Logically, there had to be a very first Internet troll. Even before we had the term "troll," someone was the first person on the Internet to make a sport out of derailing online discussions using heated rhetoric, personal taunts and sarcasm-laden smack-downs.
That was me.
I'm not joking.
Just six months after the now-ubiquitous IPv4 protocol — the protocol that brought this web page to your browser — went live, some of the Internet technorati initiated a discussion of whether or not the Internet should have an intrinsic mechanism for banning certain people. I was mentioned by name. The idea was shot down by free speech advocates. Also I owed a debt of gratitude to Rich Rosen who defended me by saying that he didn't think I was serious about some of the outrageous things I posted — I just liked causing trouble. Of course the "net" was different in them days — people knew your name. The Internet had a wingnut (Ken Arndt), a gun nut (Frank Black) and a notorious troll (me).
I'm not saying this to brag (in fact, I wasn't the first troll, just the first to make a name for myself — I mean who trolls in news.admin?!). I'm just pointing out that if you're going to read one more diary about comity in online discussions, it might as well be from someone with some notable expertise in the subject.
Yesterday, I wrote How to Be Irrational. That was about logical fallacies. That's a relatively easy topic. Today, I'm going to write about to avoid some of the completely personal and social things that cause discussions to melt down. It's a "do not do this unless you want to ruin this forum" list.
Don't Admit You're Wrong
Since gaining TU status, I have lost it twice. The first time, I said something stupid, and for whatever reason, I didn't feel like conceding the point. As a someone with a Myers-Briggs INTJ temperament, I am allergic to admitting that I am wrong. Usually I know when I am wrong and I'd rather not exacerbate the situation, but sometimes it gets the better of me and I dig in and go for broke.
Don't do that.
Some people do that habitually; they don't even know how to say, "I guess you're right," or "my information was wrong," or "I didn't know that." Of course, maybe you're not wrong, but if someone is telling you that you're wrong, and you won't even entertain the possibility, then you are helping destroy vital discussion.
Burn the Heretics, Blasphemers and Apostates
Every day, while we try to hammer out something approximating truth, reason and equity here, the WingNet™ is churning out bullshit at a startling rate. Additionally, they have a popular cable news network dedicated to broadcasting it — and you can be forgiven if you think I'm talking about CNN or MSNBC in the morning. In short, we hear enough of their bullshit, and we don't really need to hear it on Daily Kos. Thus, when someone posts an opinion that goes against the grain, many people gleefully pile on the poster.
Because saying something controversial on this site carries a pretty heavy personal — and sometimes technical — penalty, it fosters the kind of defensiveness I talked about above. It also stifles useful debate.
Consider someone posting an opinion that they "don't have a problem with the Stupak Amendment" and explaining why. If Stupak is so objectionable, it shouldn't be hard to point out why their reasons for holding that position are flawed — but that's not what's going to happen, is it? First, they'll be HR'ed, and then they'll be subjected to a handful of replies calling them an asshole and typically filled with all kind of straw men and ad hominems. I know this because I've seen it.
Am I saying that this was bad? Not necessarily. There are cases where this is a constructive response and cases where it isn't. In order to remedy this problem we need the ability to distinguish between "evangelists," "seekers" and "trolls."
EVANGELISTS
Evangelists are trying to spread their message. They are not interested in a discussion, just a platform and a megaphone. They need to be banned.
Evangelists do not think it's possible to disagree with them; anyone who disagrees with them is, therefore, either an idiot or a liar or both. An evangelist may seem quite rational and reasonable at first, but will quickly become abusive and angry when you challenge their assumptions. They will often declare that they "can't argue with such ignorance" and that they are going to leave the discussion, but they never do. It's important to them that you reinforce their beliefs by either agreeing with them, or presenting them with opportunities to repeat them until you see that they are right.
In order to be an evangelist, you need to be unable to see faults in your own arguments, so most evangelists ironically don't really understand subject they evangelize. This also forces them to rely exclusively on straw man arguments.
Examples:
If Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, he won't mind showing his birth certificate.
Eight years of Obama will be just like eight more years of Bush.
If you knew more about science, you'd realize that there isn't a little man on a cloud who controls the universe.
SEEKERS
A seeker is someone who needs an education in the prevailing views here. They may actively post something controversial and solicit responses, or they may just say something ignorant and present a "teachable moment."
Many evangelists try to disguise themselves as seekers. A seeker, however, may either change their views upon (polite) presentation of new information, or they may "agree to disagree." Bottom line: seekers will not be angry that you disagree with them or that you don't have information they have; if you respond in kind, you can have an enlightening engagement with them. If you get upset with people who don't agree with you, then you are an evangelist and maybe you shouldn't be here. I'm not kidding.
