Don't Respond to Obvious Trollery, Just Alert It

reply to post by masqua
Not to be argumentative, this is a legitimate question. Is it defamation to call a shill a shill? If it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it swims like a duck, chances are it is a duck. On a site that claims to "deny ignorance" should we not be able to point out the fact that the duck is in fact waddling?

What obvious trolley?

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


I'll repeat myself one more time, so it's very clear.

YES... calling another member a shill is against the T&C's. It is defamatory.

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Seems as though the schnitzel has been doing the rounds with his ridiculous trollery (new word, I like it)

Quite a disturbing kid actually.

Can't you guys send then men in black round to 'sort' him out?

I mean, he says he hates humanity, I say let's give him a reason to hate humanity!

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thing is... we have no white vans nor Star Wars troopers dressed in plastic armor to drive them. Nor would we want that particularly much. Too 'newworldorderly' for my tastes.

So, we're stuck with dealing our collective cards cyberally ( another new word).

Between the alerts that come in from the membership and the odd discovery that staffers make on their own, multiple manifestations of such seem to be handled expeditiously.

reply to post by masqua


Must be a pain in the proverbial though, clearly the guy knows how to get around whatever ban you've placed on him and he's a goran menace!

Reminds me of a serial pest from some months ago actually, weneedtoknow.

If it's not the same guy then he just got bored and moved on, let's hope the schnitzel will too.

Oh and apologies for discussing banned members, it's just the above mentioned are classic examples of textbook trolls.

Originally posted by masqua

What happens to us after getting attacked like this is a normal human reaction to trollery and the only recourse seemingly available would be to react with outrage in the thread it happened in.

That's a problem, though, because experienced trolls just LOVE to see bruised egos.

As far as I'm concerned, trolling doesn't bruise egos at all. I equate trolls to annoying flies or mosquitoes that buzz around your ear and no matter how many times you swat at them, they come back and land in the exact same place.

IRM

reply to post by masqua
Edit NVM

reply to post by masqua


Masqua, I think there is an important distinction I would like some clarity on regarding the "shill" or similar thing.

While I understand and agree it is inappropriate to simply call another member a shill if this is a thought that is important to the further discussion might there be an acceptable way to convey the same message that is more conducive to logical intelligent debate?

For example if I felt a person was a shill I know it would be libelous to just go out and say "You're a shill!", but would it violate T&Cs to say something to the effect of "XYZ is the exact opinion of entity X for which I can find no logical proof. This leads me to believe you are a shill or at the very least behaving like one. Can you please provide supporting evidence for opinion XYZ or try to refute my opinion ABC for which I have already laid out backing evidence?"

See what I have said is exactly the same thing except it is clear to me that it is not trolling or libelous. Would ATS TPTB agree?

Originally posted by Jinglelord
While I understand and agree it is inappropriate to simply call another member a shill if this is a thought that is important to the further discussion might there be an acceptable way to convey the same message that is more conducive to logical intelligent debate?

First of all, let's get the definition of a 'shill down pat:

Slang .
–noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
–verb (used without object)
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
–verb (used with object)
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

dictionary.reference.com...

For example if I felt a person was a shill I know it would be libelous to just go out and say "You're a shill!"

Yes.

but would it violate T&Cs to say something to the effect of "XYZ is the exact opinion of entity X for which I can find no logical proof.

I don't know if I follow your reasoning here. XYZ's unproven opinion, which is a replicate of 'entity X' but has no logical proof is quite a bit like just about ANY other opinion. You can apply 'entity X' to any number of theologies, philosophies or theories. It's quite difficult to find any reasoning which would stand alone. I'd like you to isolate just one idea which can be laid at the feet of just a single individual like 'entity X'.

This leads me to believe you are a shill or at the very least behaving like one.

And here lies a graduated personal attack. Instead of saying "you are a shill", you are saying "This leads me to believe" and qualifying it with "or at the very least behaving like one". What still remains in the above is "you are a shill" no matter how you couch the personal attack with rhetoric. You are still kicking the player rather than the ball.

