Blacklists, and Censors, and Trolls. Oh My!!

Great article Ock...

Intelligence is the most powerful tool any of us will ever possess... why anyone would move to limit the development of said intelligence is beyond me.

cheers to the thinkers out there...

BAM!!!

Ock - The key to avoiding blacklisting or trolling marks seems to be that once the owner of the blog has asked someone to desist from a  certain activity (my pet peeve are multi-page screeds as "comments"), then stop. If the user continues after being asked to stop then well they have crossed the line. Of course there will always be those folks who simply hop in to shout one or two-misspelled obscenities in the midst of a civil discourse or folks who can't be bothered to read an article or the comments follwing it before posting a "reply" and they will generally be hammered unmercifully.

Seems each person has their own definition of a 'troll'. I see trolling as making insulting, personal, inflamatory statements.

Just because a person disagrees, that doesn't make them a troll. If they become obnoxious in personal attacks, insults, and such, I then consider them trolling. Up to now, I have never blacklisted anyone, or even deleted a person's comments. Perhaps I'm strange but I enjoy reading opposing views and can learn from them. It would be mighty boring if everyone agreed on everything.

Sometimes the difference between healthy debate and trolling may simply be in the presentation. I have seen some remarks by people that were legitimate counterpoints wbut were presented in such a way as to be rather obnoxious. Not because of the point, but the way it is presented.

We would all benefit from giving a little more thought and craftsmanship to how we present our ideas in both articles and comments. (Pretty much exactly the way I didn't do here I wrote this on the fly.) Perhaps some hard feelings come from simply pounding out a response to something without taking the time to formulate the ideas into a properly constructed statement?

This article seems to have been well thought out and written although I disagree with the disagreement with the "house" analogy. The point of the analogy is that when commenting on someone's article, on their blog (in their house), it should be done with a certain amount of decorum. I agree wholeheartedly with this concept. It would go a long way toward propagating the debate without getting into name calling and 'accusations of "trolling". Even the most heated debate should be carried on with a certain amount of respect and "basic good manners".

That's my two cents

The key to avoiding blacklisting or trolling marks seems to be that once the owner of the blog has asked someone to desist from a certain activity

I don't avoid such things because in order to do so I would have to reroute my thinking to become acceptable to all or to change what I believe based on who I was speaking to. That would so water my belief system down that I would no longer be being honest with myself or with all of you, though I recognize that self-honesty isn't a universal trait.

All will continue to have every right, within the rules Brad sets down, to comment on THIS site. Let those that ban others for daring to disagree with the opinions they present as fact continue to reveal themselves to the world. I see it as positive that they are doing so.

Thanks for the links, and thanks too for not flaming me.  I have no issues with a well though out article counter-pointing my argument.

Namaste,

Dharma

The point of the analogy is that when commenting on someone's article, on their blog (in their house), it should be done with a certain amount of decorum.

I will grant that this is so, but I believe the number of "decorum units" required might vary from person to person. For instance, I prefer "Ock, you're being an asshole" over some less direct method of imparting the same idea. I certainly understand that others prefer their truth taken with a spoon of sugar, but even though I don't put full stock in Astrology, I can't help but to have noticed that "tact" is not a strong suit of Saggitarians, and I certainly am one. I don't blame the poor horse with human head for my plight, but I have enough self-actualization to realize I am as tactless as they come. I find "tact" to take up too much time. It is my responsibility to have the courage of my convictions, not the public's. I understand and respect that not all agree with this.

Even the most heated debate should be carried on with a certain amount of respect and "basic good manners".

Once again, I agree to a point. I admit I am thinking in particular of one particular banning of mine, and I am reticent to point at who it was, because dragging someone through the mud is, as you say, probably not "basic good manners". But consider that in some cases it is possible to break that rule in the original post, and that sets a precedent. To pass an opinion off on people that do not have the knowledge to defend themselves, for example, is a direct act of mental poisoning. No amount of vituberation is out of the box in terms of a response as far as *I* am concerned once that mentally violent act has been committed. In my particular case I think I went fairly easy on the person considering the abject lies that were posted as truth. In this particular case there was no debate. I was just banned automatically for having the temerity to suggest the person didn't really know what they were talking about, and I'm glad. My banning is their admission.

