Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #48289 > unrolled thread

Re: Don't feed the troll...

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.

Contents

  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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#49501

Op 28-06-13 19:20, Ian Kelly schreef:
> 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.

That is a bit odd. Rurpy seemed to consider it a big nono if others
used methods that would coerce him to change his behaviour. But here
you see shaming as an option which seems a coercive method.

So if some group views the response to trollish behaviour as too
willing in cooperating with bad behaviour and as such damaging to
the list, this group can then inform the cooperators that their
behaviour is damaging the list atmosphere and ask to please knock it
off. And they can consider more coercive methods too?

>> The collective experience of theachers is that punishment for bad
>> performance works, despite research showing otherwise.
>
> Flaming a troll is not punishing to them.

I see I didn't make my point clear. This was my response to
your remark about the collective experience going back decades.
The collective experience often enough doesn't carry over wisdom
but myth. To illustrate that, I gave the example of teachers whose
collective experience is contradicted by the research. So if the
only thing you can rely on is the collective experience of the
group your knowledge isn't very relyable.

I also find it somewhat odd that you talk about a troll here. AFAIU
the people who are most annoyed by those flaming/protesting Nikos,
don't seem to consider Nikos a troll. But if Nikos is not a troll
then protesting Nikos's behaviour can't be protested against on
the ground that it would be troll feeding.

>> 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.

What Rurpy's motivation would be for being careful to Nikos, you have to
ask him. I'm only pointing out that in contrast to the blunt statement
he made about those flaming/protesting Nikos, how he explained we
should behave towards Nikos can accurately be described as careful.

...

>> 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.

Sure, but there is a difference between telling people you have
a problem with their behaviour and telling people their behaviour
is wrong or damaging. Yet when you have trouble with particular
behaviour you go for the latter instead for the former.

>> 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.

Sure, I can understand that. But doesn't this contradict somewhat
that this is about others damaging this group. Increasing coherence
would IMO be positive for a group, but you would still not like it. So
it seems more about keeping an atmosphere that you prefer. There is
nothing qrong with that, but if you can keep that in mind, your
approach is more likely to be fruitful.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49564

On 06/30/2013 11:25 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 28-06-13 19:20, Ian Kelly schreef:
>[...]
>> Flaming a troll is not punishing to them.
> 
> I see I didn't make my point clear. This was my response to
> your remark about the collective experience going back decades.
> The collective experience often enough doesn't carry over wisdom
> but myth. To illustrate that, I gave the example of teachers whose
> collective experience is contradicted by the research. So if the
> only thing you can rely on is the collective experience of the
> group your knowledge isn't very relyable.

I don't have anything to add to the discussion beyond restating
what I've already said (which I'm not interested in doing), except 
to address this point in light of recent posts on the list.

You claim "collective experience" is not reliable and dismiss it 
in favor of your own theory, flaming trolls is a better response.
And your evidence for that?  Nothing (that I've read so far).

Collective experience may not always be totally reliable but it 
seems to me it is better than the non-experience that you have 
offered.

Ironically your flame war with Nikos in 
  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2013-June/650905.html
provides evidence for the validity of the collective experience you 
dismiss, that engaging in flame wars with trolls simply produces more 
flames, hostility begets hostility.  I, and I think the majority of
people here, find that very unpleasant.  You have become (as predicted 
by the collective experience you dismiss) as offensive as any troll.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49616

Op 01-07-13 16:02, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:

> You claim "collective experience" is not reliable and dismiss it
> in favor of your own theory, flaming trolls is a better response.
> And your evidence for that?  Nothing (that I've read so far).

You can decide all for yourself on how you want to handle trolls.
But consider the following possibilty. A couple of trolls that
are good in getting each other riled up. The regular members
who mostly have killfiled them. Then who will be burdened most
by the trolls? The newcomers. The regulars may succeed in creating
a coccoon with a welcoming and positive atmosphere, but they
have by doing so blinded themselves to how the group looks like
to outsiders and so have no idea how hostile the group may have
become to newbees.

