Update of E2b and The BoneYard

[Jay]

Oh-- when looking at the content of the post to see if it is off-topic, look at the subject of the thread. That might help.

We do.  Thank you for the feedback.   

[FGOH]

Oh-- when looking at the content of the post to see if it is off-topic, look at the subject of the thread. That might help.

We do.

A tightly drafted OP will do much to help.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Mine could not be more tightly drafted. Doesn't seem to have helped.

I think there are probably people here who enjoy reading about new archaeological discoveries as much as I do. So I am creating this thread to share any stories that come your way-- biblical or classical archaeolgy. Either is of interest to me. And it is my thread... hah! ...

Seems clear to me. New finds. Not political arguments about them. Not atheistic debunking of them. The thread is for posting new (or recent) archaeological finds.

So letting the Devolute off because the OP isn't drafted tightly enough is a fail.

[Emily]

I just read that entire thread. Very interesting thread, BTW. Thanks for starting it Maggie.

I have a question for you, though. According to R2B1

i) No trolling.  Members who post into another member's thread should respect the thread topic and post accordingly. Trolling is defined as posting in an inflammatory and off topic manner.  If the reported post is found to be inflammatory and off topic, it will be moved immediately to a separate section of the forum by a moderator.

Can you point out any way that an inflammatory comment has been made. Not off-topic, but inflammatory, because as Jay said, the post must be inflammatory and off-topic for a violation to occur. Those are the current rules. That is the guideline. According to the rules there has been no violation by HE.

Sure, accord to how your OP is worded it might seem that trolling has taken place, but all the comments you are discussing about here are all inline with your OP and the flow of the thread. HE is sharing stories about archaeology, and how one group of researchers findings might be flawed (website biblical archaeology. for example, or possibly that dude he linked to in post 67)

I don't even see how the posts are off topic. You started a thread, HE posted a comment in the thread with links debunking the comments made by others. If you had said that

no debunking or links challenging the finds  or those who lead digs

, in your OP that would make the posts off topic, but again if the comments are not inflammatory no violation has taken place.

You might want to be the one who gets to decide if a post is off topic but by doing so would just put too much strain on the staff, for the reasons Jay mentioned. But, as I said in the rules, for a post to be trolling he must be off-topic and inflammatory. If neither of those meet the criteria for rule 2 the no trolling has taken place, according to the rules.

As of right now there has been no trolling as spelled out in the rules. You might not like some of the comments made by HE, but that's the nature of forums, and well we have to live with it. The comments that you reported have no affect on your thread whatsoever, so derailment is out of the question, and according to R2B2 no derailment has occurred either. If no comments are inflammatory then no trolling has occurred either.

That's that. If you have a suggestion that you think might improve the rule, share it.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

HE is sharing stories about archaeology, and how one group of researchers findings might be flawed (website biblical archaeology. for example, or possibly that dude he linked to in post 67)

Wrong. He is making inflammatory political statements (right wing Israelis "discovered the palace of King David for nefarious purposes) and his "debunking" is off topic. My OP is clear. His "David never existed crap" is intended to start an argument and is off-topic. His stupid comments about the solar barge are more of the same. ** MOD EDIT, RULE 4** Is it not possible to be free of such crap somewhere on this forum?

I have already told you how to improve the rule. What good will repeating myself do?

[kevin]

maggie, i agree with you that happy evolute has little of content to offer these days, and specializes in just provoking people. i've resolved the situation in my case by setting him on ignore, and he has dropped out of my life for, oh, the last two years or better.

if a dog can't be housebroken, just put it outside and keep it there.

very simple.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I agree and do have him on ignore and automatically ignore any topic he starts. However, he and his ilk ruined my "Across the street on the Internet" thread and I am determined he won't ruin my archaeology thread. So imagine my pleasure when a new rule to deal with trolls was announced. Of course, I blame myself for falling for it yet again. Fool me once and all that. The application of rules here has always been rather capricious and, somehow, they never mean what a normal person of average intelligence thinks they mean.

It is maddening.

[kevin]

yes, it can be difficult, especially if people feed the troll, because then the troll tends to direct the conversation, which of course is the whole motivation for trolling.

i've abandoned threads before which i have started, in which persistent trolls directed the subject matter away from where i wanted it to go. i often have several things i'd like to hear discussed about a particular subject, and i don't introduce them all in the original OP. when a troll enters a thread, i sometimes don't get the opportunity to introduce the peripheral subjects that, to me, were a major part of my interest in the subject. there's little hope for it. trolling is impossible to define clearly in a rules-based forum, and conversations wander.

still, there is a way to begin. you'd have to take the troll off ignore, and then as thread owner, request, publicly and persistently, that the troll stop-- without engaging the troll in conversation, and with a brief identification of the offending behavior--each time. this would be the best way to demonstrate a pattern of continued unilateral disruption that is required to establish the existence of trolling.

a practiced troll will often respond with feigned innocence or dismissal, but unless his contribution has substance, it can still be identified as trolling, eventually. and if the troll is forced to provide content in order to avoid a troll judgement, then all is as well as you can expect.

[Jay]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

[Captain Luke]

The forum isn't a blog. Get over it.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I too think there is a lot of trolling going on.  But by your definition of "inflammatory and off topic" almost anything is permissible.  I could go to almost every thread and post "God sucks" and it not match that criteria but it is most certainly trolling. 

So you can troll all you want as long as it's not inflammatory and off topic?

I really think it needs a little work.

[Jezzebelle]

I too think there is a lot of trolling going on.  But by your definition of "inflammatory and off topic" almost anything is permissible.  I could go to almost every thread and post "God sucks" and it not match that criteria but it is most certainly trolling. 

