GROUPS of people, by their nature tend to seek out a consensus, but groups are more resilient and more likely to get closer to the truth when they are open to new ideas and when they confront dissent with rational argument.
So, I’ve been very tolerant at this website of what many would call trolling.
Wikipedia defines a troll as, “a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
While trolling is not generally productive, every group should encourage the presence of a devil’s advocate, or two.
Wikipedia defines a devil’s advocate as, “someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.”
It can be surprisingly difficult to both encourage critical thinking, particularly on the internet and with such an emotive topic as climate change, while also progressing understanding because devil’s advocates can be perceived as troll, and trolls mistaken as devil’s advocates.
Then there are others who simply want to defend their perspective at all costs, and who will go to great lengths to both undermine alternative perspectives, and new ideas, and in the most insidious of ways.
I’m looking for a moderator, to work with me to try and ensure this blog is more than an echo chamber for scepticism, but also a place that can nurture the best from different perspectives.
If you are interested in this unpaid position, please email me jennifermarohasy at gmail.com
This blog will be 10 years old on 14th April next year. As of this morning 3,415 articles had been posted attracting 132,643 comments. Over the last month there were more than 15,000 sessions with users spending more than 2 minutes on average at the blog during any one session. The most popular post this month was Corrupting Australia’s Temperature Record posted on 17th May.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So on the above principles and NOT trolling (just tasking)
It’s worth considering the Wikepedia description of troll ….. so …
Are opponents trolls?
Is it OK for those pro the anti-AGW position to continually post off-topic.
Is it OK for one side only (or any side) to bait with inflammatory comments – where does expressing an opinion start and baiting finish
WARNING next comment may contain inadvertent possible trollesque bait as an aside.
Do you want an actual discussion/debate with real science comments (recently described seen as spoiling but in a sea of off-topic commentary) or simply cheer squad backslapping
Is it OK to impune the motives of someone posting a position (i.e. you’re employed by xyz and obviously shilling for xyz, or therefore you’re a commie leftist/watermelon/derogatory term of choice)
Sorry for any offense caused by the above comments and definitely not trolling.
“continually post off-topic”
This could be eliminated by an open thread renewed say, weekly or sooner if it gets too unwieldy.
The future mod. could then simply redirect OT posts. Blocking them altogether can be too drastic as some OTs are interesting and relevant even if remotely.
Luke,
To the lay person, or the occasional visitor here, your lines of questioning might appear to suggest a real interest in the topic, even that you are a devil’s advocate.
Indeed you could be a great devil’s advocate.
But I’ve seen enough, over a long enough period of time, to know that you are mostly a spoiler and often devious.
That is not to say that you don’t often contribute very usefully to the discussion.
What I find most annoying is that you never give up, your questions may have been answered several times, but you will keep posting from a different angle, usually I can see in hindsight, with the effect of undermining an idea that perhaps threatens your belief system or a government policy.
You don’t know when to give up. When you have already made your point.
[This comment was edited at 6.15pm]
Questions answered ?? – well that is actually the issue.
You may think you’ve answered questions but you rarely do.
As for devious you might reflect on others and your own framing.
It’s very difficult to have a rational discussion with those that disagree with you on emotive environmental subjects.
Want a better discussion – (and it’s your place so a mere suggestion) – have an ongoing open thread for news that may be interesting or heartfelt but essentially off-topic.
But ruthlessly delete or snip personal attacks, comments impugning motives or off-topic comments, and steer discussions on message.
I accept your last point as valid criticism. But stop the personal attacks and baiting and often the battle would not be re-joined.
I don’t necessarily represent government policy past or present. If I did I’d be on message. Won’t say any more or I’ll be trolling and spoiling.
Hi Jennifer,
Your search for a moderating assistant is good news. It either means that comment traffic is increasing, or that research projects are demanding more of your precious time.
By the way, I really like the Open Thread. I don’t have the energy to keep up with the long articles at WUWT and elsewhere. Commenters who provide links in the Open Thread help me prioritize my reading.
An acquaintance from Sweden had a great idea for dealing with trolls: Maintain a monthly Fighting Room thread (in addition to the Open Thread). If anyone crosses the line, that comment is shipped off to Cyber Siberia — I mean the Fighting Room. The Fighting Room will eliminate most questions about censorship.
