patrick.net

4. The ignore functionality is good enough for me.

The ignore function already bans trolls from a user's threads. What I'm proposing is less restrictive than the ignore function. It would allow both users to see each other's posts even while logged in. The only thing I'm adding is a mechanism that circumvents the effectiveness of using alts to force yourself into someone else's conversation so as to disrupt it.

The only thing accepting trolls does is encourage people who want to participate in honest debate and discussion of controversial issues not to.

HEY YOU says

Ignoring something doesn't require a click.

I don't want to ignore trolls. I want to keep them out of conversations that would be productive and enlightening otherwise. Many times two or more people with good intentions are discussing a controversial issue. That conversation immediately stops when a troll barges in. Ignoring the troll doesn't work. Banning him and deleting any comments made by him with an alt does work. It works damn well because trolls hate it when their comments are deleted. It makes them completely impotent.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate with consenting audiences, not the freedom to force your voice onto others or to prevent others from being heard.

Thanks for the link to home and the arrows Patrick. Makes it much easier on mobile.

I have a question: When quoting from linked articles is there a way to make the quoted text a different shade or color? I have to put quotations around all quoted text or else it is unclear whether it is the OP writing it or coming from the article, so then the quoted text mixes with the OP's text and it can get confusing. The other part of this is when I link to an article, text from the article never automatically appears in the post, like it used to.

Doesn't sound to hard to make text quoted from articles to show up in a different color. But then when you quote that in a comment, you want the color to remain, right?

If you post an article link with no other text, the site should still attempt to auto-quote it. Some sites are resistant to quoting though, maybe because of a paywall or some such.

Maybe I should try to auto-quote if the link is alone on a line, rather than entirely alone in the post or comment. Yes, that sounds better.

Thanks for the suggestions, these things are on the list and I should get to them soon, since I have made a lot of progress on making the site portable to other cloud providers in case Digital Ocean threatens shutdown again.

Yea Piggys entire purpose here is to derail conversation by polluting threads with stupid images and personal attacks. The majority of his posts are personal attacks.

But he's achieved his goal of getting everyone to hate him. It's what self-loathing losers are all about

Would banning personal attacks restrict free speech?

errc says

Would banning personal attacks restrict free speech?

Personal attacks don't have to be banned. Under my proposal they can still be made, but thread authors can keep them and other trolling out of their own threads so as to keep conversations from being hijacked.

rando says

the site should still attempt to auto-quote it

I don't find auto-quoting to be very useful. The first paragraph of an article isn't always the best summary of it, or the best quote for an original post. An intentional selection of text by the author of the OP is going to produce must better results than any mechanical selection of text. Same for YouTube videos.

Dan8267 says

I want to keep them out of conversations that would be productive and enlightening otherwise.

Now this is in FUN!
What makes you think you are productive & enlightened or that any patnetter
could contribute anything positive?

Patrick, the up/down arrows (top of page/bottom of page)... having it next to every single screen name takes away for the screen name focus and is redundant. If you want to include one of those links at every post, please put it off to the side in the right hand margin. Seems like that would make more sense given that you scroll from the right hand margin?

However, I don't think you need more than two of those links (one at the top and one at the bottom).

thanks @BayArea yes i will do that

ok, done

HEY YOU says

What makes you think you are productive & enlightened or that any patnetter

Honey, each author would be the arbitrary of what constitutes trolling. Authors who reject participants for other reasons will simply have less popular threats. Same for authors who accept trolls. Let the market forces determine success. Do you hate free markets?

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

rando says

ok, done

Solid! Thanks

FP says

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

How exactly do you score that as success?

50-100 posts per day of nothing but personal attacks and nonsense, all day, every day, for years. Sounds like the definition of failure

Maybe it's one of those things that doesn't translate properly for people from third world shit holes with poor command of the English language.

errc says

How exactly do you score that as success?

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

errc says

Maybe it's one of those things that doesn't translate properly for people from third world shit holes with poor command of the English language.

LOL Good try but I'm immune to trolls.

Absolutely hilarious that safe spaces on Pat.net are being advocated.

Even more hilarious that the site Alpha troll is calling for the banning of someone else....for trolling.

Fucking White Male says

Absolutely hilarious that safe spaces on Pat.net are being advocated.

They are not, and your assertion is nothing more than a combination of a straw man and poisoning the well.

A "safe space" is suppression of content that contradicts your political agenda. Trolling contains no content. It is not a counter-argument. It is an attempt to disrupt a conversation and prevent arguments and counter-arguments from being used to find the truth. Trolling is not debate. Trolling disrupts debate.

Ironically, trolling is one of the most commonly used techniques to create so-called "safe spaces" by squelching controversial discussions.

Here is a perfect example of why trolling does exactly what you claim to want to avoid. Tell me how Trigglypuff is adding to the debate?

www.youtube.com/embed/Y69tkCbeC5o

How exactly would tolerating Trigglypuff advanced free speech and the discussion of issues by opposing ideas? Notice that Trigglypuff is calling herself the victim of free speech oppression while oppressing the free speech of others. This is what trolls do.

errc says

FP says

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

How exactly do you score that as success?

50-100 posts per day of nothing but personal attacks and nonsense, all day, every day, for years. Sounds like the definition of failure

Exactly. Trolls will most often fail in their goal to make people miserable, but they will still disrupt conversations. If a troll considers that to be a success, more reason to ban his ass.

Intending to disrupt conversations is not an exercise of free speech. It is an exercise in the suppression of free speech. It's time to call trolling what it is, an attack on free speech.

