A vote [Tags]
maggot
and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
I have only seen one negative response to the idea of tagging flames,
trolls, clues etc. so I feel it is time to make a discussion.
I am not trying to see an arbitrary law laid down for the group, just
a generally agreed on guideline for people to follow as a courtesy to
those who HATE reading flame threads and endless clue posts.
Here are the choices, as I have seen them discussed.
1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
posting behavior.
These can be redefined to be more specific if people like this idea
enough.
2) A single tag: [Flame Deluge] for simplicities sake, why use boring
old obvious tags, and let's just arbitrarily lump behavioral
correction in with telling someone that they are a warbling lump of
whale shit.
3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
Please discuss your reasons for voting (or not voting), and any
alternatives you may have in mind (these are the only options I have
seen put forth, except for arbitrarily labeling them troll, and I
don't think Canticle and I would like having to put [Troll] in the
Subject line every time one of us goes off).
Above all, if you have a preference please state clearly 1, 2, or 3,
or blatantly declare your abstention.
maggot
Lady Greycat
> 1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
> that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
> telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
> s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
> posting behavior.
The problems with these are that people's definition of a flame or a
troll vary.
If you go over to AGF and say "You know, I don't think that you put what
you just said in a way that was nice, did I misunderstand you?" that is
taken as a flame by A LOT of people. (And some of those people do venture
over here)
Just like sometimes, I may be saying heated words and getting into an
argument here, but that is not a flame. Some people would consider that
as such.
As for troll, people's definition of troll varys sooo much. And on
different days as well. If a troll comes in (A very obvious troll) that's
different, but some people don't know the difference between a clueless
moron and a troll. One day, *I* might consider that person a troll, and
the next, I might consider them not a troll.
Case in point, Satar. HE has all the earmarks of a troll, but there are
days when I just don't get the troll vibe from him. So slapping "troll"
on every post he makes is stupid.And yes, someone WILL start slapping
(troll) on every post he makes, make no mistake.
Besides, (OT) tags here annoy me enough. I don't want to see tons of tags
cluttering up the place. AND then there will be people saying "Well, I
tagged this troll/flame/clue thread correctly, if you don't like it, you
can just killfile the thread. *I* want to keep going on and on, throwing
cheap pot shots at this loser."
So, I'd have to say my answer would a tentative no.
Greycat
--
~*~*~*~*4 Goth Persons of the Near Apocalyptic-ish Era: Pretension~*~*~*~*
http://greycat.succubus.net
"Black as midnight, black as pitch,
Blacker than the foulest witch"
the Gruamach
cancer, but forgot it all when:
>Here are the choices, as I have seen them discussed.
>
>1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
>that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
>telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
>s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
>posting behavior.
>
>These can be redefined to be more specific if people like this idea
>enough.
>
>2) A single tag: [Flame Deluge] for simplicities sake, why use boring
>old obvious tags, and let's just arbitrarily lump behavioral
>correction in with telling someone that they are a warbling lump of
>whale shit.
>
>3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
>think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
Just because I'm a professional shit-disturber, I gotta play devil's
advocate and throw in this one comment/question:
Who decides where/when/what tags to be applied?
Admittedly that's a rather easy "anyone who feels the need" but here's
my point: what if someone else disagrees with the tag? What about
when someone adds the tag for no reason?
Just a thought...
Charles/the Gruamach, http://home.stlnet.com/~gothcop
The St. Louis Perkygoff, dammit!
Alt.Gothic's own Garibaldi and expecting DaddyGoth
JeanCroix
>3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
>think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
Yes, put me down for a #3 please, with a side of coleslaw and a Mountain
Dew. The tagging ideas are arbitrary and unenforcable.
And knock it off with the pseudo-IAGSF followups.
-JeanCroix
--
D a.g.s-f: Semper Monemus Sed Non Audiunt, Ergo Lartus E
http://homepages.nci2000.net/JeanCroix Keine Mitleid Fur Die Mehrheit
Only _2433513_ days until X-Day! "Oh my god, Nny killed Kenny! You bast--"
V Ordo Templi Ashus: First SubChurch of Ash, Patron of Shotgun & Chainsaw O
Bio7Flesh
>and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
>
>I have only seen one negative response to the idea of tagging flames,
>trolls, clues etc. so I feel it is time to make a discussion.
>
>I am not trying to see an arbitrary law laid down for the group, just
>a generally agreed on guideline for people to follow as a courtesy to
>those who HATE reading flame threads and endless clue posts.
I'll admit i initially like the idea of tags (Although not haveing nor wanting
the ability to killfile). But i think tags are something that should be used
spareingly. I can see tags in the case of NG attacks to destinguish between [AG
post] and crap, or [AGSF] for an alert of spam trolls ect ect. But other than
that it's not really needed. Anyone who normally reads through will know Oh
that "FUCK ALL YOU GOTHS" thread is a troll thread", and that that "who thinks
metalica is gothic" thread has been a flame thread ever since i started
posting. What i'm saying is, no one is going to completely protect their eyes
from a flame thread or even a troll thread. And attempting to tag threads will
only lead to leaving out alot of threads that otherwise might not meet you
description of such. In the long run it's better to ignore the trolls, and
Killfile the known flame threads until said thread is dead.
Thats just my opinion, we welcome yours.
To submit an editorial please write it down on a notebook size piece of paper,
tear it up and try not to think about it ever again.
TechroMancer
*********************************************
And out of the darkness, the Zombie did call True pain and suffering he brought
to them all Away ran the children to hide in their beds, for fear that the
devil would chop off their heads
Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone
>Okay, there has been a lot of discussion about why the IAGSF sucks,
>and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
>
>I have only seen one negative response to the idea of tagging flames,
>trolls, clues etc. so I feel it is time to make a discussion.
>
Maggot can I suggest that this vote be done through email?
The same way the FAQ maintainers faq was done...
Perhaps you could start a hotmail account for it or something and have
the way each person votes in the subject =)
>
>maggot
[p+m]
daniel
--
-Cymbies Loyal page :)
"I'm a metal head..... Realy, Fields of the Nephilm
Is black-metal...... Don't you _trust_ me?"
Whoops Watch the spam trap :)
`Una
> 1) Three tags: [Troll] [Flame] [Clue]
> think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
*bunches snipped*
i don't like any of these options. they are all arbitrary and
not very useful in the way of getting people's true opinions on
tags.
i've seen more than one argument against tags and i agree with
them all because those were the things i was going to say
on the subject until i found out someone already had.
my biggest complaint about tags is that they are ugly.
i also feel that they are more trouble than they are worth.
i don't have killfilters so i get to come in here everyday
and sift through the crap to get to the good stuff i want to
read. tags don't help me do that and often times they get in
the way of that because they tend to make the subject headers
bleed together.
let me explain what i mean. when there are two [OT] threads
with nothing between them and the one i want to kill is longer
than the one i want to read, i'll be running my mouse
down the list of [OT] posts and end up marking some of the ones
i want to read as already read and miss those posts.
from what i can tell of filters people would be missing out on
alot of stuff they might want to read if their filters are set
to kill threads according to tags for pretty much the same
reason.
i know we get alot of shit storms here, but it really isn't
that hard to sift through the crap. if nothing else, pick one
or two threads to follow and watch for the nicks of people
who say things you like to read, then mark the rest as read and
ignore it all.
i know i miss alot that way, but it's the only way i can keep up
with the volume of stuff that shows up here everyday.
i know there are problems here, but from what i've seen in usenet
getting worked up about a problem can be worse than the problem
itself. this group has lasted so long because everyone sticks
with what works. when people stop going with what works and
try to do things differently things get messier than they
need to be. so go with what works and don't fix what ain't broke.
`Una - the young locust
working really hard on developing ideas effectively
Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary!
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
:1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
:that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
:telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
:s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
:posting behavior.
Here's a better idea:
Don't feed the trolls except through e-mail.
Flaming & thwapping for cluelessness occurs naturally, &
there is no need to tag the damn threads. It will make it
IMPOSSIBLE to killfile a thread if the subject is always changing.
Call me crazy, but I think The Old Methods are The Best Methods.
:3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
:think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
Close enough.