Can you please provide supporting evidence for opinion XYZ or try to refute my opinion ABC for which I have already laid out backing evidence?"

But where is the backing evidence? ABC is still just a personal opinion and you'd need to connect the actual dots proving that the individual is a 'shill' for entity X. To only assume this is so and then publicly accuse member XYZ would be an unfounded personal attack. I would presume that, not knowing a person's real identity nor who they actually work for, would make it extremely difficult to prove that XYZ is actually promoting the product entity X is selling. If it CAN be proven that an individual is promoting something for profit, the best recourse would be to let staff know about it. Only they can rid the site of what I would deem a spammer, because that IS what a shill is.

See what I have said is exactly the same thing except it is clear to me that it is not trolling or libelous. Would ATS TPTB agree?

It is not libelous, it is defamatory. There is a huge difference. Libel involves courts and lawyers, while defamatory comments impact the credibility of another member here at ATS. We see that kind of personal attack quite a bit here and really hope to stop the practice through the T&C's. I've been publicly called a neocon even though I'm a liberal, a Nazi even though I'd say I'm the exact opposite and a disinfo agent when I see myself as a searcher for truth.

It's very easy to, without proof of any kind, point fingers and accuse while it is extremely difficult to undo the damage such an accusation can wreak upon a member. Mob mentality can even set in and completely villify someone with zero cogent reasoning or even a minimum of logic.

This is why the 'defamatory' issue is within the T&C's and seriously frowned upon.

Regarding calling a fellow member a "shill", or any other name... As Masqa has pointed out above, name calling, whether justified or not, flies in the face of what we seek to do here at ATS, discuss the topic, not each other.

If you have repeatedly proven your case, the people who read the thread will see it and the truth will win out. You will instantly turn most people off, and thereby reduce the value you just brought to the discussion, by resorting to name calling.

It's much better to simply ignore those who ignore the facts, the record will show what's what.

Springer...

reply to post by masqua


Understood and agreed.

So to sum up (you and Springer) it would not serve any purpose to call anyone a Shill no matter the argument because that would only serve to attack a fellow member when the real issue is what that person is saying.

I would further posit that by placing any label on a member rather than what they are saying is not conducive to the environment at ATS and could easily been as a form of trolling.

This is one of the few places on earth it isn't who you are that matters but rather the quality of what you have to say. And I must say I like it!

We are allowed to give an opinion, how did it take five pages to get this message across

reply to post by masqua

I can only speak for myself, but whenever I'm first to see a complaint, I check it out to see if it's a viable because some are completely unfounded when the Terms and Conditions are taken into account. If it's an obvious transgression of our rules, I make the needed change right away, whether that's a simple edit or more.

Other times, it's not so simple. Much of what we see in complaints are borderline T&C infractions which means that other staffers are called in for their opinion and the consensus then rules for what we do.

It's not a perfect system but, over the years that I've moderated here on ATS, I see us getting much better at responding to alerts.

Well, speaking for myself, I'd much rather work under a system with zero tolerance than the way it is now. Right now, it is much too arbitrary a system; there is absolutely no consistency in the way posts are moderated. And there are certainly "favorites" played here.

But the biggest flaw in the current alert system is the lack of feedback to the members. Allegedly you can request a response to your complaint, but good luck! The best you will get is a rubberstamp reply "We're very busy" or "Even though you may not see it, it's being worked on in the background". Then you'll get a reputation as a whiner, which automatically slaps a "Go back to the end of the line. And be quiet!" tag on you.( j/k).

I don't mean to stir things up, but that's the way I see them.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by inkyminds

 

Finally you add some truth to this thread..

It's no wonder I usually toss a star to BinB's post.
Inky,
I just went thru this with you on another thread and you seem to want to argue if the the color black is really black. I think all of us here have gotten into heated discussions we feel passionate about but sometimes you have to step back, absorb and let some things go. There are a lot of good intelligent people here on the forum and although I lurked awhile before joining. I'm still new here but I've gained a lot of insight on some topics in a short period of time. The saying "choose your battles wisely" is one to heed on this forum. Just saying take a deep breath and enjoy the view, lot of good people here.

