CAn we have strict moderation in the 911 forum again?

So what then is the ATS definition of a troll?

I have trouble finding it. I read Simon Grays' remarks mentioning the Ignore feature for trolls, and believe me I have a few on my ignore box, but that still does not address the fine definition of troll.

I bring it up because of the Banner warning in the 911 forum saying that trolling will not be tolerated.

I would use the classic definition which would be a creature that hangs out in one place solely to harass and intimidate others. Other folks would define a troll as a person who baits another I.E. flaming them to incite an emotionally heated reply?

Whatever your definition of troll I understand that trolling is not tolerated.

I know some people only come here for one subject. Say maybe Aliens. Whats more lets say they never post anywhere else but the alien forum. I am not saying that is a T&C violation. However, if all they ever did for five years was belittle others that believed in aliens and posted one liners and pointedly bating replies with name calling and other insults then yes that would be a rules infraction.


We are asked to be polite and for the most part we are but this particular alien skeptic is not polite, he is rude, offensive, misleading, inconsistent and disruptive?

What then would one call this person?

Mind you this works both ways same for the believer as it does for the skeptic.

So what we have is an offense by a term not defined.

It makes alerting the mods to the offense kinda tricky.

reply to post by titorite

---

One, just because someone only stays in one forum does not make them a troll. I stay in mainly one forum, well two main ones (space and UFOs) am I a troll? I think not!

Two, actually a troll is more someone who floats around or trolls many forums, usually not just one.So I think you may have that term mixed up a little bit, but I know what you are saying.LOL, also judging by your user name "titorite", I would guess you should be more into the UFO/Skunk Works forum, maybe predictions. This is just a general observation for the board, take what you want of it.

In conclusion I think the 9/11 forum is monitored good enough. Just because someone says something that offends you if you are sensitive or whatever does not mean it is against the laws of ATS. If it is within TAC then (unless it is a rare grey area) you must deal with it. Admittedly I never venture in the 9/11 forum for many, many, many reasons. But I have seen what goes on there and have been a member long enough to come to this opinion. In my opinion nothing more needs to be done in that forum, I mean it is a dying forum anyways. I could say the same about stricter screening and moderation being needed to filter out the many bs threads that infect the UFO forum (in mine and manys opinions), but the staff usually does a excellent job at taking care of it and somethings you can't do anything about. Plus there is the ALERT! button, feel free to use it. That would be much more logical and feasible than "stricter moderation" in a dying forum. Of course this is all IMO as always. I hope you do not take offense to anything I said, it was not meant to be derogatory in ANY way.

reply to post by titorite

---

Probably banned...


Either that or a very low respected member in the community and echelon of members.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

I hear what your saying jkrog08. I stayed off the 911 forum for awhile but lately I have been getting more and more into it and I have decided to fully jump back into it for my own reasons. As of late I had noticed a degree of latitude or relaxing of the strictness of the 911 forum and instead of that grace being respected I see it being taken advantage of.

I can totally respect your reasons for staying out of it all.

As I pointed out in previous posts I do use the alert button as well as the ignore feature. I also hit the alert on members of both sides of the argument because....frankly I feel both sides should remain civil and (God willing) even polite if possible.

As for the definition of troll.... well That is a good question is it not? I take mine from Grimm and apply it on a digital scale. Some take their definitions from nautical references, some have only heard the term applied to the online world. The word means different things to different folks but I think we can all agree that those who we (all of us) deem as troll are generally mean spiteful creatures that nobody wants to be around.

So what is the ATS definition of troll? That will be on the team to decide if they decide to take a line in the sand kind of stance.

Thanks for your comments.

As a rule I enjoy many aspects of this site. It is the best dang site on the net and has something to offer in many areas.

reply to post by titorite

---

It is a good question and the answer will vary. IMO a troll is anyone who posts nothing other than inflammatory remarks and disregards all evidence in a thread to make its own point and makes completely obnoxious, erroneous, and ambiguous statements. There is no reasoning with a troll, there is no logic behind them, they are totally ignorant but self sufficient (can troll anything no matter what it is or how much they disregard top notch evidence).

There are also some who 'troll for attention' or points, these are what I call 'counterfeit members', they usually start many threads a week in multiple forums. Their OPs are usually very provocative but offer little of their own input and are mainly copy/paste jobs. Also the OPs are usually very poorly researched and presented. Also these members tend to post the OP and not respond again, usually because they know nothing of thew topic other than what they learned in a very brief Google search and glance at the original article. You can spot these members despite their high "flag contribution levels", if they have them, by going to their profile and seeing how many applauses they have. If a flag to applause ratio is not well balanced, like say 1600 flags ( level tops out at 1750 ) but only less than 20 applauses, well you very likely have a "attention troll" and thus a 'counterfeit member'. I always use the flag-applause ratio, in addition to the other detection methods to sniff out these board polluting and destroying members. They will all usually end up banned or not respected by many in the long run if at all.

