ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 784 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-09-15 | | bulibug: And then Jim Bartle suddenly kept quiet when he felt I know what I was talking about Abdel....his common sense is a notch above chancho. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Shams: <cg> I hesitate to pipe up since the last technical suggestion I made on this forum was, if memory serves, politely termed by you to be "literally meaningless". Nevertheless I'll share one idea even though if it's any good you've probably thought of it already. Another forum I frequent (not as cool as pro wrestling or watchmaking) enforces a three-day waiting period after signup before new users can post. Might something like that help keep trolls at bay? If I'm a troll, and I can make a hundred accounts in a day, three days is not too long to wait to start activating them. As soon as one is banned, I move on to another. But if I find that they've all been gagged as a batch, and I have to start the process over again, that might be a real deterrent. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Sokrates: <chessgames.com: <a site that discusses watches, primarily mechanical wrist-watches> I too am curious how one would go about trolling such a site.> Why? Is that the issue? <thegoodanarchist> various remarks. I understand it's beyond someone's comprehension that anyone could be passionate about watches. And if you don't understand something why not ridicule and twist it, so that it becomes obvious to all, how silly it is? I thought it would be self-evident that I ONLY mentioned the site as an EXAMPLE of how to deal with trolls. I wanted to contribute constructively to the issue - not discuss watches or feed people whose day is made by ridiculing others. In vain, obviously, so my short presence at this forum has come to an end. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Shams: <Sokrates> You have missed the tone I'm afraid. Please don't go, your post was well-received and there was nothing mean-spirited in the comments. For crying out loud, we are chessplayers, we understand tiny obsessions. There's no need to be defensive. On the subject of timepieces, I read this book last year and quite enjoyed it: http://www.amazon.com/Longitude-Gen... |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | achieve: <Shams: <Sokrates> You have missed the tone I'm afraid. Please don't go, your post was well-received and there was nothing mean-spirited in the comments.> But it did take away attention from the main issue, and the side issue was the popular "funny" response, overtaking the main issue. Of course it's nice to see people are ROFLing and ROTFLing left and right - oh could there be some ridicule detected or perceived? Please do not be a party pooper, play along!! - but in general I detest that sort of attitude when a poster in all seriousness and honesty shares his/her innermost thoughts and feelings. Don't go <Sokra>! It's contributors like yourself that are much needed. Not just here - but @#$% it - in this world. Basta. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Sokrates: My warm thanks to you <achieve> for your precise description of the state of discussions to which I wholeheartedly agree. We are definitely on the same page and I thank you for expressing this so explicitly. Also my thanks to you, <Shams>. Please understand that I don't mind jokes & irony, but I distinguish very clearly between laughing with or laughing at people. The first I enjoy, the latter I detest. And thanks to both of you I shall stay here for yet some time. Thank you! |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | achieve: <Sokrates>
Good to hear! And you're welcome.
I'll get back to the central point of that post, and why I think that the it isn't fully being understood, or done justice to. Just need some time to formulate it as sharply and incisively as I can. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | lainulo: <"WE" don't need to, who the heck died, and made you admin? And we need to fill out <YOUR> form? Show me that you are in charge, first, and be rightfully in charge.> That's the requirement for the proper exercise of the right of due process to be observed by the accuser and the accused. It's an inalienable right as declared by the united nations and binding on folks of all nations including you and me in the CG community. (unless you are a member of a communist country of course) |
|
Feb-09-15
 | | Tabanus: Perhaps people with high PITA score could be <forced> to have their forums open? That could take away some attention from the player pages. Or perhaps we <all> should have an open forum, any problems with that? |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Abdel Irada: <Or perhaps we <all> should have an open forum, any problems with that?> If it didn't carry such potential for abuse, I'd like this idea. If trolls abuse us, we could go abuse them back. And if they didn't like it, they could put us on ignore. Of course, it's a bit harder to troll someone if you can't see his posts.... :-D (I'm joking about this, of course. Two wrongs still don't make a right — although three lefts do.) ∞ |
|
Feb-09-15
| | Tabanus: I have no idea what the consequences would be. I have an open forum now and no problems with it (yet). What will happen to a troll with an open forum? |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Abdel Irada: <And thanks for admitting you were not a Navy Journalist> From the *outset*, I have made clear that I worked as a journalist but was not designated JO. One cannot "admit" what one has never denied.