> Ironically your flame war with Nikos in
>    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2013-June/650905.html
> provides evidence for the validity of the collective experience you
> dismiss, that engaging in flame wars with trolls simply produces more
> flames, hostility begets hostility.  I, and I think the majority of
> people here, find that very unpleasant.  You have become (as predicted
> by the collective experience you dismiss) as offensive as any troll.

A lot of unfairness stays in the world because people find it unpleasant
to fight it and even to observe fighting it.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49668

On 07/01/2013 01:38 PM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> > Op 01-07-13 16:02, rurpy@yahoo.com schreef:
> > 
>> >> You claim "collective experience" is not reliable and dismiss it
>> >> in favor of your own theory, flaming trolls is a better response.
>> >> And your evidence for that?  Nothing (that I've read so far).
> > 
> > You can decide all for yourself on how you want to handle trolls.
> > But consider the following possibilty. A couple of trolls that
> > are good in getting each other riled up. The regular members
> > who mostly have killfiled them. Then who will be burdened most
> > by the trolls? The newcomers. The regulars may succeed in creating
> > a coccoon with a welcoming and positive atmosphere, but they
> > have by doing so blinded themselves to how the group looks like
> > to outsiders and so have no idea how hostile the group may have
> > become to newbees.

That is a possibility.  But your "cocoon" senario is highly
improbable because,
1. There will never be 100% compliance with any consensus here,
and
2. There will always be enough backscatter and other leakage 
that all cocoons will be will rather permeable.  If you'll recall 
it was that permeability, and the cost it imposes on the large 
majority of people here who object to it, that was an argument 
against your proposal, back at the start of this thread.

Even allowing the possibility of two trolls mixing it up [*1], 
how does your proposal, to amplify the volume of hostility several 
times, improve the situation for your newbee?

Far better to simply remind your newbee that most here feel 
that not feeding trolls is the most appropriate response and
then demonstrate that in practice.

>> >> Ironically your flame war with Nikos in
>> >>    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2013-June/650905.html
>> >> provides evidence for the validity of the collective experience you
>> >> dismiss, that engaging in flame wars with trolls simply produces more
>> >> flames, hostility begets hostility.  I, and I think the majority of
>> >> people here, find that very unpleasant.  You have become (as predicted
>> >> by the collective experience you dismiss) as offensive as any troll.
> > 
> > A lot of unfairness stays in the world because people find it unpleasant
> > to fight it and even to observe fighting it.

And a lot of misery is caused by people enforcing their idea 
of "right". 

----
[*1]
You and Nikos in the "python adds an extra half space..." thread
might be an actual example of your hypothetical: two trolls 
intentionally provoking each other and in the process, successfully
provoking a lot of emotional reaction from others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49620

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:02 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... engaging in flame wars with trolls simply produces more
> flames, hostility begets hostility ...

It does. Please can these threads die quietly now?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49504

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM, 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.
>
>
> That is a bit odd. Rurpy seemed to consider it a big nono if others
> used methods that would coerce him to change his behaviour. But here
> you see shaming as an option which seems a coercive method.

Well, if it didn't work the first time, I wouldn't keep at it.  I
don't consider that coercive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49528

Op 30-06-13 19:50, Ian Kelly schreef:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Antoon Pardon

>>
>> That is a bit odd. Rurpy seemed to consider it a big nono if others
>> used methods that would coerce him to change his behaviour. But here
>> you see shaming as an option which seems a coercive method.
>
> Well, if it didn't work the first time, I wouldn't keep at it.  I
> don't consider that coercive.

That is a fair point.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49242

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> 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?

Although it's true that he's been around for a while, it has in my
mind only been very recently that his posts have started to become a
problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49311

Op 25-06-13 19:25, Ian Kelly schreef:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be>  wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Although it's true that he's been around for a while, it has in my
> mind only been very recently that his posts have started to become a
> problem.

Fine. All the more reason to regard him as part of the group rather
than outside the group IMO.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48741

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> 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.

Count me among those who feel this way.

