Fun vs. Fair ... the debate between trolling and proper use.

[VoodooMike]

I strongly disagree there can be no bullying via the internet.

That's a straw man, Darkson - I didn't say people cannot be bullied via the internet, I said that people cannot be bullied by people whose sole contact is via the interent when the possibility exists for the so-called "bullied" person to deny the so-called "bullies" the ability to speak to them. In those cases it is the so-called "victim" that is responsible for their feelings and outcomes, as it was in their power the entire time to deal with the problem.

And moderators ARE needed because although your description of a utopian view of what an online community should be is probably technically correct in a purely theoretical sense, when you apply your ideas of what the "correct" way of doing this is to the real world you run into problems. Take yourself as an example. Your arguments, in a philosophical or pure thought exercise arena, are valid and worthy of discussion. But your premise of, and I'm paraphrasing, "if you are offended by something I say, that's not my fault it's yours" does not survive contact with reality. Your arguments don't factor in human nature and feelings so any good points you have in your message are lost because you sound like a robot quoting from a textbook.

It absolutely survives contact with reality, it simply doesn't mesh well with the philosophy of people who feel that WHAT is said matters less than HOW it is said, and that's a philosophy which, quite frankly, is focused on the least intelligent members of society. If you're trying to sell snake oil to morons then you absolutely use soft, useless words meant to make them feel good about themselves. In academia and higher levels of business things are very heavily fact based, with very little focus on anything but what is being said. The latter gets things done, the former keeps people dependent and docile.

You won't lose arguments, because within the limited construct in which you are arguing you are correct, but you lose in real terms. Either you don't understand this, or don't care to understand this (which would be a shame) or you do understand this and do it deliberately (which then gives the impression you are trolling).

Its cute that you define "the truth" as being a limited construct. I can't wait to see what you guys do with the place!

And should this impartial governor be called Mike?
Checks & balances don't work in the real world - and I'll leave it there before breaking forum rules - so what could possibly suggest it'd work on a faceless internet forum?

Oh, I think it's readily apparent who is campaigning in this thread, and it ain't me. As for checks and balances not working... are we really now saying that what we need is just a better oligarchy of more right-thinking people to pass down this mighty judgment on the forum? If so, I'll take the devils I know over the folks in here who seem to want the job who are implying they'd be even more heavy-handed than the current mods.

There you go again. You are taking a position that in the realm of pure philosophy and discussion is readily defended and "correct". But to say "someone's words cannot hurt you" is simply false in the real world. You either know this and continue to troll or have some kind of emotional deficiency and cannot understand or accept it - in which case, take it from those in community who are not deficient in saying "your words can, and do, hurt people". So stop it. In this regard, I'll be the alpha dog, stop being a dick omega dog. Your continued inclusion in this community will rely on it. Free advice.

I must have amazing talent, to be both right AND trolling with the same statement! In fact, I have to stop being right or ELSE. Well, I think I'll take my chances with the truth even when it's not convenient to people who oppose it on the grounds that it gets in the way of their ambitions.

Think of it this way, if words cannot hurt people in real terms then you wouldn't have people committing suicide because of what others say about them. Do you need any further evidence? Try arguing the "but I can say what I like, the onus is on the other person to not be offended" in any court in any land. You'd lose.

Most people don't commit suicide no matter what - the ones that do are, by definition, mentally ill... and I'm not sure they can be set as a standard against which the world should conform... so yes, I do. As for being unable to argue it in any court... the truth actually is a complete defense in court: if what you're saying is true then you can absolutely say it even if makes someone angry. Truth is not slander or libel, and demonstrating that it is the truth will win you such cases any time.

Clever words but I doubt this, I think you might just like bullying people OR you have a genuine emotional/psychological issue and need constant reminding that you're breaking the psychological contract that's a condition for being here. In a same way that some of the mods have, over time, overstepped that boundary too and despite reminders, warrant replacing so the community can be restored.

Ahh, I see. Either I agree with you or I'm a troll/sociopath. I'll take that into consideration.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a clever way of hiding a complete lack of empathy for individuals who aren't as mentally resilient as you.

I'm pretty sure I've never hidden my lack of empathy for weak-minded people The question is: does the world really need to cushion those people from reality, or should it be more concerned with helping them deal with their weakness? I'm not advocating throwing people into deep, shark-infested waters and telling them to sink or swim, here, I'm saying that we shouldn't rid the world of deep water and sharks just because some people don't know how to swim. If you feel someone is faltering, you can always step in an give them some emotional support if you want to - you'd actually be doing them a greater service in the process than you would by trying to be a ridiculous white knight jumping in to fight dragons for them, as that just reinforces and validates their weakness.