Carrie
|sp00kiness abounds!! |Your Hatred Pays My Salary. |
|Complaints & Bitching go to: | |
|skerry#ossuary.net (but don't |The Mind-Fucking Wisdom Of The Ages: |
|wait up for a reply!) |http://www.execpc.com/~skerry/ |
Jack
maggot wrote in message <3662610E...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net>...
>Okay, there has been a lot of discussion about why the IAGSF sucks,
>and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
>
>I have only seen one negative response to the idea of tagging flames,
>trolls, clues etc. so I feel it is time to make a discussion.
Um, let me put it this way. I will *not* be using them. And from the posts
I've seen, you can probably count on a fair number of others not using them
as well, m'kay?
Feel free to use them all that you care to, but don't expect them to be
particularly helpful in actually killfiling stuff that you don't want to
see.
One reason that I don't feel that they'll be particularly useful, is because
of the way that threads mutate so quickly around here. Within three posts a
troll response, or flame can mutate into a totally entertaining sex thread,
or a philosophy discussion, or whatever, yet it'd still be carrying that
[FLAME] or [TROLL] tag.
However, here's what I *will* try to do. If I'm deliberately flaming the
shit out of someone, I'll try to mention somewhere in the header that it
*is* a flame, (Such as the title, and a "<flame> be warned." bit.) If it's
particularly fluffy, I'll similarly try to remember to mark it as <fluff>
somewhere in the title. (Or, <kinda fluffy>, etc.)
This probably won't do you any good if you're filtering mechanically, but if
you're deciding on what you're in the mood to read, it can help.
I'm not guaranteeing that this is going to be in all of my posts, or even
the majority of them, but I will try to make the content of new posts fairly
evident.
<snip>
>Above all, if you have a preference please state clearly 1, 2, or 3,
>or blatantly declare your abstention.
Mine is pretty much "none of the above", but if pressed, I'd go with "3".
<g>
--
-Jack- "Death, it's not just for breakfast anymore."
If you want to avoid getting lost in the spam, send
replies to jack (AT) mari (DOT) net
Margaret A Sawyer
mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.ne
> that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
> telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
> s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
> posting behavior.
>
> enough.
>
> 2) A single tag: [Flame Deluge] for simplicities sake, why use boring
> old obvious tags, and let's just arbitrarily lump behavioral
> correction in with telling someone that they are a warbling lump of
> whale shit.
>
> think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
>
I myself like option number one. Although, I have the distinct feeling
that flame wars may start over people's refusal to put tags on their
messages. And they won't put [flame] around it. Those bastards.
Megan
79 of goth
golab
>Who decides where/when/what
>tags to be applied? Admittedly
>that's a rather easy "anyone who
>feels the need" but here's my
>point: what if someone else
>disagrees with the tag? What
>about when someone adds the
>tag for no reason?
Chaos I expect. And plenty of work for the (FLAME) tags.
And what about multiple tags?
Say I post something like:
(OT) Max Headroom :)
Some newbie decides I'm a troll 'cause I haven't posted in a week or two
and tags me.
(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
Someone else clues them:
(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
And then they get mad and it's:
(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
And finally:
(FLAME DELUGE)(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
So maybe this example is a bit over the top, but you see my point.
golab, reminded of Pandora's Box.
-----"Oh, no tears please. It's a waste of good suffering."-----
> ---Golab's Purgatory---
> http://members.tripod.com/~golachab
NoirRose
>maggot <mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net> writes:
>>3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
>>think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
> Yes, put me down for a #3 please, with a side of coleslaw and a Mountain
> Dew. The tagging ideas are arbitrary and unenforcable.
> And knock it off with the pseudo-IAGSF followups.
>-JeanCroix
>--
Let's make this my first "Me too" post. NO TAGS! If you want to put a tag
on, fine. But don't make those of us who jsut plain don't give a shit do it.
I'm not going to tag my posts unless they're AGSF posts.
NoirRose
--
******************************************************
*************Touch not, come no closer...*************
******Dark petals cloak dark secrets, pain unseen*****
***********Would you choose the Black Rose?***********
*******Beware...dark thorns draw heart's blood.*******
******************************************************
RED DAYZ
-Satar
buboe_...@hotmail.com
maggot <mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net> wrote:
My choice:
> 1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
> that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
> telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
> s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
> posting behavior.
.btr
--
ICQ: 21606902
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Canticle
define something which various people are going to interpret in a
different way to begin with.
My vote is for (4) This licks.
Jeff-boy
Sleepycat
<mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net> wrote:
> 3) None of the above
That's my "vote", spurious as the vote idea is, since I'll only abide by
the outcome if it works in practice.
Threads mutate too fast anyway - tags will become irrelevant so fast that
no-one will take any notice of them.
Take [long] tags as a case in point.
I try to put them on when my message is more than a screenful.
But since when did anyone make the effort to take them off after the thread
went back to short posts?
Even I don't remember to do that.
Tagging a thread may also inconvenience those who have watchfiled or
killfiled the thread.
Ongoing two-person flamewars should sometimes be re-named (if atypical of
the thread as titled) or taken to email.
I don't agree with the fundamentalist never-feed-the-troll doctrine.
It is based on palpably false assumptions about the nature and motives of
trolls in general.
Trollfeeding flames have started some of the funniest threads ever seen here.
In some cases, an apparent "troll" I've fed has actually _learnt something_
from being attacked in a reasonably intelligent (wank, wank) manner.
Most people don't differentiate well enough between flaming and criticism
anyway.
--
+ Kevin J. Bonham (Sleepycat) + CaffinGothCode98:AUiKba5baWaaaaaaHbaa87NwA
WYLPj_fobyhjsi11deaGa2e7fab5aaeaNtnemgqDaaGcbjAbb4GObrNbSbYLzFaaaaablauTAS
"And the moral of this story is never lean on the weird. Or they will chop
your head off. And perverts will eat your brains." - Hunter S. Thompson +
Metamorph
> 3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
> think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
Metamorph
(of course I wouldn't say it in quite those words... *grin*)
maggot
> And knock it off with the pseudo-IAGSF followups.
>
> -JeanCroix
Alright, allright! Jeez, what a party poooper...
maggot
maggot
> i know there are problems here, but from what i've seen in usenet
> getting worked up about a problem can be worse than the problem
> itself. this group has lasted so long because everyone sticks
> with what works. when people stop going with what works and
> try to do things differently things get messier than they
> need to be. so go with what works and don't fix what ain't broke.
>
> `Una - the young locust
> working really hard on developing ideas effectively
Uhh... You're doing a damn good job of it. I think you have said
something that applies to the whole discussion about "what do we
do..." I appreciate your input and will put you down as a #3...
maggot
maggot
>
> In article <3662610E...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net>, maggot
> <mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net> wrote:
>
> > 3) None of the above
>
> That's my "vote", spurious as the vote idea is, since I'll only abide by
> the outcome if it works in practice.
>
> Most people don't differentiate well enough between flaming and criticism
> anyway.
I think that's the strongest argument against the whole thing. People
simply have different idea's about what constitutes a troll. Not to
mention the fact that when one becomes a troll for a single incident,
does that make them a troll, or just an idiot who lost his temper and
deserves a spanking.
maggot
mag...@fatnet.net
kra...@hotmail.com.SPAMTRAP (Calm, laughing mirrors stand alone) wrote:
> Maggot can I suggest that this vote be done through email?
>
> The same way the FAQ maintainers faq was done...
> >maggot
Two reasons I didn't want to do this privately.
1) I wanted to encourage a debate on what I percieved to be a good idea, since
prior to this post I had seen only one post against it that I actually
considered worth considering.
2) Well let's just face it. I like the idea, and if I get forty letters
against it, who's to keep me honest unless it's done in public. Anyone in AG
who is ashamed of their opinion... well let's just say that they are in such
a great minority that they deserve no say in the way AG is conducted ;)
maggot
David Gerard
:And what about multiple tags?
:Say I post something like:
:(OT) Max Headroom :)
:(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
:(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
:(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
:(FLAME DELUGE)(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
:So maybe this example is a bit over the top, but you see my point.
Sounds like the best idea yet. I vote for it wholeheartedly.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
"Do you want to come up for coffee?"
"I don't drink coffee."
"I haven't got any." -- 'Brassed Off'
David Gerard
:JeanCroix wrote:
:> And knock it off with the pseudo-IAGSF followups.
