Open-minded members are NOT trolls!

In the last couple of days, I have noticed a few open-minded members being labelled as trolls, simply for raising ideas that challenge accepted norms, particularly in the subject of christianity. This is a grossly unfair and inaccurate assessment, originating largely from an inability to accept that different views are not necessarily false views.

ATS is all about denying ignorance, and those subjects which are most popularly accepted without challenge or contest are the most susceptable to the spread of ignorance. Holding any sort of rigid, uncompromising idea, that you feel is immune from challenge creates a framework perfectly designed to help ignorance flourish.

We're not all the same, we don't all agree and we all have our own views and ideas. As a result we shouldn't be persecuted for raising logically generated concepts which may not necessarily fit the popular view. If this is truly an uncensored, unbiased forum that promotes free thinking, which I believe it is, there should be no topic that is too sacred, too accepted, too infallible that it should be granted immunity from being challenged.

mytym, this is ATS and some name calling is bound to happen with people
and their ideologies, firm beliefs and twisted politics and one dimensional thinking styles.

Still it's so much better than when you were called a tulipwalker for just a mild disagreement. Anyway if you have any masochist tendencies, stroll over to PTS and the mudpit for your fair share of abuse.

I personally am quite thick skinned, thus rarely offended by name calling, it is more the issue that some members feel that there are some questions that should not be asked in a forum such as this.

By the way, what is rule 62?

mytym, I agree with you 99.9%.

However, the members who jump into threads and post slander with no attempt to back there claims are in fact, Trolls!

Members who take the time and try to show some validity to what they are saying, are open-minded members.

The line between open-minded and trolls is deffinately a fine line when it comes to new members, as senior members who have beat 9/11 issues to no end are quick to judge when it comes to members, which is entirely within their right.

Lets look at the George Bush/JFK Assissination thread that has been created on ATS, alot of people are hailing this thread.

Why?

Look at the effort that was created to support his/her claims.

If no effort was made, he/she would of been labelled a troll and ignored.

Some trolls are merely open-minded members, who fail to validate their argument.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by chissler]

mytym, I also agree with you. Because I have been the recipient of such attacks in PTS. Yes, I agree with Whaaa, that PTS is a "mud-pit" when it comes to calling names. And I have also participated in the baser sides of debate to defend myself. That fact makes me ashamed, because usually I try to be considerate and kind. Most recently, on two threads, I didn't look at Skippy. And because of that, the debate had suffered despite attempts to rehabilitate my position.

And chissler's words must not be ignored as well. He speaks honestly when trying to tell the difference between trolls and members who try to get toward the truth. I am one of those type of people who do use a mixture of discourse and proof to add to debates. However, whether anyone believes my position or not is in the eye of the beholder.

One thing I have learned is that people need to think before they speak. I will do so for now on. I respect the board, its mods, its staff, its council members, its posters and the Three Amigos too much to engage in out and out verbal warfare again. The hard work especially by the Three Amigos has been realized through our attempts to ask questions, mix with different types of people and to work on solutions together.

This approach in discussion is one of the highest forms of intellectual discourse and when it is used properly, this could be used as an educational experience. For that, I thank the Three Amigos and everyone else for realizing this dream come true.

But for the most part, however, people are people. I've learned, some people are kind. Others are not. What sets apart people in crystallized positions from those who are more open in their outlook is the sensitivity, seriousness and respect that is being practiced.











[edit on 22-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006

One thing I have learned is that people need to think before they speak. I will do so for now on.

That is hitting the nail flat dead on the head in a few simple words.

If a member comes roaring into a thread and tosses up a few paragraphs with some nonsence, it is very obvious to the readers. With no doubt someone will respond to this and call them out, which will without a doubt turn the author slightly emotional and respond even faster and with less thought.

Now before you know it you have a Warn under your belt and branded.

All because of a few posts before you thought.

Think Before you Post!

Do some research!
Cite a Reference!
Provide Links!

All of these aspects will minimize the troll labels being dished out and more members will be applauded for being open-minded.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to validate their opinion. I can understand validating an argument based on factual information, but an opinion is already validated by virtue of it's existence.

Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but sometimes it's frustrating when you get someone practically arguing that green is not green. It's like going back in time and trying to explain to some secluded villagers that the planet is in fact round, and even that's after explaining that the world extends far beyond 'them hills over there' and 'the lake'.
Open minded = Good
Ignorance = Bad

It's also frustrating when you are educated/experienced to a certain level and you get someone who, quite frankly, has no clue arguing that they know best.

It's a bit extreme, but the opinion/open-mindedness/etc arguements seem to be often misused to the extent that the following imaginary scenario would quite easily fit:

"Freedom is important, you should be able to do what you want."

"Quite right! You should be free to do what you want!"

"Good, glad you agree." *Runs off, kills someones*

And it's that attitude, where you basically rape your rights, which adds fuel to the fire eating away at our rights of freedom every day.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by mytym
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to validate their opinion. I can understand validating an argument based on factual information, but an opinion is already validated by virtue of it's existence.

I tend to disagree to a degree. Does a member have to validate his/her opinion? No. Should they validate, Yes!

Its existence in the mind is not enough validation in my opinion.

Its my opinion that the next person to post is a complete something negative, just because I believe this does not make it correct and I would be in no position to state this unless I am willing to validate.

if they start sayin stuff that doesnt make sense and not support...just have a comeback for their lack of ability to research and punch their lights out with facts .......i love trolls

I am all for open-mindedness and exploring for yourself to find the answer, but there is a fine line between open-mindedness and gullibleness. Too often, people labelled as "open minded" accept things without looking into it, or trying to think about the other side of the arguement. As long as you understand this and won't believe that Captain Crunch is the Reptilian Leader just because someone told you so, then thumbs up . Being too open-minded is just as bad as being an overly closed-minded skeptic.

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by mytym
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to validate their opinion. I can understand validating an argument based on factual information, but an opinion is already validated by virtue of it's existence.

I tend to disagree to a degree. Does a member have to validate his/her opinion? No. Should they validate, Yes!

Why validate an opinion? I am almost 53 years old. I've learned a lot over those years. Some of the stuff I learned was wrong. If I base my opinion on invalid material, then I am hurting myself. If you know that material is invalid and show me where or how it has been refuted, then I am no longer living in ignorance.

Opinions are based on the person's life experience and knowledge. I will never tell you that your opinion is wrong, but I will let you know if your validation is erroneous. I would hope that you would do the same for me.

Everybody has the right to express their opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be, as long as nobody cares. The minute somebody actually cares about what another person is saying, there's bound to be trouble.

As far as trolling is concerned, sometimes I like to respond to trolls and I'm glad to have them around. As long as people understand the difference between my mocking them and agreeing with them, it helps me let of steam.

Real trolls are relatively easy to spot by their subject lines. If I feel like joining in the fray, I know where they are. If not, it's easy as pie for me to stay away.

Originally posted by mytym
In the last couple of days, I have noticed a few open-minded members being labelled as trolls, simply for raising ideas that challenge accepted norms, particularly in the subject of christianity. This is a grossly unfair and inaccurate assessment, originating largely from an inability to accept that different views are not necessarily false views.

"You are what you eat." It is as simple as that for me.

Trolls feed on negative energy...so they create it, often by "raising ideas that challenge accepted norms", or in a variety of other ways. It is by their attitude and intent I say you can recognize them, distinguish them, from their less offensive counterparts of non-traditional thinkers.

Without knowing the specific incidences prompting you to make this thread, mytym, I can only say this: That sometimes the difference between being seen/labled as a troll as opposed to being seen simply as someone open minded enough to have a different point of view, can easily be distinguished by the ammount of respect to the topic/other posters one shows when they "are raising ideas that challenge accepted norms" in a thread.

It really is that simple for me. A persons intent and attitude says it all-in one post or 10 usually...in one thread or 10. A troll becomes more obviously a troll to me, when *it* continually feeds on the negative energy it creates in a thread, or by a thread, and when it's obviously their usual MO in many threads.

Trolling vs open-minded questioning of accepted norms...It is simply a matter of basic respect for fellow posters and/or the subject at hand.