Originally posted by mishigas
Well, speaking for myself, I'd much rather work under a system with zero tolerance than the way it is now. Right now, it is much too arbitrary a system; there is absolutely no consistency in the way posts are moderated. And there are certainly "favorites" played here.

Here's a puzzle for you.

Which is worse regarding the T&C's on profanity: A straight out profanity spelled correctly or one that has been spelled in such a way as to circumvent the censors? I say the censor circumvention is but both are acted upon by staff. Should the worse offense be cause for more severe action and what, in the history of the member, should play a part in the response. Does he or she constantly do this, regardless of the consequences? Should staff take into account repeat offences and grade their actions in dealing with seperate individuals.

In musing the above, how can we possibly have a zero tolerance system? If a long term member screws up once, should they be treated in the same manner as one who simply refuses, even after many staff interactions, to abide by the T&C's?

As far as favourites are concerned, you'd be surprised to find that it would be impossible to 'cover' for a favoured member. The fact remains that there are over 70 pairs of eyes that see each complaint and, if one were to say "never mind this" without good reason, the others would immediately see the bias. Yes, of course staffers have 'friends' among the membership, but they cannot be 'protected' from other staff. Everything that comes across to staff from the membership in alerts is viewable by all staff. There were some I considered 'bright lights' who were subsequently banned for good reason. All I could do is reflect on my own sense and where I failed to see the problem. It's quite a learning experience.

But the biggest flaw in the current alert system is the lack of feedback to the members. Allegedly you can request a response to your complaint, but good luck! The best you will get is a rubberstamp reply "We're very busy" or "Even though you may not see it, it's being worked on in the background". Then you'll get a reputation as a whiner, which automatically slaps a "Go back to the end of the line. And be quiet!" tag on you.( j/k).

I don't mean to stir things up, but that's the way I see them.

That's actually a valid point and one I agree with. Following through on alerts, a simple 'thank you' is good, but other times even more might be in order. I've even applauded alerts and sent a U2U along with it because they'd otherwise never know why they got the applause.

There can be dicey situations from responding to complainants, though.

Often, once a problem has been identified, it's a very quick and simple fix, like a little [snip] or even an Off Topic banner. The complainant could go back and see that what they didn't appreciate has been fixed. To expect a U2U from the mod that fixed it would immediately identify that mod and that information could then be used against the offender. It happened to me right here on page 2 of this thread. (don't go looking for it, because it's been removed by staff already) A member complained about a T&C violation in another thread and then came back to this thread telling the one who had his post altered that it was me who did it. See how that can cause problems?

And that's just a simple situation among a thousand more serious varieties

Consider where a member posts the same text 100 times in 100 seperate threads. This happens often. We're VERY glad to have it pointed out, but we're also going to be very occupied for the next half hour removing all that spam. Sometimes, because of that, we forget to thank the complainant for helping keep the boards clean... and that's not right either.

Maybe we can do a better job in this regard, so I think your concern is quite justified.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Personally, I think that stretches the TnC too far, but............Im not a mod. Or is it just the use of the word "shill?" Can you ask if someone is a paid government representative as long as you dont use the "s" word?

Clearly, you were not alone in your feeling. I guess the lesson learned here is just abandon the thread to the "person" rather than speak to them for fear you might bring down the wrath of Mod upon you.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


If Biden was a member of ATS promoting Obama's Health Care reforms and a member called him a shill, I would act on that as a personal attack against our member Biden.

Does that help clarify things?

Edit to add that if Glenn Beck were a member of ATS and promoted Fox news as the worlds most fair and balanced news outlet and another member called Glenn Beck a shill, I would also act on that as a personal attack.

double post

reply to post by inkyminds


Amen to that! The start needs to be in the 911 forum and stop playing around with these types.