:Alright, allright! Jeez, what a party poooper...
Damn. You *sure* I can't give you a cold boot anyway?
David Gerard
:1) I wanted to encourage a debate on what I percieved to be a good idea, since
:prior to this post I had seen only one post against it that I actually
:considered worth considering.
Of course. A vote if any should only ratify consensus.
:2) Well let's just face it. I like the idea, and if I get forty letters
:against it, who's to keep me honest unless it's done in public. Anyone in AG
:who is ashamed of their opinion... well let's just say that they are in such
:a great minority that they deserve no say in the way AG is conducted ;)
Usenet votes are normally open for this reason: a list of all voters and
their votes.
OdiEtAmo3
>Subject: [FLAME DELUGE] [CLUE] [OT] [FS] [BREASTS] [POLITICS] [OT] A vote
>[Tags]
You're selling breasts, David?
~Di (who doesn't want to know if there's a catalogue)
To email, remove ".yeark" from address
Ron Cecchini
f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
> Sounds like the best idea yet. I vote for it wholeheartedly.
i want my own tag.
][
Unknown
>I have only seen one negative response to the idea of tagging flames,
>trolls, clues etc. so I feel it is time to make a discussion.
>3) None of the above, the whole idea sucks, or who the fuck do you
>think you are calling for a vote asshole!!!
The primary problem I have with a troll tag in particular is that it
serves to legitimise feeding the buggers, which, IMO, is a fucking bad
idea.
Actually, I fell the same way about flaming too, but that's just me.
More generally tho', thread drift will serve to make a lot of them
wrong..
Lets face it, half the thread titles have nothing to do with what ends
up being discussed on them.
additionally -
Aesthetically, I don't like tags.
Peoples definitions of what qualifies for what tag (if at all) will
vary, and that would inevitably end up with lots of bandwidth being
wasted on arguments over which tags should be on the thread, thus
reducing the signal to noise ration on the group even further, and
it's low enough already.
--
Axel
Everything is true, even false things
- Malaclypse the Younger
<axel AT aracnet >dot< net>
Empty
>Okay, there has been a lot of discussion about why the IAGSF sucks,
>and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
I'm a wanker? Cool!
>1) Three tags: [Troll] for FAQ and TOS violators, so we always know
>that you are whacking a troll. [Flame] for those times when you are
>telling someone what a smeghead they are (i.e. any post talking to
>s*t*r). [Clue] any post politely (or bluntly) correcting a newbies
>posting behavior.
Three would be a good starting point. Definately worth trying out,
anyways.
This is my vote, given no fourth choice that says:
4. _________________________________
~Empty
Empty
Cecchini) whispered this under their breath:
>
>f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>
>> Sounds like the best idea yet. I vote for it wholeheartedly.
>
>i want my own tag.
[ ][ ] ?
Hrmmm...
Do Not Use Happy Fun KittenLady On Cement
mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net opened up hir mouth and spewed:
> I am not trying to see an arbitrary law laid down for the group, just
> a generally agreed on guideline for people to follow as a courtesy to
> those who HATE reading flame threads and endless clue posts.
you can generally tell if a thread is a flame thread after reading two
posts from it.
marking posts with [flame] is just making the obvious easier to see, and
honsetly i *never* remember to use tags so either way, I won't.
marking posts [AGSF] is way different and is a good practice.
-Leonora (Mistress of All Evil & Goddess Material :)
--
Do I bet it all on love? | http://www.kittenlady.com
Or change and freak out? | wench[@#$!]kittenlady.com
-Erasure | Will Write For Contempt!!
Sheila Marie
>
> On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:34:18 -0500, Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron
> Cecchini) whispered this under their breath:
>
>
> [ ][ ] ?
>
> Hrmmm...
Maybe (.)(.)? or \*/?
Sheila Marie
--
Wanna know me? - http://www.lowlife.com/sheila_marie
C5 New Orleans "The Rougaroux's Ball"- http://c5.dyn.ml.org/
Tampa Goth Mailing list - http://www.lowlife.com/gothgardens
THE Industrial music info site - http://www.lowlife.com
Do Not Use Happy Fun KittenLady On Cement
Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com opened up hir mouth and spewed:
> i want my own tag.
>
> ][
>
there you go.
Jack
Ron Cecchini wrote in message ...
>
>f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>
>> Sounds like the best idea yet. I vote for it wholeheartedly.
>
What, you mean...
<Ron>
</Ron>
...faux-HTML tags being put around stuff isn't enough for you?
Talk about *greedy*.
;)
Ron Cecchini
we...@kittenlady.com wrote:
> there you go.
Heh, i like these... Props to you & Sheila.
<gets bored and starts doodling>
(.) (.)
) (
( * )
<ahem> Sorry...
][
Sleepycat
<mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net> wrote:
> I think that's the strongest argument against the whole thing. People
> simply have different idea's about what constitutes a troll. Not to
> mention the fact that when one becomes a troll for a single incident,
> does that make them a troll, or just an idiot who lost his temper and
> deserves a spanking.
Indeed.
The various FAQs and so on seemed pretty clear to me about this.
Firstly that a troll is someone who deliberately posts to annoy.
I suppose the question then could be "annoy whom".
It isn't necessarily the majority of the group.
But you can post to annoy without being a troll.
For instance, if you post to annoy ... the trolls.
It's also very clearly spelt out in the old AGSF FAQ (I think) that _one
post is not enough of anything to determine the difference_.
Sadly, I see that one ignored on a very regular basis.
Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary!
Use Happy Fun KittenLady On Cement) fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
:On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:34:18 -0500 Ron Cecchini who we also know as
:Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com opened up hir mouth and spewed:
:
:> i want my own tag.
:>
:> ][
:>
:
:there you go.
They kind of look like boobs w/o nipples. How appropriate.
Carrie [*][*]?
|sp00kiness abounds!! |Your Hatred Pays My Salary. |
|Complaints & Bitching go to: | |
|skerry#ossuary.net (but don't |The Mind-Fucking Wisdom Of The Ages: |
|wait up for a reply!) |http://www.execpc.com/~skerry/ |
Cobweb T. RazorJAK
shem...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
> Empty wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:34:18 -0500, Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron
> > Cecchini) whispered this under their breath:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hrmmm...
>
> Maybe (.)(.)? or \*/?
But Leo doesn't have that much cleavage for (.)(.) to work for her :-)
Cobweb T. RazorJAK
((( running for the closest fallout shelter and cementing himself in )))
Casper The BitterGoff
<Snip!>
> The primary problem I have with a troll tag in particular is
> that it serves to legitimise feeding the buggers, which, IMO,
> is a fucking bad idea.
I Was Planning On Writing A Long Post Explaining My Opinion
On The Matter But Axel Did A Much Better (And Concise) Job
Than I Could.
So, I Guess That What I'm Saying Is "Me Too!" Tags Are A Crappy
Idea.
_Casper The BitterGoff
maggot
>
> flaming/thwapping/trolling etc, publically, on the group, is not
> something that should be encouraged,
However, it is clearly not possible to discourage it completeley. Or
even partly for that matter.
> in particular by introducing a
> lame idea that makes people think they can get away with it if they
> want.
I don't think of the tags as an excuse to flame, but a courtesy to
those who would rather not bother with them. Like it or not, flames
will be posted, as will troll food. Nothing I have seen in any
newsgroup or BBS (short of total moderation, which is NOT an option
for AG) has succeeded in curbing troll-feeding and flame wars. Why
not seek an effective tool that will at least let people know where
and where they are not. I think if people can be bothered to tag
their flame wars, they can just as easily be bothered to un-tag the
thread once the post is over.
Even better, it's nice to be able to enjoy a flame war without a bunch
of people crying, "Take it to e-mail." or "You guys need to grow up."
> the [] tags are a useful thing on occasion to use, but by no means
> should they be used as an excuse to allow people to flood the group as
> they see fit. remember, not everyone does have killfiles.
Question... Why doesn't everyone have killfiles? I mean, I have
Opera, Netscape, and am looking at slrn. All of which I have gotten
for free (not sure about slrn yet) and all of which have killfiles.
Is it that hard to get a newsreader that has a killfile (Not an
argument actually, I am genuinely curious)
maggot
maggot
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:09:25 -0600 (CST), golab <go...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> :And what about multiple tags?
