Is Countertrolling a Troll The Answer

[kphoger]

or try to force their beliefs on others

Every religion does this.

Count how many religions are mentioned in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary

I think there's a substantial difference between (a) attempting to win people over to your religion by means of conversation and literature and (b) insisting that secular society abide by the standards of your religion by means of legislation and force.  I'm perfectly fine with (a) and, the last time I got a knock on the door from a couple of Mormons, I invited them in, and my wife and I had about a 45-minute conversation with them about religion.  However, (b) get really messy, because a person's religious beliefs also tend to inform what they believe is good or bad for society in general–not just within his or her own religious community.  For example, a Muslim might abstain from alcohol for religious reasons, but it's reasonable to assume he or she also believes that society in general would be better off if everyone abstained from alcohol, and thus it's reasonable to expect him or her to support laws that restrict or prohibit alcohol.

Here's the difference between us–I don't believe someone should have to tolerate and endure racist and homophobic beliefs when they're on this forum. They are here to read all about roads and the various aspects of Limon, Colorado, not have their identity as a person slandered. They probably get enough of that elsewhere.

Given that there's absolutely no need to be racist or homophobic when talking about roads, there's really no good reason to let it stand.

I agree with you that any discussion of race or sexual orientation is bound to be off-topic here–unless maybe it's a discussion about the causes and effects of highway projects in minority neighborhoods (not that anyone here would ever talk about that, and not that any accusations of racism would get thrown around in such a discussion, and not that any of those accusations would be warranted... ha ha).  So, in that sense, I agree that there's no reason to tolerate any such speech at all.  Just keep in mind that, when certain worldviews are allowed to be expressed and others are not, you may actually be "making members of our forum have to choose between putting up with that or leaving the forum".  Basically, you are adopting a position of exclusion in the name of inclusion.  Obviously, that's your prerogative as one of the gatekeepers of this forum and, as long as you're honest in saying that some people's beliefs are welcome here and others' are not, then at least your actions are consistent.  I think a fairer way of handling things would be to viciously eradicate all mention of race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc–whether you personally agree with the comment being made on the topic or not;  however, that would end up being too authoritarian of an environment in my opinion.  I appreciate that we have a good deal of leeway when it comes to such topics, and that moderator action only happens when things are approaching or have already passed a flash point.

In short, I think the way things are on here now is pretty good.  I really wouldn't change much at all.

Other than rah, rah, free speech, but then that's never been absolute (and doesn't legally apply to a privately-owned group like AARoads anyway).

Oh, for sure.  I went off talking about generalities that apply to life in general.  I really wasn't talking about this forum specifically at that point.

I also think it's likely that you may not appreciate the difference between something like making fun of you for the state you live in, and being a member of a protected class. If someone were to make fun of me for being from Oklahoma, I'd probably laugh along with them and make fun of Oklahoma too. If someone were to make fun of me for my sexual orientation, or were to make fun of my wife for being Native American, that hits a lot different because both of those are both things people have been killed over. So far as I know there's never been a large swath of people saying "The only good Oklahoman is a dead Oklahoman."

You're probably half right.

I mean, of course I know there's a clear difference between those two things–whether people have been killed over the latter or not, in fact.  I struggled to respond intelligently to your "Everyone who lives in Wichita, Kansas is a sucker" post precisely because you seemed to be saying they were comparable.  If you expand the scope beyond just what state you live in, then things actually get kind of muddy.  Americans are routinely characterized elsewhere in the world as loud, ignorant, materialistic, thoughtless, arrogant, and wealthy–so, in a sense, we all have to decide to either get offended or laugh along at the caricature.  This is not just theoretical for me, considering I do ministry work in northern Mexico, where my race serves as a proxy for my nationality, and a whole host of cultural baggage is assumed of me simply by my being white in a place where almost everyone who looks like me is an American.  Most people there are very polite when they're in our company, but I have to be careful not to forget that what they say about us after we've parted ways isn't necessarily the same.  My best friends have now lived in that area for a few years and, during that time, they have had their house broken into and burglarized, and their vehicle stripped of parts–in a town where crime is otherwise generally low.  I've also experienced racism against me in the minority-majority neighborhoods of Chicago.  So, while I may not know exactly what it's like to be a Native American, I do know what it's like to be a minority.

