (which means not agreeing to the vigilantes desire to engage
>> in flame wars with people that annoy them.)
>
> Yes, brushing off. Your attempt seems to consist solely on
> some kind of intropspection in which you came to some kind
> of conclusion and attempts to argue people into compliance.
>
> As far as I can see you didn't try to understand the view
> of others but just tried to convice them of the truth of
> your conclusion. That looks like brushing off to me.
This is a "no concern" argument.
Many of your following points are effectively the same argument,
so I will mark them all with the preceding sentence and address
them all at the end.
>[...snip ...]
>> So what is obvious "help" to you may not be so much so to
>> the recipient and in the face of all these differences
>> IMO tolerance is very helpful.
>>
>> Again I'm not claiming that my interpretation of Nikos'
>> responses must be correct; I may be wrong and he may be
>> reading this and laughing his ass off at my naivete, but
>> I reject your certainty that your reading as pure troll is
>> the only correct one. And even if I am wrong in this particular
>> case, I think tolerance is helpful for maintaining a non-
>> hostile environment in general.
>
> What certainty? I don't claim certainty in Nikos being a pure
> troll. I state that it doesn't matter to me.
Yes, my mistake.
> As I said earlier
> intend is not magic and even if Nikos would not be a troll
> but still behaves largely as one, especially after over one
> year of presence I wonder what meaningful difference there is
> between a real troll and someone who just behave very troll
> like?
Different kinds of trolls (with different motivations) one
can guess will respond differently. A classic troll motivated
almost exclusively by a desire to get attention and instigate
discord will be energized by the hostile responses you propose.
However someone like Nikos who is actually looking for help
and some of who's "trolling" may be reaction to hostility
received, might react positively to more genuine attempts
to help and less hostility. And if not, the help will dry
up, ending the problem without the flamage and disruption
you propose.
> You raise a number of valid concerns. And maybe a number
> of people were jumping to conclusions but that is a risk
> people like Nikos will run when they continue to behave in
> a way that wears peoples patience thin.
>
> And somehow you seem to expect we should tolerate Nikos
> wearing peoples patience thin, but then you have little
> patience yourself for those people whose patience ran out.
This is a "no concern" argument.
Additionally...
Again you are not only wrong, but making stuff up.
I have not responded to anyone responding to trolls or other
"asshole" posters with flames or demands they stop doing that.
I have practiced what I've been preaching -- for the most part
I patiently ignore them, exactly I am suggesting you do to people
who annoy you, and only occasionally respond with what I hope
is a helpful contribution to the discussion. [*1]
>>>> I too am fine with someone not responding to Nikos if unhappy
>>>> with his method of interaction, either in general or on a post-by
>>>> post basis. If fact, I think I've been saying that all along.
>>>
>>> But that is not enough for me. If someone is behaving in a trollish
>>> way, those continuing to help this person even after it has been
>>> shown he is insensitive to attempts to correct his behaviour, are
>>> becoming part of the problem. We are now talking of people in the
>>> community enabling trollish behaviour and so are contributing to
>>> the discomfort of a substantial part of the group.
>>> You can't ask restrain from this subgroup of people for the good of
>>> the whole group while at the same time showing no concerns for the
>>> discomfort of this subgroup you are contributing to.
>>
>> Which, were it true, applicable equally to you of course.
>>
>> But you are again misrepresenting things in claiming I have
>> "no concern". Of course I do. That after thinking about
>> various options and concluding that the one I favor will
>> have overall the best results, and that yours won't, in no
>> way means I have "no concern".
>
> You should read more carefully. First of all, you can have many
> concerns and still have no concern for a specific group. The
> concerns you mentioned above, doesn't contradict you having
> no concerns for the flamers.
This (and following 2 paragraphs) is a "no concern" argument.
Additionally...
I can't tell if you are being deliberately disingenuous or you
just wrote that too quickly. I used "concern" in the context
of your statement, "showing no concerns for the discomfort of
this subgroup [you and the flamers]",
How could you possibly think me to mean some other kind of
concern? To make it explicit, yes I was talking about the same
concern you were. Sheesh, you wouldn't even get debating points
for that.
> Second having concerns and showing them are two different things.