> 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, I don't agree with that at all.  Trolls are to be expected because
there will always be those out in the world who want to have a little
fun and have no regard for either the list or those who use it.  There
is nothing to be done about that.  On the other hand, the flamers
responding to the trolls are regular contributers to the list who
presumably do care about keeping the list courteous, respectful,
welcoming and enjoyable to participate in.  Toward that end, I do not
think it is at all unreasonable to expect posters not to throw those
principles out the window just because a troll showed up.

> 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.

Ultimately there is no enforcement on this list, and all of us must
draw our own lines.  The question then is: will one draw the line
somewhere that is respectful of the list and promotes positive
contributions, or somewhere that will push others toward kill-filing
one and/or giving up on the list altogether?

> 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.

So their ideal solution is to flame him until he goes away, with the
result being that the threads don't exist to begin with?  If it's
difficult to filter "valuable contributions" from a thread while
trying to ignore every other post, think how much harder it will be to
got those same "valuable contributions" from a thread that doesn't
exist in the first place.  Finding anything of value here is clearly
not the goal of the flamers, and they might as well just kill the
threads at their end -- it's the same net effect for a lot less work,
and it doesn't impact the ability of anyone else to interact with
those threads if they might wish to.

> 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.

It's a lot easier to ignore a thread than it is to ignore specific
posters within specific threads.  And per my response above, your
argument that the flamers might not want to just ignore the thread
doesn't fly.

> 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.

I don't think you understand the troll mindset.  They don't care
whether the community does or does not welcome them, because they
don't view themselves as part of the community.  They just want
affirmation and attention, which is exactly what they get when
somebody flames them.  They may even find it amusing that somebody can
get so worked up over their disingenuous posts, which then spurs them
on to continue trying to get the same reaction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48763

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:40:15 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:

> On the other hand, the flamers responding to the trolls are regular
> contributers to the list who presumably do care about keeping the list
> courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in. 
> Toward that end, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to expect
> posters not to throw those principles out the window just because a
> troll showed up.

+1000



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48761

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:46:28 -0700 (PDT), rurpy@yahoo.com declaimed the
following:


>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.  
>
	We'd like to... but he keeps changing his identity (and one particular
identity just happens to choke Forte Agent's kill filter -- I've not
figured out how to get that one to work)
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48782

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Op 19-06-13 20:40, Ian Kelly schreef:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> 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.
> Count me among those who feel this way. 
Well You are entitled to your judgement, but so are those who
feel differently. For now I don't see a reason to favor your
judgement over others.


>> 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, I don't agree with that at all.  Trolls are to be expected because
> there will always be those out in the world who want to have a little
> fun and have no regard for either the list or those who use it.  There
> is nothing to be done about that.  On the other hand, the flamers
> responding to the trolls are regular contributers to the list who
> presumably do care about keeping the list courteous, respectful,
> welcoming and enjoyable to participate in.  Toward that end, I do not
> think it is at all unreasonable to expect posters not to throw those
> principles out the window just because a troll showed up.
There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that you
are equivocating on "expect". "Expect" can mean you will be surprised
if it doesn't happen but it can also mean you will feel indignant or
disappointed or something similar when it doesn't happen.

Now I won't feel surprise when a troll turns up and I also won't feel
surprise when the troll attracts flamers and it is my guess this is
the meaning you use when you write trolls are to be expected. I doubt
you want to express indignation or disappointment with the prospect
of no trolls showing up. But then you seem to switch meaning when
you talk about the flamers. There it sure looks like you are expressing
indignation at the prospect of community members not upholding the
principles you find important.

The second problem is that I find it a one sided view. If you want
a courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
list, shouldn't you also be careful in not encouraging trollish
behaviour? Being courteous to or cooperating with someone behaving
trollishly, is IMO enabling that kind of behaviour and so those
doing so, seem to already throw those priciples out the window because
they are cooperating with the troll who is making this list less
courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
for a significant number of people.

There is also the aspect that you can only try to keep something
if you have the feeling it is still present. If contributers 
start feeling this list is no longer the hospitable place it once
was, they feel less inclined to do the effort themselves. If
you'd like people not to throw out certain principles you'd better
make sure they don't feel those principles have already been thrown
out. 