> :Say I post something like:
> :(OT) Max Headroom :)
> :(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
> :(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
> :(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
> :(FLAME DELUGE)(FLAME)(CLUE)(TROLL)(OT) Max Headroom :)
> :So maybe this example is a bit over the top, but you see my point.
>
Well I'm not sure I like the idea, but do you have her phone number?
maggot
maggot
>
> On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:14:02 GMT, mag...@fatnet.net <mag...@fatnet.net> wrote:
>
> :1) I wanted to encourage a debate on what I percieved to be a good idea, since
> :prior to this post I had seen only one post against it that I actually
> :considered worth considering.
>
> Of course. A vote if any should only ratify consensus.
Exactly...
>
> :2) Well let's just face it. I like the idea, and if I get forty letters
> :against it, who's to keep me honest unless it's done in public.
> Usenet votes are normally open for this reason: a list of all voters and
> their votes.
Though I must say right now that I have recieved about fifty votes in
favor of my [Flame Deluge] idea in private e-mail. I'd disclose their
names, but well... That would be unethical, so I guess I win, and you
all HAVE to use MY IDEA!!!!
maggot
At any rate it's a pretty good argument for [Flame] tags, isn't it?
;)
maggot
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 01:10:38 -0800, maggot <mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net>
>
> >and why the welcome committee is for wankers. Forget about that.
>
> I'm a wanker? Cool!
Well I was just trying to express what seems to be the general
consensus. I personally have no opinion on the Welcome to Alt.gothic
Newbies Kindness Expressing Reform Squad. ;)
> Three would be a good starting point. Definately worth trying out,
> anyways.
>
> This is my vote, given no fourth choice that says:
>
> 4. _________________________________
Oh... Good point, I'm sorry i didn't think of that. I thought #3 had
covered all the rest...
maggot
maggot
>
> Empty wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:34:18 -0500, Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron
> > Cecchini) whispered this under their breath:
> >
> > >i want my own tag.
> >
> > [ ][ ] ?
> >
> > Hrmmm...
>
> Maybe (.)(.)? or \*/?
Sorry guys, but your tags are a bit to the right of the subject line
already (usually)
maggot
(and NO whining!!! ;)
maggot
> > Empty wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:34:18 -0500, Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron
> > > Cecchini) whispered this under their breath:
> > >
> > > >i want my own tag.
> > >
> > > [ ][ ] ?
> > >
> > > Hrmmm...
> >
> > Maybe (.)(.)? or \*/?
>
<K'Pow!!!> I DIDN'T SEE YOUR [Gratutously BAD Joke] TAG <Fwoooooosh>
maggot
<lobs a frag grenade over the firewall>
maggot
Sorry, I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!!!
maggot
cheatin...@my-dejanews.com
Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron Cecchini) doodled:
> <gets bored and starts doodling>
>
> (.) (.)
> ) (
> ( * )
>
> <ahem> Sorry...
i like them too but i'm not going to apologize for the drool, dripping down
my face and onto my lap..
kelley...yup fresh air might help
Unknown
wrote:
>I don't think of the tags as an excuse to flame, but a courtesy to
>those who would rather not bother with them.
While you may not see them as such, others will.
It is the nature of labels.
They serve to justify the activities under them.
e.g.:
>>>>>Troll feeding post
>>>>Didn't you read the bit that says 'Don't feed the troll'
>>>Yeah, but I put [Troll] in the header, so you could have kill-filed it, couldn't you.
>>No.
>Oh.
> Like it or not, flames
>will be posted, as will troll food. Nothing I have seen in any
>newsgroup or BBS (short of total moderation, which is NOT an option
>for AG) has succeeded in curbing troll-feeding and flame wars.
But in some groups they are more common than in others.
> Why
>not seek an effective tool that will at least let people know where
>and where they are not. I think if people can be bothered to tag
>their flame wars,
Because marking them as such encourages them, and IMO, they should not
be encouraged.
> they can just as easily be bothered to un-tag the
>thread once the post is over.
You expect too much.
I see too many threads where the title bears no resemblance to the
thread, to assume that flame wars will be any different.
>Even better, it's nice to be able to enjoy a flame war without a bunch
>of people crying, "Take it to e-mail." or "You guys need to grow up."
Maybe it would be better to actually take it to e-mail.
>Question... Why doesn't everyone have killfiles? I mean, I have
>Opera, Netscape, and am looking at slrn. All of which I have gotten
>for free (not sure about slrn yet) and all of which have killfiles.
>Is it that hard to get a newsreader that has a killfile (Not an
>argument actually, I am genuinely curious)
Some people post from work, or university and the software that they
have to use does not have kill-files.
There may be other reasons (do AOL or WebTV have kill files?)
It's a matter of courtesy too.
If any part of the message has to be downloaded, then it consumes
bandwidth.
Some people have to pay for download time.
Don't make them pay for your ego, it's rude.
Ry
<big snip>
> There may be other reasons (do AOL or WebTV have kill files?)
They didn't for usenet. One of the reasons I finally left. Also
wouldn't allow 3rd party software that did.
For WebTv, I can't answer.
Ry
(who is still glad to be off of AOL)
--
Um Die Ecke - Proud Sponsor of Gropius
http://www.people.unt.edu/~ldd0003/umdieecke.htm
Dallas Drunken Goffiness @
http://www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/9836/pogo.html
Ron Cecchini
cheatin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > <gets bored and starts doodling>
<plays plastic surgeon and snips the breastages & naughty bits>
> i like them too but i'm not going to apologize for the drool,
> dripping down my face and onto my lap..
My, my, my ... So, can i go to Manray w/ you on Sundays?
][
mag...@fatnet.net
Axel wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 1998 00:50:45 -0800, maggot <mag...@SPAMLOCKfatnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't think of the tags as an excuse to flame, but a courtesy to
> >those who would rather not bother with them.
>
> While you may not see them as such, others will.
>
> It is the nature of labels.
>
> They serve to justify the activities under them.
That seems to me to be the anti-needles exchange argument. If you give out
free needles, it will encourage drug use. If you don't it will encourage the
spread of AIDS. Same story here. If you make labels, it will encourage
flames. If you don't then everyone will have to read deal with them as
before.
[snip]
> > Like it or not, flames
> >will be posted, as will troll food. Nothing I have seen in any
> >newsgroup or BBS (short of total moderation, which is NOT an option
> >for AG) has succeeded in curbing troll-feeding and flame wars.
>
> But in some groups they are more common than in others.
Some groups have a population of 12.
[snip]
> > they can just as easily be bothered to un-tag the
> >thread once the post is over.
>
> You expect too much.
There has not been any reason to encourage changing the headers. The
existence and application of tags will create such a need. (i.e. I exist,
therfore I must go away... :)
>
> I see too many threads where the title bears no resemblance to the
> thread, to assume that flame wars will be any different.
That is because no one ever bothered to change the threads headers. I am
saying that if someone bothers to change a threads headers, it seems likely
theat they will change them back.
>
> >Even better, it's nice to be able to enjoy a flame war without a bunch
> >of people crying, "Take it to e-mail." or "You guys need to grow up."
>
> Maybe it would be better to actually take it to e-mail.
Nonsense. That is an opinion by no means shared by the majority of regulars.
> >Question... Why doesn't everyone have killfiles?
> Some people post from work, or university and the software that they
> have to use does not have kill-files.
But then they aren't paying by the minute are they? They can just scroll past
Tagged posts if they don't want to read them.
>
> There may be other reasons (do AOL or WebTV have kill files?)
Ummm... No comment.
>
> It's a matter of courtesy too.
>
> If any part of the message has to be downloaded, then it consumes
> bandwidth.
>
> Some people have to pay for download time.
But the point is, if they are paying for their own service then don't they
have the option to get a newsreader with a killfile?
maggot
(I find a lot of humor in other peoples ego's)
David Gerard
:Question... Why doesn't everyone have killfiles? I mean, I have
:Opera, Netscape, and am looking at slrn. All of which I have gotten
:for free (not sure about slrn yet) and all of which have killfiles.
:Is it that hard to get a newsreader that has a killfile (Not an
:argument actually, I am genuinely curious)
Opera isn't free. I wasn't aware that Opera and Netscape had killfiles
(though there is a third-party plugin for Netscape that does killfiling).
slrn is free, free, free.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
"Do you want to come up for coffee?"
