Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
2. Other members resort to frustration after multiple attempted reasoning fails, and since other members are ALSO PART OF THE COMMUNITY, their input is just as valid. Whether their reactions are acceptable or not is really the question here, but we cannot question their reactions without also questioning why those reactions take place in context with the situation, which isn't simply that someone has an unpopular opinion, and IS that such a person is joining a COMMUNITY debate about behaviors where such a person frames their position in such a way as to be progressively antagonistic in response to the community not agreeing. Perception is just as important as intent, and you seem to be disregarding the wider perception because you're not seeing past your own. I challenge you to make an assumption about community reactions had Sopsych framed his debate in a way people would be receptive to, rather than defensive to. And you cannot simply fault the defensive reactions without also faulting the causal factors. It works both ways. For instance, you are framing your position in a way that does not antagonize others, yet you are pushing an unpopular opinion. It should be obvious why you're getting a different reception, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you're Tore. If you had the same attitude that Sopsych has displayed, you'd be getting the same reactions he did, whether that's a failure of behavior or not.
|
Difficult sentence
I don't want to refer to the previous situation out of respect for the anger and irritation it causes in some others as well as wish for that anger to not further blind people to my points.
So instead, let's say Hitler is here and I troll him because I think he's a douche. If I troll, I accept that and am prepared to take responsibility for it. I would accept it if a moderator took some punitive action against my trolling. If my trolling of Hitler contributed to derailing a thread, then the derailment of that thread is on my conscience too. I can't blame Hitler for my own actions. I don't want moderators who blame Hitler for my actions.
If Hitler breaks rules, I should report him. If he is a continuing disturbance on the forum, I can express those views as long as I act within the rules. I can also tell the moderators about how I feel. In any case, it is their job to deal with Hitler, not mine.
I am hoping that by using this example, I am making clear the point that it doesn't really matter who it is I'm trolling or why. It could be the world's biggest as
shole. The point is I should be held responsible for my own actions. I
want to be held responsible for my own actions and if I do troll, I like to think that it is a choice that I take while knowing and accepting the consequences that choice may entail.
That was my point. Accountability and responsibility where it is due.
edit :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
There's no reason to call someone a troll. We can just ban them, since it's against the rules.
However, if we don't want to be so drastic, it's a bit hard to tell someone to stop trolling by avoiding the "T word". Using such terminology is effective because everyone knows what it means and you don't have to go any further. If a mod thinks someone is trolling, they will say so and that will be a warning before any further steps are needed.
I don't see why it's necessary for a mod to have to beat around the bush in this regard. If we think you're trolling, we tell you to stop trolling. Trying to be "PC" about something like this is ridiculous.
Also, if mods aren't supposed to "side against" anyone by calling them out on a problem, then I guess our jobs are useless.
|
Again, this seems defensive and like it misrepresents. For example, I am not suggesting mods don't take sides. They take the side of the rules they should enforce. What I am suggesting is that moderators moderate members rather than argue with them. If you have a problem with Sopsych, give him warnings in a PM, not in a public thread because that will only rouse more anger towards him which again will be disruptive. And why would you argue with a member about whether or not he trolls? It is your call to make. If the moderators join in in singling out a person, even if that person is wrong, moderators behaving that way may unintentionally legitimize anger or even condone acts like trolling or name calling. For example, if moderators ask a person publically to stop trolling, then they have established that the official stance of the mods is that this person is a troll. That does have an effect on the social interactions here.