![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 15, 2004, at 19:54:15
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT
"When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored."
Posted by partlycloudy on October 15, 2004, at 20:19:50
In reply to Trolls 101 - Ignore them, posted by TofuEmmy on October 15, 2004, at 19:54:15
I've been kicked around enough here. I needed to fight back, even if it means a block eventually. Do trolls all live under the same bridge, or do they each have their own? Do they have a place like this where they feel safe? say www.trolls-r-us.org??
The perfect end to a perfect day, thanks to all.
Posted by justyourlaugh on October 15, 2004, at 21:40:55
In reply to Re: Trolls 101 - Ignore them » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on October 15, 2004, at 20:19:50
hummm...
i have read every post here..
i do not feel threatened by mary..
mary has a voice...winded..perhaps
but a voice..
i respect that voice.jyl
Posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2004, at 21:42:34
In reply to Re: Trolls 101 - Ignore them » TofuEmmy, posted by partlycloudy on October 15, 2004, at 20:19:50
PC,
Sorry you are upset by all of this. We can all recognize the addition to this debate, and I think we all can guess that she appears to be a banned poster.I hope you have a lovely, sunny bright weekend. Email me if you want.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2004, at 21:46:53
In reply to Re: Trolls 101 - Ignore them, posted by justyourlaugh on October 15, 2004, at 21:40:55
http://www.livinginthelightms.com/trolls.html
Make sure you have the volume on...song is great!
:D
gg
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 16, 2004, at 9:13:25
In reply to Trolls 101 - Ignore them, posted by TofuEmmy on October 15, 2004, at 19:54:15
thanks for this heads up.
I appreciated that information on this site and learned quite of bit.
Thanks
Jai
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 16, 2004, at 9:19:45
In reply to 'nother Troll site, posted by gardenergirl on October 15, 2004, at 21:46:53
Posted by crushedout on October 19, 2004, at 20:44:44
In reply to great website....I read it all, posted by Jai Narayan on October 16, 2004, at 9:13:25
Yeah, I thought this part was interesting:As already stated, it is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession. But perhaps you simply cannot bear the hostile environment that the troll is creating and want to go away for a while.
If you do that, then for the sake of the others on the system, please do not post a dramatic "Goodbye!" message. This convinces the troll that he is winning the battle. There is, perhaps, no message you can write on a message system that is as damaging as an announcement that you are leaving because of the hostility that the troll has kindled.
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 20, 2004, at 7:43:26
In reply to Re: great website....I read it all, posted by crushedout on October 19, 2004, at 20:44:44
So we may have trolls on psycho babble.
I think I work with a troll-type person.
I'll call this person x.
X likes to distrupt and say slanderous gossip about people. People have found x looking through their files when the area was off limits for x.
X is always trying to stir up hard feelings by talking about how one person earns less than another and the one that earns the most works the least...that kind of stuff.
x is very clever and can hide under the bridge when it comes time to document the problem.
x always has a little nasty verbal snipe to offer with a smile.x has upset many a person with out right harrassament.
x has been warned to stop.
x will never stop only get more covert.
Posted by Dinah on October 20, 2004, at 9:27:37
In reply to Trolls 101 - Ignore them, posted by TofuEmmy on October 15, 2004, at 19:54:15
I'm not sure it makes any difference, because perhaps the best thing for any individual to do is to ignore posts that are upsetting anyway. Particularly under Dr. Bob's guidelines.
But that site made some assumptions about intent, and that made me feel uncomfortable.
I think it is easy enough, and I've certainly done it, to assume that a new poster who stirs discord is a troll. We don't know what's in their hearts or minds, and it's often impossible to discover. I may well be wrong in my assessments. Sometimes in retrospect, given additional information, I realize that someone wasn't really a troll, just someone who was hurt or angry.
But when posts are written by someone I "know" or am pretty sure I "know", (as well as anyone can know someone in cyberspace without outside contact), I can almost always see reasons other than the reasons given on that troll site for posts that might have similar results to posts of a troller. I might *wish* that these posters, and friends in some cases, had made other choices. As much for their own sakes as anyone else's. But I understand what they think they're doing, and why.
Some possible reasons, not necessarily applicable to any given poster, might be hurt, feeling shamed, feeling alienated, all manners of hurt. Or a desire to protect or help others.
In my case, I often run into trouble by attempting my family role as peacemaker at times when it isn't desired. This may well be one of those times. :)
Again, I don't know that it makes any difference. But the description on the linked page has been bothering me a bit, because I haven't seen any "trolls" on Admin lately, just people who are hurting or who are trying to help, and who I wish had made other choices for their own sakes as well as anyone else's. (And of course, that's just me. People are free to make whatever choices they wish.) And I didn't want anyone who was already hurting to hurt more by feeling labelled or feeling their intentions judged to be bad.
Which I of course know was not the intent of this thread. :) I know the intent was to reduce discord.
