Serpwidgets said:
No, what I'm talking about is the complaints that people discuss a thread in chat, together and where the other poster doesn't see it, and then some of them that were dicsussing it will go post in the thread, and are accused of "ganging up" on someone.
That is exactly what is happening here, they "discuss that thread on this board, together and where the other poster doesn't see it, and then some of them that were dicsussing it will go post in the thread."
OK, now that I know what you're driving at, should I head over to Fauna and invite Clarinet and/or bplover to read this thread? I'd be more than happy to.
So what if "meta-discussions" take place? It's done all the time, in real life discussions and online. IMO, the fact that a number of people begin to discuss the person and not their question is not the issue. That's normal form; after all, "ad hominem" is translated to "to the man".
But it's the content in said form that can foster groupthink, be it an air of infallibility, increased cohesion, and/or forming a false consensus. When a frustrated n00b/troll/idiot in chat is derided, it's not done by any one individual, it's the pack. We've seen it done, we're both guilty of it, and it'd be naive at best and denial at worst to claim that such a dynamic doesn't exist in chat.
And if I'm understanding it correctly, Rich is kindly asking us to knock THAT off, regardless of, or more likely
because of, his claim of "esss mah house!!!", that you referred to yesterday in chat.
Yep, it's his house. We're merely guests at this crab boil. Uninvited ones, at that.
How so? Are you holding the position that something like a group dynamic doesn't exist in chat or online, or is it ridiculous because it leaves you with the limited options that you've listed?
If it's the former, let me refer to a situation that didn't happen in chat, but here in the forums:
Remember this guy? Simply because he liked to look at, and comment on, the pictures in the photo gallery, this gentle soul was run out by the villagers who didn't care for reading all of his complimentary posts on the pretty snakes.
There was a poll created on this guy, for Chrissakes, because, as best as I can understand it, some conspiracy theorists thought he was trying to inflate his reputation points by increasing his posts. It was pathetic. And yep, it was a pack mentality.
If you think it's ridiculous because of the latter, well, let's discuss the options you listed:
So basically the options are:
1- I sit in the open chatroom and listen to you feed the troll for an hour.
And the point to the stance I've taken in this thread is that it's time we stop feeding the trolls, since whining to Rich shows that we're not much better than 'em. Yes, it's easier said than done, and no doubt - at first glance, this is a hypocritical statement from me, as I'm right in there with everyone else. But unless you're Garth Algar, change is nothing to fear.
2- I put the troll on ignore and listen to you not make any sense for an hour.
You don't need to put a troll on ignore for me to not make any sense.
One of the "challenges" of chat, if you will, is trying to make sense of a barrage of serious questions, smartass replies, obscure references, bad puns, and the occasional haiku.
3- I put both you AND the troll on ignore and then listen to other people in the room responding to things that don't make sense for an hour. And I consider that rude because I do think of you as a friend and you might have something relevant to say to me.
Backatcha, and agreed...not a viable option - so just put the troll on ignore.
4- I go create a room where the troll gets booted when they come in. (Then Dale says "you are lemmings")
5- I go create a password-protected room where the troll can't get in. (Then Dale says "you are elitist lemmings.")
These two beg the question:
Have you not read any of my other posts in this thread?
Apparently not, so I'll state my primary point again:
Rich has asked that we alter our behavior lest we lose the privilege he's given us. This includes Joejr's "GTFO" to Joe_jo. This includes my "c-word" to Clarinet. This includes your creating a "No Tards", "Boas Suck", or "Smart People Only" room. This includes Misty's "If you don't like it, you can leave the way you came in." This includes Carlos' "cuz boas suck". (And yeah, this list is not comprehensive or meant to single any one person out.)
If, in your eyes, I'm hypocritical given my past behavior....
If anyone thinks of me as a sellout who is hiding behind Rich....
If I'm now considered a pariah to the gang in chat....
If you think I'm a "flip-flopper".....
And especially if you think I'm "scolding" everyone in chat.....
.....I don't give a damn. This is an issue greater than your perception of me.
Back to Robert Wallace, briefly. In that "poll" thread over a year ago, Rich chimed in with these gems:
Rich Z said:
Now I am not going to mention any names or otherwise try to embarrass anyone, but I want EVERYONE engaged in this whole affair over the last several days to just stand back and do a self evaluation. Was what YOU did really justified? Was it something you are proud of doing? Do you think it may be in everyone's best interests here to just hold your tongue and not immediately think the absolute worst about someone right off the bat? Why in the world would you want to alienate people who are coming here because they have the same interest and love of corn snakes as do most of the rest of us? What's the point to doing that?
I am going to close this by asking any of you who might be a bit in the wrong here to please be a bit more considerate and try to give people the benefit of the doubt. And more pointedly, if someone is not HURTING someone or something, then don't try to force your opinion of values on them and judge them wanting because they are not you. Just because YOU wouldn't do something that way does not necessarily mean that it is wrong because someone else does.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for all of us.
Or as the members of the Church of The Subgenius say, "Pull the wool over your own eyes".
Serpwidgets said:
There is no winning option here.
Sure there is! Carol touched on it in her post above. Rich touched on it in the fourth post in this thread:
Rich Z said:
I believe the chat room has a perfectly good IGNORE feature. So use it, if need be. If you WANT to go combative towards someone, then you are not part of the solution, YOU are part of the problem. No one HAS to argue with someone else on the internet.
If this is an inconvenience to those in chat trying to make sense of posts.......:sobstory:
Serpwidgets said:
Either we get away from the troll, or listen to them for an hour. And no matter what anyone does, Dale has a name to call them.
Yep, I'm on the boards here and in chat to maximize my name-calling opportunities. Your mother was a hamster, and your father yada yada yada.
Besides, as Connie has said and to which I agree, nothing wrong with elitism. IMO, it helps to set standards and can motivate us to do/be (no, that's not Sinatra) better.
That said,
and if I may paraphrase.....I don't need chat to know that I'm better than you.
So you say. To me, what's lame is the lack of desire to change to make this a better situation for everyone because of a perceived limit of options available.
So tell me, Dale, what option are we to take where we are not plagued by trolls and we are not being mean/elitist/lemmings?
"If you can figure out a way to keep cretins off of a website, I'll buy a dozen of your solutions. Name your price.............."
In the meantime, we'll just have to not feed the trolls. I understand this requires some behavior modification on our part, and will thus require effort in a venue where the most amount of effort we want to exert is coming up with the funniest response.
Change is not easy, but can be gratifying.
regards,
jazz
