Dealing with Trolls
Tony Raven
with helmet trolls. A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of
us piling in while others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll
or the thread. OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their
posts unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums
folk reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of
designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one
of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the
rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us.
That way the troll's arguements are rebutted, the bandwidth is kept
low, the rest of us can relax knowing its been dealt with and can go
about our business. The first response could also carry a note of the
designated responder scheme to encourage those new to the group to leave
it to the designated person and not join in.
Just a thought
Tony
bugbear
> We have all got tied up to a greater or lesser degree over the past week
> with helmet trolls. A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of us
> piling in while others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll or
> the thread. OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their
> posts unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums
> folk reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of
> designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one
> of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the
> rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us.
> That way the troll's arguements are rebutted
Since almost any of the large helmet threads contains
all the neccessary facts (on both sides), a correct
"minimal" response is
This has already been discussed; see previous thread: <ref>"
I see no need to address a troll's question induividually.
BugBear
David Hansen
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of
>designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one
>of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the
>rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us.
Far too organised for Usenet:-)
It is very easy not to see a helmet war if one is that way inclined.
Just do not look at the threads. If people want to argue or play
with a troll then those who don't want to take part can manage this
very easily.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
chris French
<ju...@raven-family.com> writes
>We have all got tied up to a greater or lesser degree over the past
>week with helmet trolls.
No we haven't - I've been pretty oblivious to them in fact - most notice
I've seen about the trolls is other people discussing them.
> A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of us piling in while
>others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll or the thread.
>OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their posts
>unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums folk
>reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of
>designated responder scheme
Feel free, personally I think trying to arrange such a thing would be
waste of effort.
Personally I leave the trolls alone as a rule, if others feel that a
subject such as helmets requires a response, well all well and good,
it's their time and energy. you don't have to reply, you don't ahve to
read a thread if you don't want to.
--
Chris French, Leeds
James Annan
> one
> of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the
> rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us.
> That way the troll's arguements are rebutted, the bandwidth is kept
> low, the rest of us can relax knowing its been dealt with and can go
> about our business. The first response could also carry a note of the
> designated responder scheme to encourage those new to the group to leave
> it to the designated person and not join in.
URC is not a club for the benefit of the in-crowd.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Gonzalez
wrote:
>Just a thought
In us.military.army they tried such a scheme. They called it "The
Duty Roster". It didn't work.
With all respect, the troll's targets are people like you: those who
show annoyance at their presence. People like Guy, who give serious
or tongue in cheek, responses are not their target, and people like me
who think live and let live are not their target.
I feel that the best strategy is to respond or ignore as you feel fit.
Besides, trolls can come up with some interesting points for debate.
Tony Raven
>
> With all respect, the troll's targets are people like you: those who
> show annoyance at their presence. People like Guy, who give serious
> or tongue in cheek, responses are not their target, and people like me
> who think live and let live are not their target.
>
I'm not annoyed by their presence and I know how to killfile a person or
a thread but there has been quite a few here who have expressed
annoyance at the troll threads. I was just wondering if there was a
better way to get a balance but it seems not.
Tony
Richard Goodman
news:ohksq0d87k6hmsn5a...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:29:23 +0000, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Just a thought
>
> In us.military.army they tried such a scheme. They called it "The
> Duty Roster". It didn't work.
>
That figures. So, dealing with trolls you have the choice: fire at will,
or duck and run for cover ;)
Rich