I would most certainly find that guilty of being off topic and inflammatory. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Did I miss where another of our trolls was nailed for calling God a rapist? I am skeptical. Oh wait! Nevermind. It might not have been off-topic. You might find "sucks" inflammatory but our herd of trolls regularly say worse and get away with it. JST is right. The off-topic and inflammatory double whammy nonsense makes it virtually impossible to find anything "guilty" of trolling and worthy of the bone yard.

[Jezzebelle]

Well we've only started this a couple weeks ago and already have 4 threads in the BY.  So no, it is not impossible to find something guilty.

We're still working out kinks, and it's been a hell of a lot of work and discussion.  Thanks for the appreciation.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I can't appreciate what I don't see. I am also quite tired of being told how hard you all work and how much you discuss. If you are at that hard, why aren't the results better? How much credit do you want for moving a spammer and none to the BY? They are obvious choices.

[Jezzebelle]

You can whine until the cows come home.  HE was not trolling your thread.  His post was not inflammatory.  Imagine how many people would kick your posts out of their threads if they just didn't simply like what you had to say.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it trolling.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

yeah, yeah. The only one whining here is you. When you pull out the "we work so hard and you don't appreciate it" card, it is time to admit that you have failed.

[Jezzebelle]

yeah, yeah. The only one whining here is you. When you pull out the "we work so hard and you don't appreciate it" card, it is time to admit that you have failed.

\

I only do that when you whine about us not doing enough, while you're the one consistently making more work for us by running around calling people satan.   

[Emily]

The off-topic and inflammatory double whammy nonsense makes it virtually impossible to find anything "guilty" of trolling and worthy of the bone yard.

It's actually not a double whammy. By the definition of trolling (from wikipedia)

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Then again:

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

The "even if it's controversial" bold is what I think everyone is getting pissed off over. Was a post off-topic (in the archaeological thread)? I say no. Was it inflammatory? I say no also. Is it controversial? Sure. Maybe. But it's still legitimate to the conversation.

If I say "God sucks d**k" over and over again on the forum, I'd be trolling. But I someone posts a rebuttal to any thread or any comment anywhere on the forum, IMO it's not trolling, because that comment is legit, simply because I feel that any thread created is open for people to post their disagreement.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Emily, pay attention. My OP was quite clear. The thread was for announcing new archaeological finds. Not for getting into political debates about right-wing, Jewish archaeologists and debunking their finds. Why none of you can understand this eludes me, it really does. But I am done trying to make any of you see reason. You have made it clear that the OP doesn't matter. Whatever the troll wants to do is fine with you. Unless, of course, he insults black people. Then he will find himself in lock-up immediately. But short of that horror, trolls are free to do their thing. Glad we got that straightened out.

[Jay]

I am drunk. It's my bday party. I'm in a limo. Why do I say all this? Because if I say anything f-d up excuse it.

Here is the thing folks. We are trying to do something about trolling. That should be commended unless you like trolling. Are we gonna catch everything everyone wants? No. Are we also gonna catch things some people disagree with? Yup. We can't please everyone. But yes, we talk about this crap extensively. Being a mod is a pain in the ass. But someone has to do it.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Better luck next time. 

[Emily]

You have made it clear that the OP doesn't matter

Your OP hasn't gone to s**t because of the threads you reported.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Yes. It has. I am not interested in your opinion. It is vaguely interesting to know that the opinion of the person who started a thread counts for nothing when moderators decide what is off-topic. But moderation here has always been capricious. I know what my thread was about and Evolute has ruined it. I just am not interested in hearing you excuse him. If I continued to post in it, he would be right there with one of his nasty, argumentative posts. Well, I won't continue. He killed it and you gave him permission to.

Congratulations! You have shown us who is boss!

[Jay]

Maggie, I luv ya but lol. Oops.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Congratulations! You are a moderator for real! That is just the way they talk and think.

If I am a pain in the ass so be it. You all need to get smarter fast and enforce your rules fairly and evenly. It doesn't happen. Never has and never will. I am sick of it. I knew it was a mistake to let myself be talked into coming back. That is a mistake I won't make a second time.

[Jay]

K. Thanks for the feedback.

I'm going back to paying attention to the women at the bar. They may end up being pains in the ass, but I don't know it yet. Nite.

[Captain Luke]

I knew it was a mistake to let myself be talked into coming back. That is a mistake I won't make a second time.

Good. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

[Assyriankey]

If anyone is bemused by the decision Maggie refers to above, it was decided that the posts in Maggie's archaeology thread were not inflammatory - E2Bi.

Maggie is obviously inflamed by the posts being in her thread.  This is a very different thing from the posts themselves being inflammatory.

Maggie may have been better served by reporting those posts for derailment - E2Bii.

[kevin]

Kevin,

One thing you will notice. There is no requirement to ask a troll to stop trolling in our current rule.

that's a mistake in the planning of your rule.

i said earlier that i often have reasons for creating a thread that are quite obscure to anybody but me. i may make an opening post that doesn't have anything to do with where i want the conversation to end up. sometimes i want to establish some things beforehand, or elicit a certain response that can be discussed in light of later developments in the thread, or invite comments from someone who won't contribute if i word the OP in a particular manner.

so i don't like it when the moderators have the duty to decide that my thread isn't going in the direction it should be, because the moderators don't know what that direction should be. so unless i confront the troll and ask it to leave, i'd personally prefer that none of the moderators interfere with my threads.

i appreciate the work you folks do, especially with the endless subject of trolling. but with respect to trolling in my threads, i'd prefer that you stay out unless i identify a troll myself and ask for assistance. i don't care who else doesn't like the troll-- i have my own ideas about what posts are and are not constructive. i don't need a visit from the thread police interfering out of well-meaning ignorance.