I'm pissed!! (political trolls and hacks)

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
That's another thing I've been noticing on ATS as of late. Where's all the conspiracy threads going? Just recently, I saw a thread (probably the 10th one this year alone) about "How big are we in the universe?", comparing the Earth to the planets, the sun, the stars, etc.

Well, there is a problem with that. That is; How many actual conspiracies are out there? There can only be so many threads on the Illuminati, 9-11, etc. Limiting ATS to just conspiracies would regulate it to the backwaters of the internet. It would degenerate into nothing but posts like “ Was Elvis the gunman on the grassy knoll?” That would be sad.

I prefer to see ATS operate by its motto: Deny Ignorance. Posts such as the one you mentioned, while not conspiracy oriented, help defy ignorance. And also, even though they are not specifically conspiracy driven, they can have an ancillary effect in buttressing conspiracy based arguments. The post you mentioned, for example, could be very helpful in explaining the vastness of the universe and all its limitless possibilities to someone who denies the possibility of extraterrestrial life and cover-ups of visitations. Good information is always useful. It can be used in many ways - including fightin’ Trolls

To tie this into the OP: How are we defining Trolls here anyway? Yes, I know, someone that just posts one line profanity posts is obviously a Troll. But it’s not just political discussion that encourages trolling. How about people that are insisting that they have been abducted or privy to inside information from God? How can you say some of those are not trolling? We’ve all seen some of them get belligerent as well. Is ATS going to start watching any topic that encourages Trolls? That is any potential topic. Heck, one of the worst examples of idiocy and trolling I have ever seen here on ATS regarded a celebrity. Politics right now is just the main hot-button topic and it is bound to generate a lot of Trolls.

Firstly i congratulate you on your new sharpened fangs, at the moment their appears to be a full set of them all white and gleaming.
I do however take issue with an incident i had with a mod giving me a warning for saying exactly the same thing as you have boss, in a 9/11 thread a few days ago.

A number of people wer becoming more vexed and angered as the thread progressed, i made a first post saying to those who were becoming more wound up that all they need do is to stop responding to those people who were they felt "baiting" them, i implied the best thing they could do was deny them the platform they required by putting them on ignore.
I also postulated as to wether some people suffer from a sense of morbid curiosity and couldn't live without knowing what the next insult/put down would be.

I returned to the thread some time later to see that the baiting had continued and stated that there were a number of people in the the thread that i had put on my "Kill List".

For this i was warned and fined.

SO it appears its okay for you to use the word "Kill" when couched within the frame of referance of quieting someone, but not for me even though i had previously couched the frame of referance "KIll" by advising people to put others on ignore and to silence them.

So why, pray tell is it okay for you to use a term, and not for me, i dont believe i was being in any way devisive or inflamatory in my posts, in light of your opening post i would please ask you to look at the posts i made and adjudge wether or not the fine you imposed upon me of removing ATS points was fair.

Or does the problem go deeper due to some political leanings within the ATS leadership whom actually get the casting vote on wether or not someone is trolling based on current political views, and possible objectives that remain unsaid but nonetheless may exist with regards to some topics of great political importance.
You say you are impartial but that remains to be seen as day by day you must maintain that impartiality.

Out and out trolling is plainly visible for what it is but some well meaning people who dearly hold some views will invariably be called trolls, when all they are doing is defending either poorly or doggedly those views.

