What is 'trolling' here?

[AmRacer]

@Krzysztof_O we usually banter about them, or even Remco or Roglic, i didn't feel harrased about the post.

We have our differences too, but all is fine with me. Hope you feel the same.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I continue to receive many reports of trolling, with no really clear consensus as to what criteria it is identified by. Many complainants are clearly working to a different definition than I am.

This is extracted from an essay in Wikipedia on the matter: it largely describes my take on the matter. I'm interested in your thoughts on it, and you might think of it when making an accusation or wondering why I have not acted on what you might consider trolling.

Italics are my adaptations:

Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the forum. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased posting, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.

When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards the grounds for your contrasting opinions, without personal comments about them. Do not conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided forum member.

Remember: if a troll's intention is to cause annoyance (and if that is not the case, I would suggest they are not a troll), then showing that you are upset only rewards them.

 

[jmdirt]

Since you are the mod, you get to decide what the definition of trolling is. IMO, trolling is being disengenuous just to bait others into an argument.

To those who are reporting trolling, I encourage using the ignore feature because it has made my experience here better.

 

[bNator]

I continue to receive many reports of trolling, with no really clear consensus as to what criteria it is identified by. Many complainants are clearly working to a different definition than I am.

This is extracted from an essay in Wikipedia on the matter: it largely describes my take on the matter. I'm interested in your thoughts on it, and you might think of it when making an accusation or wondering why I have not acted on what you might consider trolling.

Italics are my adaptations:


Remember: if a troll's intention is to cause annoyance (and if that is not the case, I would suggest they are not a troll), then showing that you are upset only rewards them.

That’s probably why people choose to report instead of showing they are upset.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

That’s probably why people choose to report instead of showing they are upset.

Indeed: and I prefer that they do so. If the showing upset goes beyond rules, than I find myself in the position of sanctioning the responder, although I do always take context into account.

But I will then apply a judgement as to whether it is trolling rather than, as that article would put it, ignorance/bias/dissent. And some make it obvious that they do not share my perception of where boundaries lie between trolling and those characteristics of debate.

 

[velaso montador]

IMO, trolling is being disengenuous just to bait others into an argument.

To those who are reporting trolling, I encourage using the ignore feature because it has made my experience here better.

Couldnt agree more with this post.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So some time back (starting on page one of this thread) it was proposed that gratuitously negative comments about riders might be considered to be trolling: that idea didn't get any consensus.

But is it the wish of the community here to make that a total free for all: we have recently had riders described as "disgusting rat" and "Tik Tok A-hole". Is that a standard we really want to operate at?

 

[Netserk]

May I call him TikTok Armstrong instead?

 

[E_F_]

we have recently had riders described as "disgusting rat" and "Tik Tok A-hole".

The whole "disgusting rat" thing was seemingly explained iirc. Apparently Vingegaard is a rat in that he betrays his teammates and then lies about it - in a disgusting manner. That seems like a view, that should probably be within the rules.

Without having read the post, a "Tik Tok a-hole" I think is potentially not an actual "a-hole".

 

[Devil's Elbow]

So some time back (starting on page one of this thread) it was proposed that gratuitously negative comments about riders might be considered to be trolling: that idea didn't get any consensus.

But is it the wish of the community here to make that a total free for all: we have recently had riders described as "disgusting rat" and "Tik Tok A-hole". Is that a standard we really want to operate at?

The fundamental and recurring problem underlying this debate is that there is a disconnect between the standard to which you (and/or the higher-ups, but that's difficult to judge for me) think this forum should be moderated, and the standard to which the median forum user thinks it should be moderated. This has become clear previously in this thread, and in the moderation thread, and in the laughing emoji thread, and in the forum feedback thread, and in offshoot discussions on the main board. Quite a few of us have voiced our frustration with this disconnect, and judging by this post the feeling seems to have become mutual.