Hitting the troll button is a cowardly way of saying "youre an asshole." I dont need it, i'll come right out and say it if i feel its necessary.

For instance, I prefer "Ock, you're being an asshole" over some less direct method of imparting the same idea.

little_whip is a Saggitarian too, maybe? You know what they say - "Great minds think alike"

I guess ours do, too

I've never black listed someone who I thought was adding to the discussion.  I tend to black list people who are either obnoxious, abusive, or trying to hijack my article to talk about their own agenda.

It's a competitive world out there. There's no shortage of people wanting to comment on things so the article writer has the luxury of being able to filter our the nonsense.

I will grant that this is so, but I believe the number of "decorum units" required might vary from person to person. For instance, I prefer "Ock, you're being an asshole" over some less direct method of imparting the same idea. I certainly understand that others prefer their truth taken with a spoon of sugar, but even though I don't put full stock in Astrology, I can't help but to have noticed that "tact" is not a strong suit of Saggitarians, and I certainly am one.

Nor is it of Tauruses (of which I am one) who tend to be bullish about things.

I too think the house analogy is a little inaccurate insomuch as it's more like you're taking the doors off the hinges, rather than inviting people to your blog. Once you publish something to the web, it's pretty much fair game for anyone to critique or praise. Since the world is full of people who disagee with each other, more often than not you'll end up getting some unfavourable remarks. Some of these people will approach it with sensibility and intelligence, while others will use the literary equivalent of brimstone laden diarrhea. But, as has been said before, even though the doors are off the hinges, you still have the key to the gun safe and can therefore keep watch at the door, shotgun in hand.

- B

Thanks for adding to my vocabulary, what an unexpected treat! I had to look this one up, and its a great word but you misspelled it. vituperation---

Doh! I don't suppose you'd allow me to claim coinage on a hybrid between vituperations and vibrations, could I? Rats...busted as charged.

Did you know that Ockham's Razor ends up being a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, having to do with systemic 'choice' away from more energy intensive directions? Anyhow, NICE work!! You oughta be in pictures, or something like that. You go boy!!

I never liked the 'your blog is your home' definition for the very reason you state here....my home is not a public area while anything I write is. I take a very simple approach: If anyone disagrees with something I say on one of my own posts or a comment I have made on someone elses, and they are putting forward an argument (i.e. not personal abuse) I will respond to them with argument. If they are being abusive I will ignore them (a couple of times I havent and then realised I was just wasting words.) I have never used the troll button and never will, I have never used the blacklist and can't see myself using that either. Mainly I just could not be bothered doing it, another reason is the one you mention here, I opened this post up to 'the public' they can say whatever the hell they like and others can judge for themselves. But the killer reason is that I dont get many people reading my stuff.....so I just cant afford to blacklist anyone

Well, somebody just had to go and make me do it! After saying that I had never deleted anyone's comment on one of my articles, some jerk just had to make me do it. On one of my articles somebody (I won;t name names) pposted a rather lengthy comment that was not only obnoxious, but had absolutely nothing at all to do with the article in any way, shape, or form.

I just knew that as soon as I said I had never done it, some jerk would come along and change all that. Damn!

I have two people on permanent blacklist. Neither for anything said on my blog, but based on my interactions with them on other blogs. They were both insulting and nasty to people without cause. I don't want that garbage on my site.

I have blacklisted people at other times just because they temporarily pissed me off, but those blacklistings have been equally temporary.

I think the "standard definition" of trolling that you offer is a little too bland. "Someone who writes something for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of someone" is not a troll, because as you point out, we all want our posts to have some impact. But merely "getting a reaction" does not go to the crux of trolling. I would say that a better term would be "for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone". In other words, the goal of a troll is to get someone riled up in some way.

I will also defend the "Blog ~= home" analogy, to a certain extent. Here on JU, a blog entry is somewhat like a house party with open invitations. You have opened your doors and allowed the entire neighborhood in to your party. Different people have different standards about what behaviour is appropriate in their house, which translates into what kind of party they are throwing; some people have keggers in their basements, some have wine-and-cheese tastings in the dining room. Yelling "CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!" at the W&C party will probably not endear you to the host.

