Author Topic: DU Trolls, etc. at THR (Read 4065 times)

Michigander · « **on:** August 08, 2007, 01:52:19 AM »

I've heard it mentioned multiple times that one of the reasons some people feel THR has 'gone down hill' (for lack of a better phrase) is that there are now DU trolls and whatnot that have infiltrated the discussions, especially in L&P and especially about the War in Iraq.

I do not believe that most of those who speak out against the war in Iraq are "trolls" or even necessarily "libs." I believe most of them are genuinely concerned citizens, probably gun owners too and mostly conservative, and many jump to the conclusion that because they are against the war in Iraq then they must be DU trolls, etc.

Anyone who may think that is, IMO, probably way off base.

I also believe that some of the Mods at THR are staunchly in support of the Prez and the war in Iraq and that anyone who speaks out against either may be marked for 'closer scrutiny.'

Others speak about "vibes" at THR.

Well, this is one of those "vibes" I get.

pacodelahoya · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2007, 02:11:22 AM »

Michigander, I heartily agree. It seems that if you voice an opinion that is not on board with the powers on THR, then you are considered a Democrat(which I certainly ain't). I(and others) have also seen the two different standards for the pro and anti police state crowd. It's ok for someone to call people an asshat(whatever that is) but not ok to call that person a JBT even though he describes himself as such in his online profile(which is exactly the reference I was making).

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #2 on:** August 08, 2007, 02:18:39 AM »

Why do you hate America?! angry

Just kidding.

S. Williamson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2007, 02:23:16 AM »

I VOTED FOR NADER! I HATE EVERYONE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX0Cs0aP7CQ

Leatherneck · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2007, 02:25:59 AM »

Certain of the THR mods have seemed a little up tight lately. I don't know what's going on. They have a tough job.

TC

LadySmith · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2007, 02:49:03 AM »

I just think the mods are fed up with all the low-road crap they've been dealing with lately. For those of you who swear innocence, just think of it this way:
You're in a very large family, say mom, dad & 12 kids. Dad's off working, dealing with DDS attacks or whatever. 6 of the kids are followed home by unruly playmates. 5 of the kids leave because of this and then there's you, minding your own business outside trying to catch butterflies. Mom walks into what used to be her tidy livingroom only to find kids bickering, cussing, feuding and fighting and making messes everywhere. Her kids are hollering to explain, the playmates are telling her she can't do anything to them because it's a free country, and at that exact moment you walk in and tug on her shirt to show her this really pretty butterfly you think she'd like. shocked

This appears to be housecleaning time at THR, and it's been sorely needed. Give it time.

Michigander · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2007, 03:08:26 AM »

Why can't there be one or two warnings for violating the rules and then banishment? Why wait until it gets so out-of-hand and have to purge truck-loads of members?

mtnbkr · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2007, 03:38:13 AM »

Anyone with a dissenting opinion is a "DU troll" these days.

Chris

Harold Tuttle · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2007, 04:03:33 AM »

mayhaps the feline overlords from Haliburton have decided to make us Doubleplusgood think before we post

grin

Quote

"The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which DU was not the principal figure. DU was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Forum's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Forum, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of DU teaching".

Len Budney · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2007, 04:10:18 AM »

Quote from: pacodelahoya on August 08, 2007, 01:11:22 AM

I (and others) have also seen the two different standards for the pro and anti police state crowd. It's ok for someone to call people an asshat (whatever that is) but not ok to call that person a JBT...

I'm sorry, but "asshat" is just funny. I think it's pretty self-explanatory: if you're wearing your ass for a hat, where's your head? grin

--Len.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2007, 04:27:32 AM »

The worst thing is that the Mods have directed the trolls over here after closing L&P.

K Frame · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2007, 04:41:15 AM »

Quote from: jamisjockey on August 08, 2007, 03:27:32 AM

The worst thing is that the Mods have directed the trolls over here after closing L&P.

