Everyone who posts on online gaming boards has Stockholm Syndrome
OT: Why does the community let trolls get to them so much?
I like the part where the bad guys go away.
I'm going to apologize in advance for this if I'm remembering incorrectly, but I'm about 98% sure it was you I recall reading having had this conversation.
I recall, not to long ago, you having a discussion on these forums and at some point a guy directed a post towards you with words implying he thought you were a guy. Now if I remember this right, your way of letting this guy know you are a woman was with a comment saying if you were playing a game of X-Wing against him, you would be sitting across from him wearing a low cut top. My use of words are probably wrong, but the point you made was pretty clear. You recently made a comment on a recent thread about a topic, that I will not mention do to FFG forbidding us to discuss, and the comment was about people being a part of a problem if they are not aware of the problem. I completely disagree with that. I believe that a person is only part of a problem if they act in a matter that adds to the issue, or, does not attempt to discourage such behavior when they witness it. If someone does not act in a way such as defined by the problem and has never witnessed the issue throughout their own experience which has lead them to believe there is no issue, then why should that person have blame? Do you really think privilege blinds everyone who has privilege? Do you really think that every problem is every where?
The reason why I mentioned the comment you made in the past is because your comment encourages people to act in a way as to add to the issue you claimed is a problem, yet you are very quick to assert judgment and blame to people. If you really believe such a problem exists, then why would you encourage it?
I bring this up because I see you judging people, myself included, with little evidence other then your privilege argument. I know this is off topic with this thread, but I just thought I should bring it up because I see your judging people again here which effects the discussion of the topic.
Again I say, if that was not you I remember saying that, then I apologize. Sorry. But like I said, I'm pretty confident it was you.
"Beware the bridge made exclusively for you."
Honestly I don't think parodying the inclusive threads is trolling, it's showing a deep level of exasperation.
Parodying something when a few people are trying to have a mature discussion is rather immature. Especially where tone cannot be easily read.
Yeah they were trying to have a mature discussion...and failing. Then it got worse...
A troll is not just someone you disagree with, or someone being offensive.A troll in this context is someone whose whole intention is to create an argument on a message board. Which is what the first post from Ribann was. He created yet another sockpuppet to start a crap storm here. He had no interest in discussion, he wasn't misguided, he wasn't even just being a jerk.He started that thread with a single intention. The best way to deal with people like that is in fact to ignore them, because the whole purpose is to get attention. Trying to correct them, or calling them out simply does exactly what they want you to do.My experience is that most are people with ill informed works views.
Full quote due to page change.
How do you determine the difference without talking, unless you have admin privileges and can see the poster's IP? The term troll gets used so broadly that 'don't feed the trolls' can be counted to be typed every time there is a person with a reactionary viewpoint. I'm not saying that trolls as you use the term don't exist. I just don't see a reasonable way of determining who is doing such a thing vs whom is just spouting crud they actually believe.
In either case though calling it out furthers the changes and the culture I endorse.
As to why people act the way they do on forums?
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
"Beware the bridge made exclusively for you."
Is this intended for me? If so, your way off, as my point is not to troll. Not at all. People should be able to post their opinions without being insulted, as I and others were, when having done nothing to provoke such an insult. My point is to show that the person who did the insulting should be a little more careful before throwing stones. My intentions are to help improve the quality of the conversations held on these forums.
Is this intended for me? If so, your way off, as my point is not to troll. Not at all. People should be able to post their opinions without being insulted, as I and others were, when having done nothing to provoke such an insult. My point is to show that the person who did the insulting should be a little more careful before throwing stones. My intentions are to help improve the quality of the conversations held on these forums."Beware the bridge made exclusively for you."
Directed at you but not the way you think. I think the person you were responding to may be trolling you.
When I see crap behavior I call it out just about anywhere I am. That is how we make society better. When someone is a jerk silence reinforces their jerkiness. Trekking sometime their regressive attitudes are bigoted and wrong is not feeding trolls. It is pushing for a better community.
If you are someone who sees all conflict as bad that will probably make you uncomfortable. Imagine how uncomfortable it is for the targets of the harassment when no one calls or out.