[Joemanji]

Awesome, another thread derailed.

[VoodooMike]

Awesome, another thread derailed.

Really? Seems like its still very much on-topic based on the OP... or do you mean it veered away from being focused on your particular rhetoric?

[Heff]

I strongly disagree there can be no bullying via the internet.

That's a straw man, Darkson - I didn't say people cannot be bullied via the internet, I said that people cannot be bullied by people whose sole contact is via the interent when the possibility exists for the so-called "bullied" person to deny the so-called "bullies" the ability to speak to them. In those cases it is the so-called "victim" that is responsible for their feelings and outcomes, as it was in their power the entire time to deal with the problem.

And moderators ARE needed because although your description of a utopian view of what an online community should be is probably technically correct in a purely theoretical sense, when you apply your ideas of what the "correct" way of doing this is to the real world you run into problems. Take yourself as an example. Your arguments, in a philosophical or pure thought exercise arena, are valid and worthy of discussion. But your premise of, and I'm paraphrasing, "if you are offended by something I say, that's not my fault it's yours" does not survive contact with reality. Your arguments don't factor in human nature and feelings so any good points you have in your message are lost because you sound like a robot quoting from a textbook.

It absolutely survives contact with reality, it simply doesn't mesh well with the philosophy of people who feel that WHAT is said matters less than HOW it is said, and that's a philosophy which, quite frankly, is focused on the least intelligent members of society. If you're trying to sell snake oil to morons then you absolutely use soft, useless words meant to make them feel good about themselves. In academia and higher levels of business things are very heavily fact based, with very little focus on anything but what is being said. The latter gets things done, the former keeps people dependent and docile.

You won't lose arguments, because within the limited construct in which you are arguing you are correct, but you lose in real terms. Either you don't understand this, or don't care to understand this (which would be a shame) or you do understand this and do it deliberately (which then gives the impression you are trolling).

Its cute that you define "the truth" as being a limited construct. I can't wait to see what you guys do with the place!

And should this impartial governor be called Mike?
Checks & balances don't work in the real world - and I'll leave it there before breaking forum rules - so what could possibly suggest it'd work on a faceless internet forum?

Oh, I think it's readily apparent who is campaigning in this thread, and it ain't me. As for checks and balances not working... are we really now saying that what we need is just a better oligarchy of more right-thinking people to pass down this mighty judgment on the forum? If so, I'll take the devils I know over the folks in here who seem to want the job who are implying they'd be even more heavy-handed than the current mods.

There you go again. You are taking a position that in the realm of pure philosophy and discussion is readily defended and "correct". But to say "someone's words cannot hurt you" is simply false in the real world. You either know this and continue to troll or have some kind of emotional deficiency and cannot understand or accept it - in which case, take it from those in community who are not deficient in saying "your words can, and do, hurt people". So stop it. In this regard, I'll be the alpha dog, stop being a dick omega dog. Your continued inclusion in this community will rely on it. Free advice.

I must have amazing talent, to be both right AND trolling with the same statement! In fact, I have to stop being right or ELSE. Well, I think I'll take my chances with the truth even when it's not convenient to people who oppose it on the grounds that it gets in the way of their ambitions.

Think of it this way, if words cannot hurt people in real terms then you wouldn't have people committing suicide because of what others say about them. Do you need any further evidence? Try arguing the "but I can say what I like, the onus is on the other person to not be offended" in any court in any land. You'd lose.

Most people don't commit suicide no matter what - the ones that do are, by definition, mentally ill... and I'm not sure they can be set as a standard against which the world should conform... so yes, I do. As for being unable to argue it in any court... the truth actually is a complete defense in court: if what you're saying is true then you can absolutely say it even if makes someone angry. Truth is not slander or libel, and demonstrating that it is the truth will win you such cases any time.

Clever words but I doubt this, I think you might just like bullying people OR you have a genuine emotional/psychological issue and need constant reminding that you're breaking the psychological contract that's a condition for being here. In a same way that some of the mods have, over time, overstepped that boundary too and despite reminders, warrant replacing so the community can be restored.

Ahh, I see. Either I agree with you or I'm a troll/sociopath. I'll take that into consideration.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's a clever way of hiding a complete lack of empathy for individuals who aren't as mentally resilient as you.

I'm pretty sure I've never hidden my lack of empathy for weak-minded people The question is: does the world really need to cushion those people from reality, or should it be more concerned with helping them deal with their weakness? I'm not advocating throwing people into deep, shark-infested waters and telling them to sink or swim, here, I'm saying that we shouldn't rid the world of deep water and sharks just because some people don't know how to swim. If you feel someone is faltering, you can always step in an give them some emotional support if you want to - you'd actually be doing them a greater service in the process than you would by trying to be a ridiculous white knight jumping in to fight dragons for them, as that just reinforces and validates their weakness.

