Your thoughts on Trolling

[Hall]

I have noticed in the past, and some recently, that the "trolls" often cause less problems than those that respond to them.

It's seemingly human nature to not simply ignore ! What you say is very true - someone can create a thread with an exciting opening post and never has to respond. The others will do the work - arguing/debating, bumping the thread back up, etc.

 

[Ronnie-]

It can be more than that though.

We have our posters that everyone thought of when they first read this thread.

Some are the definition of a troll, some are simply excited about certain things and react different than us, and others simply like finding info and letting others know.

With those posters , not the actual trolls, I've seen them jumped on several times (often by the same poster), and IMO that's at least as much of an issue than actual trolling.

 

[Hall]

My views on it still havent changed. Posting a thread with a link to another site is just asinine. Why wouldn't I register at that site to read the articles? It would be like if all I did was post articles from say "sports illustrated" or "espn" in the sports area. Why wouldnt someone just go there directly?

I've said this before - if poke or whitewolf would at least add their own comments as a follow-up, it would be a different matter. IMO, it's just a way to boost their post count.

Also I thought websites frown upon cut and past jobs from other sites? Why are we allowing it?

Scott has scolded one (or both) of them and told them exactly that. Plenty of websites have generic, copy and pasted terms saying it's a "copyright violation" if you copy/paste their stories without permission. Even adding a link doesn't make it acceptable. My understanding is, and Scott told them the same, is they can paste a snippet of the article only and have to include a link so one can read the rest.

 

[Ronnie-]

I may be in the minority here, while sometimes the constant link post is annoying, in the past the phone section in particular, I do find out alot of info from those links that I would not have found until much later or not at all. I simply would not have been looking.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Now if we could take care of folks who are "spamming"

My views on it still havent changed. Posting a thread with a link to another site is just asinine. Why wouldn't I register at that site to read the articles?

This is something that is not going to change, in fact you might see more of it.

When people come to SatelliteGuys they are no longer just coming here to get Satellite News and Help, but instead we have turned into a hub where they can find that latest of whats going on in the world of electronics and beyond. Many folks first hear of things going on because the say the post and link here on SatelliteGuys first. I thank users like Poke who work to keep our members informed.

I know some members don't like that but we have made it so that they can turn off those news forums. As I said I would expect an expansion of off site news coverage here, but its being done to better inform members of what's going on around them.

Of course we do have some members that just come here and blindly post articles without looking to see if they were posted first, or they post the full article here which is a violation of US copyright laws. We are working with dealing with this but its a seperate issue.

 

[Mr Tony]

I've said this before - if poke or whitewolf would at least add their own comments as a follow-up, it would be a different matter.

but they don't. Or if they do its just something like "I agree"

IMO, it's just a way to boost their post count.

duh!

Scott has scolded one (or both) of them and told them exactly that. Plenty of websites have generic, copy and pasted terms saying it's a "copyright violation" if you copy/paste their stories without permission. Even adding a link doesn't make it acceptable. My understanding is, and Scott told them the same, is they can paste a snippet of the article only and have to include a link so one can read the rest.

but you have 2 different examples (and since you called out the offenders I will too)
Poke just posts a link with something like "I agree" as a "comment"
wolf cuts/pastes the whole article. And when you are dealing with something that may be in 2 areas it gets duplicated. Great example is in the "other cable channels" area there is a SPECIFIC thread for him to post all of his WWE "article" (cut & paste jobs). But he will post them in the discussion thread too. Also in the streaming area there is a thread on the WWE Network that use to be helpful with what programming was coming down the line. Now its just a dumping ground for more of his "cut and past" jobs

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Plenty of websites have generic, copy and pasted terms saying it's a "copyright violation" if you copy/paste their stories without permission. Even adding a link doesn't make it acceptable. My understanding is, and Scott told them the same, is they can paste a snippet of the article only and have to include a link so one can read the rest.

This is correct, while it is fair use to use a paragraph or two of an article, it is a violation of copyright to post the entire article, and of course the article must contain a link to that article so that people can read the rest of the article. But posting full articles (sometimes without even having a link) is indeed a violation of copyright. As you know the staff here is all volunteers and have real jobs so we can not read every post posted, so PLEASE if you see a post like this report it so we can remove it and take proper action.