Don't feed the trolls is bad advice. Our lets then set the tone of the online place. Which hinders inclusion of minority voices.
The beginning of your statement here is left to a wide range of opinionated view however. One could say that Hitler was calling "crap behavior" from the victims of the holocaust. Hitler truly believed that "That is how we make society better" when he sought out to eradicate those whom he thought tainted what his vision of humanity should be, and he had millions convinced he was right, and to this day, many still believe he was right. I know this is a pretty extreme example, and I understand that your intentions are in line with the well being of people, but "Pushing for a better community" through this method is left to far to many different opinions which can do as much harm as good. But I agree with you. If there is a situation in which someone is being harmed and you do nothing to intervene, then your pretty much as guilty as the person committing the offence.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burk
Is this intended for me? If so, your way off, as my point is not to troll. Not at all. People should be able to post their opinions without being insulted, as I and others were, when having done nothing to provoke such an insult. My point is to show that the person who did the insulting should be a little more careful before throwing stones. My intentions are to help improve the quality of the conversations held on these forums."Beware the bridge made exclusively for you."
Directed at you but not the way you think. I think the person you were responding to may be trolling you.
Ah. Gotch ya. No, she wasn't trolling, at least not intentionally I think. And I believe she had good intentions. I just want her to realize that one shouldn't be so quick to lay blame, especially when personal emotion is invested in the topic.
The beginning of your statement here is left to a wide range of opinionated view however. One could say that Hitler was calling "crap behavior" from the victims of the holocaust. Hitler truly believed that "That is how we make society better" when he sought out to eradicate those whom he thought tainted what his vision of humanity should be, and he had millions convinced he was right, and to this day, many still believe he was right. I know this is a pretty extreme example, and I understand that your intentions are in line with the well being of people, but "Pushing for a better community" through this method is left to far to many different opinions which can do as much harm as good. But I agree with you. If there is a situation in which someone is being harmed and you do nothing to intervene, then your pretty much as guilty as the person committing the offence.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burk
Seriously Goodwin?
You are running close to both relative morality and absurdity here. The base premise of your objection is that we are incapable of determining 'crap behavior' or that somehow anyone calling out behavior they disagree with is acting morally. Your quote at the end strongly suggests you don't actually feel that way so I wonder why you put those words out in the first place. If you're looking for a philosophical discussion I'm just about always game but that may be best in another forum or via PM given the locking of the other thread.
As to the ability to objectively call each other on various behaviors this will come to citing goals, and choosing which methods achieve the goals and when the goals are in conflict, which should be held more dear. There is certainly room to argue in that but just like we can point out good art from bad art with reasons to discern them, we can manage the same with ethics.
Modern medicine is a good example, with the goal of maintaining health and minimizing pain set it becomes possible to act correctly and incorrectly whatever someone may feel, there are empirical facts available to settle the matter.
I don't know what your refering to with the Goodwin. Thats gone over my head.
I do feel very strongly in favor of that quote. It's one of my favorites.
I understand that most people with a moderate level of education and reasoning skills are capable of understanding crap behavior, as viewed on a general consensus. My only point with the Hilter reference was that even an entire nation was once unable to recognize crap behavior. There are still many people even in this day of age who can't recognize it all the times. My point is that some people are good at making those with good intentions look like they are the ones who are acting crappy. I've seen it myself. I'm a very involved union activist who strongly believes in workers rights and fair wages for fair work. I'm an extremely hard worker and my intentions are good, yet I often am treated like a communist crook because of my social views, and it is strictly because so many people are brainwashed by right wing media into actually believing that all left wingers are lazy, greedy, scum. The same tactics as you expressed are often used against good people, and quite effectively. I believe this is sometimes used through trolling, especially by those who are masters with slander and ad hominems.
Edit: Like I said, I do agree with you. My post wasn't to debate with what you said, only to point out that one should be careful as to what they accept as truth when hearing someone call another on their behavior, as false opinion or just plain deceit can be convincing if delivered effectively.
