`\ 

Nederlog

 

15 april 2010

 

ME: On trolling the Phoenix Forums


The title says all... but you have to know what trolling is, so a definition follows, in turn followed by some posts (mostly mine) on a thread on the Phoenix Forums about ME about the subject, or at least touching upon it. The full thread starts here

and you get only some of it here, to show what it is all about; to show what I think about it and proposed to do about it, and the reactions of a few others - where it must added that these speak for the great majority.

Also, it is an occasion to show the Phoenix Forums in action, and those who like to see me argueing also will get their share.

Sections

A. Df = Definition
B. A new forum rule

C. META-smalltalk on this thread
E. Kim continues the thread
F. Maarten replies to Kim
G. Koan agrees
H. Maarten answers Koan
I. Koan answers Maarten
J. Maarten agrees with Koan
 


A. Df = Definition


From the wiki on "Troll (internet)":

Etymology
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s, but the earliest known example is from 1992. It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers. That phrase is itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat, waiting for fish to strike, a technique known as trolling. The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, as they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.

“ Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. \


B. A new forum rule


  1.  

    Senior Member Maarten Maartensz


    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location Amsterdam
    Posts 177

    Default A new forum rule

    Hello Parvo,

    I just quote the begining of your excellent post (and a big thank you for all the physical and intellectual energy you must have invested in it, what with the crummy editor we have in place and what with your bad health):

    Quote Originally Posted by parvofighter View Post

    Doublespeak: Actively perpetuating the “Doubt” tactic, & ignoring patient concerns, despite assurances to the contrary

    I do not have the energy or will this moment to rehash, and Parvo was quite clear, to the point, and very well supported by evidence, as indeed was his first post, so I have just two points now:

    (1) There is a reasonable implementation of a new forum rule on the Masm32-forum (about programming in assembly) that I frequent and where there sometimes are enflamed discussions (between physically healthy people) and it comes to this

    Exclusion rule
    ____(Proposed, possibly needs a bit tweaking)____

    Members of this forum may be temporally or forever banned to post on the forums after 10 members have made the request by PM to the Administrator to stop a member from posting, as his or her posts are needlessly enflaming, uninformed, irrational or unreasonable, or are at variance with the bio-medical views as to the causes of ME/CFS most members of this forum have.

    I have given my own reasons for a rule like this before (in part, but that is enough), and want to add or iterate only that it is in the personal interests of Reeves and Wessely etc. to try to break up a forum of patients with ME like the Phoenix Forums, and that it is - at present - very easy for them, or their cronies, to enter a forum of patients who must post anonymously for fear of being legally persecuted or sectioned by these gentlemen or their willing executioners, and start experimenting with what best riles and enflames or what arguments, tricks, rhetorics, and deviousness in favour of KCL/CDC-like positions work best against patients with ME.

    As I said, a rule like this exists on the Masm32-forums, simply to avoid flame-wars as they are called, and keep posters within the bounds of reason or politeness. The responsible man for it there is the owner of that forum - as indeed should be, for his head is on the block legally.

    On this forum it can be made part of the Report Post button; it can be given its own Poll, anonymous or not (there are pros and cons with either alternative); and also it gives a tool and procedure to (temporally) remove members (from posting on the forums) if there is sufficient support for this by other members.

    Consider it as pub's rule against being too drunk to be permitted to be a regular customer, for the moment or forever....

    It seems to works well on the Masm32-forums, where it also was needed to save that forum from getting blown to pieces by flame-wars, as they are called (which, to obviate a possible doublespeak "objection", can also be faught with innuendo, insinuation, mock respect for the ill, and doublespeak).

    (2) Discussing (with) the unknown quantity it="Esther12"

    I am not willing to discuss anything with Esther12 on this forum. The forums - rightly so - hamper my preferred styles.

    I am willing to discuss with it if it discloses its real identity and academic degrees or the lack of them, also backed up by plausible proof (such as an own website, with a CV that lists age, academic degrees, general outlook, publications and the like, and to such an extent that it is rationally doubtful that most of it is made up).

    Then it and me can have a little academic or not so academic discussion, only moderated by me. (I will be very fair in my moderation, but since I may be dealing, directly, indirectly, or because of mental issues I can't judge properly here and now, with KCL-staff there will be some limits, e.g. as regards images, terms, and the amount of BS or references I am willing to read.)