> It may be possible that you have a lot of concerns for the flamers,
> that doesn't mean you actually showed them.
If you need some sort of public "show", then I will publicly
state that I too have been very frustrated with many of
Nikos' posts and I am greatly sympathetic to the desire to
tell the SOB to go take a flying fuck. That not withstanding
I believe that responding that way does not help anything
and is destructive.
> So I'll stand by my statement that you show no concern for the
> discomfort of this group you are contributing to. As far as I
> can see your only concern is make them behave according to the
> solution, you arrived at without any contribution from themselves.
The operative part there is: as far as you can see.
>>> People could make it clear that they will only answer contributions
>>> of Nikos in which he doesn't behave like an asshole.
>>
>> You are not stating clearly what you mean. I am guessing
>> that you want *everyone* here to not answer *any* questions
>> until *all* behavior you and the vigilantes define as
>> "asshole" behavior by the miscreant stops.
>
> I would already be content when the specific contributions
> in which he behaves like an asshole would be largely ignored
> or responded too in a way that made it clear he has to get
> his act together if he wished to be helped.
Then you seem to be moving closer to what I think is best.
Unless of course by "made clear" you mean the kind of emotional
hostile aggressive flamage that you originally seemed to be
defending.
>> And of course in the meantime you and the vigilantes
>> will engage in a flame war against the miscreant.
>>
>> While you object to some people "enabling" trolls by trying
>> to be helpful, you seem to see nothing wrong with you and
>> fellow vigilantes enabling trolls by engaging in insult,
>> ridicule and pseudo-help flame wars with them.
>
> You see that wrong. I don't mind people enabling trolls that
> much. You can go right ahead. Just don't complain about others
> enabling trolls just because it annoys you. Or complain as
> much as you like, I'll just ignore you.
I am not complaining -- I am (and have been) pointing out
a predictable response of responding to trolls with flames
and hostility, and pointing out that many people, not just
here and now but across the internet and through 30 years
of internet history, consider the result unpleasant.
You are free to ignore that and do what you want.
But remember to tell me again how *I* have no concern for
others.
> I just think
> that if you would like others to stop certain kinds of behaviour
> you have to be willing to empathies with the reason of the
> behaviour, be willing to look at your role in causing this behaviour
> and show a willingness to help those others in behaving in a
> way you find more agreeable.
>
> I may have missed it, but I haven't seen you showing any kind
> of willingness in these regards.
This is a "no concern" argument.
Additionally...
1. I showed empathy above.
2. I've looked at my role (I've attempted, unsuccessfully, to help
Nikos a couple times) and determined although my action might have
irritated a few people, probably not most, that showing that not
everyone here was hostile might possibly result is a change for
the better. A justifiable balance.
3. I've spent an unconscionable amount of time on these emails to
try and build a reasonable case for tolerance and non-flaming as
the best response for both discouraging trolls and no maintaining
a non-hostile, negative atmosphere here. That is to "help those
others in behaving" better.
>> And you seem
>> to have no concern for the many people who will be discomforted
>> by the large volume of negative and unpleasant posts your
>> enabling produces [*2].
>
> I see no reason to show concern for those who show very little
> of it themselves.
This is a "no concern" argument.
>> I get that you believe what you say, but the way to see it
>> implemented is to convince me and others that you are right
>> by making a good logical case for it, something I think
>> you are failing at.
>
> I don't care that much for a good logical case in these kind
> of circumstances. Too many people having trouble looking at
> things from an other perspective, causing them to be overcomfident
> in their assumptions and thus resulting in them taking too much
> stock in their conclusions.
If you reject logic and rationality as a basis for discussion,
then I guess we a really are on different planets.
>> The way not to do it is with intimidating responses to those
>> who disagree with you, like, "you have been asked not to enable
>> (by our definition) trolls, and if you persist, we will treat
>> you as a troll."
>
> I don't think that just stating that some group of people
> are somehow to blame according to some conclusion that logically
> followed from assumptions you could choose, and that thus this
> other group has to adapt its behaviour while you can carry on
> as usual, is such a good way either.
You persist in presenting the situation as though I am just
making things up to justify a proposal that makes my own
use of the group easier. You ignore the rational I gave and
the experience of countless internet users over the history
of the internet.
