Re: Bassburglaralarms.com & Bass-home.com BBB problems ONCE AGAIN

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"John O" <johno@!noSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote

> I'm one of those people who stopped by last summer and wondered the same
> thing..."what's this guy's problem?" (and followed that with: why do the
> other guys reply?)

Howdy, John!

I'd say while twit-filtering solves 99% of Usenet troll problems we've been
challenged to find a solution for the 1% who aren't deterred by a lack of
response.  You know the old saying: "All that is necessary for evil to
succeed is for good men to do nothing."

At some point, a group's leaders and members must make it clear that such
childish nonsense as posting a person's divorce proceedings, calling
people's wives' whores and such will not be tolerated.  That's an important
element in group dynamics:  establishing norms.  Filtering does not always
make that point clearly.

I've seen some unmoderated groups appoint an unofficial weekly moderator who
is charged, among other things, with responding to trolls.  In this way, the
response is measured (80 people don't all jump the thread) and it's
structured.  I've found this to be a very successful approach for a number
of reasons.  It keeps the trolls off-balance.  One week they are arguing
with John, but after that, he won't give the troll the time of day and a new
moderator takes over.  It also somehow seems to really disrupt terrorist
posters, who appear to have an almost Bin Laden-like thing for "continuity
of hatred."  They get so confused when they have to hate Robert one week,
John the next, Bruce during week three, etc.

It's not really about troll control, though, because in the groups where
I've seen it done, the weekly moderator also makes sure all newbie questions
get at least a response, if not an answer.  I suspect this modality would be
particularly effective in this case where the troll has given himself a
title.  He so desperately wants respect that he's tried to manufacture it
himself.  Imagine if he's the ONLY person in the group that's ineligible for
a turn in the group-sanctioned guest moderator seat.  You can almost hear
his blood vessels popping.

Sadly, when people simply filter the trash he posts, they're not making a
strong enough statement about what is and isn't acceptable.  I know some
people will say it's just impossible to keep unmoderated newsgroups from
degenerating into chaos but I don't think that's true.  There are too many
groups that manage to survive troll infestations like ours for it to be
truly impossible.

I don't know what the solution will be, but I'd like to think that at least
in these two groups, AH-TM and CHA, that there are enough bright minds to
solve the problem.  Why is it important?  Well, someday a
paranoid-schizophrenic might latch on to any one of us.  That's when even
profoundly pacifist people usually discover that turning a blind eye towards
such serious anti-social behavior isn't the right solution.  In any social
system it's important that good behavior be rewarded and bad behavior dealt
with.  It's like dealing with misbehaving children.  You can (and should)
ignore their tantrums to a point;  I think that point is where they are in a
position to seriously hurt someone else.

Well, there's my rant and I am sorry if it's offended any of the many
intelligent and respected posters of either group. I've learned a great deal
from both these groups and I've finally seen enough posts from people like
you and Guy that I feel something needs to be done.

We're losing important "cells" of the brain trust that makes up these two
groups.  That hurts all of us.  We're here to ask and answer questions about
HA and HT and to help make progress in the field.  We're not here to
entertain cyberstalkers and hatemongerers.

The problem facing us is how do we preserve what's so good about these
groups?

--
Bobby G.