That is my take on the two troll types anyways, hope I helped someone!

I'll believe the 9/11 forum is a dying forum when SO comes in here and says it is, and not until. He's got the stats. And you stating that it is publicly is only causing further disinterest in that forum. So how's THAT for member productivity, huh? From what I've seen lately, you are dead wrong, but again I will defer to SO on that...

As to you using an applause/flag ratio for some kind of gauge to see if someone is a "counterfeit member," that's just silly- in fact trying to use much of anything- flags, applause, points, stars- around here like that is just silly. There is way too much subjectivity across the board for any of that to be reliable.

I happen to agree with the OP, and have already stated that very necessity to a mod here privately. My beef is mostly with off-topic posts.

Frankly the 9/11 forums have for the most part been played out. Unless new information arises, it just seems to be the same old stories rehashed a thousand times.

Yes there are going to be those that are against your ideas. These aren't trolls. These are your respected foes that keep you on your toes.

You aren't going to convince them that your right no matter what you do, and if you can't reason with them and they aren't breaking the T&C then the only other option is to put them on Ignore.

Now if you say you have filled your Ignore quota and can't do that anymore than it's time to re evaluate yourself as a poster and see if perhaps like Intrepid says your being too thin skinned. If you come to the conclusion that you are being a little too sensitive, might I suggest taking a break, visiting BTS for some lighthearted fun. and take a break from the 9/11 forums.

This will help immensely, because it will allow you to refocus on what are the real parts of the conspiracy that you can prove, it will let you take some time to have fun on this site (which is really what it's all about, don't let anyone fool you) and it will give you balance.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by whatukno

---

Ok, I am getting real tired of this 'thin skinned' stuff real fast! The subject is not about me and my sensitivity, it is about whats is going on in the 911 forums AS A WHOLE!

I would like to share what camp I am in in regards to the whole 911 thing. BUT I WONT. This thread is not about what we believe about 911 but the behavior of the folks on that particular forum.

If I think a person is wrong about the subject matter I am ok with that and with disagreeing. I am not Ok with folks disagreeing with me by calling me toofer. I am not Ok with people attacking my reading comprehension skills.

I am not ok with people that seem to ignore 90% of what I write to make a counter argument based on based on how easily confused I am or how poorly I read.... And if anything nobodies reading skills should be questioned on the net..... Illiterate people are not online But their are obnoxious people everywhere...

Some people think that the 9/11 subject is played out.. That is fine with me. I still would like to talk about it and I would like to talk about it with out the sarcasm , off topic posts, one liners and other such disruptive jerky responses that a few like to put forth as counter arguments.


Peace





[edit on 29-6-2009 by titorite]

reply to post by titorite

---

Then ignore them. Don't respond to people you believe that are just being disruptive or obnoxious.

Act as if they never posted, never wrote a word, and never existed. If they have nothing to contribute than they aren't worth your time.

All in all it's just words on a screen man, nothing to really get hot and heavy over. In all reality all this is, is bipeds punching keys on a keyboard. The mods can only do so much, if the person isn't blatantly being a troll, than there isn't much they can do. Free speech and all.

I mean I might disagree with your views. I might say something that counteracts your point of view, that doesn't make me a troll. I might even do it in one line, that still doesn't make me a troll.

Your job is to buck up, face the criticism, make your point, ignore the idiots, and drive home your argument in the most intelligent way you possibly can.

You say that there are two or three of them that are constantly doing this, so put them on ignore. Obviously if they cant deal with the issue in a rational reasonable way they don't deserve your time to argue with. So put them on ignore, you won't even see their posts and won't have to think about them.

reply to post by whatukno

---

hmmmm Perhaps you did not see trueamericans post. I am not the only one who feels the way I do. I have spoken with others too. So I have kinda taken it upon myself to speak up for a segment of us that still speak on the 911 forum.

There is also my personal mission to get this term Troll defined. One can hit the alert for clearly defined T&C offenses but when trolling is listed as an offense but not defined well then we have a USA GITMO kinda of a situation and if that is what it is thats what i will abide by.

Our Speech here is not free. We all abide by the T&C set up by the mighty three owners. Rule one: Be polite.

Their are also rules against posting with in one line.

Have you checked out the Handbook lately? Even I go through it around bi weekly.

As for those other three... well ...They would be the three individuals whom have been here for Four to Five years and never posted anywhere else and often post with little to no courtesy.

If this was all taking place under a bridge they would Definitely be called trolls. And we would all avoid them unless said bridge was the only way into town.

Regards

Edited for clarity of context

[edit on 29-6-2009 by titorite]

hilarious!

But so true... I completely agree. It should be better defined. I think we had a similar situation with the Hate Speech thread. Better to be clear- the less gray area the better.