>>> In that case
>>> behaving like an asshole would not be encouraged and Nikos would
>>> still have a chance of having his questions answerd. As it was
>>> a number of people seemed too eager to help Nikos no matter how
>>> much he was behaving like an asshole. Like for the upteenth time
>>> changing his identity, thwarting all persons who killfiled him.
>>
>> Looking at a few samples it looks to me like he has
>> posted under only two identities: support@superhost.gr and
>> nikos.gr33k@gmail.com. Many people here do the same (eg from
>> work and home for example). I don't think you have grounds
>> to complain about that.
>
> You have missed at least nikos.kouras@gmail.com and nagia.retsina@gmail.com.
I did miss them, thanks.
>> As for him changing his display name all the time, yes it
>> is a problem for those of us using inferior tools like Google
>> Groups that show only the name without email address.
>[...]
>> (3) [a non-emotional, explanation of the problem with a
polite request to change]
>> is IMO the most likely to be effective, particularly if
>> combined with a serious attempt to provide a helpful answer.
>> It may have to be repeated more than once. And it might
>> well be ineffective if there are also a lot of (1) and (2)
>> type responses.
>
> You sure seem awful careful with regards to someone you view as being
> outside the volition of the group while a the same time seeing nothing
> wrong with being very blunt about some subgroup of people you seem to
> consider inside the volition of the group, and whith which you have
> a particular problem.
Again this is an "no concern" argument.
Additionally...
It is wrong.
I've not advocated "being very blunt" to those who aggravate
the situation by responding to trolling with flames and more
aggression. On the contrary I've advocated responding just
as to a troll or other problem poster -- helpfully or not at all.
Now...addressing all your "no concern" arguments...
A disproportionate number of your arguments above are that I am
not concerned about those (including you) who are deeply frustrated
with Nikos' bad behavior.
First, what my internal emotions (concern) are or are not is
irrelevant -- what I have expressed in my opinion on how certain
type of behavior will affect the climate of this newsgroup and
the pleasure and usefulness various participant get from it.
You can ascribe my motives to whatever you want including the
influence of extra-terrestrials; it has nothing to do with the
actual arguments I've made.
Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses
frustrating and I realize other people feel the same. But that
does not mean that giving into emotion and filling this group
up with all sort of negative hostile hate-mail is the right thing
to do. Silence is a better option overall (IMO). There are three
decades of internet experience that agree.
From the amount of rehashing and "as I said"s above I would
say we are getting into, "yes it is", "no it isn't" territory.
Unless you have something significantly new to add I don't think
that continuing this is very productive.
----
[*1] I'm sure you can find something I've posted sometime that
is not consistent with what I wrote. Nevertheless I think the
majority of my posts (and non-posts) to trolls do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-26 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3898.1372275994.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #49167 |
Op 25-06-13 17:56, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: > On 06/24/2013 07:37 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 23-06-13 16:29, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >>> On 06/21/2013 01:32 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>>> Op 19-06-13 23:13, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef: >> [...] > I put forward what I thought was a rational way of thinking > about the problem that balances the competing desires. You > reject it with, "too easy to neglect the concerns of individuals > or small groups". I point out that I don't see any way of > satisfying the concerns of "individuals or small groups" and > the majority and you accuse me "going for debating points". But you didn't even go to the trouble of trying to find out what those concerns would be and how strong people feel about them. You just took your assumptions about those concerns for granted and proceeded from there. >> Second having concerns and showing them are two different things. >> It may be possible that you have a lot of concerns for the flamers, >> that doesn't mean you actually showed them. > > If you need some sort of public "show", then I will publicly > state that I too have been very frustrated with many of > Nikos' posts and I am greatly sympathetic to the desire to > tell the SOB to go take a flying fuck. That not withstanding > I believe that responding that way does not help anything > and is destructive. You really should learn the difference between telling and showing. >> So I'll stand by my statement that you show no concern for the >> discomfort of this group you are contributing to. As far as I >> can see your only concern is make them behave according to the >> solution, you arrived at without any contribution from themselves. > > The operative part there is: as far as you can see. There seem to be two options. Either there is nothing to see or I missed it, in which case this would have been a very good opportunity to point it out. > You are free to ignore that and do what you want. > But remember to tell me again how *I* have no concern for > others. This is not a competion in trying to make the other look less concerned than the other. I