Oh, and when non-trolling posts are made, feel free to acknowledge them.
The only problem is that "Trolling" has become synonymous - while it does apply to the larger internet, but I'm referring to around here specifically - with pretty much anyone who A)Doesn't go along with the majority and/or B)Disagrees with what any particular person is saying.
There are two reasons your strategy is extremely sub-optimal - 1)The definition of troll, at this point, has become so broad that it's entirely useless. 2)Ignoring everything you don't like the sound of is silly, and achieves little more than maintaining a comfortable level of ignorance.
For example, Mrs. Water say something like "Oh, Water is two molecules of Nitrogen, and four of sodium, I heard it from an industry guy, who said it was a rumour he heard, and then said the information comes from a guy he knows but refuses to name or give any details about, who is totally a reliable source, and that's where the information came from." - a ludicrous statement, with ludicrous evidence, but it serves the purpose right now, it's not meant to be realistic.
So, Mr Water comes along and says "Yo, That's stupid. Water is, as everybody knows, Two Hydrogen molecules, and one oxygen molecule. What the fuck are you talking about?"
And Mrs Not-water responds with "Oh yeah, well, around here we like to see evidence, show yours and prove it!"
So, Mr. Water does exactly that, and provides you the information, but they call Mrs. Not-Water stupid a few times while they're doing it, so she decides they're a troll and says so, and proceeds to ignore them - But, as the example shows(since that's what it's built to do, obviously) that doesn't make her right - It just means that she's now putting effort into being wilfully ignorant, because she didn't like how someone disagreed with her.
See how it's sub-optimal? You miss a lot of stuff, and in some cases, you're learning and achieving nothing other than maintaining your own ignorance, which is clearly unacceptable.
And here's one that'll really bend your noodle - The first person, Mrs. Not-water, has a below average standard of good evidence(since it's supporting their preferred position) and genuinely believes that his statement is literally and absolutely true. He immediately dismisses all evidence to the contrary as stupidity, lack of experience, whatever, and clings to his conviction, often trying to wield it like a club, to beat others over the head with till they either cave in or give up. When someone provides an argument which, to them, proves unassailable, they call them a troll and ignore them.
The person Mrs. Not-water calling a troll, Mr Water, Is a smart mouth, and calls their conclusion stupid, and doesn't hesitate to attack every flaw in the idea, sinking it quite thoroughly - He doesn't pull punches at all, because Mrs. Not-water is often the same way when she finds an idea stupid, so he assumes she wouldn't speak as such, if she couldn't take being spoken to as such, since she's a normal, mentally healthy and intelligent adult. He is, in this hypothetical case, absolutely 100% correct, and while harsh, as I said, are correct.
So, to examine it, Mrs Not-water is thin-skinned and has a stupid, stupid conclusion, with zero hard evidence behind it, only conjecture, and anecdotal evidence, at best, and she's also got a sharp tongue on her, doesn't hesitate to use it. Mr Water has a very sharp tongue, is even less hesitant to use it, but is absolutely right - Yet, by the standard that's been set, HE is the troll, and should thus be ignored. How is this logical or reasonable? It's not. But it's the established precedent around here, that Mr Water, despite being correct, is the Troll because he disagrees with the person who spoke their conclusion first, Mrs Not-water, and he did so harshly.
TL:DR -Don't worry about the second example, or anything after the second reason Ignoring it is a sub-optimal strategy, and when you're done reading the first part, you should work on your laziness problem.
The thing is, it is extremely rare when the people who are very insulting are also the ones who are right.
In the cases when the insulting troll is actually correct, it is rare that they actually explain themselves. Their initial post usually just contains an insult, and nothing more. If they actually wanted to educate the other person, they would put a clear explanation in their initial post. Just posting "you're stupid and wrong." by itself is troll, even if the target of the comment is stupid and wrong. Some other non-troll will probably come in and explain it intelligently anyway.
Also, it is usually the case that trolls are actually not correct, but intentionally wrong. They will intentionally say things they know are wrong, or take unpopular sides of non-objective discussions, just to get people angry.