"I don't drink coffee."
"I haven't got any." -- 'Brassed Off'
maggot
> Opera isn't free.
Oh, uh... Did I forget to read that file named "register.txt?" Oh
well, I never use it anyway...
> I wasn't aware that Opera and Netscape had killfiles
> (though there is a third-party plugin for Netscape that does killfiling).
They both do. Netscape doesn't need a third party plugin either. I'm
using four (I don't remember killing anyone while I was using 2.0 and
3.0) and it came installed and ready to go (it's a little annoying to
use, but that's what you get when you try to make every single program
on earth Easy to use, with little pull-down menu's and groovy looking
buttons...)
maggot
Unknown
>In article <366d6e06...@news.newsguy.com>,
> Axel wrote:
>>
>> While you may not see them as such, others will.
>>
>> It is the nature of labels.
>>
>> They serve to justify the activities under them.
>
>That seems to me to be the anti-needles exchange argument. If you give out
>free needles, it will encourage drug use. If you don't it will encourage the
>spread of AIDS. Same story here. If you make labels, it will encourage
>flames. If you don't then everyone will have to read deal with them as
>before.
I on't see the two as being similar.
I also don't believe that the needle exchange argument makes sense,
never having met a junkie (or potential junkie) who considered the
availability of needles an issue in whether or not to inject heroin or
speed.
OTOH, by labelling flames or troll feeding it allows one to excuse it
by saying 'you can read the header, so why read the post?'.
This argument gets used here fairly regularly, and it has been argued
against very effectively in a number of big threads.
>[snip]
>> > Like it or not, flames
>> >will be posted, as will troll food. Nothing I have seen in any
>> >newsgroup or BBS (short of total moderation, which is NOT an option
>> >for AG) has succeeded in curbing troll-feeding and flame wars.
>>
>> But in some groups they are more common than in others.
>
>Some groups have a population of 12.
...as a proportion of the number of posts.
Generally, the more tolerance within the group for them, the larger a
proportion they take up (IMO).
>There has not been any reason to encourage changing the headers. The
>existence and application of tags will create such a need. (i.e. I exist,
>therfore I must go away... :)
There has always been a need to make the subject: line appropriate.
That's why it's there in the first place.
>That is because no one ever bothered to change the threads headers. I am
>saying that if someone bothers to change a threads headers, it seems likely
>theat they will change them back.
If people haven't seen a need to in the past, why should having
'flame' or 'troll' in the subject line, make it any different?
>> >Even better, it's nice to be able to enjoy a flame war without a bunch
>> >of people crying, "Take it to e-mail." or "You guys need to grow up."
>>
>> Maybe it would be better to actually take it to e-mail.
>
>Nonsense. That is an opinion by no means shared by the majority of regulars.
That's debatable.
I don't think it's ever been widely discussed.
Maybe it should be.
>
>> >Question... Why doesn't everyone have killfiles?
>
>> Some people post from work, or university and the software that they
>> have to use does not have kill-files.
>
>But then they aren't paying by the minute are they? They can just scroll past
>Tagged posts if they don't want to read them.
Some university accounts do charge for on-line time.
>> There may be other reasons (do AOL or WebTV have kill files?)
>
>Ummm... No comment.
>>
>> It's a matter of courtesy too.
>>
>> If any part of the message has to be downloaded, then it consumes
>> bandwidth.
>>
>> Some people have to pay for download time.
>
>But the point is, if they are paying for their own service then don't they
>have the option to get a newsreader with a killfile?
Even if you only download the header of a message, that still takes
time.
With a slow modem that can still add up to a significant amount of
money over the course of the year.
maggot
>
> On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:42:56 GMT, mag...@fatnet.net wrote:
>
> >In article <366d6e06...@news.newsguy.com>,
> > Axel wrote:
> >> It is the nature of labels.
> >>
> >> They serve to justify the activities under them.
> >
> >That seems to me to be the anti-needles exchange argument.
> I on't see the two as being similar.
> I also don't believe that the needle exchange argument makes sense,
> never having met a junkie (or potential junkie) who considered the
> availability of needles an issue in whether or not to inject heroin or
> speed.
Precisely my point! Those of us who flame and feed trolls do not
consider the inclusion of Tags to be a factor in deciding wether or
not to flame. Saying that Tags will encourage flames, is about as
meaningful as saying that clean needles will encourage (or at least
condone) drug use. Neither statement is founded on any research,
data, or observation that I am aware of.
> OTOH, by labelling flames or troll feeding it allows one to excuse it
> by saying 'you can read the header, so why read the post?'.
What's wrong with that? You are assuming that flaming is unanimously
considered to be a bad thing.
> This argument gets used here fairly regularly, and it has been argued
> against very effectively in a number of big threads.
That is your point of view. I personally have never seen the argument
do anything but butt heads.
> >[snip]
> >> > Like it or not, flames
> >> >will be posted, as will troll food. Nothing I have seen in any
> >> >newsgroup or BBS (short of total moderation, which is NOT an option
> >> >for AG) has succeeded in curbing troll-feeding and flame wars.
> >>
> >> But in some groups they are more common than in others.
> >
> >Some groups have a population of 12.
>
> ...as a proportion of the number of posts.
>
> Generally, the more tolerance within the group for them, the larger a
> proportion they take up (IMO).
Not that I see any real foundation for that statement, but it does
seem logical. I post here, in part, because I love an intelligent
debate, as well as a tolerant environment towards going off on people
from time to time. Therefore users like me will proliferate.
> >There has not been any reason to encourage changing the headers. The
> >existence and application of tags will create such a need. (i.e. I exist,
> >therfore I must go away... :)
>
> There has always been a need to make the subject: line appropriate.
Prove that. Prove that the "Are we stupid" thread required a change
in subject in order to discuss communism as extensively as it did.
Explain to me why the "unemployed" thread continued to discuss the way
people dress for work after I had changed its headers to "Dressing for
Success or Selling out?" The subject line has seldom served any
significant function past the initial post.
> >That is because no one ever bothered to change the threads headers. I am
> >saying that if someone bothers to change a threads headers, it seems likely
> >theat they will change them back.
>
> If people haven't seen a need to in the past, why should having
> 'flame' or 'troll' in the subject line, make it any different?
Because they added them.
> >> >Even better, it's nice to be able to enjoy a flame war without a bunch
> >> >of people crying, "Take it to e-mail." or "You guys need to grow up."
> >>
> >> Maybe it would be better to actually take it to e-mail.
> >
> >Nonsense. That is an opinion by no means shared by the majority of regulars.
>
> That's debatable.
>
> I don't think it's ever been widely discussed.
>
> Maybe it should be.
Wher have you been for the past two weeks, Axel? It has been beaten
to death and back to life again.
[snip]
> Some university accounts do charge for on-line time.
Ouch, I didn't know that...
> >But the point is, if they are paying for their own service then don't they
> >have the option to get a newsreader with a killfile?
>
> Even if you only download the header of a message, that still takes
> time.
Now that is getting ridiculous. Morality of flaming in publc, and
bandwidth issues, fine, but complaining about having to download a
header?
maggot
Ry
!>Opera isn't free. I wasn't aware that Opera and Netscape had killfiles
!>(though there is a third-party plugin for Netscape that does killfiling).
!>slrn is free, free, free.
Netscape 4.5 does. I use it at work. They function passibly, but don't have
enough options to killfile on IMO.
Ry
(who seems to be following David around through a.g., but it's coincidental)
--
"You'd sooner be beaten to death by a bunch of angry clue salesmen
wielding clue-by-fours than actually get a clue." - Ian Sturrock
cheatin...@my-dejanews.com
Ron.Ce...@GSC.GTE.Com (Ron Cecchini) babbled:
> My, my, my ... So, can i go to Manray w/ you on Sundays?
the kurt-man was asking about lipstick also since you told him that i went
ONCE. you bois have some fascination in going?? perhaps more like on
thursday nights??
s..
Casper The BitterGoff
> Axel wrote:
<Snip!>
> > OTOH, by labelling flames or troll feeding it allows one
> > to excuse it by saying 'you can read the header, so why
> > read the post?'.
>
> What's wrong with that? You are assuming that flaming is
> unanimously considered to be a bad thing.