>> 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.
> Ultimately there is no enforcement on this list, and all of us must
> draw our own lines.  The question then is: will one draw the line
> somewhere that is respectful of the list and promotes positive
> contributions, or somewhere that will push others toward kill-filing
> one and/or giving up on the list altogether?
Indeed, and how is it promoting positive contributions if you answer
trollish contributions about the same way as you do interesting 
contributions? 


> So their ideal solution is to flame him until he goes away, with the
> result being that the threads don't exist to begin with?  If it's
> difficult to filter "valuable contributions" from a thread while
> trying to ignore every other post, think how much harder it will be to
> got those same "valuable contributions" from a thread that doesn't
> exist in the first place. 
Those valuable contributions will then probably turn up in an other
thread. One that isn't a resource hog for all contributors.


>> 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.
> I don't think you understand the troll mindset.  They don't care
> whether the community does or does not welcome them, because they
> don't view themselves as part of the community.  They just want
> affirmation and attention, which is exactly what they get when
> somebody flames them.  They may even find it amusing that somebody can
> get so worked up over their disingenuous posts, which then spurs them
> on to continue trying to get the same reaction.
And why then should it be the flamers that are bothersome here? Isn't
then any response getting the troll affirmation and attention? Why
shouldn't the flamers be bothered by those feeding the troll and making
this list thus a less hospitable place, just because they do it in a
polite and enabling way?

You are ignoring the fact that a lot of motivation behind the current
flaming is what the flamers see as enabling behaviour from other
contributors. If you want the flamers to stop with the behaviour you
find annoying, I think you'd better feel some empathy about what
makes them behave in such a way and make sure you are not contributing.
That will make it more probable for them to take you serious.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48842

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that you
> are equivocating on "expect". "Expect" can mean you will be surprised
> if it doesn't happen but it can also mean you will feel indignant or
> disappointed or something similar when it doesn't happen.

Perhaps I am, but it doesn't change my argument in any way.  When a
troll shows up I am not happy about it, but I am not disappointed
either, because Trolls Happen.  I am disappointed when members of the
community act in ways that are detrimental to the community.  Better?

> The second problem is that I find it a one sided view. If you want
> a courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
> list, shouldn't you also be careful in not encouraging trollish
> behaviour? Being courteous to or cooperating with someone behaving
> trollishly, is IMO enabling that kind of behaviour and so those
> doing so, seem to already throw those priciples out the window because
> they are cooperating with the troll who is making this list less
> courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
> for a significant number of people.

You'll note that I haven't engaged Nikos at all in some time.  That's
because I think he's a troll.  I think though that those who are
continuing to help him do so because they do not think that he is a
troll.  I am not going to try to thrust my own opinion of who is or is
not a troll and who can or cannot be given help upon the list -- that
is their opinion, they are entitled to it, and maybe they see
something in the exchange that I don't.

That is different in my eyes from somebody who does identify Nikos as
a troll and then goes on to egg him on anyway, whether it be courteous
or belligerent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48852

Op 21-06-13 04:40, Ian Kelly schreef:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that you
>> are equivocating on "expect". "Expect" can mean you will be surprised
>> if it doesn't happen but it can also mean you will feel indignant or
>> disappointed or something similar when it doesn't happen.
>
> Perhaps I am, but it doesn't change my argument in any way.  When a
> troll shows up I am not happy about it, but I am not disappointed
> either, because Trolls Happen.  I am disappointed when members of the
> community act in ways that are detrimental to the community.  Better?

But that last one doesn't ring true. Enabling a troll is also acting
in a way that is detrimental to the community. But I haven't seen
you express disappointment in that.

Those that expressed their disappointment with the enabling behaviour
were more or less told they should deal with it. So tell me, why
should your disappointment merrit more consideration?