This is what you get when you google kill list


[edit on 25-2-2010 by The X]

reply to post by passenger

How are we defining Trolls here anyway? Yes, I know, someone that just posts one line profanity posts is obviously a Troll. But it’s not just political discussion that encourages trolling. How about people that are insisting that they have been abducted or privy to inside information from God? How can you say some of those are not trolling? We’ve all seen some of them get belligerent as well. Is ATS going to start watching any topic that encourages Trolls? That is any potential topic

I think you've expressed it very well there

and you've echoed what others are asking

As for 'troll buttons', it would mean the end of this site, obviously

because it would mean that any time any one (or group) of us disagrees with another, we need only hit the 'troll button' to silence opposition

edited to add: it's to be suspected the 'Alert' and 'Complaint' buttons are being used for that purpose anyway

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Dock9]

For the record, I was banned on another political forum for trolling. All I did was post about the 5 dancing Israelis after 9/11 with a link to whatreallyhappened.com as well as two other links to Hollywood photos detailing 9/11 before 9/11. It was an effort to display that corruption in government and the Hollywood elite runs at multiple levels. This was in a thread about Navy seals being railroaded for giving a terrorist a bloody lip.

The thing that flagged me as troll was posting about the 5 dancing Israelis. I hope this site doesn't follow that same path.

I agree. Can this policy please be extended to all threads on ATS. I stopped posting any where a long time ago due to the trolls and jerks. The immature behavior simply detracts.
Again Thank You.

reply to post by Alxandro


Brown nosing goes a long way in these parts but it isn't exclusive to mods and admin. Some person can post the most vile thread, or post with absolutely no evidence to support the claim, and guess what? His buddies will give him star after star after star. Most people here run in cliques, you know this, I know this, and most people who pay attention know this. If we have a system where bad or "falling stars" are given, we run the risk of perfectly good posts being removed.

So what should happen? We should probably eliminate the stars altogether and reward good posts with other incentives. However, the key to the problem is self moderation. Sadly, very few people practice self moderation when it comes to posting here, and as a result, it creates tension and creates a quagmire of foolishness, hypocrisy and deciet, and IMHO, THAT is what drives the page hits up and creates CHING CHING.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jackflap
So we should make posts without any hint of political bias one way or another?

Really?

That's the take-away you got from reading my post that centered on politically-inspired insults and gratuitous trolling?

The opening post has NOTHING to do with political bias, and even indicated our desire to embrace ideological political discourse.

Hence my comment about feigned confusion.

HAHAHA I believe what he means is that if you are dem/repub you can't tell repub/dem what an idiot they are if you don't agree with them.

reply to post by ohioriver


What if I want to tell them they're both idiots and provide proof as to why they are idiots? Am I trolling or explaining the conspiracy?

reply to post by LuxFestinus

The thing that flagged me as troll was posting about the 5 dancing Israelis. I hope this site doesn't follow that same path.

Those forums which demonstrate bias and 'ban' as a means of silencing those voices which fail to further the site's agenda ---- fall by the wayside. Because it soon becomes clear, after a short time of browsing the site, that it's working to a political or other agenda. So it only gains and keeps as members, those with the same agenda. Those who oppose that agenda give that forum wide berth and name and shame it in other fora. Lacking stimulating debate, it is not attractive to most. And it collapses or is reduced to a skeleton, of necessity, because its members are forced to go to other forums in order to further their agenda

It's a buyer's market out there, as far as forums go. Supply exceeds demand

OK, I have seen it posted here a few times now, and with all due respect I really think common sense should prevail on this one, but for those who have been asking how we are defining a troll....

This link has been Posted by SO in this very thread already. But again, this is how you can define a troll...

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Source
Let there be no more confusion on how to define Troll.

With that, I refer you back to my original statement



[edit on 25-2-2010 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by EMPIRE


Your opinion is not "proof" of anything.I think that's one of the points.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Ah thank you! Your description of what precisely trolling is was actually a big help to me. I mean I had an idea what a troll is but I really wanted to see it broken down into a description of the behavior. So thanks again!

reply to post by jackflap


I think you have misinterpreted what the spirit of the OP was.

Posting and applying your views and bias is not the problem. The problem is the attacks from ALL angles that have no merit for discussion other than just to attack mainly the person's character and their stance.

One can be passionate about their political leanings, stances and views while maintaining a baseline decorum and respect.