QED my last post. If every thread you are involved in results in you being questioned, banned or attacked for your views maybe, just maybe the fault does not lie with your respondents. Think about it.

[JT-Y]

I strongly disagree there can be no bullying via the internet.

I'm only posting here to state categorically how much in support of this statement I am.
That any supposedly sensible, mature adult would state that he doesn't believe that the internet can be used as a tool for bullying others speaks volumes about the nature of that individual.

Scum is scum. I support moderation that identifies and removes scum.

[Indigo]

In those cases it is the so-called "victim" that is responsible for their feelings and outcomes, as it was in their power the entire time to deal with the problem.

This is a flawed position to argue from as I will discuss later.

It absolutely survives contact with reality, it simply doesn't mesh well with the philosophy of people who feel that WHAT is said matters less than HOW it is said, and that's a philosophy which, quite frankly, is focused on the least intelligent members of society. If you're trying to sell snake oil to morons then you absolutely use soft, useless words meant to make them feel good about themselves. In academia and higher levels of business things are very heavily fact based, with very little focus on anything but what is being said. The latter gets things done, the former keeps people dependent and docile.

You are stating the premise that you can tailor your conversation to your audience and yet it's quite clear you do not know your entire audience here, on this forum. Why are you automatically adopting an overly aggressive debating position when you don't know who you are dealing with? That's poor debating strategy.

And the line about "academia and business" being purely fact based is in itself pure bullshit. Business & academia both still revolve around debate & influence and you don't "autowin" based on just presenting facts. How you present your position and interact with others is often more important than the truth of your position.

I also find your suggestion that by acting like a Grunt you are toughening people up somewhat disingenuous.

Its cute that you define "the truth" as being a limited construct. I can't wait to see what you guys do with the place!

You don't understand. Would you like me to explain further what I mean by "limited construct"?

Awesome, another thread derailed.

Really? Seems like its still very much on-topic based on the OP... or do you mean it veered away from being focused on your particular rhetoric?

Yes it's derailed, you dragged your soapbox into view and started reading from the Book of Mike page 1 again. You do realise you've become a caricature of yourself now? That people around the world will realise you've joined a thread and will use well written, overly verbose arguments that only ever serve to highlight how much you are annoying people? You never "win" arguments, it's just you've bored people to the point of non-contribution.

Would you like to discuss some of this via PM?

Oh, I think it's readily apparent who is campaigning in this thread, and it ain't me. As for checks and balances not working... are we really now saying that what we need is just a better oligarchy of more right-thinking people to pass down this mighty judgment on the forum? If so, I'll take the devils I know over the folks in here who seem to want the job who are implying they'd be even more heavy-handed than the current mods.

lol excellent, I'll chalk that one up as a win then - I absolutely do not want to be a mod here.
We DO want more people acting as mods, yes. I'd thought that part was abundantly clear?

The fact you ignored the blatant humour/tone lightening attempt in that line is interesting though.

I must have amazing talent, to be both right AND trolling with the same statement! In fact, I have to stop being right or ELSE. Well, I think I'll take my chances with the truth even when it's not convenient to people who oppose it on the grounds that it gets in the way of their ambitions.

This actually feels like we're getting somewhere. You are not wrong in many of your points when they are viewed in a very literally, "textbook" sense - like you touched on with Darkson, if someone is insulted over the internet then they can simply turn the internet off and stop the insults. Logically, that's correct. What you aren't realising, and why you get banned, is that this particular logic is not the most important factor - by talking here, on this forum, you have agreed to abide by a code of conduct that is enforced according to the rules of the moderators. Whether your position is logically inassailable in your own end doesn't matter. Or in other words "their house, their rules".

Where your logical idea falls down is when you realise people have investments that mean they can't, or don't want to, give up the community they are in. That's why communities have rules.

Think of this rather distasteful example - you could beat up a child in your village and, technically, he could run away and not come back so you do not beat him up again. This is akin to your saying "he could turn off the internet". However, by the standards of the community you are in, you have broken the rule and that's what is not acceptable. So even though your statement of "I can beat him, the onus is on him to not be beaten" is logically accurate, it's not acceptable to live and act by that statement because then the bigger men in the village will beat you up for breaking their rules.

