[gregorio]

Nothing wrong with a slow, sane forum.

I think if we had a statement explaining what’s unacceptable, it wouldn’t make the forum slow, just a little slower. Virtually all of the threads we already have on this subforum could and would still be started (with one or two exceptions), they would all still be discussed at length and there would still be disagreements and arguments. But, the length of our responses could often be greatly reduced (as we could refer to the statement rather than explaining it all yet again), the degeneration into total anarchy would be curtailed and we would all have a common frame of reference, rather than each of us making up our own rules of engagement.

For example: I can point out that someone’s argument is invalid because it relies on a straw man argument, an appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy but what’s wrong with using a logical fallacy as the basis of an argument? There’s no mention on the Sound Science landing page that logical fallacies are unacceptable to science or on the sound science forum. So with nothing but my word for it, they’ll just keep repeating/rephrasing the same fallacy, getting more and more irritated at me saying it’s wrong/invalid/unacceptable and hello anarchy. If the home page stated it’s unacceptable then they’re not just going against what I (or whoever they’re arguing with) have said, they’re going against the forum they’ve chosen to enter and they’d either have to come up with an argument that wasn’t based on a fallacy or give up, and if they didn’t, Castle would have an unequivocal case to lock them out.

G

 

[bigshot]

My take is that when someone draws a line in the sand and says that they won't accept science at all, and when they make it a battle between themselves and the "big bad sound science forum", that is a good time to invite them to leave. If they aren't here for a productive purpose, they don't belong here. The trolls don't care about rules. They just know that it's almost impossible to get banned from Sound Science, so it's a playground to misbehave. They definitely won't pay attention to any set of posting guidelines or forum descriptions. To be honest, with my experience of Internet forums, I don't know if normal people would pay attention to that either. A person has to be willing to make an effort to fit in. I always welcome people at first, even if I suspect they are trolls. It's after they've gotten past the shot over the bow that the claws come out. I would rather be a *****cat all the time. If blatant trouble makers were removed, that would be possible.

I do disagree that our small numbers mean that we can't have meaningful conversations. There are some really interesting and informed people here in their respective areas. And I think the trolling is the reason the numbers are small. Most people won't deal with that. Only us stubborn old goats. But it's boiled down to the point now where the goats are getting frustrated. I think the conflicts between us regulars would go away if the pressure from the trolls was lifted.

Would a simple, not technical FAQ that an ordinary audio consumer can understand that deals with each common topic help? We could just cut and paste in in for the pertinent replies. The Audiophile Myths thread is that, but no one seems to read the first post.

 

[gregorio]

when they make it a battle between themselves and the "big bad sound science forum", that is a good time to invite them to leave.

What typically happens is I (you or another regular) refute their fallacy based claim, they rephrase it, I refute it again and another regular joins in, they rephrase it again, rinse and repeat and as none of us regulars gets sanctioned, so it’s them vs the “big bad sound science forum” which is just a few opinionated regulars and therefore has nothing to do with science.

If there were a clear statement of what’s unacceptable, then it really would be the “big bad science forum”, rather just a handful of regulars. And, they have entered it of their own volition.

I don't know if anyone would follow a printed set of posting guidelines, or even a one sentence forum description.

If it were a simple statement of what’s unacceptable then it would obviously deter some from unacceptable behaviour because they would know or could be pointed to what’s unacceptable. Sure, there will probably be some who will ignore it anyway but then they can be treated as a troll (and sanctioned) more easily and consistently, rather than you declaring them a troll on page 2, me continuing to engage while you’re trolling them back, you then trying to convince me they are definitely trolls, while I’m trying to be certain and meanwhile they’re just getting more belligerent. By page 10, the last relevant point of contention was 4 pages ago and it’s now just an off-topic argument about trolling and trying to figure out how to insult the antagonist without breaking the TOS, and Castle has to jump in and berate all of us! A statement of what’s unacceptable would curtail a great deal of that typical progression.

G

 

[bigshot]

I kinda think trolls troll because they like to troll. The topic of the forum doesn't really interest them. Sound Science was created as a banishment forum. The admins don't appear to pay much attention to it. I think the trolls see that as an opportunity for shenanigans.

 

[gregorio]

I kinda think trolls troll because they like to troll.

Sure but how many trolls come here with the sole intention of trolling? Some for sure but what about the troll that comes here with a serious question? It would inevitably degenerate because they’re a troll but in the meantime we could have some interesting discussions that might be of use to others. Or what about the inadvertent troll, a person that comes here without the intention of trolling but inadvertently demonstrates troll like behaviour because of a misguided belief and a lack of understanding of science and/or fallacies? You calling them a troll is very likely to goad them into actually being a deliberate troll?

Would a simple, not technical FAQ that an ordinary audio consumer can understand that deals with each common topic help?

That would help to cut down the number of times we have to write the same answer to the same question but unless someone has fair understanding of what science is and assumes that we apply those same basic principles of logic and evidence in this subforum, how are they going to know that fallacies and anecdotal evidence are unacceptable here if it’s not stated anywhere?

G

 

[DenverW]

I think some regulars here are part of the problem here but can be a part of the solution.

Castles 'job' here is to moderate posts but it's our 'job' to moderate them too and also our behaviour on the forums.

Whenever someone trolls here you can ignore their posts or place them on ignore. What happens most of the time is that there's an inevitable 'pile on' that happens and it goes on and on for pages.

Taking pride in how you bring trolls down is beyond childish. Several people here need to drop down from their pedestals, if you have knowledge from your occupation that you like to tell other people about do it in a constructive way. Not everyone is an idiot because they don't know, we all have different skillsets. Some people just have an ardent curiosity in how certain things work but that doesn't mean they should have an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything to do with Audio.