You're Not Listening.
Feeding Trolls Is Bad. Saying "If You Feed Trolls, Put A Tag
That Says So" Is The *Same* Thing As Saying "You Can Feed The
Trolls".
*That* Is A Dumb Idea. The Policy Is And Should Keep On Being
"Don't Feed The Trolls".
Flames, OTOH, Are A Slightly Different Matter. They've Always
Been And Always Will be A Part Of This Group. There's, IMO,
No Need Of A Flame Tag.
<RantModeON>
Of Course, There Also Hasn't Been A Decent Flame On This NG For
A Really Long Time. People Seem To Think That Writing Things
Like "Fuck You, Twit!" And "You Have A Small Dick" Is A Flame.
IT IS NOT.
*That* Is Only Childish Name-Calling. Hell, I Can't Understand
Why Most Of The People Posting Those So-Called Flames Aren't
Ashamed Of Themselves.
When You're Trying To Verbally Maim Somoeone And You End Up
Sounding Like A Frustrated 12 year Old, You're Doing Something
Wrong.
And It's People With Those Really Poor Torching Skills Who Do
The Troll-Baiting.
Troll: ALL U GOTHICS SUCK!!!
LameFlame: Oh, Like We Haven't Heard *That* One Before.
I Bet You're A 12 Year Old With No People Skills
Playing On Your Father's Computer.
Why Don't You Just Fuck Off Little Troll?
If Anyone Recognizes Themselves In The Above Flame (Or Reasonable
Facsimile Thereof), YOU SHOULDN'T BE FLAMING.[1]
Christ, It Makes The Poster Look Just As Stupid As The Troll.
Face It All You Troll-Baiting NitWits Out There You Couldn't
Burn Your Way Out Of A Paper Bag So Give It A Rest.
<RantModeOFF>
Whew... Got A Bit Carried Away There...
<Snip!>
> > There has always been a need to make the subject: line
> > appropriate.
>
> Prove that. Prove that the "Are we stupid" thread required
> a change in subject in order to discuss communism as extensively
> as it did. Explain to me why the "unemployed" thread continued
> to discuss the way people dress for work after I had changed its
> headers to "Dressing for Success or Selling out?" The subject
> line has seldom served any significant function past the initial
> post.
That Is A Rather Strange Argument.
What You're Talking About Is Simply Thread Drift. It's Part Of
The Medium. Changing The Subject Line Is Important (Although
Often Forgotten) Because Some People (Like Me) Will Avoid Certain
Thread Names Because It Doesn't Sound Interesting.
You've Actually Given The Best Example. That "Are We Stupid?"
Thread.
I Wouldn't Read It Because I Would Dismiss It As Some Trollish
Post With Some Boring Troll-Baiting To Follow.
I Mean *Yawn*. If I Want To Be Bored, I'll Watch Ricki Lake.
<Snip! Changing Headers>
> > If people haven't seen a need to in the past, why should having
> > 'flame' or 'troll' in the subject line, make it any different?
>
> Because they added them.
Huh?
Run That By Me Again.
<Snip!>
> > >But the point is, if they are paying for their own service
> > >then don't they have the option to get a newsreader with a
> > > killfile?
> >
> > Even if you only download the header of a message, that still
> > takes time.
>
> Now that is getting ridiculous. Morality of flaming in publc,
> and bandwidth issues, fine, but complaining about having to
> download a header?
Not At All Ridiculous.
I Have Slllllooooooowwwww Net Access. Downloading 200 Headers
Takes Me Several Minutes. When You Start Wasting Bandwidth,
When Flame Wars Happen, When Trolls Floods The Place, It Can
(And Has In The Past) Take Hours.
That Really Pisses Me Off.
And, Of Course, When I Get Pissed Off, I Get Mean. I Snap At
People And Lose Patience Very Easily. Which, In Turn, Means That
People Get Aggravation That They Don't Necessarily Deserve.Which
Propagates The Brooding, Evil Mood Like A Plague.
Which Leads, Eventually, To Societal Decay And The Collapse Of
Civilization.
You Wouldn't Want to Be Responsible For The End Of The World Now,
Would You?
_Casper The BitterGoff (Only Half-Joking)
[1]And I See *Several* "Flames" That Sound Almost Exactly Like
That Each Time A Troll Shows Up. You Know Who You Are, People.
mag...@fatnet.net
Casper The BitterGoff <casp...@total.net> wrote:
> maggot wrote:
> > Axel wrote:
> <Snip!>
> > > OTOH, by labelling flames or troll feeding it allows one
> > > to excuse it by saying 'you can read the header, so why
> > > read the post?'.
> >
> > What's wrong with that? You are assuming that flaming is
> > unanimously considered to be a bad thing.
>
> You're Not Listening.
>
> Feeding Trolls Is Bad.
Arbitrary judgement call. Sure it is annoying when people feed really stupid
troll (i.e AWL GOTS ARE FAGGS!!!!!!!!!!), but a lot of people had a lot of
fun with 13th fl*or, and others like him (her/it). Sometimes feeding trolls
is fun, and I'm not going to allow anyone to make that distinction for me, or
for anyone else. I understand that a lot of shit happened because of that
one troll, but two days later it was like it never happened.
If you have some evidence that feeding fun trolls has been destructive to the
newsgroup, then I have some evidence that your evidence is only an opinion,
and by no means that of the group at large.
> *That* Is A Dumb Idea. The Policy Is And Should Keep On Being
> "Don't Feed The Trolls".
It doesn't seen to be so. Perhaps in practice a better way to put it would
be, "Don't feed banal stupid trolls, and don't x-post. Have fun with them,
and when they start to piss you off, killfile them like everyone else has."
> <RantModeON>
>
> Of Course, There Also Hasn't Been A Decent Flame On This NG For
> A Really Long Time. People Seem To Think That Writing Things
> Like "Fuck You, Twit!" And "You Have A Small Dick" Is A Flame.
Whoah, on that. You have to give Gru, Alain, and Jeff-boy (among others) more
cridit than that.
>
> IT IS NOT.
>
> *That* Is Only Childish Name-Calling. Hell, I Can't Understand
> Why Most Of The People Posting Those So-Called Flames Aren't
> Ashamed Of Themselves.
Because you aren't them, and expecting them to behave like you is childish, if
not neurotic.
>
> When You're Trying To Verbally Maim Somoeone And You End Up
> Sounding Like A Frustrated 12 year Old, You're Doing Something
> Wrong.
Again, you are talking to a small minority of the flames that *I* have read (I
don't know, maybe my ISP screens out crappy flames like that)
>
> And It's People With Those Really Poor Torching Skills Who Do
> The Troll-Baiting.
>
> Troll: ALL U GOTHICS SUCK!!!
>
> LameFlame: Oh, Like We Haven't Heard *That* One Before.
> I Bet You're A 12 Year Old With No People Skills
> Playing On Your Father's Computer.
> Why Don't You Just Fuck Off Little Troll?
>
> If Anyone Recognizes Themselves In The Above Flame (Or Reasonable
> Facsimile Thereof), YOU SHOULDN'T BE FLAMING.[1]
Agreed. That is a lame flame (I have done this before, and wondered why
afterwards). However, everyone has their off days.
>
> Christ, It Makes The Poster Look Just As Stupid As The Troll.
>
> Face It All You Troll-Baiting NitWits Out There You Couldn't
> Burn Your Way Out Of A Paper Bag So Give It A Rest.
The paper bag cliche'? Couldn't you be a little more original than that?
> <Snip!>
> > > There has always been a need to make the subject: line
> > > appropriate.
> >
> > Prove that. Prove that the "Are we stupid" thread required
> > a change in subject in order to discuss communism as extensively
> > as it did.
<snip>
> You've Actually Given The Best Example. That "Are We Stupid?"
> Thread.
>
> I Wouldn't Read It Because I Would Dismiss It As Some Trollish
> Post With Some Boring Troll-Baiting To Follow.
>
> I Mean *Yawn*. If I Want To Be Bored, I'll Watch Ricki Lake.
But that doesn't change the fact that numerous people did, and the
conversation was very rich and intellectually challenging. The fact that you
didn't participate (no offence) didn't detract from the conversation at all.
In fact it might be safe to say that it encouraged people who dislike a
heated debate from bothering to look in.