don't care whether or not you have concerns for others. I'm just pointing out that if you would like to influence the behaviour of others in a direction you'd prefer, then you'd better show concerns about what drives them to that behaviour. >> I don't think that just stating that some group of people >> are somehow to blame according to some conclusion that logically >> followed from assumptions you could choose, and that thus this >> other group has to adapt its behaviour while you can carry on >> as usual, is such a good way either. > > You persist in presenting the situation as though I am just > making things up to justify a proposal that makes my own > use of the group easier. You ignore the rational I gave and > the experience of countless internet users over the history > of the internet. Why should I care about the rational you gave. It is based on your own assumptions, on how you weight the possible outcomes against each other. Someone who doesn't care about trolls or even may enjoy observing a heated exchange may come to an entirely different conclusion on what behaviour is good for the group in case he extrapolated his own preferences on the group. And you may not have purposely made things up to justify your proposal, but how you went about it, that is probably what you actually did. Because that is what we as humans generally do in this kind of situations. >> You sure seem awful careful with regards to someone you view as being >> outside the volition of the group while a the same time seeing nothing >> wrong with being very blunt about some subgroup of people you seem to >> consider inside the volition of the group, and whith which you have >> a particular problem. > > Again this is an "no concern" argument. > Additionally... > It is wrong. > > I've not advocated "being very blunt" to those who aggravate > the situation by responding to trolling with flames and more > aggression. I didn't mean you advocated it. I mean that you actually have been blunt about these people. These are you words: ] The primary problem is a (relatively small) number of people ] who respond to every post by Nikos with a barrage of insults, ] demands, (what they think are) witty repartee, hints intended ] to "make" Nikos learn something, useless (to Nikos) links, ] new threads to discuss the "Nikos problem", and other trash ] that is far more obnoxious that anything Nikos posts and just ] serves to egg him on. Now as far as I am concerned you can be as blunt as you want to be. I just don't understand why you think you should be so careful to Nikos, while at the same time you saw no need for careful wording here. > A disproportionate number of your arguments above are that I am > not concerned about those (including you) who are deeply frustrated > with Nikos' bad behavior. No, I point out that your behaviour doesn't *show* any such concern. > First, what my internal emotions (concern) are or are not is > irrelevant -- what I have expressed in my opinion on how certain > type of behavior will affect the climate of this newsgroup and > the pleasure and usefulness various participant get from it. > You can ascribe my motives to whatever you want including the > influence of extra-terrestrials; it has nothing to do with the > actual arguments I've made. Your argument is next to useless. You rarely make people change behaviour by showing your argument is correct. If your goal is influencing people into behaving more as you would like, focussing on your argument instead of empathising on their frustration is more likely to antagonise the people whose behaviour you would like to change than to get them to cooperate. > Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses > frustrating and I realize other people feel the same. Stop telling you are concerned. Start showing. > But that > does not mean that giving into emotion and filling this group > up with all sort of negative hostile hate-mail is the right thing > to do. Silence is a better option overall (IMO). There are three > decades of internet experience that agree. Do you have mumbers on that? Otherwise those three decades of internet don't mean much. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-26 15:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3922.1372335107.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #49167 |
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > But you didn't even go to the trouble of trying to find out > what those concerns would be and how strong people feel about > them. You just took your assumptions about those concerns for > granted and proceeded from there. Jumping back in here, I for one don't give a hoot about their concerns, beyond the basic assumption that they feel the same way I do about Nikos' threads and wish that he would leave. I just want to maintain a positive and welcoming atmosphere around here. I expect that most of the posters here are adults and can fend for themselves regarding their own concerns, and I'm not interested in being the list mom. You on the other hand seem to want to treat the list like a playground. If that's what you want to do, then by all means go for it; just leave me out of it. >> If you need some sort of public "show", then I will publicly >> state that I too have been very frustrated with many of >> Nikos' posts and I am greatly sympathetic to the desire to >> tell the SOB to go take a flying fuck. That not withstanding >> I believe that responding that way does not help anything >> and is destructive. > > > You really should learn the difference between telling and showing. Copy... > Why should I care about the rational you gave. It is based on > your own assumptions, on how you weight the possible outcomes against > each other. Someone who doesn't care about trolls or even may > enjoy observing a heated exchange may come to an entirely different > conclusion on what behaviour is good for the group in case he > extrapolated his own preferences on the group. > > And you may not have purposely made things up to justify your > proposal, but how you went about it, that is probably what you > actually did. Because that is what we as humans generally do > in this kind of situations. "Made things up"? This response to the situation is not just our own assumptions at work, but the collective experience of the Internet, going back decades. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll > Now as far as I am concerned you can be as blunt as you want to > be. I just don't understand why you think you should be so > careful to Nikos, while at the same time you saw no need for > careful wording here. Nobody is suggesting that we should make any effort to try to avoid hurting Nikos' feelings, contrary to what you seem to be implying here. Be as blunt as you want with him, but please recognize that troll baiting /does not work/ as a means of making the troll go away and only serves to further degrade the list. Nor do I think that it is a bad thing to be blunt about it with those who are dampening the environment. As I said above, the posters here are mostly adults, most of whom I think are not so emotionally fragile that they would wilt because of a simple reprimand on the Internet (or if they really /can't/ take it, then perhaps they should have thought about that before they started dishing it). > Your argument is next to useless. You rarely make people change behaviour by > showing your argument is correct. If your goal is influencing people into > behaving more as you would like, focussing > on your argument instead of empathising on their frustration is > more likely to antagonise the people whose behaviour you would > like to change than to get them to cooperate. ...paste. "You really should learn the difference between telling and showing." >> Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses >> frustrating and I realize other people feel the same. > > Stop telling you are concerned. Start showing. How? By joining in with the flaming and being just as counter-productive? I'm not going to try to "show" my concern because it is not important to me whether others can see it. >> But that >> does not mean that giving into emotion and filling this group >> up with all sort of negative hostile hate-mail is the right thing >> to do. Silence is a better option overall (IMO). There are three >> decades of internet experience that agree. > > Do you have mumbers on that? Otherwise those three decades of internet > don't mean much. The only actual study on the topic that I'm aware of is this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/13/internet-trolls-improbable-research
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-27 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3957.1372419290.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #49167 |
Op 26-06-13 23:02, Ian Kelly schreef: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Antoon Pardon > <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: >> But you didn't even go to the trouble of trying to find out >> what those concerns would be and how strong people feel about >> them. You just took your assumptions about those concerns for >> granted and proceeded from there. > > Jumping back in here, I for one don't give a hoot about their > concerns, beyond the basic assumption that they feel the same way I do > about Nikos' threads and wish that he would leave. I just want to > maintain a positive and welcoming atmosphere around here. So what do you think would be a good approach towards people who are behaving in conflict with this wish of yours? Just bluntly call them worse than the troll or try to approach them in a way that is less likely to antangonize them? > I expect > that most of the posters here are adults and can fend for themselves > regarding their own concerns, and I'm not interested in being the list > mom. It is not about being the list's mom. It's about approaching people, whom you would like to influence in changing their behaviour, in a way that is more likely to gain you their good will towards you. If what you want is indeed a positive and welcoming atmosphere, I would say such an approach would be more effective in getting it. >> Why should I care about the rational you gave. It is based on >> your own assumptions, on how you weight the possible outcomes against >> each other. Someone who doesn't care about trolls or even may >> enjoy observing a heated exchange may come to an entirely different >> conclusion on what behaviour is good for the group in case he >> extrapolated his own preferences on the group. >> >> And you may not have purposely made things up to justify your >> proposal, but how you went about it, that is probably what you >> actually did. Because that is what we as humans generally do >> in this kind of situations. > > "Made things up"? This response to the situation is not just our own > assumptions at work, but the collective experience of the Internet, > going back decades. The collective experience of theachers is that punishment for bad performance works, despite research showing otherwise. Besides I was talking about rurpy's basic assumptions about what the costs would be for various subgroups in different scenario's. These were all based on his own interpretations. What he did was trying to imagine how costly it would feel for him, should he have be in a particular