    My own vote would be that Esther12 goes elsewhere on the internet to sow doubt, as it itself proudly called what it is doing; or visits the KCL to promote a discussion with it on it's own website.

    As it is, I am not willing to discuss or engage with someone who, since I began to read this forum, I neither like, nor trust, nor believe, and whose tactics of discussion and rhetorical ways I believe I recognise.

    Finally, to repeat: I am not willing to discuss with it if it doesn't disclose its real e-mail, its real academic qualifications, and something like a website that backs these claims up, also with fair rational probability at least.

    I am not going to spend time and trouble on a mere lame griefing functionally anonymous internet-troll - and should remind the owner of the forum (in case my saying this is considered unnecessarily rude) that these types enter in almost any lively forum at some point, simply because there are people who have this kind of hang-up and internet-anonymity is the virtually perfect cloak to protect and insulate from the criticisms of those they upset, on purpose or because they really are in need of good psychiatric bio-medically effective medication.

    Maarten.

    P.S. And as to another possible doublespeak gambit, namely that I am "not fair" or "prejudiced", on the ground that I want to exclude members whose

    ...posts are needlessly enflaming, uninformed, irrational or unreasonable, or are at variance with the bio-medical views as to the causes of ME/CFS most members of this forum have.

    e.g. since "there is no FULL PROOF" and "one must be openminded" or because I "want this forum to speak according to my own agenda", or whatever: There are DECADES worth of kilotons of KCL/CDC BULLSHIT out there on the internet.

    A patients group of people with ME that I support, supports a bio-medical approach to it, since that is MY point of view since 32 years: I have a real physical disease, and do not want to hear over and again that I don't know what I am talking about, or "should consider all expressed views fairly", especially not by a totally anonymous person who pretends to be "fair and reasonable", but who refuses to read the scientific evidence.

    Those who disagree with me (or Parvo or etc.) can go elsewhere, start their own forum - say "CFS without bio-medical prejudice" - or can debate me on my site - but only after full disclosure of at least some places where they do run at least some personal risk, instead of hiding in utter anonymity while pretending to warble the sweet song of reason on tunes set by KCL-composers.

    References:

    This shows how widespread the trouble with trolls, griefers and lamers is, and note all of the following is both relevant and composed wholly apart from this forum or this occassion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamer

    "The object of the superior man is truth." -- Confucius
    "In a time of universal deceit,
     telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- Orwell
    "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

C. META-smalltalk on this thread


  1. #19

    Default META-smalltalk on this thread

    Verbal explanation: "META" is a logician's term for talk about talk.

    I've mailed Cort about this thread and asked him to consider the proposed new forum rule, to help moderate things by at Phoenix Rising.

    As to discussions I proposed as conditionally possible on my site: I wrote an "if", that it - as is usual with it - choose to ignore.

    Anyway... I am not willing to "discuss" something that claimed again and again and again it wants a real discussion (i) on a necessarily and fairly linguistically and logically restricted place (forum) of public talk nor (ii) on my own site if it doesn't even have the spine to own up, fairly, honestly, reasonably, academically correctly, to what it really is, also merely in terms rationally relevant to a fair and academic discussion (since I did not - e.g. - ask for employer, income, address, phone, etc.)

    But I can understand why... the whole University of Amsterdam, but for some of its remaining really rational and scientific professors, who supported me behind the scenes, avoided taking up my gauntlet when I threw it in their faces, publicly, repeatedly, a year long, in public, for all in the university to read, every month, starting with "Whores of Reason", which is what I called them.

    They did not dare to do so publicly, having read my paper published prose, and do not dare to do so to this day (also since in 2008 a Dutch Parliamentary Committee investigated the state of education in the Netherlands, and confirmed all I had been saying for over 33 years in a Parliamentary Report, the so-called Dijsselbloem rapport):

    Title: Spiegeloog columns (list of all, mostly Dutch)
    Link: http://www.maartensz.org/meinadam/sploog_columns.htm
    Title: Yahooisme & democratie (mostly English, relevant also for Wesselyanism=Fraudianism)
    Link: http://www.maartensz.org/meinadam/spyahoos.htm
    Title: 39 Questions about the qualities of education and government in the Netherlands
    Link: http://www.maartensz.org/meinadam/uvaquestions1988.htm

    and also, in quite a few cases, having met me personally(!) or having heard me debate, e.g. in the University Parliament, as was then the ruling institution of the University of Amsterdam.