>
> <Snip! Changing Headers>
> > > If people haven't seen a need to in the past, why should having
> > > 'flame' or 'troll' in the subject line, make it any different?
> >
> > Because they added them.
>
> Huh? Run That By Me Again.
If you add a Tag to a post, it's quite possible that you are paying attention
to the title of the thread, and not one who simply ignores the Subject line.
<snip>
> > Now that is getting ridiculous. Morality of flaming in publc,
> > and bandwidth issues, fine, but complaining about having to
> > download a header?
>
> Not At All Ridiculous.
>
> I Have Slllllooooooowwwww Net Access. Downloading 200 Headers
> Takes Me Several Minutes. When You Start Wasting Bandwidth,
> When Flame Wars Happen, When Trolls Floods The Place, It Can
> (And Has In The Past) Take Hours.
>
> That Really Pisses Me Off.
Point taken. I stand corrected.
>
> And, Of Course, When I Get Pissed Off, I Get Mean. I Snap At
> People And Lose Patience Very Easily. Which, In Turn, Means That
> People Get Aggravation That They Don't Necessarily Deserve.Which
> Propagates The Brooding, Evil Mood Like A Plague.
>
> Which Leads, Eventually, To Societal Decay And The Collapse Of
> Civilization.
>
> You Wouldn't Want to Be Responsible For The End Of The World Now,
> Would You?
Actually, I was...
maggot
Casper The BitterGoff
> Casper The BitterGoff wrote:
> >
> > You're Not Listening.
> >
> > Feeding Trolls Is Bad.
>
> Arbitrary judgement call.
It Is Called An Opinion And It Also Happens To Be An Opinion
I Share With A Lot Of People On This Group.
Nothing Arbitrary About It.
> Sure it is annoying when people feed really stupid troll
> (i.e AWL GOTS ARE FAGGS!!!!!!!!!!), but a lot of people had
> a lot of fun with 13th fl*or, and others like him (her/it).
Far Be It From Me To Try To Restrain Your Fun (Whatever It
May Be).
However, When Your Fun Starts Ruining Other People's Enjoyment,
I Find That It Is Important That It Be Pointed Out.
<Snip!>
> If you have some evidence that feeding fun trolls has been
> destructive to the newsgroup, then I have some evidence that
> your evidence is only an opinion, and by no means that of the
> group at large.
Pardon Me?
First Off, Whenever I Write On This Group, I Express Only My
Opinion. I Don't Pretend To Speak For Others And I Wouldn't
Do It Even If People Asked Me To. But I Am Not In Any Way Shy
About Expressing *My* Opinion.
Which Is What I'm Doing Here.
You Seem To Forget That My Opinion Is Just As Valid As Yours.
You Are Not The Mouthpiece For Anybody Here 'Xcept Yourself.
Secondly, I *Do* Believe That Troll Feeding Is And Has Been
Destructive To This NG.
Why? Because It Encourages Trolls To Post Here. It Is The Reason
For The Trolls Existence. It Makes Them Want To Come Back And
Spew Some More Drivel.
It's A Circle That Keeps Feeding On Itself Until Somebody (That
Somebody Being Those Readers With Slower Modems, Those Who Pay
For Time, Etc...) Gets Completly Fucked By This Juvenile
Attitude Towards Bandwidth.
But More Importantly, Feeding Trolls Encourages People To Not
Think About What They're Contributing To The NG. Feeding Trolls
Doesn't Start Debates Or Rants Or Even Interesting Fluff.
In That Way, It Is Destructive.
> > *That* Is A Dumb Idea. The Policy Is And Should Keep On
> > Being "Don't Feed The Trolls".
>
> It doesn't seen to be so. Perhaps in practice a better way to
> put it would be, "Don't feed banal stupid trolls, and don't
> x-post. Have fun with them, and when they start to piss you off,
> killfile them like everyone else has."
Perhaps, But By Feeding Trolls, No Matter How Original Said
Troll Is, One Cannot Write Anything That Isn't Intrinsically
Banal.
> > <RantModeON>
> >
> > Of Course, There Also Hasn't Been A Decent Flame On This NG
> > For A Really Long Time. People Seem To Think That Writing
> > Things Like "Fuck You, Twit!" And "You Have A Small Dick"
> > Is A Flame.
>
> Whoah, on that. You have to give Gru, Alain, and Jeff-boy (among
> others) more cridit than that.
I Wasn't Talking About Them And They Know That.
Anybody Who Felt Targeted By What I Wrote Most Probably *Is*
One Of The People I Was Targeting.
> > IT IS NOT.
> >
> > *That* Is Only Childish Name-Calling. Hell, I Can't
> > Understand Why Most Of The People Posting Those So-Called
> > Flames Aren't Ashamed Of Themselves.
>
> Because you aren't them, and expecting them to behave like you is
> childish, if not neurotic.
Don't Try To Put Words In My Mouth.
I Don't Expect Anyone To Behave Like Me.
I Just Don't Understand How People Can Write Such Stupid Shit
And Not Feel Ashamed.
> <snip>
> > You've Actually Given The Best Example. That "Are We Stupid?"
> > Thread.
> >
> > I Wouldn't Read It Because I Would Dismiss It As Some Trollish
> > Post With Some Boring Troll-Baiting To Follow.
> >
> > I Mean *Yawn*. If I Want To Be Bored, I'll Watch Ricki Lake.
>
> But that doesn't change the fact that numerous people did, and the
> conversation was very rich and intellectually challenging. The fact
> that you didn't participate (no offence) didn't detract from the
> conversation at all.
I'm Not Saying That It Wasn't A Good Debate, I Didn't Read It.
I'm Saying That The Fact That The Subject Line Didn't Reflect
The Content Prevented People From Joining The Debate.
A Debate That Would Potentially Have Been Better For It.
> In fact it might be safe to say that it encouraged people who
> dislike a heated debate from bothering to look in.
Not At All.
The Only Thing It Did Was Stop People Who Don't Like Playing
With Trolls From Joining In.
And I'm Sure I Don't Need To Explain That Not Liking Trolls
Does Not Prevent One From Being Quite Adept At Debating.
_Casper The BitterGoff
maggot
>
> On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 08:38:08 GMT, mag...@fatnet.net fpevooyrq
> onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
>
> :It doesn't seen to be so. Perhaps in practice a better way to put it would
> :be, "Don't feed banal stupid trolls, and don't x-post. Have fun with them,
> :and when they start to piss you off, killfile them like everyone else has."
>
<plonk> yet another Carrie header...
maggot
maggot
>
> <snip maggot's thingie>
> yeah, 1
> there. I voted. I'm a good little bat.
> Tarafablyn
Well, thanks for the vote, but right now it's 3 for (1) and 9 for (3).
Not that the whole thing hasn't become rhetorical.
maggot
(jeez, that voter turnout was worse than in the US)
Skerry Carrie, Quite Contrary!
onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
:It doesn't seen to be so. Perhaps in practice a better way to put it would
:be, "Don't feed banal stupid trolls, and don't x-post. Have fun with them,
:and when they start to piss you off, killfile them like everyone else has."
I always knew you were clueless.
Always. Maybe it's just a sixth sense that's grown very, very
strong & is rarely wrong. I never seem to be wrong about people
lately. They always prove me right.
You're the latest in a long, annoying, pathetic string.
The FAQ says "Don't Feed The Trolls". And, while the FAQ is not
The Law, it really may as well be, in this respect (seeing as not
adhering to said FAQ can get one in trouble with their ISP, and no
that is not a threat). Long before you slithered onto alt.gothic,
that rule was actually in effect. And, hells bells, the newsgroup
was a lot less clogged up with SHIT.
I don't care if you are having a drunken-good time with these
allegedly "fun trolls". You look like an idiot, & everyone else
who follows the example of you, or someone you followed the example
of, is ruining the fucking newsgroup. Yes. It's PEOPLE LIKE YOU who
are turning this newsgroup to SHIT.
(As an aside, I do remember a "clause" type deal.. "Don't feed the
troll, unless it's something SO funny, SO unique, and SO out of the
ordinary that it will make most anyone spew coffee all over their
monitor". Well, yes. Even I can concede to that. And, once in
awhile, there would be 1 (one) VERY amusing reply. But guess what!