As to the specific issue at hand: IMO perfectly within limits so long as it's banter, not so much when it's intented to be mean-spirited. The former is thankfully much more common on this forum and therefore I don't share your sentiment.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The fundamental and recurring problem underlying this debate is that there is a disconnect between the standard to which you (and/or the higher-ups, but that's difficult to judge for me) think this forum should be moderated, and the standard to which the median forum user thinks it should be moderated. This has become clear previously in this thread, and in the moderation thread, and in the laughing emoji thread, and in the forum feedback thread, and in offshoot discussions on the main board. Quite a few of us have voiced our frustration with this disconnect, and judging by this post the feeling seems to have become mutual.

As to the specific issue at hand: IMO perfectly within limits so long as it's banter, not so much when it's intented to be mean-spirited. The former is thankfully much more common on this forum and therefore I don't share your sentiment.

I'm not going to address the first paragraph here: this thread is about trolling and insulting riders as a type of trolling.

As to your second paragraph, that is inapplicable, as a poster can always claim that the intention was banter and appeal to "Most Respectful Interpretation".

What I am asking is essentially whether the apparent preference that one can be demeaning to riders ( and managers/agents/journalists: anyone who is not a forum member) extends so far as to say that one can be as grossly and offensively demeaning as one can without running into other rules.

I would prefer not: my instinct would have been to delete the rat and tik-tok a-hole comments (both were the subject of multiple reports), but I want to moderate according to consensus (or at least the best balance I can achieve between consensus and the expectations of the publisher). Which is why I am asking whether the majority that say that demeaning comments should be allowed are in a majority in saying that it should be allowed regardless of how extreme it is.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

As to your second paragraph, that is inapplicable, as a poster can always claim that the intention was banter and appeal to "Most Respectful Interpretation".

It is entirely applicable for the very reason you mention yourself. If we are going to delete comments about riders that might possibly be interpreted as demeaning, then by definition the moderation itself is not following the forum rule on Most Reasonable Interpretation. I think that that would be problematic to say the least.

or at least the best balance I can achieve between consensus and the expectations of the publisher

And if it's the publisher who is pushing for stronger moderation to any and all posts that someone could take to be demeaning, then to me that is an admission that their position is that the rule on Most Reasonable Interpretation should only apply when it suits them. Or rather: that it should apply only to us and not to them.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It is entirely applicable for the very reason you mention yourself. If we are going to delete comments about riders that might possibly be interpreted as demeaning, then by definition the moderation itself is not following the forum rule on Most Reasonable Interpretation. I think that that would be problematic to say the least.

No. The ship seems to have sailed on permitting demeaning comments as such. What I have tried to raise discussion on today is limitations on the vocabulary of demeaning comments. The fact that the two examples cited have each raised multiple complaints shows that there is an appetite for restriction of that: I am asking how widespread that appetite is.

I would have to wonder whether interpreting "disgusting rat" or "a-hole" as anything other than demeaning is reasonable, but that is not the point here.

 

[AmRacer]

No. The ship seems to have sailed on permitting demeaning comments as such. What I have tried to raise discussion on today is limitations on the vocabulary of demeaning comments. The fact that the two examples cited have each raised multiple complaints shows that there is an appetite for restriction of that: I am asking how widespread that appetite is.

Did multiple (less than 5?) users report those posts? "I don't like this post, I'm reporting it" mentality . No, I don't like it,

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Did multiple (less than 5?) users report those posts? "I don't like this post, I'm reporting it" mentality . No, I don't like it,

Please trust me that I can distinguish between "I don't like this" type reports (and believe me, I get plenty of them) and those that raise a meaningful question about what should be tolerated.

 

[Berniece]

But is it the wish of the community here to make that a total free for all: we have recently had riders described as "disgusting rat" and "Tik Tok A-hole". Is that a standard we really want to operate at?

I wouldn't allow any form of name calling. Slippery slope towards disgusting internet behaviour. Creates toxic environments.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I wouldn't allow any form of name calling. Slippery slope towards disgusting internet behaviour. Creates toxic environments.