Most people don't commit suicide no matter what - the ones that do are, by definition, mentally ill... and I'm not sure they can be set as a standard against which the world should conform... so yes, I do. As for being unable to argue it in any court... the truth actually is a complete defense in court: if what you're saying is true then you can absolutely say it even if makes someone angry. Truth is not slander or libel, and demonstrating that it is the truth will win you such cases any time.

This is an extension of the above and though I dispute your claim about suicide/mental illness, discussing that further would see you continue to derail the thread. PM me if you want to talk further.

Ahh, I see. Either I agree with you or I'm a troll/sociopath. I'll take that into consideration.

Not quite, did you wilfully misinterpret that? I'd have thought you cleverer. You are either a troll or have a genuine problem that means you cannot factor certain emotional contributions into your arguments meaning your positions are weak and inherently flawed.

You don't have to agree with me about the mods thing, I don't mind.

I'm pretty sure I've never hidden my lack of empathy for weak-minded people The question is: does the world really need to cushion those people from reality, or should it be more concerned with helping them deal with their weakness? I'm not advocating throwing people into deep, shark-infested waters and telling them to sink or swim, here, I'm saying that we shouldn't rid the world of deep water and sharks just because some people don't know how to swim. If you feel someone is faltering, you can always step in an give them some emotional support if you want to - you'd actually be doing them a greater service in the process than you would by trying to be a ridiculous white knight jumping in to fight dragons for them, as that just reinforces and validates their weakness.

So it's wrong for people within a community to defend others yet it's OK for you to prey on them? When you don't know these people... when you don't know the effects of what you are saying on people? You can't judge if you are helping or hindering when you don't know the person, and you aren't taking the time to know people - you're jumping to conclusions and calling people weak minded. Very poor debating form there. If you don't know your audience you should start from the bottom and work up. Or at least listen to others after you've posted rather than continue the same diatribe again and again. Whatever points you were wanting to make are wasted because people see your name and assume you're just going to rant.

[Indigo]

Has TFF seriously resorted to the point where it's censored some swear words?
It's worse than I thought.

Also, it's not one of Ian's rules for the site, who set it up?

[Heff]

Has TFF seriously resorted to the point where it's censored some swear words?
It's worse than I thought.

Also, it's not one of Ian's rules for the site, who set it up?

Censors every Farming grunt one

[Heff]

Or perhaps not

[sann0638]

And should this impartial governor be called Mike?

I would favour this.

[Thadrin]

Has TFF seriously resorted to the point where it's censored some swear words?
It's worse than I thought.

Also, it's not one of Ian's rules for the site, who set it up?

There's been a filter pretty much since this place was set up AFAIK. This is meant to be a family friendly forum, even if most of us turn the air blue when we're around each other.
There's every chance it's built into the forum software. Never gave it much thought to be honest.

[Shteve0]

Yep, its in the phpBB admin panel. I don't recall it being autopopulated though, and I remember it being very humourously utilised on the projectrockstar boards (may they test in piece).


In fairness to VM - I don't personally pick up any aggression in his posts whatsoever. People may not agree with him, but its perfectly within their power to state as much without resorting to personal attacks. That some aren't only serves to reinforce the point he's making.


The biggest irony for me here personally though is that some of those calling for more moderation or being critical of the existing mods have benefitted from a certain laxity in the recent past. I get the impression, which I hope is not too uncharitable, that those posters are effectively calling for greater controls on people who dont share their worldview, which is a pretty unhealthy state of affairs.


The saddest thing about it all is that those posters obviously sincerely feel that they don't enjoy TFF to the extent that they once did, yet are unable or unwilling to draw a correlation between instances where they've actively sought to troll (or "expose") portions of the very same community, posting snide or aggressive comments of their own and the perceived degradation of the quality of conversation.

If anyone feels that things are going in the wrong direction in a thread, it arguably falls on them to contribute thoughtfully and steer things towards an amenable conclusion. Blaming the moderators for not controlling behaviour that they appear unwilling to moderate in their own posts achieves nothing.

[Darkson]

Has TFF seriously resorted to the point where it's censored some swear words?
It's worse than I thought.

Also, it's not one of Ian's rules for the site, who set it up?

There has been a swear word filter on longer than I've been a mod, so it was set up when JohnnyP "owned" the site and Ian has obviously seen no reason to remove it.
Problem? As per the forum rules (that you've been happy to point out to Mike) this forum can be used by minors, so I'd imagine that was the reason the filter was installed in the first place. I guess you'd have to ask one of the old mods to be 100% sure, if it really bothers you that much.

[VoodooMike]

QED my last post. If every thread you are involved in results in you being questioned, banned or attacked for your views maybe, just maybe the fault does not lie with your respondents. Think about it.