If you respectfully question other posters' views, or question the accepted norm of a view on a subject, or respectfully raise questions as food for thought, instead of using it to blatantly insult people, and/or dispute the subject at hand as invalid (with no verifiable legitimate facts to back yourself up to boot) and/or present a contrasting view as if it were proof for others to accept lest they be seen as brainwashed morons, etc,.... then there should be no problem. Right?

It is as simple as the attitude of the poster, and the respect they show. A person shows much about themself by the ammount of respect (or lack of) they show to others. This to me is how I define/identify the typical trolls...by their intent and attitude and reputation.

Sometimes I go as far as to check someones other threads so I know if they're are just a typical troll when I come across someone creating negative energy and feeding on it...and 8 times out of 10 I'd say, it's their usual MO and my first impression was correct.

It's all about respect.




[edit on 25-5-2006 by think2much]

From Wikipedia

Internet Troll:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to intentionally annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion...

Emphasis mine.


From what I'm reading in this thread, I don't think it's a proper label to call these people trolls.

I've always felt that a troll is someone who enters a thread, not out of any interest in the subject, but with some deliberate intent to piss people off and cause trouble.

Posting unbacked up contrary opinons, while, in many ways a pointless display in any real debate, doesn't make these people Trolls.

Originally posted by Jadette
Posting unbacked up contrary opinons, while, in many ways a pointless display in any real debate, doesn't make these people Trolls.

Unless they do it to intentionally annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion...

If that is the case, they are trolling.

Originally posted by darkelf

Unless they do it to intentionally annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion...

If that is the case, they are trolling.

That's a given.

Though I will say, it would still have to be rude or offensive. It's the inflammatory thing that takes us into the grey area here. Contrary opinions often are by their nature, no matter whether or not the intent is to upset anyone.

Originally posted by Jadette
From Wikipedia

Internet Troll:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to intentionally annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion...

Emphasis mine.


From what I'm reading in this thread, I don't think it's a proper label to call these people trolls.

Oh, I disagree...to a point. I think it's proper to call a troll troll. Like I said, with no threads/post in particualr to be reviewing here, I don't know if mytym's complaint is legitimate that people are being labled unfairly as trolls or not...I'm sure it sometimes happen though, but likewise, on the otherhand, there are people that use as a disguise the cloak of having a different perspective, when all they really want to do is stir the pot to irritate or offend -and they are trolls.

Also, they aren't being called/referred to as general Internet Trolls anyway, we aren't talking (or at least I am not in reply) about some obvious new person who comes into this established community just to flame-an obvious troll.

There is a different species, and equally annoying troll, perhaps the son of the Internet Troll, that follows the same general MO to post inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to intentionally annoy and antagonize under the loose and false premise that they are simply trying to deny ignorance for themselves or help others do the same.

...or are "entitled to their opinion" which they are, but they have no rights of entitlement to express that opinion in blatantly obviously offensive ways to others to provoke or offend...all under the guise that they are just sharing their perspective...when in fact, they are just trolling and flaming. You know?

Like I've said, to me, it is distingushed by how they conduct themselves. Honestly, I have to admit, its a serious pet peeve of mine to see people twist peoples words, or concepts and disrespect people or attack people unfairly... and to what end? Just to feed on negative energy? UGH! I hate it, especially when you can tell that is their point and purpose.

You know? You see it often here amongst both new and established members. It's the established members who are a part of the community that antagonize people regularly that do not fall into the Internet Troll definition at all since they are part of the established community already... but by MY (and many people's standards here) they are nothing but a troll just the same.

Originally posted by Jadette
I've always felt that a troll is someone who enters a thread, not out of any interest in the subject, but with some deliberate intent to piss people off and cause trouble.

Yeah, that would be an obvious troll, huh?! I agree!

Originally posted by Jadette
Posting unbacked up contrary opinons, while, in many ways a pointless display in any real debate, doesn't make these people Trolls.

Not everything is a debate anyway, but you are 100% correct! And if that is what mytym is speaking about exclusively, I agree 100% with mytym and you.

However it still depends on their intent and conduct. If a poster's tone and attitude and follow up posts are such that is disrespecting to others or obviously inflamatory...for the purpose of offending or being inflamatory-obviously feeding off negative energy...well a troll is a troll is a troll.