NONE OF THESE "FUN FLAMES" HAVE BEEN SPEW-WORTHY! It's all been a
really big thread full of sewage.)
:But that doesn't change the fact that numerous people did, and the
:conversation was very rich and intellectually challenging.
Now THAT was spew-worthy. Hahahahahahaha!
Carrie, not sure whether to plonk you, seeing as you might get
out of hand if unchallenged in your whack-ass views.
|sp00kiness abounds!! |Your Hatred Pays My Salary. |
|Complaints & Bitching go to: | |
|skerry#ossuary.net (but don't |The Mind-Fucking Wisdom Of The Ages: |
|wait up for a reply!) |http://www.execpc.com/~skerry/ |
LizERd3
yeah, 1
there. I voted. I'm a good little bat.
Tarafablyn
Shameless site plugs: http://members.aol.com/lizerd3/lizhmpg.htm
http://www.gisco.net/studio/runes.htm
Unknown
wrote:
>Axel wrote:
>> I on't see the two as being similar.
>
>Precisely my point! Those of us who flame and feed trolls do not
>consider the inclusion of Tags to be a factor in deciding wether or
>not to flame. Saying that Tags will encourage flames, is about as
>meaningful as saying that clean needles will encourage (or at least
>condone) drug use. Neither statement is founded on any research,
>data, or observation that I am aware of.
I think the big difference between the two is that the anti-needle
exchange argument relies on the belief that people who are considering
using heroin being influenced by the governments opinion of them.
My argument on troll feeding relies on peer pressure.
As far as I can tell anyway.
>> OTOH, by labelling flames or troll feeding it allows one to excuse it
>> by saying 'you can read the header, so why read the post?'.
>
>What's wrong with that? You are assuming that flaming is unanimously
>considered to be a bad thing.
I don't consider that anything is _unanimously_ considered a good
thing.
I am sure there are some on this n.g. who consider using HTML, or
posting binaries here a good thing.
However the vast majority disagree.
I believe that the majority consider troll feeding a bad thing.
I believe that a majority consider weak flames to be a bad thing.
>> This argument gets used here fairly regularly, and it has been argued
>> against very effectively in a number of big threads.
>
>That is your point of view. I personally have never seen the argument
>do anything but butt heads.
Generally tho' its regulars butting heads with 'fight the power'
newbies.
>> Generally, the more tolerance within the group for them, the larger a
>> proportion they take up (IMO).
>
>Not that I see any real foundation for that statement,
Peer pressure is the foundation.
>but it does seem logical.
So when the peer group demonstrates that it condones bad things (like
60 line .sig files for example) they increase.
> I post here, in part, because I love an intelligent
>debate, as well as a tolerant environment towards going off on people
>from time to time. Therefore users like me will proliferate.
>> There has always been a need to make the subject: line appropriate.
>
>Prove that.
Why do you think usenet is divided into different news groups?
Why do you think subject lines exist?
So that a reader doesn't have to read things that are irrelevant to
him/her to find the posts that are of interest.
>> If people haven't seen a need to in the past, why should having
>> 'flame' or 'troll' in the subject line, make it any different?
>
>Because they added them.
One person adds the tag.
A different person changes the subject.
>Wher have you been for the past two weeks, Axel? It has been beaten
>to death and back to life again.
It seemed like a side issue that was touched on briefly by some
(either that or I marked those threads as read).
>Now that is getting ridiculous. Morality of flaming in publc, and
>bandwidth issues, fine, but complaining about having to download a
>header?
Same as the restriction on .sig files.
Consider how big the a*t.p*nk or similar invasions are.
And, a large chunk of the posts there were mindless troll feeding
(IMO).
oddlystrange
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, --nightshade-- wrote:
> no policy. post under whatever subject you wish, but what happens when
> someone comes a trollin' and decides that they're going to tag *you* a
> troll?
Agreed.
If you think tagging messages makes for better newsgroup reading tag your
fucking messages. If you do't think tagging messages DON'T tag your
messages.
But do NOT try to legislate this crap. Do you *realise* how utterly
confusing a hail of flames for not properly following the alt.gothic
messages tagging methods would be for a newbie?
Its not *netiquette* is just an added bonus.
Tag or not tag and let time and culture develope as a result. If tagging
catches on it *will* become the culture of the newsgroup. If not, then it
was never meant to be in the first place.
You *cannot* willfilly legislate a *new* direction for a newsgroup. You
*CANNOT* it evolves over time.
Quit trying to make *rules* and start doing shit that you think will work.
When it does work *Viola* the newsgroup has a new culture.
<this was not directed at you nightshade>
oddlystrange
(who says *this* phase again... whoo-hoo...or something)
oddlystrange @-- the perkygoff fairy godmother --@ pe...@obscure.org
perkygoff east coast branch office: < http://www.obscure.org/~perky >
"Fortune presents gifts not according to the book."
Unknown
>In article <3668006E...@total.net>,
> Casper The BitterGoff <casp...@total.net> wrote:
>If you have some evidence that feeding fun trolls has been destructive to the
>newsgroup, then I have some evidence that your evidence is only an opinion,
>and by no means that of the group at large.
>> If Anyone Recognizes Themselves In The Above Flame (Or Reasonable
>> Facsimile Thereof), YOU SHOULDN'T BE FLAMING.[1]
>
>Agreed. That is a lame flame (I have done this before, and wondered why
>afterwards). However, everyone has their off days.
Firstly, IMO, nobody should post something that they aren't able to
read back to themselves and say 'that was a good post'.
Primarily because of the bandwidth issue.
Secondly, because I believe that people are strongly influenced by
their peer group and seeing lots of lame flames makes them appear
acceptable, so more people post them, so we end up with an even lower
S to N ratio.
Poor posts are destructive to the ng because they discourage good
posters (several people that have left to my knowledge have done so
because the S to N ratio got too low for them to be able to handle).
Also, nobody has an unlimited amount of time to read and write to the
newsgroup.
Every weak post made is time that could have been spent producing a
quality post.
Every weak post read (and it is very difficult to judge from a header
what a post is going to be, so it does take time to skip through them)
is time that could be spent on writing thought provoking, interesting
material.
Thus feeding trolls is destructive to the newsgroup.
Unknown
Quite Contrary!) wrote:
>
>(As an aside, I do remember a "clause" type deal.. "Don't feed the
>troll, unless it's something SO funny, SO unique, and SO out of the
>ordinary that it will make most anyone spew coffee all over their
>monitor". Well, yes. Even I can concede to that. And, once in
>awhile, there would be 1 (one) VERY amusing reply. But guess what!
>NONE OF THESE "FUN FLAMES" HAVE BEEN SPEW-WORTHY! It's all been a
>really big thread full of sewage.)
To you.
The problem with that sub-clause is that if you tell enough people the
same joke, at least one will find it hilarious.
They send a ROTFLMAO reply and that serves as a validation for the
previous poster to post whatever half arsed witticism pops into his
head the next time (s)he reads a troll.
Others read that half-arsed witticism and think 'I can do that' so
they do.
It a natural downward spiral.
The only ways that I can think of to avoid this are to either flame
the shit out of anybody who replies to trolls (which requires somebody
with really good flaming skills, and none of the really good ones post
to a.g. atm, IMO).
Or to change the procedure to legitimately respond to trolls with an
inordinately funny reply to something like this:
Write the reply in a new message, rather than as a reply-to.
Make sure that when you copy the original post that the trolls name is
not in it (so that they can't grep the reply).
Wait a week..
Read it again.
If it still seems just as outrageously hilarious then post it.
It;'s that whole think before you post concept.
Aidan Skinner
>Why do you think subject lines exist?
Once, a long time ago, they existed so that people could follow one
"thread" of discussion, and changing the subject header was only done when
it was *very* different.
Then things like tin, trn etc. popped up and ppl got threading built in.
- Aidan
--
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/
http://www.gla.ac.uk/Clubs/WebSoc/~9704075s
"Aaagh! Will hang you over shark pool and laugh with much evil! Chapter
Nine!" - Pitr, Userfriendly.
Aidan Skinner
>oddlystrange
>
>(who says *this* phase again... whoo-hoo...or something)
Don'tcha just love it when life decides "fuck this, I can't think of
anything new, lets just rehash an old plotline with some new characters"
Soaps are very much like real life.
- Aidan
What evil shall I do today?