Reducing trolling on Askaboutmoney?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan Burgess said:
A good point but the primary role is information.
Click to expand...
I can go to social welfare or revenue websites for information. Most people would rather watch paint dry. Here is more about a human feel and real life experiences. A bit of banter and back and forth make this website fun. It's more interactive I suppose.

I honestly wouldn't consider this place to have any trolls.
 
RedOnion said:
What I can't understand is those that re-register under different user names
Click to expand...

I agree. I've often wondered about this behaviour myself. I can only surmise that they do it to give the impression that there are more than just themselves who have a certain opinion. It's quite sad in my opinion and it's these people who really need to get out more (Apologies for the emoji )
 
Firefly said:
I can only surmise that they do it to give the impression that there are more than just themselves who have a certain opinion.
Click to expand...

On some rare occasions people say stuff and then register under a different name to support themselves. We warn or ban them.

What Red is referring to is where someone is banned and registers again under a different name.

That is more difficult. If they register again and start immediately breaking the POsting Guidelines, they are banned without warning.

If they stay within the guidelines, we tend to let it go.

But, to be fair, they usually can only restrain themselves for a short while, and they break the guidelines repeatedly and get banned.

Brendan
 
Are the decisions to ban ever scrutinized?
I would consider that those views that are considered against the grain are typically promoted by mods as being the instigator of bad behavior, when in fact they often just point to fallacies, inaccuracies etc in a previous post.
If you dont adhere to certain sentiments on AAM, typically conservative, you can expect to be targeted.
Is there any sanction against posters who interject in the flow of discussion with "j.o.k.e.s"? I mean, to repeat the same "j.o.k.e" over, and over, and over and over is dull, unimaginative and just plainly a pain in the neck.
 

I believe this is clearly aimed at me. If you are accusing me of targeting you I would implore that you back that up or else retract the statement.

I was trying to lighten a thread in The Depths in response to your previous thread that began with "Yawn" to another poster.

I don't believe I have used this "j.o.k.e" ever, but feel free to correct me

Perhaps AAM isn't for you, but you have a hard time staying away! (that was another j.o.k.e by the way)
 
Brendan Burgess said:
That is correct. We systematically remove all posts which do not comply with the consensus view.

As you will have noticed - there are no posts on askaboutmoney disagreeing with the consensus.

Brendan
Click to expand...

That is to miss the point Brendan. When topics are taken down rabbit holes it is the non-consensus viewpoint that is considered at fault and subject to banning.
You only have to look at "€85,000 award..." topic to how moderators can be guilty of chasing after pedantic points, only for other posters to "joke" that it is others who are being deflective.
 


Firefly said:
Wolfie's penchant for deflection and rabbit holes reminds me a lot of Shorties'
Click to expand...

I have no problem staying away. I would suggest that others have a problem trying to keep me away.
 
Contrarian minority views are always going to be challenged more vigorously than those more broadly held. Quite simply, the more people that disagree with a point, the more likely they are to question or challenge it. AAM would be a poorer place though if there were no dissenting voices, when there is robust debate, there's the potential for everyone to learn.

Robust debate requires a certain honesty though, rabbit holes develop when the proponent of a view point is unable to respond to being challenged without resorting to deflection or otherwise failing to back up that view. In most cases, I don't see that as deliberate trolling, just poor debate.
 

I agree. It can happen on either side of a debate. And when such a debate becomes somewhat entrenched, going around in circles, it is my view that the contrarian viewpoint tends more often than not, to be targeted as trolling, or subject to banning.
 
WolfeTone said:
I agree. It can happen on either side of a debate. And when such a debate becomes somewhat entrenched, going around in circles, it is my view that the contrarian viewpoint tends more often than not, to be targeted as trolling, or subject to banning.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone who has been banned for holding a contrarian view. There are however a few posters who would otherwise would have been banned, or banned sooner sooner for repeated infractions that were tolerated because they offered an alternative view, and so serve a purpose in engaging debate.

On a few occasions banned users have been allowed to re-register under different user names and continue posting where if they held the more popular view, they are more likely to be re-banned immediately.
 
Leo said:
I'm not aware of anyone who has been banned for holding a contrarian view.
Click to expand...

Of course not, I never said anyone was banned for holding a contrarian view. I said, it is only when differing viewpoints become entrenched, going around in circles, that...doh!
 
Reactions: Leo
WolfeTone said:
Is there any sanction against posters who interject in the flow of discussion with "j.o.k.e.s"? I mean, to repeat the same "j.o.k.e" over, and over, and over and over is dull, unimaginative and just plainly a pain in the neck.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Gentle reminder to either back up this assertion or remove it.

Thank you
 
This post:

WolfeTone said:
Is there any sanction against posters who interject in the flow of discussion with "j.o.k.e.s"? I mean, to repeat the same "j.o.k.e" over, and over, and over and over is dull, unimaginative and just plainly a pain in the neck.
Click to expand...

Was clearly in response to my post:

Firefly said:
It was a j.o.k.e
Click to expand...

You accuse me of telling this joke "over, and over and over" and I am politely asking you to back this up or remove.

WolfeTone said:
I have made no assertion against you, anymore than you have repeatedly targeted me and accused me of deflecting.
Click to expand...

I take issue with this.

Please show where I have repeatedly targeted you. Please show where I have repeatedly accused you of deflecting.

It shouldn't be too hard for you to find any bearing in mind you only have 124 posts.
 
Firefly said:
Please show where I have repeatedly accused you of deflecting.
Click to expand...

I never said you have repeatedly accused me of deflecting? Why do you keep asking?
You have taken it upon yourself to believe that.

But to satisfy your whim, here are two incidences of you implying, suggesting and accusing me of deflection.

Firefly said:
Wolfie's penchant for deflection
Click to expand...

penchant
/ˈpɒ̃ʃɒ̃/
noun
noun: penchant; plural noun: penchants
  1. a strong or habitual liking for something or tendency to do something.

and here

Firefly said:
Would that be a deflection?
Click to expand...
(I believe this comment was directed at me, in the same way that you believe my "j.o.k.e" comment was directed at you)

That is two incidents, the first incident implying habitual deflection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register