What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[bush_cheney2004]

Incredible....despite strong recommendations to use the Ignore feature, they persist in responding to "trolls".

[On Guard for Thee]

Yup.

But an old fart, long in the tooth and late to the game.

Old trolls never die. They just lose relevance.

2004?

Really?

.

Endorsing both Bush and Cheney has to tell you something.

[jacee]

Endorsing both Bush and Cheney has to tell you something.

Ya. Irrelevant. ?

[scribblet]

Incredible....despite strong recommendations to use the Ignore feature, they persist in responding to "trolls".

All I can say is you must be doing something right to get their knickers in such a knot

[On Guard for Thee]

All I can say is you must be doing something right to get their knickers in such a knot

If thats all you can say, why bother saying anything.

[cybercoma]

there's no consensus on trolls.

Consensus. Hah.

[On Guard for Thee]

Consensus. Hah.

Just a guess but I bet there is consensus on at least one.

[Michael Hardner]

That I agree with.....it's not a democracy......MH won't say that though..... .

It's not a democracy...

[WWWTT]

Clue: this forum is not a democracy.

Here a troll, there a troll, everywhere a troll troll.

You're all bunch of freekin trolls!

And this is the BATTLE OF THE TROLLS THREAD!

WWWTT

Edited March 8, 2015 by WWWTT

[Bob Macadoo]

Incredible....despite strong recommendations to use the Ignore feature, they persist in responding to "trolls".

......I'd never ignore you as you once in awhile introduce useful rhetoric to ignite conversation. Which is why you are protected I imagine.

[Michael Hardner]

Which is why you are protected I imagine.

"Protected" is a loaded term. A better way to think about it is this: There has been a lot of thought put in to consider the many forms of discussion that we engage in at MLW. It's very difficult to objectively separate an argument where a point is being made repeatedly, versus a troll... at least in some cases. Certain arguments and points just RANKLE people, sometimes because they attack some of our sacred cows. But that's what discussion is supposed to do: challenge you to think about your position.

People are not "protected", but rather - forms of discussion are.

[Bob Macadoo]

"Protected" is a loaded term. A better way to think about it is this: There has been a lot of thought put in to consider the many forms of discussion that we engage in at MLW. It's very difficult to objectively separate an argument where a point is being made repeatedly, versus a troll... at least in some cases. Certain arguments and points just RANKLE people, sometimes because they attack some of our sacred cows. But that's what discussion is supposed to do: challenge you to think about your position.People are not "protected", but rather - forms of discussion are.

Deflection:

"If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck but ever barked like a dog....I must defend the chance he may bark again."

[Charles Anthony]

"If it quacks like a duck, barks like a dog and talks back to you, you choose: engage or run away!"

Ergo boges 'CBC is "state controlled" is not a debate point it's to excite cyber or eyeball.'

Now what did I do?

You are guilty of feeding trolls and thread drift!! You stepped 6 degrees of separation too close to the fray!!!!

BRING ON THE BAN HAMMER!!

There is no debate when it comes to the CBC, and I will continue to hammer the point home as often as I please. Ditto other topics without regard to other members' excitable sensitivities. There is nothing special about Canada or Canadians in this regard, just as some here think it is open season on 'murica and other nations.

Youre right, there is no debate on CBC, you lose,move on.

It certainly sounds like there is a debate.

Regardless, you guys are engaging in thread drift. Here is a challenge: Someone start a thread discussion or a poll debating this issue. Put up or shut up.

Seriously, guys. Can you not all lighten up? It is a great topic of debate. As a spectator, I would enjoy reading you guys lock horns over this topic. How odd that none of you have stepped up to start a topic.

I believe that the definitions of racism and bigotry are the same for all people. It is not illegal to be a racist or bigot. The conditions are very clear. If you disagree with the definition then that is your choice. Perhaps someone could (hello moderator) could post what definition of racist and bigot is to be used properly on this site.

No. That would be useless because a consensus is unnecessary. It is none of anybody's business to be labelling anybody other than oneself.

For what it may be worth, I consider myself to be both a racist and a bigot too. The public expression of my thoughts along those themes is illegal.

In your opinion. Many posters disagreed with you. It isn't so clear after all.

So what? There's posters here that would disagree about the sky being blue too.

That seems to be the million dollar question.

How much of your effort would you expend arguing the color of the sky?

I will bet $2 that you would likely ignore, move on and forget somebody who argued the color of the sky.

I personally don't like words with lose definitions.

Neither do I but unfortunately, most people can not intelligently define most of the words they use, share and automatically presume to be in 100% agreement without hiding circularity behind rhetoric.

Human nature is astoundingly bizarre in that way. I think it gives rise to a lot of modern humor.

By any chaqnce could you re-do the polling on this,

No. It does not matter.

What matters is how to deal with trolling --- that is the true dispute but you knew that already. How Greg wants us to deal with trolling here at MLW renders the definiton of Trolling™ moot.

Like I said,

TRANSLATION: You want the world to believe I am biased and playing favorites here to the detriment of the quality of the discussions. Is that it? If so, I acknowledge your perspective but I disagree.

Like? Like who? LOL I "like" everybody here --- equally, that is.

I would bet that ...

... but how much are you willing to bet? If the price is right, I might take you up on it.

... there is one poster who has been reported many times from trolling by many members. Ah , you know screw it, we've had this discussion before and we have gotten nowhere, while the shitting up of threads continue.

Come on, everybody trolls each other a bit. I enjoy reading disagreements over core values and you all do a good job of making your stands heard. I see value in 99% of everybody's posts. I just wished you all were a little more cordial and clear.

Do you need help with solving these problems?