Anyone who has had a Bad Hair Day, and is not up for rational analysis, can put on the boxing gloves, and duke it out with another consenting adult in the Fighting Room. And yes, I did say boxing gloves. Even in a Fighting Room, it’s possible to go beyond the pale.
From experience, I already know who our resident trolls are, and I usually pass over their comments. But for newbies, there’s a learning curve. A separate Fighting Room would increase the information density in the main threads, and would encourage newbies to return, and to become active participants.
Luke.
My advice to you . . . .yet again.
You need to get out more.
Jen rarely snips or moderates.
Try SkS or Deltoid etc if you want to witness ruthless deletion or one sided personal attacks.
Maybe I should be ruthless and say ‘toughen up princess’. . .or maybe. . .build a bridge & get over it. . .or take a chill pill . . .or settle petal. . .& etc.
🙂
Debbie,
I enjoyed reading your pieces of advise to you-know-who. Because I’m an American, who is not current on Aussie idioms, I wasn’t familar with most of them. Here’s one more to add to your repertoire:
Suck it up, Buttercup. 🙂
Jennifer is correct about Luke never accepting that his comments have received an answer. He mightn’t like the answer(s) but so what.
He wouldn’t provide an answer to my question on AGW mitigation for years and swore at me repeatedly because he knew he couldn’t provide an answer. Since backed up by the 2014 joint RS and NAS report that supports my point that mitigation of AGW is a complete fraud and con.
But when he answered after years of dodging it his answer was patently stupid. Bazza’s sort of answer was to just change the numbers for IEA projections for increased co2 emissions until 2040.
Of course this ridiculous tactic was wildly cheered on by Luke and that tells more about him than me. But the one best choice is to provide a new open thread on at least a weekly basis and then if we don’t stick to the point on other threads those comments should be deleted.
But good luck with your task of finding a good moderator.
So this exemplifies the issue. Neville has gone the ad hom when one could keep to a philosophical discussion. And his comments and style are classic examples of sophistry, framing and attempting to corral an issue.
And in terms of repetition – almost every day Neville will screech barking mad or utter fraud. Surely the point has been made?
“You don’t know when to give up. When you have already made your point.” said Jen – so is this a broad blog principle or only for those with a certain viewpoint.
But if one joins the debate you’re a spoiler or a troll. Oops already said that !
Dealing with aggressive, loud and ignorant people…………..
From the poem Desiderata:
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
by Max Ehrmann, 1927
Best to avoid the loud and aggressive ones
I’ve been banned from Twitchy. Just blocking me wasn’t satisfying enough. The moderator, whomever that might have been, went back through the archive and erased every post I had made on the site. A punishment in far disproportion to my supposed crime.
Someone suggested that I petition Michelle Malkin for a redress of grievances, but I figure it’s not worth it. So that some other twitchy mod, having a bad day, can do the same on a later date? No thank you.
Before I found a skeptical blog, I’d argue with the editors of Discover Magazine, when I was feeling masochistic, or post on Tim Blair’s blog, if I didn’t feel like being cuffed around, to discuss the climate fraud.
That’s where I found Jen, on the blog roll.
This blog has been an oasis for me.
Six years later and I’m not banned. It’s always just a beer weekend away from happening though.
So, now that the ETS is defunct … will we continue?
Dealing with aggressive, loud and ignorant people…………..
Sometimes it is best to ignore them – allow them to post, rant and rave – just dont feed them.
Debate and crass idealogical contradiction are different things.
Luke, Bazza and RPL do not debate – that is obvious. Why feed them?
“Luke, Bazza and RPL do not debate”
sp – so you really think you have debated? Honestly?
Do you really belive you debate Luke? Honestly?
Yes indeed ! If it wasn’t for Bazza and myself you’d having nothing but ad homs and cut and pastes.
Deluded and devious
Number of comments 16 Luke 5 same all same all. Last looked here some months ago doesn’t change does it?
luke has utility. He is eristic which can also be good; his argumentation was very amusing at Deltoid and his earnest kitchen-sinking of information at Open Mind even bemused the condescending and insufferable Foster.
Unfortunately AGW as a theory has been disproved. The argument is now about particular environmental issues and renewable energy. I don’t know if luke is up for those.
cohenite, Jen has subsequently banned Luke, so he has time to hone his arguments in preparation for a future return??
I hope so Ray