Given that I never claimed to be a *designated* journalist — and the error you describe occurred not on my DD-214 but on an ID long expired (and was not my fault in any case) — the rest of your philippic is irrelevant. I have told nothing but the truth, foreign though that concept may be to you. ∞ |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Abdel Irada: <Tabanus: I have no idea what the consequences would be. I have an open forum now and no problems with it (yet).> For one thing, you're suggesting making one of the privileges of membership into a weapon: a (forcibly) open forum to be used against its owner. <What will happen to a troll with an open forum?> He will become afraid to cross bridges?
He will put himself on ignore, in hopes of not seeing the comments on his forum? He will post constantly in his forum, accusing visitors of trolling him? There are so many possibilities.... :-D
∞ |
|
Feb-09-15
| | Tabanus: Yes, the troll forum could be used against its owner. And more of the discussion might take place there, and not on the public pages. <He will post constantly in his forum, accusing visitors of trolling him?> That's the best case scenario. Nobody would have to read it, only those who wanted to. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Jim Bartle: I am no longer responding to <bulibug> et al on chess questions. However I will repeat that his attack on <abdel irada> is the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen on chessgames. He has presented no evidence to support his accusation. |
|
Feb-09-15
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Tabanus: I have no idea what the consequences would be. I have an open forum now and no problems with it (yet). What will happen to a troll with an open forum?> <angslo>, one of the nastiest trolls in the history of this site, opened a forum once. Predictably, he used it for trolling and personal attacks (and as a bait to get people to view his user profile, which he periodically updated with fresh insults). Going by that as a test case, trolls love having an open forum, and the only possible upside would be that some of their trolling is further from the public eye. Also, keep in mind that most trolls are <happy> to see mobs of people angry at them. That's <why> they troll. People abusing them back only encourages them and convinces them they're doing it effectively; we don't want to put up a huge neon sign saying "PLEASE FEED THIS TROLL". |
|
Feb-09-15
| | Tabanus: A forcibly open forum is not a "huge neon sign"?
I've never heard about <angslo>. Must be because he stayed in his forum, which I never visited. |
|
Feb-09-15
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: The whole premise of a forcibly open forum seems to be that people would get back at the troll there. Not only would that probably not happen (it didn't in <angslo>'s case), but if it did, that would make the troll happy. Trolls love getting reactions. What conceivably <might> work would be giving a troll an open forum, and then having no one post there. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Abdel Irada: I assure you, with near-certainty, that you *have* heard of <angslo>. He has had multiple incarnations.
(More I will not say, for it is of old rumor that it is unwise to invoke the Parvum Innominandum. Only a *little* unwise, but still....) ∞ |
|
Feb-09-15
| | Tabanus: <Switch> I don't mind if the troll was happy if it stayed mostly in its forum. The user fora are not included in "Recent kibitzing" and are in fact quite <away> from the public eye? |
|
Feb-09-15
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Tabanus: <Switch> I don't mind if the troll was happy if it stayed mostly in its forum. The user fora are not included in "Recent kibitzing" and are in fact quite <away> from the public eye?> Yes, that's why I said that <the only possible upside would be that some of their trolling is further from the public eye>. |
|
Feb-09-15
| | Tabanus: Well I'm running out of ideas. The admins have some other tools also I suppose, say manipulating the ability to delete posts or the ability to make a forum header. Perhaps they should hire a psychologist to find out what might work. |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | WinKing: <Tabanus: Perhaps they should hire a psychologist to find out what might work.> Make sure they are well versed in schizophrenia. ;) |
|
Feb-09-15
 | | Stonehenge: Player of the day:
Troll |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Abdel Irada: <WinKing: <Tabanus: Perhaps they should hire a psychologist to find out what might work.> Make sure they are well versed in schizophrenia. ;)> Actually, studies seem to show that trolls' real mental problem is sociopathy. ∞ |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 784 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
