From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 04:09:28 MDT
Yikes, that makes it difficult the other way round, too...Like if any of
us have an idea to discuss or a question, and if we ask it, we get
thought of as 'trolling' -_Especially_ if we come out of a debate having
changed our minds...
I really don't know if you're reading the situation aright here (okay,
you've a lot more experience of this list than I do, so the balance of
judgement does tip in your favor)...but I don't want to be paranoid, or
prejudging...and something else...often people mistake light-hearted
humor for taking the piss in a nasty way. And people don't express their
position clearly enough...we think, 'oh right, I get that!' ...or 'I
can't be bothered arguing anymore' -but we don't write that in our
emails, we just don't reply...
How soon can we design a mind-to-mind internet so we get to catch all
the bits we have to miss out of emails? Text for me comes somewhere in
between speech and action; not between thought and speech. And sometimes
the delete key can be your best friend!
I think if you suspect this is happenning, you should just say so, out
in the open, on the list. Then people have a chance to explain
themselves in case you've misunderstood. Sounds easy...am I missing
something here?
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> I know I am a sucker for flame-bait. I get pulled into stupid
> arguments that I should ignore. However, I have been caught quite a
> few times in the last few months by people who seem to deliberately be
> trolling the list. They post some inflammatory rhetoric which
> triggers a long debate. After much arguing and heat, they back down
> and agree that their opponents are right. Then they claim that they
> never really believed their original post.
>
> They explain that their posting was a "thought experiment". Or they
> wanted to see what the reaction would be. Or they didn't really know
> one way or the other and just wanted to see how it would hash out. Or
> they felt it would be a learning experience to the group to have us go
> through and "prove it to ourselves."
>
> Is this a useful debating technique? What do people here think? I
> tend to find it dishonest. The post seems to deliberately
> misrepresent the facts or misrepresent someone's position. I also
> find it rude. It tricks people into responding and expending a lot of
> energy in research and debate when they certainly would not have done
> so had they known the truth.
>
> I also find it suspect. In many of these cases, I can't help but
> wonder if these people really did believe their original post. If
> they had gotten support for their agenda, they might have moved
> forward. But since they were soundly thrashed by the group, they
> disown their own statements and switch sides in the debate. Oddly,
> these people seem to keep pushing the same agendas over and over that
> they claim to have disowned.
>
> So how should we respond to such tactics? I am seriously getting to
> the point of being afraid to respond to posts. I find myself
> wondering if they are real or if they are traps. I also am finding
> myself reluctant to put any work into posting or doing much research
> anymore. I get tired of wasting my time crafting a response only to
> discover that I was lured in by a joke and the response doesn't really
> matter.
>
> I think such tactics are an abuse of the list. What do others think?
> Am I just a crybaby because I have been fooled too many times? Or is
> this really a problem?
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:08 MST