Define name calling. Is it - independent of context - 'any form of' name calling when we call someone a thief, or a hypocrite, or an idiot, for example? If yes to any, then banning anything using that definition would frankly kill off the forum.

 

[Berniece]

Define name calling. Is it - independent of context - 'any form of' name calling when we call someone a thief, or a hypocrite, or an idiot, for example? If yes to any, then banning anything using that definition would frankly kill off the forum.

For me personally you can call someone a thief, hypocrite or wheelsucker. I wouldn't allow things like disgusting rat. That's my opinion, but where that line lies, should be decided by the moderation team.

 

[Netserk]

I would prefer not: my instinct would have been to delete the rat and tik-tok a-hole comments (both were the subject of multiple reports), but I want to moderate according to consensus (or at least the best balance I can achieve between consensus and the expectations of the publisher). Which is why I am asking whether the majority that say that demeaning comments should be allowed are in a majority in saying that it should be allowed regardless of how extreme it is.

If the comments made about Froome and Sam Bennett over the past year were the subject of multiple reports, should they have been handled differently than they were?

The more popular rider, the more hardcore fans, the more reports over any negative posts about said rider.

 

[bNator]

I think the rules about trolling in terms of what is considered disrespecting other posters are very strict here. For instance - if one hints at the slightest they find one poster ignorant or obtuse, it's ban right away, no questions asked. Forum community is asked to tolerate any stupidity that comes out of anyone's mouth.

That's the reason I stopped posting here. If I get banned for telling a poster I think they are ignorant well then, I'm out.

But to get back to your question - should we consider insulting a rider a breach of forum rules? I think you should use the same set of rules regardless of whether it's in 2nd or 3rd person. If I can't say a poster is ignorant, I shouldn't be able to say a rider is ignorant as well.

Here we have a double-track standards where got forbid any posters get insulted (even when it's obvious they are being controversial just for *** and giggles) while riders can be called digusting rats. I think you should use the same set of standards for addressing all human beings.

 

[Netserk]

For me personally you can call someone a thief, hypocrite or wheelsucker. I wouldn't allow things like disgusting rat. That's my opinion, but where that line lies, should be decided by the moderation team.

Is a-hole any worse than thief? Than fraud?

 

[Berniece]

Is a-hole any worse than thief? Than fraud?

Like I said, I can give my personal opinion on each word or sentence, but that doesn't really matter. I wouldn't allow a free for all, and if @Armchair Cyclist wants to accommodate to the average on the forum then we should hold a poll so people can say what they think is OK and what isn't. So he can decide based on that in which categories some posts fall.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I think the rules about trolling in terms of what is considered disrespecting other posters are very strict here. For instance - if one hints at the slightest they find one poster ignorant or obtuse, it's ban right away, no questions asked.

As above, I would like to keep this thread to discussion of what is or is not permissible in terms of derogatory comments about people outside this forum. But I would state that that is simply not true: no-one is banned without prior warnings (unless the attack is particularly vehement), and deletions with "soft" warnings (that are not archived, that do not carry points that can build to a suspension) are frequently used. If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the moderation thread.

 

[bNator]

As above, I would like to keep this thread to discussion of what is or is not permissible in terms of derogatory comments about people outside this forum. But I would state that that is simply not true: no-one is banned without prior warnings (unless the attack is particularly vehement), and deletions with "soft" warnings (that are not archived, that do not carry points that can build to a suspension) are frequently used. If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the moderation thread.

I was trying to illustrate the difference in standards for commenting on people inside the forum, outside this forum and for direct communication between members of this forum. I may have gotten carried away...

But in any case, the pointI was trying to make is that standards (strict or lenient) should be the same for all of the above mentioned groups in my opinion. It just doesn't make sense to be able to talk dirty about people just becayse they are not members of this forum.

 

[scribers]

The use of the word fisherman was disallowed quite a long time ago and parallel characterizations since describing other riders have not drawn equal attention.

That said. I report no such things. Riders and teams are public figures and are fairly in the conversation arena. They are usually not around to defend themselves probably because they don’t have time for it and possibly don’t care anyway