On the other hand, I've never been in the minority when it comes to sexual orientation, for obvious reasons.  I'm not sure it's even possible for me, as a straight man, to fully appreciate what it's like to be the target of homophobia.

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

Not being religious myself, this is a known blind spot for me. If you feel like a post is going too far, feel free to report it, and I'll take a look at it (and so will the other mods, who may be more competent on the matter).

On the one hand, thank you.  I really appreciate that.  On the other hand, I don't already report such posts precisely because I appreciate the other person's freedom to express their beliefs without fear of reprimand.  They're free to hate religion, or my religion, and I respect that.

(and don't forget, people have been killed over religion too)

[roadman65]

Oh it’s called respect.  We don’t respect nowadays and we try hard to get others to view like our own selves.

I belong to the Knights of Columbus and I love their charity work is why I belong. However, they have a part separated from the Knights called the Fourth Degree which in my opinion is overrated. It’s supposed to be about patriotism, but after attending their initiation ceremony, I find it not to be that but an FU to certain other non Catholics despite it was founded in 1900 to prove to Protestants that Catholics are as American as they are. Yet the exempflication said otherwise.

Needless to say, I declined to join the Fourth, but believe strongly in the original core as that’s what the Knights truly are. However I respect other members who join the fourth and profess it despite its not for me. I will not go two miles to stop another member for partaking in the Fourth Degree initiation.

Why? Because I respect others beliefs. If they want to like the Fourth let them. Just because I don’t shouldn’t stop them.

[kphoger]

– May the Fourth be with you.
– And also with you.

[Big John]

– May the Fourth be with you.
– And also with you.

The Vatican recently changed "And also with you" to "And with your spirit".

[kphoger]

– May the Fourth be with you.
– And also with you.

The Vatican recently changed "And also with you" to "And with your spirit".

I was unaffected.  I grew up Lutheran and now attend a Baptist church.

[roadman65]

– May the Fourth be with you.
– And also with you.

It is. Even though I'm not a member as a Knight I have to accept it as being part of our organization despite my not participating in it.

[Roadgeekteen]

Looks like the mods are still trying to save this thread by deleting a bunch of posts. The ship may have sailed at this point...

[hotdogPi]

Looks like the mods are still trying to save this thread by deleting a bunch of posts. The ship may have sailed at this point...

I prefer deletions and keeping the thread alive rather than a lock.

[Roadgeekteen]

Looks like the mods are still trying to save this thread by deleting a bunch of posts. The ship may have sailed at this point...

I prefer deletions and keeping the thread alive rather than a lock.

I don't really think that there is much worth saving in this thread. It got into religious content like a few pages ago.

[bugo]

That update on Freeways of Los Angeles this morning made me do a double take.  That's one of the strictest Facebook groups I'm a member of.  I know some of the backstory of how things got how they are on this group but I have to wonder how tenable it will be now long term. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the admin of the Freeways or Los Angeles page.  He did ask me to post more fairly recently when I was speaking with him on a group call.  I didn't want to tell him the reason I don't is because all the posts by group members have to be approved and it takes to long for my tastes. 

What is the backstory? In what ways are they strict?

If he really wanted you to post more, he would add you to the preapproved list so your posts wouldn't have to be manually approved.

[Max Rockatansky]

That update on Freeways of Los Angeles this morning made me do a double take.  That's one of the strictest Facebook groups I'm a member of.  I know some of the backstory of how things got how they are on this group but I have to wonder how tenable it will be now long term. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the admin of the Freeways or Los Angeles page.  He did ask me to post more fairly recently when I was speaking with him on a group call.  I didn't want to tell him the reason I don't is because all the posts by group members have to be approved and it takes to long for my tastes. 

What is the backstory? In what ways are they strict?

If he really wanted you to post more, he would add you to the preapproved list so your posts wouldn't have to be manually approved.