Well, all I can say is that at this point, I most certainly hope that people keep an open mind--or else be prepared for a public stoning. So, for those who strive to be better than themselves in terms of seeing all sides of a debate, more power to them.

We cannot let those people with closed minds or with "one-dimensional" thinking win with their bullying approach.

Funny for me. I found out first hand what it means to be soundly beaten by a "one-dimensional" thinker.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by ceci2006]

The Troll Toll

There are some who consider me to be one of the worst trolls on ATS, and I can't necessarily say they're wrong.

To be sure, there are some folks who sincerely set out to annoy others and disrupt discussion on Internet forums. They are, by their own choice, true Internet trolls in the classic sense.

However, many people who are labeled trolls are labeled unfairly. They are called trolls because they choose to disagree about something.

As mytym and others have pointed out, that's not what a troll really is.

To avoid making this grave mistake, I recommend not labeling other members. There's no need to. Rather, if you disagree with someone, feel free to attack the opinion you disagree with.

If you do it politely and reasonably, you may even change someone's mind -- and that's a very rare treat indeed!

Like Humans Do

On ATS, all points of view are welcome, provided they are expressed in accordance with the Terms And Conditions we all agree to honor by posting here. That's the standard we all live by, and it's a fair standard.

If someone violates the T&C, the staff is responsible for working with the offending member to correct the problem. Most T&C violations are (in my opinion) unintentional, so we try to be as fair and reasonable as possible.

Also, members can get worked up about some topics and fly off the handle, or just have bad days now and then. When that happens, we try to be understanding -- without letting the board devolve into what so many of us come to ATS to get away from.

The Golden Rule

As a staff member, I consider it my duty to be as accommodating to the needs of the membership as I can. However, I also consider it an important part of my role as a member of the community to act in a way I would want other members to act.

If we're nice to one another -- even in the middle of a flame war -- ATS will tend to be a nicer place overall, which is better for everyone.

In an environment of mutual respect, all opinions can be heard, and the question of who is right or wrong is left to each of us to decide for ourselves, which is precisely where that decision belongs.

Most people respond positively to this, but not all do. When that happens, sometimes the staff has to ban a member. And hey, let's face it: some members are out to get banned for kicks.

Whatever. We're here to help.

All The World's A Stage

Despite the efforts of a select few to incite drama and cause trouble, the vast and overwhelming majority of ATSers are just people who are interested in what we discuss around here and want to share their points of view.

Actually, if you look at the stats, the vast and overwhelming majority of people who come to ATS are here as guests. They read what we have to say, but don't post at all! At any given time, there are about ten times as many guests as members on ATS.

For me, that's a sobering statistic. Yes, we're only posting under pseudonyms here, but I'm always mindful of the guests and "lurkers" when I post.

Maybe it's silly, and God knows I tend to be long-winded to a fault (witness this post ), but I really want to give everyone who reads my posts something worth reading. The unusually high quality of the content of ATS forums is a testimony to the fact that I'm not alone in this ambition.

Some damn fine people post to ATS, and I'm proud to post alongside them.

The Taming Of The Troll

So what does this have to do with trolls?

In my opinion, trolls do what they do as a way of externalizing their own personal problems.

They are usually people who feel powerless and frustrated in life, so they seek to take advantage of the relative anonymity of the Internet to vent their frustrations. That's a very human thing to do, and consequently, there are many trolls on the Internet.

However, trolls are people too.

While there's no troll like an old troll, most trolls grow out of their squamous ways once they begin to resolve their issues (chiefly: moving out of their parents' basement). It's usually just a matter of time.

And though trolls may seem childish and stupid because they behave that way, many are actually quite interesting people once you get to know them. The curtain drops, the "troll mystique" vanishes, the drama subsides, and what was once a troll may end up becoming a valuable member of an online community.

When that happens, it's cause for celebration. Until then, however, the best approach to trolldom (perceived or factual) is to avoid letting them yank your chain (which is what trolls ceaselessly try to do, after all), be reasonable, be polite, lead by example and show them a better way.

Even when it may not get a troll to repent, you'll be a better member for it, and ATS will be a better place as a result.

Take it from an old troll.