But there is an argument for the other hand- and we probably need to stay aware of it. Do we want things so defined that there is no subjectivity left? I can see that angle too. Telling us strictly what we can and cannot say is a bit gestapo-like... Nazis...No thanks!

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

What do you mean by subjectivity? In what context?...Help me deny some ignorance here

I don't think ATS would ever get 'overly' strict nor do I think the big three would ever consider sticking to one forum trolling.

For me, I require two criteria to be met before I call troll on a person.

1. Must only stick to one subject, always there never anywhere else.

2. Always posting in a less than courteous manner. IE doing everything the big 3 tell you not to do.

optional 3. If said person meets the previous two and has been a member here for more than three years then said member should be even more aware of the rules of etiquette.

Optional 4 If said person meets the first two and follow a particular person around ... I would consider that a personal troll... Like Paula Abduls one pyscho fan.

In light of the recent Breaking News story about the Army Corp of engineers being tasked to harass Katrina conspiracy theorists I am taking an even closer look at who trolls and who doesn't.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by titorite]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by titorite]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by whatukno

---

All your own snips and swears do not increase my respect for you or your advice. In fact that is the exact kind of thing I am trying to draw attention too.

I expect behavior like that at other message boards with lower standards than ATS. Your last reply is very disrespectful and uncalled for.

If you do not like the message debate that not me the messenger.

And maybe with a bit more civility next time.

reply to post by titorite

---

I do feel your pain..It is very aggrevating to say the least..But trolls have become wise and have learned the limits of the yard they can play in..

Best advice is

see an obvious break in the T&c's ring a bell..

Make it happen so many times that the Mods know when they go to their secret layer,they will have your alerts to deal with..

Maybe then the big guys here will catch on to whats happing.

Copied in its entirety so you cannot edit that. And YOU are WAY out of line here. Alert submitted. You have no right whatsoever to attack tito that way.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

I was actually proving a point.

A lot of people have given him clear and concise advice how to deal with his problem. However, his problem is that people disagree with him.

Copy and paste all you want.

Too bad.

[edit on 6/29/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by TrueAmerican

---

Well that is certainly your opinion, which you,as we all are entitled to. I HIGHLY doubt my statement will do anything to lead to further public disinterest. What about the fact that 9/11 happened in 2001, what about the fact that no new theories have came out because they have all been exhausted (well except the very speculative fringe theories), how about the fact that in all the years of the 'truth movement' nothing has been disclosed and it likely never will, just like the JFK assassination. I think those are the real reasons the interest has severely dropped, with the exception of the hardcore 'truthers' and 'supporters'. To stay on point with the OP, you just gave a prime example of what he is talking about IMO. While you and others stay within the TAC, you post very aggressive and inflammatory comments, almost like a bait to go off topic or into a flame war. Now it may not be yours or others intent but that is what it comes out as. There is obviously nothing that can be done about this as it is within the bounds of TAC, unless it happens a lot and slides a little to far into the TAC "grey area". Please do not try and debate this with me on here because it would be off topic, and keep in mind this is only my opinion and I am definitely not a part of the staff.



While I can agree with you about the boards being an undue amount subjective I very strongly disagree with everything else. First off I never said anything about stars or points. Secondly, the amount of staff or FSME applauses is a good indicator of if a member really contributes good insight or if they just tend to produce short, copy/paste, and provocative threads or posts with little of their own comments or research. Most of the times the members who do have a lot of flags but low applause level do tend to be attention trolls and thus counterfeit members. Especially when you see them bounce around every forum making short threads which offer nothing more than a provocative statement and a copy and paste job or video. This almost always the case, but there are very few exceptions (from what I have seen). Now when you start spamming threads that obviously took no time other than a quick Google search and paste to make, and you put out like 3 or 4 a week in 4 different forums then there is a problem IMO, I know sometimes it gets good hits but IMO that is all they are good for, a short "flame". In conclusion I think it is obvious to see that if a member post a lot of things members flag or star, but have a very low applause level, then the member is obviously spamming with quantity and not quality. That in addition to the OPs usually not responding to any questions about their OP and offering a very short comment in the original usually dictates a troll or counterfeit member. Why do I say counterfeit? Because on the surface they look good with a nearly full or full flag bar, but when you dig deeper you can see that they offer nothing more than a high influx of spam-type threads with little or none of their own research or insight. As always this is in my humble opinion.

First, I have to state that I stay far, far away from the 9/11 threads! The only reason I even opened this thread was because it was in the Board Business Forum. I personally don't buy the whole 'inside job' conspiracy, and when I have expressed such an opinion and given my reasons for why I don't, I get ripped apart and called all sorts of names, so I stay away. It has to be the least civilized forum in regards to non-believers. Given that, if you feel that a member is just a troll, use the ignore button!

I have to agree with Intrepid that the 9/11'ers do seem to have very thin skins (not all, but a large majority), and usually initiate the ad hominem attacks. So maybe calling a 'whaaaaabulance' is in order.