A blog isn't a home, that wishy washy poofter analogy is ridiculous.

A blog is a website where people write down their thoughts and random strangers post inane comments in reply.

A blog is a website where people write down their thoughts and random strangers post inane comments in reply.

Ok, now THAT is comedy. Well done, SPM.

Ok, now THAT is comedy. Well done, SPM.

Thank you dear boy

A blog is a website where people write down their thoughts and random strangers post inane comments in reply

Best definition of a blog I've seen to date.

Actually, a blog is a web log posted on a website.  The "home" analogy was just that, an analogy not a definition.  Take or leave it.  I don't care.  It was just a thought and it inspired others to think about how to treat others on their blogs.

Be it someone's actual home or their blog, I don't see it as a noble cause to condone nastiness.  I wouldn't put up with someone calling me a bitch in either realm.  If you don't mind people who are deplorable on your blog and can ignore it, good for you.  Just don't try to put your own standards upon others.  Don't look down your nose at someone who just doesn't want to deal with such irritants.

While I agree that it is wrong to blacklist just because someone opposes your stance on a subject, I don't see any merit in the "I won't blacklist or troll rate for any reason" stance.  Everyone has different needs fulfilled by blogging.  You can't expect everyone to fit your same template for blogging.  But that is just my opinion.

I blacklist people who are only wasting my time and aren't being entertaining about it when I'm trying to be serious.

For my blacklisting, I clearly stated that you are allowed to criticize the writing all you want. However, I draw the line at personal attacks. And wanting credentials? It's a fun, snarky website about music from the average person. It's not disseration of Romeo and Juliet,aimed only at academia!

Unpleasant comments I've received that have been along the lines of "crap review" or something along those lines. I've had my journalism professors tell me the same on occasion. Ocksham, you wanted something written focusing on the technical aspect of music, which my reviews are not about at all and will never be.

In real life, people do not want to be bullied and hear that opinion does not matter because of some insignificant detail, which in the long run doesn't really matter. I opt for the same on my blog. Those are my standards. Don't like them? That's your choice. As for it in being in character, well yeah that would be somewhat correct. I'm willing to stand up for myself and not let anyone just go on and on, personally attacking me.

However, I draw the line at personal attacks

As do I. Critical review of a blog article or a particular though expressed in a blog should be welcomed. It stimulates a good exchange of ideas. I enjoy it if someone disagrees with me as long as they can present a reasonable reason as to why they do. But, just to say "You're a silly ass for saying that" is just plain rude and I won't accept that.

Jill's analogy of a house was a good one in spite of all the nit-picking definitions of why it isn't. There is a certain decorum you follow depending on who's house you're in. A good, close bud's house you can be a bit rude. As a guest in someone else's house, you behave a bit more repectfully. It's as simple as that. You surely wouldn't go to an open house party and crap on the floor would you?

From Dusk411:

Ocksham, you wanted something written focusing on the technical aspect of music, which my reviews are not about at all and will never be.

Then it isn't a "music review" is it? And isn't that what you advertise it as?

I champion your right to your opinion, Dusk. I also champion the rights of your readers to know the truth.

Welcome to my blog, and enjoy your stay. There's cold beverages in the fridge and chips for days.

from Jilluser:

Be it someone's actual home or their blog, I don't see it as a noble cause to condone nastiness.

There is a difference between holding someone accountable for statements they make that hurt people (which I consider to be nastiness going in the public's direction, albeit a passive nastiness) and calling them names.

To all:
Hurt people, you say? Go talk to some NYC subway musicians that play their buns off and ask them why they don't have recording contracts. It's because the people that generate excitement (and therefore dollars) for music artists focus on everything except that artists actual music ability. And Dusk411, if your conscience can remain clear, then review on. Do try to get to the NYC subway someday, though...I think it might change your mind.

Good points Ock
But I have a few suggestions.
Shorten your sentences. One thought to a line. Your ideas are getting muddied from alluding. Fix that and I am sure you will make many intelligent comments.