Ironically, trolling is one of the most commonly used techniques to create so-called "safe spaces" by squelching controversial discussions.

--------------

You're counting on simple people to understand something "complex". It's really not that complex, but expecting people to follow an Implications Chain out past the first iteration, is asking a lot

It's time to call trolling what it is, an attack on free speech.

--------------

Exactly

Trolls do not post to present opposing facts or opinions. They post to prevent opposing facts and opinions from being heard.

@Patrick

Looks like another bug. This time in accept_comment.php. Can't post the following comment in another thread. I get a generic error page after a long timeout.

No such post: accept_comment.php

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

-------------

Successful people don't troll. They are antonyms.

errc says

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

-------------

Successful people don't troll. They are antonyms.

Trolling success = success in trolling != successful person.

Learn English.

Take out the trash, Patrick.

There's precedent here, no? I recall you banning someone for trolling in the past.

As an American operating a Free Speech forum, why do you find it desirable to retain the board Troll?

errc says

There's precedent here, no? I recall you banning someone for trolling in the past.

Yeah, but Shrek's back as Macropodia.

Dan8267 says

@Patrick

Looks like another bug. This time in accept_comment.php. Can't post the following comment in another thread. I get a generic error page after a long timeout.

No such post: accept_comment.php

Crap, thanks for telling me.

errc says

As an American operating a Free Speech forum, why do you find it desirable to retain the board Troll?

You're talking about Ironman, right? Maybe he's an asshole, but there is actually content in his posts and comments.

The whole site is really an experiment in how best to ensure that all points of view get exposure regardless of their "offensiveness", an excuse routinely used to shut down legitimate speech, like Milo's.

Why is it not enough to be able to put him on ignore and block him from commenting on your posts? Anyway, even if I deleted one account, it's pretty easy to create another. I could ban by IP, but then there are ways around that too, like proxies.

I want to find some set of self-service rules that lets readers get what they want without my being the judge of content.

rando says

The whole site is really an experiment in how best to ensure that all points of view get exposure regardless of their "offensiveness", an excuse routinely used to shut down legitimate speech, like Milo's.

Trolling isn't about being offensive. It's about being disruptive.

Milo's an asshole, but he's not a troll. Trigglypuff is. CIC is.

Maybe he's an asshole, but there is actually content in his posts and comments

--------------

I'm calling your bluff

The the guy is on this forum all day long, every day. The majority of his posts are personal attacks, and they're not even a little bit witty.

His posts seem entirely political, and not ad hominem against forum members:

https://patrick.net/users/Ironman

OK, his comments are frequently ad hominem, but there is actually some content there too:

https://patrick.net/comments.php?a=27600

Now let's say he's the worst member on the site? What is the best response, the one which:

1. protects his right to be heard
2. prevents him from drowning out others, violating their right to be heard

Remember: simply banning his current email or IP will not stop him from registering again, and again, and again.

So far, my solution is the ignore function, which even impinges on his right to be heard somewhat.

Alternate solutions:

1. Delete his account and content, pissing him off and making him register again under a different email or IP.
2. Give users the right to delete comments on their own posts, leading to the "Facebook effect", where opinions become siloed.
3. Personally judge "politeness", censoring those who violate it, taking tons of my time making distinctions.
4. Put up some "ad hominem" link, which lets users censor those who violate politeness, but lets me override their ability to do that if they flag legitimate arguments.

@patrick

Can we make the Sexy Picture Thread by YesYNot a sticky? This will also apply pressure for zzyzzx to continue posting such beautiful artwork.

If you ignore him, he can't post comments on your thread anyway. That functionality already exists.

You're afraid of his alternate users posting comments? He could create an infinite number of those.

It feels wrong to let a thread owner simply delete a comment. How about putting "comment deleted" with a link to it? Then people would have to navigate away to see it. A cost which would stop a lot of people, but would not be complete censorship.

just any guy says

Can we make the Sexy Picture Thread by YesYNot a sticky? This will also apply pressure for zzyzzx to continue posting such beautiful artwork.

It might get annoying to have it always there if he didn't update it after all. Hey, you can bump that thread with a picture of your own any time!

rando says

How about putting "comment deleted" with a link to it?

OK, let's see if I can do that. On the list right after getting the site more resistant to shutdown by making it portable. Hopefully done with that this week.

rando says

just any guy says

Can we make the Sexy Picture Thread by YesYNot a sticky? This will also apply pressure for zzyzzx to continue posting such beautiful artwork.

It might get annoying to have it always there if he didn't update it after all. Hey, you can bump that thread with a picture of your own any time!

rando says

2. Give users the right to delete comments on their own posts, leading to the "Facebook effect", where opinions become siloed.

This is the best option. It hurts trolls if it takes effort to get into a thread with an alt only to have their troll posts deleted. It doesn't prevent any free speech. If trolls open their own threads just to troll, they just look like idiots and advertise that they aren't worth listening to. If special snowflakes ban people and delete posts that are non-trolling opposition, they look weak and only isolate themselves. All the problems become self-correcting.

rando says

You're afraid of his alternate users posting comments? He could create an infinite number of those

Allowing thread authors to whitelist users and prevent users without a post history of N months and P posts from joining a thread solves this problem. There is a slight cost in losing quick access for new users, but it's worth it.

Patrick, the moment a comment of mine gets deleted, "sidelined" or whatever, will the list time I post here. Just not worth my time to write something and have somebody else decide if it's worth being seen. I keep my word.