Edited by ShadoThe beginning of your statement here is left to a wide range of opinionated view however. One could say that Hitler was calling "crap behavior" from the victims of the holocaust. Hitler truly believed that "That is how we make society better" when he sought out to eradicate those whom he thought tainted what his vision of humanity should be, and he had millions convinced he was right, and to this day, many still believe he was right. I know this is a pretty extreme example, and I understand that your intentions are in line with the well being of people, but "Pushing for a better community" through this method is left to far to many different opinions which can do as much harm as good. But I agree with you. If there is a situation in which someone is being harmed and you do nothing to intervene, then your pretty much as guilty as the person committing the offence.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burk
Seriously Goodwin?
You are running close to both relative morality and absurdity here. The base premise of your objection is that we are incapable of determining 'crap behavior' or that somehow anyone calling out behavior they disagree with is acting morally. Your quote at the end strongly suggests you don't actually feel that way so I wonder why you put those words out in the first place. If you're looking for a philosophical discussion I'm just about always game but that may be best in another forum or via PM given the locking of the other thread.
As to the ability to objectively call each other on various behaviors this will come to citing goals, and choosing which methods achieve the goals and when the goals are in conflict, which should be held more dear. There is certainly room to argue in that but just like we can point out good art from bad art with reasons to discern them, we can manage the same with ethics.
Modern medicine is a good example, with the goal of maintaining health and minimizing pain set it becomes possible to act correctly and incorrectly whatever someone may feel, there are empirical facts available to settle the matter.
My Samsung Galaxy hates this forum. My post above is suppose to be here.
I sort of want to respond, but at the same time I feel like this discussion will go nowhere without a firm understanding of moral philosophy on all sides... And most people just aren't that interested in it 
The biggest issue is that we have those like Mikael, advancing a consequentialist position (morality of outcome) versus those advancing a deontological position (innate morality of action) and neither is going to convince the other because they are actually evaluating the situation in incompatible terms. Personally I prefer a third approach- ethical pragmatism- but that doesn't resolve the issue either. For those who are legitimately trying to argue for one side or the other, it is like arguing whether linguistics is superior to mathematics. The question isn't meaningful when the opposing sides aren't using the same frame of reference.
I fear this will go down the same rabbit hole as the last few threads did. And yes, I contributed to that. Two good posts, and one aluminum foil hat moment that I'm not proud of. What got me going was a tone that was getting increasing accusatory towards anyone that disagreed with. . . whatever the last post was. I guess I just don't feel these forums are the please for that level of social discourse. They're not set up for it. Evidence of the last few threads would suggest nothing good comes of these. Sooner or later, be it because of trolling, polar opposite opinions crashing into each other full on, or just jokes not coming across as jokes, war is declared.
We play with little plastic ships. We try not to play with people that are schmucks. We prefer not to share forum space with people that are schmucks. But being a schmuck is sometimes subjective. Or situational. Or random temporary late night insanity (guilty).
All of this comes through in communication. When we interact in person, we key off mood, body language, tone of voice, facial expression, and all the rest. Here, just the typing, mistyping, misspelling, and occasional poor word choice.
I'm going to try to stay the hell out of these threads from here on. Nothing good comes of them, and much like why I play Xwing, I come here to relax and get away from real life. In the end, for me at least, it's important to remember that this isn't a soapbox, or a battleground to fix the worlds ills. It's a game. With little plastic ships. It's a hell of a lot of fun. Relax.
Fight the good fight tomorrow. On a field where your efforts might actually make a difference. Here, there's only one thing to worry about. Vader is on your six. He's got proton rockets. And he doesn't like you. Game on.
Made easier on star wars related forums because of the imperial officer's uniforms 
I just read about Goodwins law. Interesting read. But to be clear, I want it understood that what I was saying was not in context with that. Goodwins law is about compairing an opponent, or their argument, to Hitler or Nazis. That was not the case. I was in no way trying to debate with Stellar7, or make an opponent out of him. I also was not compairing him, or what he said, to Hitler. I even said in my original post that I agreed with him. I was only wanting to add to what he was talking about. The Hitler reference was just a way to try and explain what I meant in a way that I know everyone would understand. It was the first example that popped into my head, probably because I read about a lot of WW2 history.
The term troll gets used so broadly that 'don't feed the trolls' can be counted to be typed every time there is a person with a reactionary viewpoint.