When baiting titles such as (purely thought up examples, not real titles on ATS): Sarah Palin is Retarded --> This post will not provide anything to the advancement of discussion other than fuel a deep chasm of hatred and mud-slinging from both sides. These, along those lines have always popped up here, but have been heavily more frequent in attempts to further ones ignorance by gaining the support of other ignorant posters that show no attempts in actual discussion.

I am highly passionate in my views and stances. I hold them as principles and will defend them in every post. It is how I have presented myself from day one and will never change that. While doing so, I am able to converse and debate heavily with those of opposing views that may get heated, but never hateful and hardly degrading.

So I say, do not be afraid to post with a bias, but remember you will have those against you and those with you.

I have a suggestion ATS...

From now one as a Member is found to be trolling instead of a red tag under their avatar that states "WARN" why not one that states [TROLL]?

I think a Nice puke green color would be cool.




Let them carry that around for about 40 or 50 posts, I would say for a few days but many would simply take a few days off until it was gone. I'm sure plenty of members here would love to see who has been trolling. Sorta like Jailhouse justice.

reply to post by EMPIRE


Empire...there are ways to prove one to be an idiot without directly telling them they are so. Tact and wit will always prevail in winning over and gaining understanding. As opposed to coming right out with slurs and contrived attacks.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I can feel your frustration, in this one statement. “I don't care about your complaints, because you don't care about us.”

I sympathize with your pain. ATS is your home.

Over the years I’ve lived in homes that were cracker box apartments and neighbors who were drug dealers that generated a seemingly continuous flow of seedy traffic, day in and day out, at all hours of the night.

One finally gets to the point and realizes, if you don’t respect me why should I respect you. One’s life metaphorically becomes a life lived on the battlefield.

May I prescribe a cup of green tea, and a copy of “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.
en.wikipedia.org...

Be patient, study the master's discourse carefully, plan your strategies wisely, and victory against the forces of disrespect is certain.

Thank you ATS, for inviting me into your home. I will try to be more mindful of my ways, from this point forward.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by seasoul]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

We are not discounting ideological discourse...

Again, this is so important, it needs to be said more than once, we are not discounting ideological discourse.

I understand, and support, the need for representatives of ideological viewpoints to debate policy stances and perceptions as it relates to important issues. I also concede that passionate expression is often an important component of productive debate.

I (and most thinking people) reject the contemporary notion that political discourse should be focused on character assassination and broad-stroke insults.

I (and our staff) encourage and embrace our members' ability, right, and responsibility to vigorously debate the merits of one ideology over another as it applies to proposed solutions for society's problems.

I'm glad you clarified that. I'm a bit of a political junkie with a left-leaning bias (but not on everything) who enjoys a good ideological debate.

I thought the U.S. Political Madness forum would have taken care of a lot of the energy that would otherwise be directed toward mud fights. I try to post the sillier and obviously more blatantly partisan news items there, and reserve the issues on which there can be a variety of respectfully differing opinions to the more "serious" political forums.

I also try hard not to insult anyone personally on any thread on any forum.

Still, I have been called a troll once or twice. I guess if the shoe fits. . . .

But your clarification of what constitutes a legitimate ideological discussion is very helpful to me.

i think of a troll as anyone who doesnt provide a unique opinion and at the same time demonizes a valid opinion. most times its a single sentence slander with the intent of getting an emotional rise from not only the OP but the entire audience.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Posting and applying your views and bias is not the problem. The problem is the attacks from ALL angles that have no merit for discussion other than just to attack mainly the person's character and their stance.

Thanks my friend. I was seriously confused but now I get the gist of what is being said in the opening post. I was confused because I realized that this type of behavior is not tolerated in any of the forums. This thread is focusing on the political forums and I thought there was something in addition to what I already knew. I guess I was looking too deeply? Thank you though.

Edit to add thank you to gimme_some_truth as well!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by jackflap]

reply to post by john124


Then why even bother pretending to care about trolling and name calling?