The solution is to just ignore.
However, there is no rule you must ignore. If you want to poke the troll so be it. The only thing is, if you are the same person who is simultaneously complaining about the troll and also not ignoring the troll, then you have a problem. Don't complain that the squirrel is scratching your back door after you tossed him some bread.
The thing is, it is extremely rare when the people who are very insulting are also the ones who are right.
I can see what you're getting at, but I was simply giving a clear-cut, absolute example. Often around here(and the internet at large) it's often not such an obvious and clear case, and that's where the "Ignore trolls 100%" policy still lacks, because if you're learning something in the roughly one-to-ten seconds it takes to skim their post, then that's not wasted time.
If it's just an insult, however, rather than anything with any sort of content, then I'll tend to ignore it, however - because it's just an insult, nothing to gain there.
In the cases when the insulting troll is actually correct, it is rare that they actually explain themselves.
Absolutely, in actual cases of trolling - Which are the rarity around here, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, RE: the uselessly broad usage of it.
Also, it is usually the case that trolls are actually not correct, but intentionally wrong. They will intentionally say things they know are wrong, or take unpopular sides of non-objective discussions, just to get people angry.
Now, That's where you're running into trouble, especially with an "Ignore Trolls 100%" policy - because you're assuming the motives and thoughts of others, at which you can't even make an educated guess(except in cases where it's exceedingly obvious), because you don't know them, for the most part.
For example - If someone takes an unpopular side in an argument, they might be trolling, or they might genuinely think that, and you have no way of knowing. Someone might be intentionally wrong, or someone might just be mistaken, or not know better - nobody is an expert on every topic, no matter how broad their knowledge.
The only thing is, if you are the same person who is simultaneously complaining about the troll and also not ignoring the troll, then you have a problem. Don't complain that the squirrel is scratching your back door after you tossed him some bread.
I agree completely - Whinging is never useful or worthwhile.
If someone is posting something that is wrong, and is posting in an incendiary trollish manner, I have to either assume they don't believe it OR they can't be convinced otherwise. If someone says something wrong, and believes it, and their mind can be changed, then their post is probably not going to be incendiary and troll-like.
If someone is posting something that is wrong, and is posting in an incendiary trollish manner, I have to either assume they don't believe it OR they can't be convinced otherwise.
You don't have to assume that, you chose to. Picky over wording again, I know, but it's a big difference.
If someone says something wrong, and believes it, and their mind can be changed, then their post is probably not going to be incendiary and troll-like.
So, If someone is wrong about something, is getting VERY curt with you, and demands concrete evidence that you can't provide - but entirely reasonable evidence, nothing impossible or silly - for one reason or another, and when you present sub-standard Evidence, they refuse to change their mind, due to lack of evidence. So, Are they a troll, or are they just holding you to a reasonable standard of proof before they agree to your conclusion?
I'm not saying I have a better solution here, nor that your solution is entirely unworkable, but it needs...tweaking.
Comments
Still doesn't change his moeness.
There are two reasons your strategy is extremely sub-optimal -
1)The definition of troll, at this point, has become so broad that it's entirely useless.
2)Ignoring everything you don't like the sound of is silly, and achieves little more than maintaining a comfortable level of ignorance.
For example, Mrs. Water say something like "Oh, Water is two molecules of Nitrogen, and four of sodium, I heard it from an industry guy, who said it was a rumour he heard, and then said the information comes from a guy he knows but refuses to name or give any details about, who is totally a reliable source, and that's where the information came from." - a ludicrous statement, with ludicrous evidence, but it serves the purpose right now, it's not meant to be realistic.
So, Mr Water comes along and says "Yo, That's stupid. Water is, as everybody knows, Two Hydrogen molecules, and one oxygen molecule. What the fuck are you talking about?"
And Mrs Not-water responds with "Oh yeah, well, around here we like to see evidence, show yours and prove it!"