>
>> The second problem is that I find it a one sided view. If you want
>> a courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
>> list, shouldn't you also be careful in not encouraging trollish
>> behaviour? Being courteous to or cooperating with someone behaving
>> trollishly, is IMO enabling that kind of behaviour and so those
>> doing so, seem to already throw those priciples out the window because
>> they are cooperating with the troll who is making this list less
>> courteous, respectful, welcoming and enjoyable to participate in
>> for a significant number of people.
>
> You'll note that I haven't engaged Nikos at all in some time.  That's
> because I think he's a troll.  I think though that those who are
> continuing to help him do so because they do not think that he is a
> troll.  I am not going to try to thrust my own opinion of who is or is
> not a troll and who can or cannot be given help upon the list -- that
> is their opinion, they are entitled to it, and maybe they see
> something in the exchange that I don't. 

That doesn't change one bit of the fact they are enabling someone
who exhibits assholery behaviour. Who since he started here has
regularly changed his identity, yet these enablers keep suggesting
that those who are bothered by him should just killfile him. If
they were serious with that suggestion they at least could have
told Nikos they were only going to reply to one specific identity.


> That is different in my eyes from somebody who does identify Nikos as
> a troll and then goes on to egg him on anyway, whether it be courteous
> or belligerent.


In my eyes that is a difference that only counts at the start of
an exchange. Helping others allthough a fine goal by itself is not
something that can be used to justify any means. If you learn that
the person you are helping is showing assholery behaviour and how
you are helping, sure looks like encouraging that assholery behaviour.
When you decide to mostly ignore that, you are showing no concern
for the other contributers on the list and are acting in a way
that is detrimental to the community.

If you want the python list to be a hospitable place, you have
to be attentive for signals from other contributors that the
level of hospitability is decreasing for them. If you ignore
them or brush them off you then risk loosing them as cooperators
to that goal. So if later you find the level of hospitability
is decreasing for you, you are more likely to get ignored or
brushed off too.


-- 

Antoon Pardon

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48868

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Op 21-06-13 04:40, Ian Kelly schreef:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Antoon Pardon
>> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>> There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that you
>>> are equivocating on "expect". "Expect" can mean you will be surprised
>>> if it doesn't happen but it can also mean you will feel indignant or
>>> disappointed or something similar when it doesn't happen.
>>
>> Perhaps I am, but it doesn't change my argument in any way.  When a
>> troll shows up I am not happy about it, but I am not disappointed
>> either, because Trolls Happen.  I am disappointed when members of the
>> community act in ways that are detrimental to the community.  Better?
>
> But that last one doesn't ring true. Enabling a troll is also acting
> in a way that is detrimental to the community. But I haven't seen
> you express disappointment in that.

I've already explained why that is.  First, it's less anguish to
kill-file one troll than several vitriolic regulars (and I realize
that he keeps changing his name, but fortunately I think he's only
used three different /addresses/ in the time that he's been posting).
Second, I don't want to bully anybody into not trying to help a user
where they want to and believe that they can.  It may be "enabling"
for the troll, but it's unhealthy for the list in general.

> Those that expressed their disappointment with the enabling behaviour
> were more or less told they should deal with it. So tell me, why
> should your disappointment merrit more consideration?

When did I ever say that it should?  I'm just putting my own opinions
on the subject out there.

> If you want the python list to be a hospitable place, you have
> to be attentive for signals from other contributors that the
> level of hospitability is decreasing for them. If you ignore
> them or brush them off you then risk loosing them as cooperators
> to that goal. So if later you find the level of hospitability
> is decreasing for you, you are more likely to get ignored or
> brushed off too.

The level of hospitality is already decreasing for me.  That's why I'm
speaking up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48873

On Friday, June 21, 2013 9:49:01 PM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote:
>
> The level of hospitality is already decreasing for me.  That's why I'm
> speaking up.

I believe that this can be a point of unanimity -- "The level of hospitality having gone down enough, I felt the need to speak up".

And with the immediate factor(s) for this in abeyance for the last couple of days, maybe we can shelve this and move on?

Just a suggestion and a request to all...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48504

Op 16-06-13 22:04, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:16:34 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> You are trying to get it both ways. On the one hand you try to argue
>> that there are no boundaries 
> I have never, ever argued that there are no boundaries. I have repeatedly 
> made it clear to Nikos when I thought he was behaving improperly. And 
> I've done the same to others when they've acted improperly.