situation with a particular preference. As far as I can see he didn't ask other people what their preference was and how costly particular situations would feel to them. So yes he made those up. Now I accept he was trying to get at an honest estimation of factors involved, but human biases working as they do, there is little reason to think his result is in any way objective or useful. >> Now as far as I am concerned you can be as blunt as you want to >> be. I just don't understand why you think you should be so >> careful to Nikos, while at the same time you saw no need for >> careful wording here. > > Nobody is suggesting that we should make any effort to try to avoid > hurting Nikos' feelings, contrary to what you seem to be implying > here. I am implying nothing. I'm just pointing out the difference between how rurpy explains we should behave towards Nikos and how he behaved towards the flamers. If there is some sort of implication it is with rurpy in that difference and not with me in me pointing it out. > Be as blunt as you want with him, but please recognize that > troll baiting /does not work/ as a means of making the troll go away > and only serves to further degrade the list. It's not clear to me what you are precisely saying here. Do you think being blunt is a form of troll baiting or not? Because my impression of those who are bothered by the flamers, was that being blunt was just a form of troll baiting and would just cause similar kind of list degradation. Do you think being blunt is a good way in keeping a welcoming and postive atmosphere in this group? >>> Second, I *am* concerned in that I find a lot of Nikos's responses >>> frustrating and I realize other people feel the same. >> >> Stop telling you are concerned. Start showing. > > How? By joining in with the flaming and being just as > counter-productive? I am not so sure it would be counter-productive. A joint flaming of a troll can be an effective way to increase coherence in a group. > I'm not going to try to "show" my concern because > it is not important to me whether others can see it. I doubt that is a good way in keeping this group positive and welcoming. But it is your choice. >> Do you have mumbers on that? Otherwise those three decades of internet >> don't mean much. > > The only actual study on the topic that I'm aware of is this one: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/13/internet-trolls-improbable-research Thanks for this. Unfortunatly there is not much to rely on. The only thing I can get from this, is that there can be more ways than one to handle trolls. -- Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-28 11:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3981.1372493856.3114.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #49167 |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > So what do you think would be a good approach towards people > who are behaving in conflict with this wish of yours? Just > bluntly call them worse than the troll or try to approach them > in a way that is less likely to antangonize them? Inform them that their behavior is damaging the list atmosphere, and ask them to please knock it off. Shaming the behavior works too, but I'd prefer to go with the former. > The collective experience of theachers is that punishment for bad > performance works, despite research showing otherwise. Flaming a troll is not punishing to them. >>> Now as far as I am concerned you can be as blunt as you want to >>> be. I just don't understand why you think you should be so >>> careful to Nikos, while at the same time you saw no need for >>> careful wording here. >> >> >> Nobody is suggesting that we should make any effort to try to avoid >> hurting Nikos' feelings, contrary to what you seem to be implying >> here. > > > I am implying nothing. I'm just pointing out the difference between > how rurpy explains we should behave towards Nikos and how he behaved > towards the flamers. If there is some sort of implication it is with > rurpy in that difference and not with me in me pointing it out. Your statement "I just don't understand why you think you should be so careful to Nikos" implies that somebody thinks we should be careful to Nikos, i.e. be careful to not hurt his feelings. At least that is how I read it, and I don't think it is true. >> Be as blunt as you want with him, but please recognize that >> troll baiting /does not work/ as a means of making the troll go away >> and only serves to further degrade the list. > > It's not clear to me what you are precisely saying here. Do you think > being blunt is a form of troll baiting or not? Because my impression > of those who are bothered by the flamers, was that being blunt was just > a form of troll baiting and would just cause similar kind of list > degradation. No. Flaming carries an emotional response, which signals to the troll that they've struck a nerve and can help incite them. A blunt, non-emotional response is less likely to end up functioning as positive reinforcement in that way. That said, the best response to a troll is still no response at all. > Do you think being blunt is a good way in keeping a welcoming and > postive atmosphere in this group? I think it's better than being openly hostile. And speaking for myself, if somebody has a problem with my own behavior then I would prefer that they be blunt about it than cover it up with a false friendliness. > I am not so sure it would be counter-productive. A joint flaming > of a troll can be an effective way to increase coherence in a > group. Well, if flaming ever becomes the prevailing culture of the list, then I'm out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web