So, Mr. Water does exactly that, and provides you the information, but they call Mrs. Not-Water stupid a few times while they're doing it, so she decides they're a troll and says so, and proceeds to ignore them - But, as the example shows(since that's what it's built to do, obviously) that doesn't make her right - It just means that she's now putting effort into being wilfully ignorant, because she didn't like how someone disagreed with her.
See how it's sub-optimal? You miss a lot of stuff, and in some cases, you're learning and achieving nothing other than maintaining your own ignorance, which is clearly unacceptable.
And here's one that'll really bend your noodle - The first person, Mrs. Not-water, has a below average standard of good evidence(since it's supporting their preferred position) and genuinely believes that his statement is literally and absolutely true. He immediately dismisses all evidence to the contrary as stupidity, lack of experience, whatever, and clings to his conviction, often trying to wield it like a club, to beat others over the head with till they either cave in or give up. When someone provides an argument which, to them, proves unassailable, they call them a troll and ignore them.
The person Mrs. Not-water calling a troll, Mr Water, Is a smart mouth, and calls their conclusion stupid, and doesn't hesitate to attack every flaw in the idea, sinking it quite thoroughly - He doesn't pull punches at all, because Mrs. Not-water is often the same way when she finds an idea stupid, so he assumes she wouldn't speak as such, if she couldn't take being spoken to as such, since she's a normal, mentally healthy and intelligent adult. He is, in this hypothetical case, absolutely 100% correct, and while harsh, as I said, are correct.
So, to examine it, Mrs Not-water is thin-skinned and has a stupid, stupid conclusion, with zero hard evidence behind it, only conjecture, and anecdotal evidence, at best, and she's also got a sharp tongue on her, doesn't hesitate to use it. Mr Water has a very sharp tongue, is even less hesitant to use it, but is absolutely right - Yet, by the standard that's been set, HE is the troll, and should thus be ignored. How is this logical or reasonable? It's not. But it's the established precedent around here, that Mr Water, despite being correct, is the Troll because he disagrees with the person who spoke their conclusion first, Mrs Not-water, and he did so harshly.
TL:DR -Don't worry about the second example, or anything after the second reason Ignoring it is a sub-optimal strategy, and when you're done reading the first part, you should work on your laziness problem.
In the cases when the insulting troll is actually correct, it is rare that they actually explain themselves. Their initial post usually just contains an insult, and nothing more. If they actually wanted to educate the other person, they would put a clear explanation in their initial post. Just posting "you're stupid and wrong." by itself is troll, even if the target of the comment is stupid and wrong. Some other non-troll will probably come in and explain it intelligently anyway.
Also, it is usually the case that trolls are actually not correct, but intentionally wrong. They will intentionally say things they know are wrong, or take unpopular sides of non-objective discussions, just to get people angry.
The solution is to just ignore.
However, there is no rule you must ignore. If you want to poke the troll so be it. The only thing is, if you are the same person who is simultaneously complaining about the troll and also not ignoring the troll, then you have a problem. Don't complain that the squirrel is scratching your back door after you tossed him some bread.
If it's just an insult, however, rather than anything with any sort of content, then I'll tend to ignore it, however - because it's just an insult, nothing to gain there. Absolutely, in actual cases of trolling - Which are the rarity around here, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, RE: the uselessly broad usage of it. Now, That's where you're running into trouble, especially with an "Ignore Trolls 100%" policy - because you're assuming the motives and thoughts of others, at which you can't even make an educated guess(except in cases where it's exceedingly obvious), because you don't know them, for the most part.
For example - If someone takes an unpopular side in an argument, they might be trolling, or they might genuinely think that, and you have no way of knowing. Someone might be intentionally wrong, or someone might just be mistaken, or not know better - nobody is an expert on every topic, no matter how broad their knowledge. I agree completely - Whinging is never useful or worthwhile.
So, Are they a troll, or are they just holding you to a reasonable standard of proof before they agree to your conclusion?
I'm not saying I have a better solution here, nor that your solution is entirely unworkable, but it needs...tweaking.