That doesn't mean much. People can and do contradict themselves. So the
fact that you made it clear to Nikos that he behaved improperly doesn't
contradict you arguing somewhere else in a way that strongly suggest
there are no boudaries.

But I'll take note that you assert there are boundaries. So I'll take
it that there is nothing wrong with playing Internet Police and taking
people to task who transgress this boundaries?

One thing I would like to make clear, is that I find you making it clear
he behaviour is improper, to be inadequate for the reason that it ignores
the possibility that you are playing a troll game.

To make an analogy. Suppose someone want to play a game of troll-chess
with you. The rules of troll-chess are the following. You are allowed
any kind of piece movement or you can utter the statement: TIC (That is
cheating). So in troll-chess you are allowed to move your bisshops like
a queen. The only thing is, that if you do a move that is illegal in
ordinary chess and your opponent answers with TIC, you must take back
that move and make a move that is legal ordinary chess. So you make
think you are making it clear to your troll-chess opponent that he
is cheating for your troll-chess opponet you are just participating in
his game.

Now it is possible that your opponent is not in fact playing troll chess
but just doesn't know enough of the game to know what is a legal move and
what is not. In my opinion that doesn't matter. If your opponent doesn't
want to invest the time needed to at least have a reasonable idea of
what moves are legal and so in practice is hardly distinguishable from
those who's intent it is to play troll chess, the end result is the
same.


>> to what is acceptable by calling people who
>> do try to enforce such boundaries the Internet Police. On the other hand
>> you do suggest that playing Internet Police is out of bound behaviour.
> 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.
>
I'm sorry but again I find that you are trying to have it both ways. IMO,
and I suspect I'm not alone in that judgement, the threads that Nikos starts
are in general, boring, repetitive, unproductive and draining. Not only that
they are having an effect on the mailing list as a whole making it an unpleasant
place. To the people who come with that complain, your respons, seems to be
that if those people would just ignore the nikos-threads. They don't have to
experience this unpleasantnes.

But now that you start to experience unpleasantness, this unproductiveness
and unpleasantness is cause for you to label behaviour unacceptable. But the
same remedy is available here. Just ignore threads with behaviour that you
find unacceptable and you (and others) don't have to experience this hostility
and unpleasantness.

Those you accuse of ruining the environment, find this environment already
partly ruined by nikos and those that enable him.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48572

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:31:53 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:

> Op 16-06-13 22:04, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:16:34 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> You are trying to get it both ways. On the one hand you try to argue
>>> that there are no boundaries
>> I have never, ever argued that there are no boundaries. I have
>> repeatedly made it clear to Nikos when I thought he was behaving
>> improperly. And I've done the same to others when they've acted
>> improperly.
> 
> That doesn't mean much. People can and do contradict themselves. So the
> fact that you made it clear to Nikos that he behaved improperly doesn't
> contradict you arguing somewhere else in a way that strongly suggest
> there are no boudaries.

Except that I have never, ever argued or suggested or even hinted that 
there are no boundaries. The most you might legitimately accuse me of is 
failing to be sufficiently vigilant at enforcing boundaries, according to 
*your* idea of what is sufficient.


> But I'll take note that you assert there are boundaries. So I'll take it
> that there is nothing wrong with playing Internet Police and taking
> people to task who transgress this boundaries?

There is an enormous difference between doing what I, and others, have 
done, which is to *politely* and *fairly* tell Nikos when he has 
transgressed, and what the flame-warriors have done, which is just fire 
off invective and insults.

Not long ago I got taken to task, politely, off-list for responding to 
Ranting Rick with sarcasm. Sometimes the momentary pleasure of a flame 
outweighs the knowledge that it probably isn't doing any good and may be 
doing harm. I get that and don't hold it against anyone if they succumb 
to temptation once in a while. (Those like Peter Otten, who have been 
regulars here for *years* while still showing the patience of a saint, 
never fail to astonish me. If I could be even half as good.)

But continuing to flame after being asked not to, and defending flamers, 
that crosses the line from "spirit is willing, flesh is weak" into 
*willfully bad* territory.