Kossacks with different opinions/information from yours should be treated as seekers.
Keep in mind that if you HR what is a legitimate post from a non-TU seeker, they won't be able to read your (hopefully) informative responses.
TROLLS
Everyone who pisses you off is not a troll. Everyone who insults you is not a troll. They are probably just another Kossack like you who is pissed off about something. People may become trolls because they are pissed off, but there's a difference between being inflammatory and being a troll. Trolling is done with a specific motivation, and being inflammatory is part of the "tool kit," but "troll" gets tossed around here way too much.
Believe it or not, most people who write, "Nancy Pelosi is a c--t," are just trying to express in uncertain terms that they are angry at Nancy Pelosi. In an important sense, it doesn't matter; that kind of language is not acceptable and should be HR'ed whatever the motivation. That still leaves the disposition of the user. Are they just someone who's lost control and lashed out? Here's my advice: ask.
If they're just angry, sternly-worded admonitions might just provoke them into a series of posts that gets them banned. If you say something like, "You are obviously angry, but we don't condone that kind of remark here," a non-troll will usually follow up with a defense that boils down to, "Well, I don't care because I'm really angry." A troll will reel you in — it's what defines a troll. A troll will try to get you to keep posting sternly-worded admonitions until you utterly lose it and turn into a gibbering lunatic.
Finally, never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity. A lot of people who are accused of being trolls are just dense. They really don't get what you're talking about. They lace their misguided responses with taunts and personal attacks because they are just childish.
Believe me, give me a week of free time and an unbannable account, and I can bring Daily Kos to an utter standstill without ever using a curse word. That's because that's what trolls do: they disrupt.
What To Do?
OK, I've talked about how people mess up useful discussions (by no means covering the entire subject). What can we do to cut down on the noise? Below is some advice. I've split it into advice "thinkers and feelers" but read both, because balanced people have aspects of both in their make-up.
[The next two sections refer to MBTI types. If you don't know what those are, see the box at the bottom.]
Advice for MBTI Thinkers
- Admit you're wrong when you're wrong. At least learn to tell when you are defending a fact or an assumption. You don't have to concede on your assumptions, but you can't demand that other people accept them a priori.
- The people who make counter-factual or illogical statements, are not doing so to piss you off. They believe that they are being honest and factual. You will not sway them by calling them idiots.
- If someone dismisses your information, they are not necessarily calling you stupid (unless they actually call you stupid). Have citations for assertions, be willing to identify your assumptions. Admitting that you do not have a citation is not the same as admitting that you are wrong, but you may not be able to advance your point any farther. Live with it.
Advice for MBTI Feelers
- Admit that your opinion is not a fact. In the "reality-based community" a lot of weight it placed on facts, so it is tempting to express your opinions and assumptions as facts. In the harsh world of online debate, people tend to forget that there are two distinct imports to the terms "right" and "wrong." One sense involves facts — "true" and "false" — and the other involves values — "should" and "shouldn't". You operate in the latter. By confusing facts and opinions in order to fit in with the thinker-types, you do yourself and the community a disservice. Look for opportunities to connect and communicate on the basis of your values and remember that facts don't have an agenda (regardless of what Stephen Colbert says).
- The people who disagree with you or refuse to share your values are not doing so to piss you off. They believe that they are being moral and just. You will not sway them by insulting their integrity.
- If someone dismisses your values, they are not necessarily saying that your position is invalid (unless they actually say that your position is invalid). Be able to clearly articulate the values which drove you to turn the facts into the opinion that you hold. Realize that the best you can do is to explain your values system — ultimately whether or not someone agrees with you is up to their subjective experience. Realize that people can respectfully disagree. Use the relative anonymity of the Internet to find people who respectfully disagree and connect with them enough to understand where they're coming from. This will help you understand your own views much better than discussing them in a congenial echo chamber.
MBTI (Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator) Information
Your MBTI type helps model how you process information and react to the world. It sounds like an impossible thing to quantify, but the MBTI does so in a rather elegant manner.
Here is an online MBTI test. It's an _OK_ test consisting of a little over 70 "yes or no" questions. Here are some suggestions to get the best results:
- Answer quickly. Put the first answer that pops in your head. If you over-think it, you'll skew the results.
- If both "yes" and "no" seem valid, pick the one that's more often the case for you than the other.
- Answer based on who you think you are. If you think you are quiet and reserved, but other people say you are outgoing, go with "quiet and reserved."
- Some of these questions are badly worded. Read them twice if they seem confusing. Here are some alternate wordings for the two worst. #4 "You feel personally connected to people in movies and television dramas", and #8 "Sometimes you need to break the rules to achieve the best results."
Here is a good site to interpret the results