Author Topic: Open question regarding poll response.  (Read 5446 times)

Offline 🏅Dooks

  • FOOTBALL EXPERT
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10265
  • 🏆✴✔👍⛉🌟
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2015, 02:47:05 AM »
what you are talking about is a thread degenerating into a slagg off fest.

I dont think that was the intent, so the thread itself was not a troll or bait.

If people so desire, they could do that in nearly any thread.

Did you see every post in the thread?

Agree the initial intent wasn't to slag off or to bait but that's how it ended up

There were posts in the thread that were clearly baiting the person that topic was about

I think it had more to not wanting to give WAT any credit.

Again, what are you talking about? 

Are you suggesting that the thread was removed because we (mods) didn't want give WAT any credit for being right about Morris?

If you are then you are totally incorrect. I've explained the why earlier in this post

If I've got what I think you are suggesting wrong then I apologise and then please explain what you are talking about

So if I disagree with this, or aspects of this, am I trolling or baiting you WP? Where does someone's opinion become another persons perception on baiting intent?

What are the tests? Is it context of the thread and or previous posts? Is it the absence of constructive argument provided as part of an opinion? Is it the balance of subject or person orientation of the comment? Is it a persons posting history? Are there other things?

If I simply posted that I agreed or disagreed with WAT in that thread without any further details because I simply and genuinely wanted to agree or disagree, and I genuinely did not intend to bait, it in all likelihood would have (probably) been perceived as baiting.

I've got no issue with bans for genuine (and clear) baiters and trollers. But there is an evident grey area that exists between intentions and perceptions of intentions that I think needs to be thought about.

Also keep in mind not everyone is the same with the manner in which they communicate. Some people, just like in person, communicate more indirectly/directly than others. Some focus more opinions rather than more pure content of subject. All ranges fall within reasonable societal norms but one persons intent, and opinion of another's intent can be influenced by there own communication style. The difficult thing about the Internet and text based communication is that it removes the interpersonal side of communication and it's easy to misinterpret.




Your next comment

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9212
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2015, 01:24:21 PM »

I've got no issue with bans for genuine (and clear) baiters and trollers. But there is an evident grey area that exists between intentions and perceptions of intentions that I think needs to be thought about.


Won't name names because that would be genuine baiting. But there is a particular poster who knows this and plays on that grey area every single post and hardly ever providing anything constructive. Perfect example of why being stricter on baiting and trolling is going to be tough considering it pretty much comes down to WP's and OE's opinion of the post and as impartial as they no doubtedly try and be, they will have preconceived ideas of the poster and about whether they are trolling/baiting or not.

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9306
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2015, 07:00:32 PM »

I've got no issue with bans for genuine (and clear) baiters and trollers. But there is an evident grey area that exists between intentions and perceptions of intentions that I think needs to be thought about.


Won't name names because that would be genuine baiting. But there is a particular poster who knows this and plays on that grey area every single post and hardly ever providing anything constructive. Perfect example of why being stricter on baiting and trolling is going to be tough considering it pretty much comes down to WP's and OE's opinion of the post and as impartial as they no doubtedly try and be, they will have preconceived ideas of the poster and about whether they are trolling/baiting or not.

Yep, agree.  And I know exactly who you are talking about.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 60619
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2015, 02:00:56 AM »
what you are talking about is a thread degenerating into a slagg off fest.

I dont think that was the intent, so the thread itself was not a troll or bait.

If people so desire, they could do that in nearly any thread.

Did you see every post in the thread?

Agree the initial intent wasn't to slag off or to bait but that's how it ended up

There were posts in the thread that were clearly baiting the person that topic was about

I think it had more to not wanting to give WAT any credit.

Again, what are you talking about? 

Are you suggesting that the thread was removed because we (mods) didn't want give WAT any credit for being right about Morris?

If you are then you are totally incorrect. I've explained the why earlier in this post

If I've got what I think you are suggesting wrong then I apologise and then please explain what you are talking about

So if I disagree with this, or aspects of this, am I trolling or baiting you WP? Where does someone's opinion become another persons perception on baiting intent?

What are the tests? Is it context of the thread and or previous posts? Is it the absence of constructive argument provided as part of an opinion? Is it the balance of subject or person orientation of the comment? Is it a persons posting history? Are there other things?

If I simply posted that I agreed or disagreed with WAT in that thread without any further details because I simply and genuinely wanted to agree or disagree, and I genuinely did not intend to bait, it in all likelihood would have (probably) been perceived as baiting.

I've got no issue with bans for genuine (and clear) baiters and trollers. But there is an evident grey area that exists between intentions and perceptions of intentions that I think needs to be thought about.

Also keep in mind not everyone is the same with the manner in which they communicate. Some people, just like in person, communicate more indirectly/directly than others. Some focus more opinions rather than more pure content of subject. All ranges fall within reasonable societal norms but one persons intent, and opinion of another's intent can be influenced by there own communication style. The difficult thing about the Internet and text based communication is that it removes the interpersonal side of communication and it's easy to misinterpret.
The "WAT was right on Morris" thread was hardly a misinterpretation. It's clear from the bulk of comments (see below) that the thread degenerated into the baiting & mocking of WAT and had nothing to do with discussing Steven Morris or anything football related on our main football board. That's why it was removed.

Quote
We should make this the WAT tribute thread and abuse each other without any fear of moderation.

Quote
I wonder where the great man is anyway

Quote
He might be back in Papua New Guinea, a place I wanted to be late Friday night.

Quote
Don't despair, WAT will be back.

Quote
Ok thanks for the reassurance

I haven't been called a stuffing stuff stuff in a while and was sort of missing it

Quote
We can all take turns and call you that if you really wish! :snidegrin

Quote
Thanks for being so thoughtful, that would be nice.

Just remember to say something stupid before you do, allow me to pull you up, and then respond with a few stuffings and a few stuffs


I've removed the names so the focus is on what was posted. As WP said, blind Freddy would've seen the WAT thread as simply trolling and potting another poster. Seriously, I don't get why it's removal is such a big deal when that thread was such a blatant and obvious example of baiting and trolling.

Offline 🏅Dooks

  • FOOTBALL EXPERT
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10265
  • 🏆✴✔👍⛉🌟
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2015, 03:02:05 AM »
That doesn't really specifically answer my questions.

What I am saying is, for future reference, in relation establishing 'intended' baiting and trolling from 'perceived' baiting and trolling:-

What are the tests? Is it context of the thread and or previous posts? Is it the absence of constructive argument provided as part of an opinion? Is it the balance of subject or person orientation of the comment? Is it a persons posting history? Are there other things? How much weight is given to each?

Your next comment

Offline Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: Open question regarding poll response.
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2015, 10:01:31 PM »
It's a fair challenge Dooks but if you always give the benefit of the doubt then perhaps that gets taken advantage of by cynical posters.
So, damned if you do, etc.
If you can't respect the judgement of the moderstors (who are only reacting to what they and others who complain see) then it's a judgement call as to whether you can be arsed full stop.
"why not us, why not now?"
Sep 2017