Don't feed the troll...

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 28-06-13 19:20, Ian Kelly schreef:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be>  wrote:
>> So what do you think would be a good approach towards people
>> who are behaving in conflict with this wish of yours? Just
>> bluntly call them worse than the troll or try to approach them
>> in a way that is less likely to antangonize them?
>
> Inform them that their behavior is damaging the list atmosphere, and
> ask them to please knock it off.  Shaming the behavior works too, but
> I'd prefer to go with the former.

That is a bit odd. Rurpy seemed to consider it a big nono if others
used methods that would coerce him to change his behaviour. But here
you see shaming as an option which seems a coercive method.

So if some group views the response to trollish behaviour as too
willing in cooperating with bad behaviour and as such damaging to
the list, this group can then inform the cooperators that their
behaviour is damaging the list atmosphere and ask to please knock it
off. And they can consider more coercive methods too?

>> The collective experience of theachers is that punishment for bad
>> performance works, despite research showing otherwise.
>
> Flaming a troll is not punishing to them.

I see I didn't make my point clear. This was my response to
your remark about the collective experience going back decades.
The collective experience often enough doesn't carry over wisdom
but myth. To illustrate that, I gave the example of teachers whose
collective experience is contradicted by the research. So if the
only thing you can rely on is the collective experience of the
group your knowledge isn't very relyable.

I also find it somewhat odd that you talk about a troll here. AFAIU
the people who are most annoyed by those flaming/protesting Nikos,
don't seem to consider Nikos a troll. But if Nikos is not a troll
then protesting Nikos's behaviour can't be protested against on
the ground that it would be troll feeding.

>> I am implying nothing. I'm just pointing out the difference between
>> how rurpy explains we should behave towards Nikos and how he behaved
>> towards the flamers. If there is some sort of implication it is with
>> rurpy in that difference and not with me in me pointing it out.
>
> Your statement "I just don't understand why you think you should be so
> careful to Nikos" implies that somebody thinks we should be careful to
> Nikos, i.e. be careful to not hurt his feelings.  At least that is how
> I read it, and I don't think it is true.

What Rurpy's motivation would be for being careful to Nikos, you have to
ask him. I'm only pointing out that in contrast to the blunt statement
he made about those flaming/protesting Nikos, how he explained we
should behave towards Nikos can accurately be described as careful.

...

>> Do you think being blunt is a good way in keeping a welcoming and
>> postive atmosphere in this group?
>
> I think it's better than being openly hostile.  And speaking for
> myself, if somebody has a problem with my own behavior then I would
> prefer that they be blunt about it than cover it up with a false
> friendliness.

Sure, but there is a difference between telling people you have
a problem with their behaviour and telling people their behaviour
is wrong or damaging. Yet when you have trouble with particular
behaviour you go for the latter instead for the former.

>> I am not so sure it would be counter-productive. A joint flaming
>> of a troll can be an effective way to increase coherence in a
>> group.
>
> Well, if flaming ever becomes the prevailing culture of the list, then I'm out.

Sure, I can understand that. But doesn't this contradict somewhat
that this is about others damaging this group. Increasing coherence
would IMO be positive for a group, but you would still not like it. So
it seems more about keeping an atmosphere that you prefer. There is
nothing qrong with that, but if you can keep that in mind, your
approach is more likely to be fruitful.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.