I do not believe so but I am willing to agree with you but on 2 conditions:

1) You follow what I already said up above:

If you Report a post and you expect moderator intervention, please offer a recommendation of precisely what that intervention should be --- in your opinion.

If you Report a post and you want an explanation, start by explaining yourself first. Do not just say: "This is trolling OBVIOUSLY!!! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!" but rather say: "This is obviously trolling because....." and give us something to discuss with you through the PM function.

2) You ignore whatever and whoever you believe to be trolling.

More like help defining the problem. It's obvious he doesn't see any of it as problematic.

What is it that is supposed to be seen as problematic?

There are 2 different disputes here that are being conflated:

1) theee definition of Trolling™ --- like as if it matters;

2) the proper way of handling Trolling™ whenever it is suspected.

For some strange reason, many of you seem fixated on defining Trolling™ --- like as if it matters. You guys do not get it: there is no need for any of us to pursue consensus on what constitutes trolling and what does not. We need only agree on HOW TO HANDLE presumed trolling: ignore it and do not respond in kind.

At its core, this whole dispute is reduced to a disagreement upon this tenet: Ignore the troll and he will go away.

For what it may be worth, if you ignore ANYBODY(troll or otherwise) he will likely go away too. Just a thought.

I believe I know why this dispute exists. Some of you want a bit of trolling-leeway for yourselves. Obsession with defining Trolling™ is a diversion from reality: you all disagree on stuff quite vehemently and it terrifies you to have to handle such disputes in real life. A lot of your rhetoric would quickly lead to fisticuffs if spoken face to face. If I try to imagine the discussions being cartoon scripts, I would be disappointed if there were no slap-stick scenes --- like, all of the time.

You all know it is impossible for everybody to agree on a universally-accepted ordained-by-God definition of Trolling™ and so, you foment a perpetual diversion. Subconsciously, you guys are your own controlled opposition.

[WWWTT]

I believe I know why this dispute exists.

Ya I don't think so.

The original thread topic theme was lost long ago and you have become an equal participant in "THE BATTLE OF THE TROLLS" thread!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

The biggest improvement we could have on this site is to stop talking about moderation, since it should be patently obvious that nothing is going to change. Like it or lump it.

[GostHacked]

The biggest improvement we could have on this site is to stop talking about moderation, since it should be patently obvious that nothing is going to change. Like it or lump it.

If you cant beat the trolls, join them in their asshattery.

[cybercoma]

If you cant beat the trolls, join them in their asshattery.

Exactly. Obviously it's not a banworthy offence. Might as well troll the hell out of the forum. If people don't like it, they can "report and ignore."

[jbg]

BC's posts infiltrate almost every thread on this forum with his trolling poisonious bs. I have complained many times how his posts seem to drive this forum and the mods don't seem to notice. How many times do the mods need to receive complaints before they take action? 1000, 2000, 10,000?

The problem is we have lost so many posters, through bans, leaving or otherwise. Some of those posters were good and some not so good. Overall that has slowed the forum down a bit much.

I myself now look at MLW second or third when I go to post rather than first. That means, on a busy day, I may not get to it at all.

[jbg]

/internet-trolls-may-be-trained-government-agents-according-to-leaked-document/

DUH ... YA THINK!?!

.

I would hope the government has better things to fund than losers who have no life other than the Internet.

[GostHacked]

I would hope the government has better things to fund than losers who have no life other than the Internet.

You are not getting it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-networks-research-twitter-influence-studies

The activities of users of Twitter and other social media services were recorded and analysed as part of a major project funded by the US military, in a program that covers ground similar to Facebook’s controversial experiment into how to control emotions by manipulating news feeds.

Research funded directly or indirectly by the US Department of Defense’s military research department, known as Darpa, has involved users of some of the internet’s largest destinations, including Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Kickstarter, for studies of social connections and how messages spread.

While some elements of the multi-million dollar project might raise a wry smile – research has included analysis of the tweets of celebrities such as Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, in an attempt to understand influence on Twitter – others have resulted in the buildup of massive datasets of tweets and additional types social media posts.

Several of the DoD-funded studies went further than merely monitoring what users were communicating on their own, instead messaging unwitting participants in order to track and study how they responded.

Shortly before the Facebook controversy erupted, Darpa published a lengthy list of the projects funded under its Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, including links to actual papers and abstracts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

The amendment — proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed in the House last Friday afternoon — would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

Now it's important to note that this Hastings guy died in a fiery car crash. Which does not seem suspicious. Right? How do we know you are not one of those hired to try and influence the board? How do you know I am not one of them!?

[Argus]

I myself now look at MLW second or third when I go to post rather than first. That means, on a busy day, I may not get to it at all.

What's first?

[Argus]

Now it's important to note that this Hastings guy died in a fiery car crash. Which does not seem suspicious. Right? How do we know you are not one of those hired to try and influence the board? How do you know I am not one of them!?

Neither of you is subtle enough for that. Nor am I, for that matter.

Such a poster, if he existed, would post in a more moderate manner, and stick doggedly to a limited number of talking points.

[Michael Hardner]

What's first?

No.... WHO is on first. What's on second !

[GostHacked]

Neither of you is subtle enough for that. Nor am I, for that matter.

Such a poster, if he existed, would post in a more moderate manner, and stick doggedly to a limited number of talking points.

Who said they need to be moderate? There are some posters here who have a limited number of talking points.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Who said they need to be moderate? There are some posters here who have a limited number of talking points.

why would a gov t agency waste resources to post here on mlw. A board so small that it doesn't really matter at all in the broad scope of things.

It would make more sense to infiltrate the news comment boards since it has a much larger readership.