Threads wander needlessly off topic because people want to win an argument. Happens frequently.

It shouldn't be about winning an argument, it should be about imparting knowledge.

If you want to solve a problem you should first ask yourself if you're part of that problem and what you can do to help solve it.

We've all done it, I'm no different. I've learned from it though. I'm sure we all remember Sonyfan1, but not all 'trolls' are that extreme. Some people probably don't even realise they are trolling because they misunderstand things or believe in the Marketing crap.

There's the inevitable trolls that get everything wrong, believe all the marketing, get proved wrong, leave in a tantrum. Then, they come back and it all starts again, it's attention seeking behaviour. It doesn't mean you have to give them that attention.

If they ramble on, you can always reply "Your question has been answered" or just plain ignore them and get back on topic if it's been derailed.

A lot of members here on head-fi are knee deep in marketing belief, they'll sink all the way in soon and can't be saved. You can try and drag them out but they'll keep sinking. Not everyone is going to believe the science, some people can't be saved.

Just one man's thoughts, as always.

Great post! As someone who recognises his own ignorance I don’t post here often, for that reason and also due to some of the responses I’ve read. Some of the responses to non trolls are so aggressive and personal that it’s quite the turn off. Perhaps the flip side to the ‘troll’ coin.

 

[bigshot]

I think we have a couple of trolls who come here with the specific intent of tag team trolling. I think we’ve seen them under multiple names. The lead is in by being reasonable, then ramp it up until they’ve caused a commotion. Then they retire that sock puppet for a year and use another name in a few weeks.

I’ve seen them mention things I said in previous arguments long in the past, while their account is new and only has a few posts… all in Sound Science. Like I said, I’ve had experience adminning discussion groups for decades. I know the signs. If I could do IP checks and login times, I bet I could spot the fake accounts fairly easily. I think banning the right couple of troublemakers with an IP ban would solve all our problems.

We aren’t talking about a lot of trolls. We’re talking about a few at most.

 

[gregorio]

Some of the responses to non trolls are so aggressive and personal that it’s quite the turn off.

That’s one of the big problems IMHO, the inadvertent troll being goaded into being a deliberate troll and those like you being reluctant to post because of aggressive responses. On the other side of the coin, some of us have been here a long time and have encountered so many trolls that sometimes we recognise an old troll tactic from years ago, worded identically or extremely unlikely to be a coincidence and we respond accordingly. While to an outsider or newer member, it would appear that we’re being overly aggressive to someone who doesn’t deserve it.

G

 

[bigshot]

The trolls flip back and forth. When they realize they’re pushing too far, they post a reasonable post to try to lure us back in. You might be reading aggressiveness to that kind of manipulation as interaction with a non troll.

I always try to be patient and explain with facts at first. When my polite generosity in explaining clearly is disrespected, I give a clear shot across the bow before becoming short with them. If that is ignored, the gloves are off.

Disagreeing and presenting evidence to prove someone’s conclusions are wrong isn’t being too aggressive. That is what I want other people to do… as long as they listen and reply to what I’m actually saying. I’m here to learn if someone has info I don’t.

One of the things I do when I see someone with a conclusion that seems incorrect is to politely ask questions to see how they reached that conclusion. Most people will answer questions like that. Trolls (and willfully ignorant people) immediately see it as a trap and refuse to answer directly.

Willfully ignorant people are another category of problem. I try to be firm and just argue on point with them and encourage them to support their claims. If they don’t want to do that, I’ll dismiss them and not engage at the same level any more.

 

[gregorio]

I think we have a couple of trolls who come here with the specific intent of tag team trolling. I think we’ve seen them under multiple names.

You’re probably right but personally I need a lot more than that before I conclusively label them a troll.

My 2 big concerns are:

1. The post-trump and post-brexit world indicates there’s lot more people than I ever realised who do not have a basic understanding of science, evidence or fallacies. What is the Sound Science subforum for? Is it to circle the wagons to keep them out and provide a safe haven for those who do have a reasonable understanding or is it to at least try to present the actual facts to whoever maybe reading in the hope it might be useful?

2. Those like @DenverW who are dissuaded from participating because of so much apparently over aggressiveness.

I think a statement of what is considered unacceptable in this subforum wouldn’t completely cure the problem but would mitigate it, hopefully enough that DenverW and those like him won’t feel so intimidated.

G

 

[bigshot]

Whatever helps I’m in favor of.

 

[gregorio]

Whatever helps I’m in favor of.

Well I can’t absolutely guarantee it but I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t help at all, provided of course we actually use it IE. Refer posters to it before stating or even implying they’re trolls and of course adhere to it ourselves.

If there’s agreement, I’m quite happy to create a draft, start a thread where we can discuss it and hopefully agree it’s final content/wording.

However, there’s no point unless @castleofargh agrees, is willing and able to put it on the landing page and willing and able to enforce it (when necessary). Castle?

G

 

[bigshot]

Castle voted it's fine where it is. If the trolling doesn't bother him, then those of us whom are bothered will need to find a way to deal with it ourselves.

 

[gregorio]

Let’s see what he says.

 

[Dogmatrix]

I voted status quo
Over some years I have observed a pattern to new commers

Culture shock, initial post abruptly and often personally rebutted
Personal defense, post rephrased context clarified
Authority questioned, who are you people?
Nature of science questioned, so you are not actually scientists anyway

After these steps are worked through people often come to an understanding and engage productively if they are labeled trolls too early, they will be lost

A statement of some kind may help but due to the multiple points of entry to the forum it would need to be referenced constantly
How closely would it be policed; would we be in danger of turning a public house into a private club?