Dear monastery
A fellow monk singlehandedly invented the reap category "troll-feeding", and keeps applying it as consideration.
It's normally declined, but I'm wondering why so many people still consider this reap worthy.
Or do people nowadays just always click reap when they see a consideration?
I'm bringing this up, because this amounts to a silent change in policy which should be discussed.
FWIW: I wrote this comment before the parent was considered, and it was not apparent for me that it's really worth reaping.
But still, if we start inventing such categories it'll border at censorship, at least.
|
Re: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by jdporter (Paladin) on Aug 05, 2019 at 14:38 UTC
|
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!
I don't like to see unfriendly arguing, but I'm glad that the topic at least is being discussed.
Let's be clear: "feeding the troll" is not a reason for reaping.
But any given node has, potentially, more than one attribute. It is possible for a node which is troll-feeding also to be trolling in itself.
Moderators must use their discretion in deciding whether to vote 'reap' on a node; but "feeds the troll" should have no weight in the decision.
Any monk who feels that a node has been inappropriately reaped should /msg gods about it.
Thanks. Be good to each other.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Thanks jdporter. Just so I'm clear, IIUC you're saying the policy (irrespective of the Policy) is that a reply in a ten-year old thread by an anonymonk like:
The personal attacks on the OP are remarkably stupid, vile, and hypocritical. Who are any of you s**tstains to call him or her a jerk? Most of the people who commented are useless scum, but Brian D Foy is actually a person of note, yet writes stuff like "jerks like you" and "the new braindead megaphones" -- ah, so *some* newcomers are to be coddled but others are to be viciously attacked. This is all virtue signalling by the emotionally immature. Compare to the sensible, useful comment from ikegami. He provides some useful cautions for potential users of this module, as does the OP.
where the poster is crudely expressing his righteous indignation about something that was actually said, is trolling, and thus can and should be considered, whilst a reply by a high-ranking monk like:
so emotional, clever trolling!
may *not* be considered for troll-feeding.
Oh.
But at least the latter, which surely is the only example of "trolling" from among the pair, *may* be considered for trolling itself. And, may it also separately be considered because it is a node with no parent *and* adds no value?
(Side note about that last part. As related by footpad, one of the guiding principles is that we don't want to "change history," which I presume is why reaping is not automatically performed cascadingly. But reaping anything obviously changes history, so, um, yeah. Shouldn't that prime directive be changed to "we don't want to have nodes with no value?" That's what actually happens anyway, plus a soupçon of favouritism ...
Anyway I'm glad I may continue to consider posts like the latter above, on the grounds that it is trolling, in isolation from the post it may or may not have been replying to.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
|
|
I'll say it again: Trolling, at least if it's egregious enough, is reason for reaping. Troll-feeding is not.
I should also remind that the onus for proper moderation is on the one who makes the consideration and on those who vote on it.
If three five monks together agree that a node should be reaped, then it may* get reaped.
But what we should never see is a reason for reaping like "troll-feeding", because that's not a valid reason.
If you think the node is trolling, then consider/reap it for that.
What I'm concerned about, in this discussion, is how the term "troll-feeding" is being used. Your example,
so emotional, clever trolling!
is not what I would call troll feeding anyway. At least, you can't tell, by itself. It depends on whether it is in reply to a trolling post.
I personally would probably vote 'reap' on such a node, because it is, as you pointed out, a zero-value node.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
Re: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by hippo (Bishop) on Aug 03, 2019 at 14:58 UTC
|
DNFTT.
this amounts to a silent change in policy
It really doesn't. The policy has not been changed, silently or otherwise.
Troll-feeding is anti-social and self-defeating but it isn't a good reason for consideration. Down-vote and move on.
| [reply] |
|
|
> has not been changed, silently or otherwise.
Silently ignoring a new practice means paving the way to acceptance.
The policy doesn't even mention "trolls", only
To reap a highly offensive posting. PerlMonks is meant to be family friendly. And perhaps more importantly, we'd like to keep PerlMonks off of corporate blacklists which would prevent worthy monks from participating while at work.
> Troll-feeding is anti-social
I already explained why I did what I did, but I'm not concentrating on this post alone.
| [reply] |
Re: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by davies (Prior) on Aug 03, 2019 at 14:59 UTC
|
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================
I first came across this term (ascii art from http://jni.sdf-eu.org/trolls.html) in the 1990s. I do not know how to check if it is a term I have used in considerations. If I have not, that would surprise me. I strongly support the argument that the best thing to do with trolls is to reap them without feeding them.
Regards,
John Davies
Update: I should have remembered xkcd://386, too. | [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
perhaps just the tab of the zipper? (or drapery)
| [reply] |
|
|
Excuse my trolling but do I see the troll's genitals there?
I think it's important that we define the troll as a tactic with the subject rather than a personal attribute. In the latter context, it amounts to name-calling and would better be left unsaid in my opinion. What I'm suggesting is that we think of "the troll" as "trolling," like one would if fishing off a boat.
How another hooks on is his business. I find it noteworthy that the 'trolls from usenet' had nothing to add to the forum. Meanwhile, Lanx helps me and others reliably and frequently, part of our fantastic german crew. I amaze at how good their english is....
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
LanX you are full of what is known around here as horsepucky.
Last 16 nodes considered reaped:
Given your complete awareness of and participation in the real-life implementation of considerations, not to mention your awareness of, participation in and sometimes instigation of similar threads in the past, all of which conclude the same, I am forced to question the reason for your sudden dogmatism for the Policy. It's so disingenuous it makes me think it's just an attempt to raise controversy, sow discord, maybe pick up a few XP and get your critic a few downvotes ... pretty much like trolling.
Might have to go consider the OP here ;-)
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
Re: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by 1nickt (Canon) on Aug 03, 2019 at 15:31 UTC
|
Sadly this thread is based on a false narrative because Lanx can't or doesn't care to read. His post was considered, as the title of this thread quotes, because it had no parent. The fact that it was troll-feeding was noted but was not the reason for consideration.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
|
|
All of this has happened before; all of it will happen again.
Once upon a time, the janitors saw similar, though slightly different behavior. At that point, I tried to articulate the concerns as well as what we (then) saw as the path forward. It led to a pretty awesome, sometimes uncomfortable, thread. Perhaps there's value in refreshing memories.
Yes, things have changed since then, but (as the French observe), "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
As always, mileage may vary...
--f
| [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
| | A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
|
|