If every interaction I had in the world ended up a certain way then I would certainly say there was a distinct pattern, but shockingly enough my social interaction extends beyond this particular community and does not always result in my being banned or attacked. I'm wholly in favour of being questioned, however - lets not lump that in with the others - at least as far as being question on WHAT I am saying. People whining about how I say it are just tedious.

Now, all this said, the topic of this thread is not ME, despite your repeated attempts to make it so. Should I feel bullied?

You are stating the premise that you can tailor your conversation to your audience and yet it's quite clear you do not know your entire audience here, on this forum. Why are you automatically adopting an overly aggressive debating position when you don't know who you are dealing with? That's poor debating strategy.

I'm simply stating my beliefs about the topic, and elaborating on them as people express a desire to go into more detail. I don't feel overly aggressive, though perhaps your previous posting in which you told me I should stop speaking the truth under penalty of being removed from the community might seem a bit aggressive... no doubt you'll go into that more when you explain "bullying" to me in a future posting. It's almost like... nobody considers themselves to be aggressive when they believe what they're saying is true; they only consider other people to be aggressive when they continue to say things that person doesn't want to hear. Lets meditate on that!

How you present your position and interact with others is often more important than the truth of your position.

Only if the people you're interacting with are stupid and insecure - what you're talking about is politics, and while that has its place in organizations that contain stupid, insecure people, it's hardly something to aspire to.

You don't understand. Would you like me to explain further what I mean by "limited construct"?

Only if you think it's important that you BE understood, I suppose. If the truth, not dressed up for people who don't care about what's true, is a limited construct, and you don't simply mean that the truth doesn't really matter, then I'd certainly love to hear you explain further what you DO mean.

Yes it's derailed, you dragged your soapbox into view and started reading from the Book of Mike page 1 again. You do realise you've become a caricature of yourself now? That people around the world will realise you've joined a thread and will use well written, overly verbose arguments that only ever serve to highlight how much you are annoying people? You never "win" arguments, it's just you've bored people to the point of non-contribution.

Since I find what you and Joemanji are suggesting to be worse than what is already in place, I suppose we could chalk this up to how things are being said being more important than what is being said, right? If the more draconian system of government you seem to be espousing fails to be implemented because YOU can't stay on point, and instead feel obligated to somehow repeatedly denigrate me in the thread (which, really, is what you keep doing - I may talk badly about people with low self-esteem, but you're pretty direct in who you're insulting ) then it's really you who will have sabotaged your efforts.

As I say, I don't personally mind when you want to get aggressive and insulting toward me, but it does make me wonder about how sincere you are in your opposition to bullying and aggression - is it simply a matter of WHO happens to be targeted moreso than people being personally targeted at all? If so, then that's just a different facet of the same sort of favouritism you claim you oppose in the current administration, is it not? It's like saying "it's not that we care that there's an elitest system in place, we just care who happens to be among the elite at the moment", etc.

lol excellent, I'll chalk that one up as a win then - I absolutely do not want to be a mod here.

I meant your buddy Joemanji.

This actually feels like we're getting somewhere. You are not wrong in many of your points when they are viewed in a very literally, "textbook" sense - like you touched on with Darkson, if someone is insulted over the internet then they can simply turn the internet off and stop the insults. Logically, that's correct. What you aren't realising, and why you get banned, is that this particular logic is not the most important factor - by talking here, on this forum, you have agreed to abide by a code of conduct that is enforced according to the rules of the moderators. Whether your position is logically inassailable in your own end doesn't matter. Or in other words "their house, their rules".

Ahhhh the law as God? Well, we've seen in the past that doesn't work out as well as people like you seem to imagine it will. Maybe THAT is a discussion we should take to PMs?

Not quite, did you wilfully misinterpret that? I'd have thought you cleverer. You are either a troll or have a genuine problem that means you cannot factor certain emotional contributions into your arguments meaning your positions are weak and inherently flawed.

So... exactly what I said, then.

So it's wrong for people within a community to defend others yet it's OK for you to prey on them?

Prey on them? That's mighty dramatic. It conjures up images of me crouched over their mangled corpse with bloody meat hanging out of my mouth. I post, like anyone else, with words that appear in a nice, discrete little box in a thread. Nobody forces anyone to read those words, and for those who lack self-control there's a block feature which won't even display those little words anymore. You are absolutely welcome to defend people using your own little words... its just a game changer when you decide that you need to use FORCE to defend someone from words they don't have to read.

[Itchen Masack]

oh goodie. Another forum I enjoy is getting the Mike treatment. Excellent. Missed you big guy, thanks for bringing back streams of multi-quote into my life