Contrast Chris Angelico's recent email telling Nikos that he *actually 
should feel bad* about not reading the documentation. That is reasonable. 
It's not just a stream of insults. It doesn't just try to bully him into 
going away or shutting up in order to avoid being shouted at. If Nikos 
fails to learn from it, that is Nikos' failure, not Chris'.

 
> One thing I would like to make clear, is that I find you making it clear
> he behaviour is improper, to be inadequate for the reason that it
> ignores the possibility that you are playing a troll game.

Oh my, that's funny.

But seriously, don't do that. I won't put up with that sort of thing. You 
rarely contribute in this community, and now here you are trying to take 
the moral high ground by defending flaming and criticising those who give 
actual helpful, on-topic advice. I won't be called a troll by you. Do it 
again, and you're plonked.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#48611

Op 18-06-13 01:02, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:31:53 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> Op 16-06-13 22:04, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
>>> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:16:34 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are trying to get it both ways. On the one hand you try to argue
>>>> that there are no boundaries
>>> I have never, ever argued that there are no boundaries. I have
>>> repeatedly made it clear to Nikos when I thought he was behaving
>>> improperly. And I've done the same to others when they've acted
>>> improperly.
>> That doesn't mean much. People can and do contradict themselves. So the
>> fact that you made it clear to Nikos that he behaved improperly doesn't
>> contradict you arguing somewhere else in a way that strongly suggest
>> there are no boudaries.
> Except that I have never, ever argued or suggested or even hinted that 
> there are no boundaries. The most you might legitimately accuse me of is 
> failing to be sufficiently vigilant at enforcing boundaries, according to 
> *your* idea of what is sufficient.
>
>
>> But I'll take note that you assert there are boundaries. So I'll take it
>> that there is nothing wrong with playing Internet Police and taking
>> people to task who transgress this boundaries?
> There is an enormous difference between doing what I, and others, have 
> done, which is to *politely* and *fairly* tell Nikos when he has 
> transgressed, and what the flame-warriors have done, which is just fire 
> off invective and insults.
I disagree. You have been polite to the person who is ruining it for
a lot of other people. What good is it to politely and fairly tell
someone he is transgressing, when he will just continue in the same way.
At some point you keeping to be polite and answering his questions,
becomes enabling behaviour. Your politely and fairly pointing out
his transgressions just becomes a way in cooperating with his annoying
behaviour.

You keeping it polite and fair doens't mean much. It isn't that difficult
to act as an asshole while presenting oneself as being polite and fair.

And no I don't want to imply you are an asshole. I just want to make
it clear I don't put much weight is being polite and fair.

> Not long ago I got taken to task, politely, off-list for responding to 
> Ranting Rick with sarcasm. Sometimes the momentary pleasure of a flame 
> outweighs the knowledge that it probably isn't doing any good and may be 
> doing harm. I get that and don't hold it against anyone if they succumb 
> to temptation once in a while. (Those like Peter Otten, who have been 
> regulars here for *years* while still showing the patience of a saint, 
> never fail to astonish me. If I could be even half as good.)
>
> But continuing to flame after being asked not to, and defending flamers, 
> that crosses the line from "spirit is willing, flesh is weak" into 
> *willfully bad* territory.

You were asked not to continue encouraging Nikos's assholery behaviour.
So it seems you are in that *willfully bad* territory yourself. And
no, politely and fairly telling Nikos he is transgressing doesn't cut it.
If he keeps acting like an asshole and you keep helping him you are
encouraging his assholery behaviour no matter how many times you
politely and fairly point out his transgressions. 


>> One thing I would like to make clear, is that I find you making it clear
>> he behaviour is improper, to be inadequate for the reason that it
>> ignores the possibility that you are playing a troll game.
> Oh my, that's funny.
>
> But seriously, don't do that. I won't put up with that sort of thing. You 
> rarely contribute in this community, and now here you are trying to take 
> the moral high ground by defending flaming and criticising those who give 
> actual helpful, on-topic advice. I won't be called a troll by you. Do it 
> again, and you're plonked.
>
I didn't call you a troll. I just wanted you to consider you might be
participating in what is essentially a troll game. And that what you
see as pointing out a transgression, is just a kind of move in the
game of the troll.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web