Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Letter to Sockpuppets And Trolls (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I almost never see trollish diaries any more. (9+ / 0-)

    Lots of spam, of late, but most trolls won't bother to spend time on diaries, since so many of the outright pie warriors got purged at one time or another.

    And I don't think 'bad faith'/'good faith' has much to do with whether it turns out a given person is 'good' or 'bad' on any given specific issue, although there are a few one issue zealots who show up who are simply pushing un-Democratic ideas on that one issue.  

    It's more like climate vs weather - a 'bad faith' actor is going to show themselves in a whole lot of issues.  They're going to work to stop useful conversations and drag everyone down into time wasting bickering.  And, unfortunately, some people will let themselves be drawn.

    My rule of thumb is 2-3 negative interactions.  If the conversation hasn't resolved at that point, I assume bad faith, and simply stop responding, since it's doing nothing useful for me, and simply wasting my time.  This is a 'loss' for the true bad faith actor, although people who are not acting in bad faith, but simply (from my point of view) wrong, might simply assume that they 'won' since I didn't keep refuting whatever they're babbling on about at that point.

    •  Good approach (5+ / 0-)

      Your 2-3 interactions approach is a sensible one. I think what generally happens with meta that devolves into bad faith or really just shit attitudes is people wanna own their thought or refutation so badly they hammer it into a verbal cutlet.

      Have you ever considered expanding this 2-3 interactions theory into a diary? I think there lots of  newbies or just slightly shy folk who might enjoy having a strategy to use as a guide. Since we cannot just be pleasant to one another then many people might like to have a little shield against feeling burned when doing the meta/troll/difficult conversation dance.

      I also consider any kind of prior history I have when interacting, if I consistently never have a good exchange with somebody and by "good" I do not meet "we agree" just essentially non toxic when disagreement does happen, then I also just walk away. I don't care if I look like the "loser" in the argument because even if I am it only makes a difference online in that exchange, it isn't like being the winner in a DK swingfest is going to pay my mortgage down sooner or make my hair behave.

    •  And some you will never get good from. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      undercovercalico

      Since we don't have a bad-faith zapper, ignoring right of the bar seems best.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:34:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm still refining my usual procedure... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh

      Your suggestion of 2-3 responses is a good one - if they're not willing to discuss honestly with you, 2-3 responses will make it show.

      But don't just walk away.

      At the very least, leave a "Your concern is noted" or some other note that indicates you're on to their scam.

      Ridicule's one of the best weapons to use against trolls. Often, the "logic" they use is completely insane, and often unintentionally humorous. Make fun of him. Go make a quickmeme that lambasts him, or post a silly Youtube video.

      That will get the message across when logical debate fails against an illogical opponent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site