There was an incident a couple years ago where a former forum user tried to copyright claim several shared photos from his page in numerous California Highway groups.  Since then the admin of Freeways of Los Angeles has put in the post approval and tends to be cautious.  The group content tends to run very high but it also leads to viable posts being missed and/or deleted without much explanation. 

I tend to not run things quite as strict in groups I manage but I can respect the rationale. 

[Alps]

Ok I don't take it as far as HB. I think that things like racism and homophobia should be taken down, but other stuff should be fine.

I don't think racism or homophobia should be taken down unless the post in question is abusive towards someone else.  Simply stating one's beliefs, no matter how bad, shouldn't be reprimanded unless it's a forbidden topic.

Yes it should. Please express your racism and homophobia here.

[Roadgeekteen]

Ok I don't take it as far as HB. I think that things like racism and homophobia should be taken down, but other stuff should be fine.

I don't think racism or homophobia should be taken down unless the post in question is abusive towards someone else.  Simply stating one's beliefs, no matter how bad, shouldn't be reprimanded unless it's a forbidden topic.

Yes it should. Please express your racism and homophobia here.

I like don't understand what you are trying to say

[Scott5114]

Ok I don't take it as far as HB. I think that things like racism and homophobia should be taken down, but other stuff should be fine.

I don't think racism or homophobia should be taken down unless the post in question is abusive towards someone else.  Simply stating one's beliefs, no matter how bad, shouldn't be reprimanded unless it's a forbidden topic.

Yes it should. Please express your racism and homophobia here.

I like don't understand what you are trying to say

You are not required to respond to every post. In fact, you should not feel compelled to do so.

[hotdogPi]

Ok I don't take it as far as HB. I think that things like racism and homophobia should be taken down, but other stuff should be fine.

I don't think racism or homophobia should be taken down unless the post in question is abusive towards someone else.  Simply stating one's beliefs, no matter how bad, shouldn't be reprimanded unless it's a forbidden topic.

Yes it should. Please express your racism and homophobia here.

I like don't understand what you are trying to say

I think it's basically this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_be_a_giant_dick,_so_we_can_ban_you

[hbelkins]

That update on Freeways of Los Angeles this morning made me do a double take.  That's one of the strictest Facebook groups I'm a member of.  I know some of the backstory of how things got how they are on this group but I have to wonder how tenable it will be now long term. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the admin of the Freeways or Los Angeles page.  He did ask me to post more fairly recently when I was speaking with him on a group call.  I didn't want to tell him the reason I don't is because all the posts by group members have to be approved and it takes to long for my tastes. 

What is the backstory? In what ways are they strict?

If he really wanted you to post more, he would add you to the preapproved list so your posts wouldn't have to be manually approved.

There was an incident a couple years ago where a former forum user tried to copyright claim several shared photos from his page in numerous California Highway groups.  Since then the admin of Freeways of Los Angeles has put in the post approval and tends to be cautious.  The group content tends to run very high but it also leads to viable posts being missed and/or deleted without much explanation. 

I tend to not run things quite as strict in groups I manage but I can respect the rationale.

That's a feature/bug of Facebook. It allows sharing from practically any source. Maybe the guy should watermark his photos on his site if he doesn't want them shared on social media.

This is at the root of some news organizations' complaints against Facebook for taking away ad revenue from them. If these companies want ad revenue from Facebook posts, then why do they maintain Facebook presences and post their stories there? If you click on a Facebook post, and you go to that news outlet's Web site, you see the ads. Facebook drives traffic to them.

[Max Rockatansky]

That update on Freeways of Los Angeles this morning made me do a double take.  That's one of the strictest Facebook groups I'm a member of.  I know some of the backstory of how things got how they are on this group but I have to wonder how tenable it will be now long term. 

Don't get me wrong, I like the admin of the Freeways or Los Angeles page.  He did ask me to post more fairly recently when I was speaking with him on a group call.  I didn't want to tell him the reason I don't is because all the posts by group members have to be approved and it takes to long for my tastes. 

What is the backstory? In what ways are they strict?

If he really wanted you to post more, he would add you to the preapproved list so your posts wouldn't have to be manually approved.