Just because people use the term incorrectly, or use it as a form of ad hominem doesn't change what a Troll really is.
Ribiann was a troll in every sense, because his whole point was to start a crapstorm on these boards, that was his one and only goal. Once we figured out who was really posting it was obvious to everyone it was a troll post.
Talking to him, debating with him, flaming him... None of those things accomplish anything because he's not looking for a debate or discussion, he's doing it for the lulz. Flaming him only means he's getting to you, which is what he wants.
The one and only way to deal with a troll is to ignore them, anything else simply gives them what they want.
I just don't see a reasonable way of determining who is doing such a thing vs whom is just spouting crud they actually believe.
It's fairly easy to tell. They typically have low post counts, because they're not there for discussion or even interested in the subject the form is about. That or it's a sockpuppet account.
They make highly controversial or offensive statements, and then stop posting. They drop the trollbate and then just watch the flames. Maybe use their real account or a sockpuppet to stir things up as needed.
They make aggressive statements quite often unnecessarily or else much more aggressive than is called for. Again doing so for the sake of stirring things up and getting the flames hotter.
Quite often you can't tell if someone is a troll just from a single post, but it becomes easier to see it the most they post.
The thread that started this all was classic trolling, and after the 3rd post by the sockpuppet it was pretty clear that the whole thing was a troll post.
Honestly it's a bit like saying I don't need to stick my hand in every fire I see to know that I'll get burned.
So yes, you shouldn't assume every opinion you don't agree with is a troll, and you shouldn't call people you disagree with a troll. But once it's clear you're dealing with one, the only sane thing to do is ignore them.
Edited by VanorDM@Shado, I read ya on the phone my Samsung barely works for this, hence no handy links on my posts. In the circles I run Goodwin had expanded in use to any metaphor or similie that composers stuff to naxis or Hitler. I didn't mean to suggest you were comparing me to them. I think we are largely in agreement especially on there being need for some aspects of socialism.
@Vandor, I have to admit I enjoy being into the heated discussions of ethics ate involved. I don't see that a good discussion is bag busy because someone keeps stirring the pot.
In terms of troll victory I day having a good discussion in dope of their input is the win. Reinforcing that regressive views are wrong is just extra good. I do occasionally see folks who I think are socks or trolls and if they are being assie enough I well so interacting or switch to mocking them. Either works.
Finally Grimm, deontology it is not just a separate view it is almost alien thinking to me. The idea that you can be morally right while enacting horrors. .. I think that is where the goal setting really shines. They have to be a bit axiomatin but broad consensus becomes possible and once they are available they can be evaluated empirically.
@Vandor, I have to admit I enjoy being into the heated discussions of ethics ate involved.
That's fine, a troll thread can be derailed as it were into something productive or at least not trollish, but that doesn't change the nature of the troll itself. It still isn't worth responding to a troll, because you will ultimately accomplish nothing.
Even mocking them does nothing constructive, they don't care if you mock them, because you are still giving them attention, which is the only thing they care about.
Shado, you compared something to Hitler. It is already Godwin's law. That doesn't make your argument anymore wrong, or less right, tho, and while pointing it out for funsies is right, i would only take arguments for their value, not by a internet adage.
Invoking Hitler does reduce one's argument agility by 1 though
Invoking Hitler does reduce one's argument agility by 1 though
Hm, I'd say it causes everyone to lose their focus tokens.
But anyway, let's put that debate behind us. While I do think that internet forums are as good a place as any in our current society to have those debates, it doesn't help FFG to have those here if they turn into heated debates. I certainly did not intend to inflame anything, and I'm happy to return to being forum friends with everyone here.
Yes, Ribann's post was a troll post, and he cleverly chose a divisive topic. I (clearly not being as shrewd) thought the subject matter wouldn't be as divisive as it did prove to be. As such, I attempted to reframe - keep it on topic within the context of X-Wing. I guess I came off as being a lot more like Ribann than I thought possible, and then - 'kablooey' - we have 18 pages of antagonism.
In the meantime, I'm happy to report that behind-the-scenes overtures over the PM have smoothed some ruffled feathers, and we can be back to being happy.