http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=11103986


in reply to Re: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
in thread reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll

Thanks jdporter. Just so I'm clear, IIUC you're saying the policy (irrespective of the Policy) is that a reply in a ten-year old thread by an anonymonk like:

The personal attacks on the OP are remarkably stupid, vile, and hypocritical. Who are any of you s**tstains to call him or her a jerk? Most of the people who commented are useless scum, but Brian D Foy is actually a person of note, yet writes stuff like "jerks like you" and "the new braindead megaphones" -- ah, so *some* newcomers are to be coddled but others are to be viciously attacked. This is all virtue signalling by the emotionally immature. Compare to the sensible, useful comment from ikegami. He provides some useful cautions for potential users of this module, as does the OP.
where the poster is crudely expressing his righteous indignation about something that was actually said, is trolling, and thus can and should be considered, whilst a reply by a high-ranking monk like:
so emotional, clever trolling!
may *not* be considered for troll-feeding.

Oh.

But at least the latter, which surely is the only example of "trolling" from among the pair, *may* be considered for trolling itself. And, may it also separately be considered because it is a node with no parent *and* adds no value?

(Side note about that last part. As related by footpad, one of the guiding principles is that we don't want to "change history," which I presume is why reaping is not automatically performed cascadingly. But reaping anything obviously changes history, so, um, yeah. Shouldn't that prime directive be changed to "we don't want to have nodes with no value?" That's what actually happens anyway, plus a soupçon of favouritism ...

Anyway I'm glad I may continue to consider posts like the latter above, on the grounds that it is trolling, in isolation from the post it may or may not have been replying to.


The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
  • Comment on Re^2: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: reap, troll-feeding of reaped troll
by jdporter (Canon) on Aug 05, 2019 at 20:45 UTC

    I'll say it again: Trolling, at least if it's egregious enough, is reason for reaping. Troll-feeding is not.

    I should also remind that the onus for proper moderation is on the one who makes the consideration and on those who vote on it. If three five monks together agree that a node should be reaped, then it may* get reaped. But what we should never see is a reason for reaping like "troll-feeding", because that's not a valid reason. If you think the node is trolling, then consider/reap it for that.

    What I'm concerned about, in this discussion, is how the term "troll-feeding" is being used. Your example,

    so emotional, clever trolling!
    is not what I would call troll feeding anyway. At least, you can't tell, by itself. It depends on whether it is in reply to a trolling post. I personally would probably vote 'reap' on such a node, because it is, as you pointed out, a zero-value node.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

      I'll say it again: Trolling, at least if it's egregious enough, is reason for reaping. Troll-feeding is not.

      What is egregious enough? What yesterday was "troll-feeding" is "trolling" today

        “Some say that Socrates was a troll”

        Has some interesting ideas.

        I prefer only to reap if it includes rude insults or its damaging the community. Mostly both.

        But too much reaping is also damaging the community!

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

        update

        removed footnote

      I am tired of this thread already, but once it gets productive I feel obliged to answer.

      > because it is, as you pointed out, a zero-value node.

      As I already said in the OP it wasn't entirely clear for me if this was trolling or genuine anger, otherwise I would have considered it already for calling people "scum". Hence clever and emotional!

      My intention was to at least "flag" it as inappropriate to warn others to engage in longer discussions. (Aka Troll feeding)

      No zero value at that point.

      Anyway I don't really care much about this particular node, it was even safe from reaping, but the fashion of considering "troll-feeding" is worrying me and I know how group behaviour can gradually change if such things are not addressed.

      I expected trouble, maybe not to this extent, but did it anyway.

      It's also troubling me if people try to stop discussions because they don't like the subject or the participants.

      This wouldn't be my community anymore!

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

        I am tired of this thread already

        You should definitely complain to the OP.

        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.