There was an incident a couple years ago where a former forum user tried to copyright claim several shared photos from his page in numerous California Highway groups.  Since then the admin of Freeways of Los Angeles has put in the post approval and tends to be cautious.  The group content tends to run very high but it also leads to viable posts being missed and/or deleted without much explanation. 

I tend to not run things quite as strict in groups I manage but I can respect the rationale.

That's a feature/bug of Facebook. It allows sharing from practically any source. Maybe the guy should watermark his photos on his site if he doesn't want them shared on social media.

This is at the root of some news organizations' complaints against Facebook for taking away ad revenue from them. If these companies want ad revenue from Facebook posts, then why do they maintain Facebook presences and post their stories there? If you click on a Facebook post, and you go to that news outlet's Web site, you see the ads. Facebook drives traffic to them.

I believe he did begin watermarking after said incident.

Me personally, it doesn't bother me too much if someone does it.  That said, I recently blocked a repeat offender who used several of my photos and didn't credit me.  Normally in the instances I've found where someone has taken a photo of mine and didn't credit me I'll usually comment on the post (if I'm made aware of it).  At the end of the day Facebook compresses the hell out of photos and it is easy to prove you have the original copy simply by file size.  Personally I think watermarks tend to look ugly and I generally don't use them.

[1995hoo]

– May the Fourth be with you.
– And also with you.

The Vatican recently changed "And also with you" to "And with your spirit".

It wasn't a change. It reflects the use of a literal translation instead of the "interpretation" many of us grew up hearing. In Latin, the response to "Dominus vobiscum" is "Et cum spiritu tuo."

[kphoger]

So, back to the topic...  How would you define "countertrolling"?  Who was doing that and who was doing something else?

Is engaging with the troll in an intelligent way "countertrolling"?
Is calling the troll names and disparaging his ideas "countertrolling"?
Is creating threads parodying the troll "countertrolling"?
Etc?

[JoePCool14]

So, back to the topic...  How would you define "countertrolling"?  Who was doing that and who was doing something else?

Is engaging with the troll in an intelligent way "countertrolling"?
Is calling the troll names and disparaging his ideas "countertrolling"?
Is creating threads parodying the troll "countertrolling"?
Etc?

At some point, engaging with a troll at all isn't good, because its attention that they want. So at first, engaging with them is okay, but when it's clear they won't take the hint, it's best to ignore them.

[kphoger]

So, back to the topic...  How would you define "countertrolling"?  Who was doing that and who was doing something else?

Is engaging with the troll in an intelligent way "countertrolling"?
Is calling the troll names and disparaging his ideas "countertrolling"?
Is creating threads parodying the troll "countertrolling"?
Etc?

At some point, engaging with a troll at all isn't good, because its attention that they want. So at first, engaging with them is okay, but when it's clear they won't take the hint, it's best to ignore them.

Right.  That has already been established.  But is that automatically "countertrolling"?  To me, the term "countertrolling" implies an intention to perpetuate the chaos.  I don't think it was the intention of most of us to do that.

[JoePCool14]

You could argue that we did by letting the MMM thread get to 84 pages. And that's just one thread.

Countertrolling may not be the right term. It's just straight up engaging the troll.

[webny99]

So, back to the topic...  How would you define "countertrolling"?  Who was doing that and who was doing something else?

Is engaging with the troll in an intelligent way "countertrolling"?
Is calling the troll names and disparaging his ideas "countertrolling"?
Is creating threads parodying the troll "countertrolling"?
Etc?

I agree with JoePCool. I would say yes to all three questions, based on the premise of the question in the OP:

Is this what we should be doing? Feeding a hungry troll? After all his one reason is obvious for being here: He wants attention. Should we give him that?

[kalvado]

You could argue that we did by letting the MMM thread get to 84 pages. And that's just one thread.

Countertrolling may not be the right term. It's just straight up engaging the troll.

And 18 pages more in this thread after he's gone.
I think MMM has a reason to be proud!

[JoePCool14]

To be fair, a lot of this thread has been discussing how to deal with other trolls or alt accounts in the future, and some other unrelated, off topic discussion. Only a few of those pages were directly about MMM, and that's because people wanted to know his ultimate fate.

I've already given my opinions on what I'd like to see in the future regarding trolls.