Don't worry. We won't have to resort to closing an entire forum as a way of dealing with troll problems.

grampster · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2007, 05:07:23 AM »

Look, boys and girls. First thing we all have to remember is that Oleg has a vision for a thing. THR and APS is part of that vision. He is also a very fine young man who believes strongly in and about some things. I don't think I need to outline all of them because all, or most of us, are fairly bright. Most of us agree with Oleg's vision or we wouldn't have signed the contract we did to adhere to the standards of these two great places we have to interact and converse.

Now, what seems to be ordinary badinage to some us, may not seem that way to Oleg, or one of his moderators or administrators; especially after being snarked on a few times by somebody sitting at a keyboard, under the cloak of anonymity who has a looser interpretation of what is normal badinage. THR and APS are an extension of Oleg. He is not anonymous. It's his vision and his reputation that is laid out there. He'd like us to exercise our opinions without using attitude or language that is not conducive to his vision.

So, instead of crabbing and grousing about what is happening and why, just accept that it is and try and pay more attention to what it is that Oleg wants.
Maybe we'd all be the better for it. If we can't seem to conform then there are other places to go and see and participate, although I'd be hard pressed to find any place better. In the nearly 7 years I've been playing in TFL, THR and APS, that conformity is very loose indeed; lots of slack within some wide parameters.
Sometimes I don't understand what all the hoo haw is about either regarding some sparring that is going on. But I guess I'd rather try and add to the light rather than add to the noise. Having said that, I also know that I am guilty of noise as well.

So, why don't we progress rather than regress. I know that I have been made better by nearly all of you that I have conversed with over the years.

Just my .02Â¢.

Hawk · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2007, 05:19:53 AM »

Having a different opinion does not a troll make. That said, there has been the rare troll.

Sticking to forum rules isn't usually too challenging for me but the one that prohibits accusations of trolling taxes my will power more than most (if I'm convinced I've spotted one).

I think I spotted a sock-puppet a couple weeks ago and managed to remain silent - but it hurt.

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2007, 05:30:23 AM »

I used the term DU type troll here in another thread.

Probably should have used a better term.

It isn't liberal/progressive posters I was referring to it was the type of posts and conduct of the posters that I associate with the DU.

DU is a leftwing hate house. It is tuff trying to read through a thread there, so much vitriol.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 08, 2007, 05:37:20 AM »

I agree that "troll" is thrown around too loosely at THR in the past. I do agree that troll behavior is very specific and normally is associated with an inability to have a reasonable discussion.

Michigander · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:05:38 AM »

And all this reference to DU.

I recall a number of times members of THR stating that they were posting on DU in order to . . . what? Disrupt? Cause trouble? I dunno. Some of them even encouraged others to go there and post.

The staff of THR, in strong terms, recommended against it and basically told them to quit encouraging others to do it.

So, assuming trolls from DU post at THR, apparently there have been trolls from THR posting at DU.

And I wonder if the trolls from DU posting at THR learned about THR from the trolls from THR.

Just thinking out loud.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:09:11 AM »

Michigander, I have no doubt that's how it transpired.

What's good for the goose and all that...

Chris

longeyes · « **Reply #18 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:28:25 AM »

The "living room" and "unruly family" analogy at THR is sorely strained. Let me say this: when you turn your living room into a salon you must avoid treating your interlocutors as children. There has to be some latitude for rough-and-tumble. No one is getting physically bloodied at THR. At a certain point "civility" becomes suppression.

K Frame · « **Reply #19 on:** August 08, 2007, 06:49:31 AM »

Quote from: longeyes on August 08, 2007, 05:28:25 AM

The "living room" and "unruly family" analogy at THR is sorely strained. Let me say this: when you turn your living room into a salon you must avoid treating your interlocutors as children. There has to be some latitude for rough-and-tumble. No one is getting physically bloodied at THR. At a certain point "civility" becomes suppression.

No, not there doesn't. When I have friends over I don't expect them to get into endless, meaningless shouting matches with me or anyone else. I also don't expect that my friends want me to act that way when I'm in their homes, either. Disagreement is fine, but limits are both reasonable and prudent.

I would not hesitate for a moment to toss someone out of my home if the situation warranted.