 

[Ronnie-]

As you know the staff here is all volunteers

Except me. I am on payroll.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Except me. I am on payroll.

I told you that you don't need to pay me anymore to be on staff.

 

[Ronnie-]

I told you that you don't need to pay me anymore to be on staff.

 

[Mr Tony]

But posting full articles (sometimes without even having a link) is indeed a violation of copyright. As you know the staff here is all volunteers and have real jobs so we can not read every post posted, so PLEASE if you see a post like this report it so we can remove it and take proper action.

well then you might as well tell one member to quit posting then
Otherwise the "report function" is gonna get blowed up!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Tony I hear you. (Trust me I do!)

And for people who abuse the report post feature, they might notice their report post button is gone.

 

[StevenD]

Can we have the unlike or dislike button back??

Then things get moderated on the fly.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Thankfully the answer to that is no.

Gosh I remember the Like / Dislike wars from last time. Good thing no tall bridges are around here, or I would have jumped.

 

[harshness]

"Trolling" is when someone comes in and posts negative comments about a service that they do not subscribe to and are just trying to cause a reaction from our members.

I believe that "trolling" is largely independent of what service someone subscribes to (if any). Many of the most habitual trolls I can think of are (or were) subscribed to (or were agents for) the service that they have/had an axe to grind with.

I also caution that members should not confuse setting the record straight with trolling. Just because the facts don't support the joy-joy doesn't mean they are any less factual or relevant.

The worst form of abuse is the bile directed at individuals and any effort to polish the experience needs to start with addressing that issue.

 

[klang]

Am I the only one that refuses to follow links without some commentary about the story at the end of the link? Not enough free time in a day.

 

[Tampa8]

So here's the problem. I already see posts here of people who want to be policemen or censors. If we are calling trolls those who consistently post negative remarks with nothing to back up what they are saying in a forum of a provider they do not have that is a definitive parameter and seems to be what Scott is saying. That may require some action on the part of the moderators if repeated enough times.
But it sounds like censoring because you just don't like what someone is saying when you consider trolling to be when someone always defends a provider they have. (Or I suppose no longer have) Further, if someone has reasons or links or whatever that supports why they are posting negative or positive posts I have never considered that trolling. Some of the best debates in forums I have had or read are on this site of posters who disagree with me. They have some good points or at least make me think, even though they may generally post negative posts.
We have a couple of ways to just not let someone who may be trolling to affect us. One is to put that person on ignore, another is to simply not reply to them or post in a thread they start.
I had a recent, and in my opinion and of the emails I got of others an unfounded remark that my thread was troll like. If that is an indication of what we are going to call trolls then we are going down the wrong path on this.

In the end I always support what Scott wants not just because it is his site but because he is very fair. So if he sees a problem I will support what he comes up with to fix it. I'm more concerned that in posts in this thread I am seeing the seeds of censoring.

I think this makes alot of sense;

As one who has done some posts that could be construed as trolling, even if they aren't intended that way, I would say the current warning, time-out, ban sequence makes the most sense. I think all of us have seen and posted things that we wish we hadn't at times in the hustle of wanting to respond in a forceful way.

 

[Rey]

Let's make it clear that trolling isn't an opinion expressed that one may disagree with. That's not what this is about.

I thought Scott did a good job explaining what we're referring to.

Trolling is a person who instigates discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory or off topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

No intent to censor opinions here on SatelliteGuys.

 

[thomasjk]

And the folks here usually respond with gusto.

 

[TNGTony]

I'm sure most here understand the intent. Rey did a great job of clarifying. If anyone ever follows my posts when I have a bad or questionable experience with a provider, you KNOW I can be a negative nelly. The difference is the post is not mean to provoke an argument or start a flame war. We all know the difference between dissatisfied customers and jackasses!

BTW, for those that may not know: the staff generally discusses issues like this before action is taken. IOW, it's generally not a unilateral decision. It is a group action.