And perhaps I've sown discord by trying to play peacemaker or by trying to help. And if so, I'm sorry.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 1:12:48
In reply to Not everyone who lives under a bridge is a troll, posted by Dinah on October 20, 2004, at 9:27:37
Well of course I'm going to support your reply, Dinah. The assumption of malicious intent is an element of the definition of "troll" almost everywhere the term is defined in reference to Internet dialogue.
It is interesting that the term evolved from a verb that described a behavior, albeit with the same assumptions of intent, into a noun that assumed an overall character trait related to the assumed motivation. It is interesting how willingly groups embrace assumptions about intent that might be reconsidered if the dialogue were between the one proffering the label and the one being labeled. It is also worth noting that the hidden message revealed in popular definitions of the term is the inference that a person who willingly engages in controversy can only do so with malicious intent. Since almost all groups confront some degree of controversy, the term is essentially a device for selecting who has standing to address controversial subjects and who doesn't. More popular group members who willingly engage in controversy might be labeled "problem solvers", "peacemakers" or sometimes "administrators."
Careful analysis might prove that, when the term isn't used simply to exclude those with ideological differences, it is most often used to exclude those whose rhetorical skills either fail to meet or exceed the general skill level of the group.
Posted by Dinah on October 21, 2004, at 7:11:38
In reply to Re: Not everyone who lives under a bridge is a troll, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 21, 2004, at 1:12:48
> Careful analysis might prove that, when the term isn't used simply to exclude those with ideological differences, it is most often used to exclude those whose rhetorical skills either fail to meet or exceed the general skill level of the group.
All I meant to say was that people may have other reasons for what they do. I didn't intend to say anything negative about the group's behavior. Or to comment on the group's rhetorical skills.
Or, as Dr. Bob says (in paraphrase), perhaps it would be helpful if you (or anyone) explained a bit about the why of what you're doing. Not globally or in terms of protecting current posters, but personally, in terms of your own pain that arose from participating in Babble.
If all people *see* is a behavior, then it's hard to see the whole person, and the whole person tends to seen *as* the behavior.
Of course, if you don't wish to reveal too much of yourself personally, that's your choice. But you might consider that what you call labelling of "popular members" might be more accurately considered insight into more self-revelatory members that results *from* those revelations.
Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:06:47
In reply to Well, that's not what I meant to say either :), posted by Dinah on October 21, 2004, at 7:11:38
> > Careful analysis might prove that, when the term isn't used simply to exclude those with ideological differences, it is most often used to exclude those whose rhetorical skills either fail to meet or exceed the general skill level of the group.
>
> All I meant to say was that people may have other reasons for what they do. I didn't intend to say anything negative about the group's behavior. Or to comment on the group's rhetorical skills.
>I did not comment on this groups rhetorical skills or dynamics, nor did I intend to paraphrase your point of view for you. I was referring to casual recollections of analysis of the term troll as used in internet groups in general, specifically not at this group, where the term is rarely used and possibly not permitted in most contexts. I could be be more specific in reference to rhetorical skills associated with negative perceptions among virtual large groups and say the relationship appears to correlate not with discrepencies of total skill level, but rather with discrepencies relative to expecations of rhetorical styles employed among various virtual large groups.
To site the difference, outside the context of the label of "troll", in your reply you seem to suggest rhetorical skills related to revealing personal emotional information may be more highly valued here than some other categories of rhetorical involvement.
> Or, as Dr. Bob says (in paraphrase), perhaps it would be helpful if you (or anyone) explained a bit about the why of what you're doing. Not globally or in terms of protecting current posters, but personally, in terms of your own pain that arose from participating in Babble.
>I don't understand why my explanation can't be accepted at face value. It pains me to see other people hurt.
> If all people *see* is a behavior, then it's hard to see the whole person, and the whole person tends to seen *as* the behavior.
>I don't recognize the difference -- why are my posts "behavior" while others are revelations about the "whole person". If I act out of pain resulting from witnessing others' suffering, that is a big part of the whole person I happen to be.
> Of course, if you don't wish to reveal too much of yourself personally, that's your choice. But you might consider that what you call labelling of "popular members" might be more accurately considered insight into more self-revelatory members that results *from* those revelations.
Could be, except I was not basing my assessment of popularity on the nuances of this site; I based them on a general assessment of polarization in asynchrynous virtual large groups. Across the board, popularity can be a result of an infinite variety of circumstances, and in many cases among that very broad set, the lack of disclosure of personal information assists in building popularity.
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2004, at 15:25:50
In reply to Of course it's not. It is what *I* meant to say » Dinah, posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 14:06:47
My mind must be muddled because not much else is. As best as I can see, we're talking apples and oranges or something.
Therefore I doubt that further discourse would be profitable for either of us.
I hope you understand if I don't wish you luck in your venture.
Babble is important to me in large part *because* of the civility guidelines, not in spite of them. Otherwise I'd choose to participate in a forum with a different structure. In whatever way you might succeed, I will lose something valuable to me.
Dr. Bob certainly has my full support in this matter.
Best wishes to you all (since you imply that you are a "we") in other areas of your lives.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.