Werewolf · « **Reply #20 on:** August 08, 2007, 07:37:11 AM »

THR is growing. As it grows it will become more and more a reflection of society as a whole. That growth, is in my opinion, the source of the problem that the mods at THR are currently experiencing.

Thus, as the membership grows, more and more will the membership reflect the opinions of mainstream society; more and more will members of THR be expressing opinions that are in conflict with either Oleg's vision and/or the opinions of the THR members who are and have been for a long time, members of the pro-gun crowd.

Not all of those opinions will/can be expressed in a manner defined by the mods of THR as CIVIL. There is a reason for that.

Where disparate opinions coupled with disparate levels of writing ability, vocabulary etc. exist there will be conflict. Some are better at participating in that conflict in what might be described as a civil manner than others. Others not quite so erudite or who lack the wordsmithing ability of those they disagree with are more blunt which often comes across as uncivil but which is really just a reflection of a less skilled ability with the written word. (of course there are those that are just plain obnoxious - they're out there - but not in the numbers that a lot would like to believe.)

On the other hand some of those wordsmith types can be down right insulting in their content but oh so civil in their presentation. End result the wordsmiths can be as insulting as they like, getting a pass by mods too dense to see what's happening or have a bias towards the wordsmith, while the less skilled get booted for incivility; not because their ideas are not worthy of consideration but because they lack the skill to present them in the prescribed manner.

Conflict is a function of numbers of participants. The more participants the more conflict. It is inevitable.

So - it seems to me that Oleg has to make a choice. Grow THR and accept that not everyone can or even has the wordsmithing skill to present their ideas in a competitive environment civily (as defined by the mods) or restrict the membership and thus restrict his ability to achieve his stated goal of converting fence sitters to pro-gunners.

K Frame · « **Reply #21 on:** August 08, 2007, 07:47:56 AM »

You left out the fact that the anonymity of the internet can often cause people to act in ways that they would never think of doing when speaking with someone face to face.

In all three cases, though, it's the rights of the owner of the forum, and the duty of the moderators, to weigh all conversations/conflicts against the agreed upon rules of conduct and act accordingly.

If no one can, or will, enforce those protocols, a forum will break down into chaos.

There are forums on the internet that allow, or even encourage, that type of psychotic "conversation." To my understanding, THR was never intended to be that kind of place. APS has somewhat looser limitations, but those who post here are still held to certain rules of conduct. Yes, we have all, at one point or another, broken those rules of conduct, but it is not an on-going activity.

As far as I can remember, those few people who have been banned here looked at conflict as an on-going activity, specifically Masterpiece Arms, Blackburn, and Lifer come to mind.

We all have our moments that are less civil than others. The differentiation, though, is the nature of an individual's posts over time. Yes, someone can be dropped for one huge atomic bomb type comment, but most times it's an on-going pattern of conduct.

longeyes · « **Reply #22 on:** August 08, 2007, 07:52:49 AM »

Let me go on the record by saying once and for all that I am not in favor of childish squabbling, of ad hominem attacks, name-calling, or anything that isn't legitimately polemical. I am only saying that there have been times when controversy has been squelched simply because it was controversy. We live in times of "controversy;" there's lots more coming, we'd better find ways to deal with it.

K Frame · « **Reply #23 on:** August 08, 2007, 07:57:10 AM »

Yes, I'm sure that there have been times when controversy has been cut off because it's controversy.

Take a hard look at those times, though.

I would suspect that many of those threads so locked have one thing in common -- people repetitively saying the same things. You know, a circular argument where the same points are brought up again and again by both sides.

At that point an argument, even if civilly conducted, becomes pointless and subject to locking.

wooderson · « **Reply #24 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:10:09 AM »

OK, but why? What does it matter if two people want to go tit-for-tat for days on end, if it doesn't involve threatening one another or language getting out of hand?

I simply don't see how that kind of conduct represents any kind of harm to a public forum - the bandwidth and storage issues are negligible. The closure boils down to a moderator or admin or whomever locking it because of their displeasure, rather than any desire to 'protect the forum' or anything of the sort. (Which is, of course, their right - but we should be clear about the reasons.)

News:

Author Topic: DU Trolls, etc. at THR (Read 4065 times)

Ron