One-Eyed Richmond Forum
General => Forum Announcements and Feedback => Topic started by: Penelope on May 08, 2015, 07:52:33 PM
-
For the life of me I cant understand how
"WAT was Right on Morris"
is a troll/bait?
why is admitting that something said by someone that they copped heaps of crap for, is actually correct, is a troll/bait?
I'd have thought it was closer to an apology?
Please explain?
-
For the life of me I cant understand how
"WAT was Right on Morris"
is a troll/bait?
why is admitting that something said by someone that they copped heaps of crap for, is actually correct, is a troll/bait?
I'd have thought it was closer to an apology?
Please explain?
Who cares, isn't WAT on a perma ban anyway?
-
Maybe the mods felt it was a troll not directed at WAT but to those who oppose his points of view?
-
the who is not relevant......
or is it?
would it have still been a troll/bait if it was saying someone else was right?
-
Maybe the mods felt it was a troll not directed at WAT but to those who oppose his points of view?
Except, IIRC, it was started by chucky who always clashed with WAT....
-
maybe gr12. that would be a long bow to me.
Perhaps and maybes aren't what im after though
-
I was surprised that it was considered a troll but the thread, from memory, did illicit some not too kind posts.
-
if that was the intent then chucky is the lex luthor of trolling
-
Agree Al, I also thought it was odd. The rationale given the history was that it was a bait but I reckon chuck maybe was actually recognising WATs view for once
-
Agree Al, I also thought it was odd. The rationale given the history was that it was a bait but I reckon chuck maybe was actually recognising WATs view for once
That's last point is exactly what it was.
WAT was the first to question his role in the leadership group when it was announced. I and a few others launched into him.
WAT was proven right and despite our past differences I recognised the fact.
-
That's what I thought it was....seemed pretty obvious really....
-
In a some-what relevant tangent, I believe the poll thread should be re-opened for discussion even if for a short while. A lot of posters have been around for a long time and deserve the chance to bang things out. Could help clear a lot of stuff up
-
I don't mind posters taking the pee out of each other so long as its done as a friendly pee take and not as a personal pee take.
-
Agree Al, I also thought it was odd. The rationale given the history was that it was a bait but I reckon chuck maybe was actually recognising WATs view for once
That's last point is exactly what it was.
WAT was the first to question his role in the leadership group when it was announced. I and a few others launched into him.
WAT was proven right and despite our past differences I recognised the fact.
You're a better man than many Chucky. :clapping
-
I can't even remember what went down.
But if the weight of evidence for banning someone is based 90% on
A) Perceived trolling rather than intended trolling; and
B) That a post gets reported
...then imo the system is going to get abused and confusing decisions are going to be made.
For example, someone could interpret this very post as trolling to heighten tensions on the issue. It's obviously not intended that way, but that's not to stop someone who is particularly sensitive on the issue being offended.
I'm not sure what protocols are in place (ive asked the question before) beyond this but I hope everyone was given a chance to explain their version of what actually happened.
-
there's a heck of a lot of threads designed to poke the bear, most are blatantly obvious
-
I have two questions.
1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?
2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.
-
I have two questions.
1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?
2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.
Calling people "tit". Post reported.
-
I have two questions.
1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?
2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.
Calling people "tit". Post reported.
Baiting or humour?
A fine line methinks.
I'm still confused.
:lol
-
I have two questions.
1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?
2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.
1/ no people can continue to report whatever and as stated we will review and deal with it
2/ No outside it not being a feature of the software it isnt fair on those who report. We have said many times these issues at any level will not and should not be played out on the forum. I don't think people need to subjected to it
Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see.
The other pist wont be reopened. You can post comments here. Finally, I will get around to answering other questions when I get back to melb
-
If all threads got deleted that were hijacked there wouldn't be a forum
-
it seems the mods have followed the MRP's lead and are judging on outcome rather than intent
-
:huh
-
it seems the mods have followed the MRP's lead and are judging on outcome rather than intent
Not at all
But I doubt there is anything that can be said that would change your view.
-
that view is a relatively new one, based on you saying
"Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see"
so it is open to reassessment......
-
If I post about boogers on this thread will it get deemed a troll thread and be deleted? I'm sure what was said on the other was worse but sounds like that was what happened to me
-
that view is a relatively new one, based on you saying
"Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see"
so it is open to reassessment......
Actually no it's the way things have always been done. All edits and removals are based on the definition of trolling & baiting we posted on the results thread.
When something degenerates to a point when people simply post comments that they know will provoke a response from a particular poster then that's baiting & trolling. That's what happened in the WAT one it got to that point. So when people quote the very first post in the thread and twist that to try and pot another poster and then others join then the entire thing get removes. That's what happened on the case of the WAT thread it was very very clear, so clear "blind freddy" would have seen it
If I post about boogers on this thread will it get deemed a troll thread and be deleted? I'm sure what was said on the other was worse but sounds like that was what happened to me
Sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
-
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.
-
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.
I think it had more to not wanting to give WAT any credit.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
We should make this the WAT tribute thread and abuse each other without any fear of moderation.
I wonder where the great man is anyway
He might be back in Papua New Guinea, a place I wanted to be late Friday night.
Don't despair, WAT will be back.
Ok thanks for the reassurance
I haven't been called a stuffing stuff stuff in a while and was sort of missing it
We can all take turns and call you that if you really wish! :snidegrin
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.
-
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?
-
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.