I didn’t understand the OP to be suggesting that we not use the existing distributed moderation system. I understood him to be comparing (“don’t feed”+distributed moderation) to (“continue to encourage”+distributed moderation).
And, sure, I’m all for gathering data about what works. That said, I’m reasonably confident that “don’t feed” works better than “continue to encourage,” all else being equal.
I’m reasonably confident that “don’t feed” works better than “continue to encourage,” all else being equal.
Why do you believe what you believe? I too have been told not to feed trolls in the past. I have heard that meme so often that I have formed an automatic pattern. Yet there continue to be trolls.
At this point, I am convinced that “don’t feed the trolls” is pure superstition. Imagine if you will, a universe where the “don’t feed” doctrine actually worked. “Don’t feed” is already a common meme, so trolling in all parts of the internet would be obliterated in a handful of hours. The “don’t feed” meme itself is only invoked when one spots a troll, which means that people would go without hearing it and gradually forget it. The meme would die out of memory as it killed off it’s own reproduction vector, the trolls. We’d only have small, isolated flare ups of trolling as people re-invented trolling, then others remembered or re-discovered the cure to trolling. Is a version of reality that the world actually resembles?
Now imagine a universe in which “Don’t feed the troll” is useless or worse, it emboldens the trolls and causes them to act out more. How would that look? One of these possible universes is much, much more similar to reality than the other.
I think that says a lot about the efficacy of “Don’t feed the trolls” as a policy.
The problem on most forums is that people say “don’t feed” while continue feeding (not necessarily the same people are engaged in both parts). I believe that the not feeding policy works because (1) I don’t remember seeing a really obnoxious trollish exchange not feeded by non-trolls (itself a weak argument, since I don’t frequent troll habitats often), (2) it corresponds to my proto-model of troll motivation, which is seeking attention (also a weak argument, I don’t really understand trolls) and (3) the trolls need something to react to, and the responses to their debate contributions provide more material and thus opportunities (this is a bit stronger argument, it seems almost self-evident).
The continued simultaneous existence of trolls and the no-feeding policy doesn’t say much and is well compatible with the policy being effective. Note that:
The claim isn’t that non-feeding is capable of eliminating all trolls in any situation, but only that it reduces the negative effects of trolling.
The non-feeding policy, although well known, isn’t universally applied, and trolls can easily thrive on places where the local debaters lack discipline and engage them.
To show that the policy doesn’t work you should compare two forums which have (approximately) the same topic, the same moderation rules and comparable audience and differ only in the troll-feeding attitude.
To further support your claim it would be helpful if you provided an example of a troll-disrupted discussion where actually nobody was feeding the troll.
Trolling that isn’t being replied to is simply called spam. Unfed trolls aren’t trolls by definition. That leaves open the question whether a policy of not feeding trolls reduces the the total volume of trolling + spam aiming to troll. The answer seems likely to be yes, but might depend on how rigorously the policy is followed (I can imagine unsuccessful admonitions not to feed them encouraging trolls).
I believe it because in all the epic trollings I’ve seen, there have been locals who have engaged with the trolls throughout. I can’t remember the last time I saw a troll simply monologuing into the silent ether at length.
I also believe it because I’ve experienced people in real life who seem motivated by the desire to get a response from others, but who don’t seem differentially motivated by different kinds of responses.
But, all of that said, I certainly agree that none of that is definitive. I could easily be wrong. And it doesn’t matter too much for my own behavior… I mostly don’t talk to trolls because I don’t enjoy it.
If you are getting good results from talking to trolls, that’s a fine reason to keep talking to them.
I didn’t understand the OP to be suggesting that we not use the existing distributed moderation system. I understood him to be comparing (“don’t feed”+distributed moderation) to (“continue to encourage”+distributed moderation).
I didn’t understand the OP to be suggesting that we not use the existing distributed moderation system. I understood him to be comparing (“don’t feed”+distributed moderation) to (“continue to encourage”+distributed moderation).
And, sure, I’m all for gathering data about what works. That said, I’m reasonably confident that “don’t feed” works better than “continue to encourage,” all else being equal.
Why do you believe what you believe? I too have been told not to feed trolls in the past. I have heard that meme so often that I have formed an automatic pattern. Yet there continue to be trolls.
At this point, I am convinced that “don’t feed the trolls” is pure superstition. Imagine if you will, a universe where the “don’t feed” doctrine actually worked. “Don’t feed” is already a common meme, so trolling in all parts of the internet would be obliterated in a handful of hours. The “don’t feed” meme itself is only invoked when one spots a troll, which means that people would go without hearing it and gradually forget it. The meme would die out of memory as it killed off it’s own reproduction vector, the trolls. We’d only have small, isolated flare ups of trolling as people re-invented trolling, then others remembered or re-discovered the cure to trolling. Is a version of reality that the world actually resembles?
Now imagine a universe in which “Don’t feed the troll” is useless or worse, it emboldens the trolls and causes them to act out more. How would that look? One of these possible universes is much, much more similar to reality than the other.
I think that says a lot about the efficacy of “Don’t feed the trolls” as a policy.
The problem on most forums is that people say “don’t feed” while continue feeding (not necessarily the same people are engaged in both parts). I believe that the not feeding policy works because (1) I don’t remember seeing a really obnoxious trollish exchange not feeded by non-trolls (itself a weak argument, since I don’t frequent troll habitats often), (2) it corresponds to my proto-model of troll motivation, which is seeking attention (also a weak argument, I don’t really understand trolls) and (3) the trolls need something to react to, and the responses to their debate contributions provide more material and thus opportunities (this is a bit stronger argument, it seems almost self-evident).
The continued simultaneous existence of trolls and the no-feeding policy doesn’t say much and is well compatible with the policy being effective. Note that:
The claim isn’t that non-feeding is capable of eliminating all trolls in any situation, but only that it reduces the negative effects of trolling.
The non-feeding policy, although well known, isn’t universally applied, and trolls can easily thrive on places where the local debaters lack discipline and engage them.
To show that the policy doesn’t work you should compare two forums which have (approximately) the same topic, the same moderation rules and comparable audience and differ only in the troll-feeding attitude.
To further support your claim it would be helpful if you provided an example of a troll-disrupted discussion where actually nobody was feeding the troll.
Trolling that isn’t being replied to is simply called spam. Unfed trolls aren’t trolls by definition. That leaves open the question whether a policy of not feeding trolls reduces the the total volume of trolling + spam aiming to troll. The answer seems likely to be yes, but might depend on how rigorously the policy is followed (I can imagine unsuccessful admonitions not to feed them encouraging trolls).
I believe it because in all the epic trollings I’ve seen, there have been locals who have engaged with the trolls throughout. I can’t remember the last time I saw a troll simply monologuing into the silent ether at length.
I also believe it because I’ve experienced people in real life who seem motivated by the desire to get a response from others, but who don’t seem differentially motivated by different kinds of responses.
But, all of that said, I certainly agree that none of that is definitive. I could easily be wrong. And it doesn’t matter too much for my own behavior… I mostly don’t talk to trolls because I don’t enjoy it.
If you are getting good results from talking to trolls, that’s a fine reason to keep talking to them.
I confirm that your interpretation is correct.