    What they did do, was to let me know, by way of secretaries, knowing full well that I was ill and an invalid, that

    "We from the scientific staff would love to see Maarten Maartensz dead." (*)

    As the good Dr. Yes explained elsewhere on the forums - and Dr. Yes is a fool iff Dr. Yes wants to be a fool: a remarkably laid back and gifted man! - persons having once passed the Graduated Exercise Therapy of a modern university are all too often and easily of the homo homini lupus type, for which reason I DO want to know who I am dealing with when there is to be anything that may be more than playful discussion (or what pretends to be but skillfully isn't).

    O, and the above 39 Questions about the qualities of education and government in the Netherlands were the - nominal - reasons to remove me for the third time from the University of Amsterdam, briefly before receiving the M.A. philosophy. (The linked version is in English. The original version was in Dutch, and was read to an audience in the Faculty of Philosophy, that I was asked to address as invited speaker, in may 1988.)

    It's because of experiences like these, that I am quite willing to discuss publicly (and spend time and energy on that rather than something else) - as everybody who is socially anything in Amsterdam or Holland, with a reputation to lose, dares not do, once they have read my site and prose and have checked out my history - but that anyone who wants to be thus honoured by me needs to provide testable specifics about his or her real identity and finding-place and academic qualifications to do so seriously, much rather than as part of some sick or silly anonymous SM-game that masquerades as real, honest, deeply interested love of me.

    Finally to return to part of what is at issue:

    I consider this forum to be

    among other things, such as a meeting place and a place where my beloved Church Of False Illness Beliefs deigns to gather, to listen attentively to their good and great Pastor, to yodel fondly with their excellent and witty Choir Mistress, and discuss rationally The Church's True Teachings with the hermit Frater M. Ockham (emeritus)
    an international ME/CFS Advocacy Association (**), with standards for what it stands for as regards ME/CFS and what it opposes, as regards diagnoses, treatments, verbal descriptions, definitions, wordings and research, funding and (real versus pseudo) science

    which is another reason that I think a new moderation rule for this forum, on the line as proposed, seems desirable.

    drs. Maarten Maartensz.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Notes

    (*) As to evidence about what one is: There even is a professor at one of the US top universities who can affirm all this is so - but I am not going to name this person for the sick joys of a mere spook with ghastly ghostly issues an academically trained psychologist, philosopher and logician like me is well-qualified to diagnose, judge, discuss or debate...but only with human beings who can be personally reached, identified and weighed intellectually, morally and legally, and not with mere ghostly trolling spooks with issues.

    Re Spiegeloog & UvA:

    The Dutch was: "Wij van de wetenschappelijke staf zien Maarten Maartensz het liefst dood."
    The "Whores of Reason" ccolumn is de "Hoeren van de Rede" one.
    The interview is indeed with Theo van Gogh the film-director, non-conformist and controversialist, murdered in 2004 by a fanatic muslim with issues, I was friends with when this interview was made (in 1989).

    (**) in nuce & sui generis.

    References:

    This shows how widespread the trouble with trolls, griefers and lamers is, and note all of the following is both relevant and composed wholly apart from this forum or this occassion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamer

    Df = Definition

    From the wiki on "Troll (internet)":

    Etymology
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s, but the earliest known example is from 1992. It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers. That phrase is itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat, waiting for fish to strike, a technique known as trolling. The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, as they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.
     

    “ Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

    Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naοve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation.

    Last edited by Maarten Maartensz; Yesterday at 11:06 PM. Reason: "dysfunctional beliefs about my body"+Refs+Df

    "The object of the superior man is truth." -- Confucius
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- Orwell
    "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

D. Trolling IS an issue for a forum like this.



  1.  Trolling IS an issue for a forum like this.

    Hello Mark,

    I think your post is too long (for most and for me), but I do tend to think that you mean well and that you try to explain things from your point of view. In what follows I merely make a few remarks on your summary and posts and in particular but not only the paragraphs that name me=Maarten.

    You will soon find that I will be using a rhetorical device to get my point across, which I am sorry for, but seems to be required, since you did in all your looooooong post not properly discuss precisely that point, that is both Parvo's and my concern.

     Originally Posted by Mark
    Summary Suggestion:

    In Place Of: Ludicrous unfounded allegations that people whose posts you consider dangerous are operating as a secret cabal and practicing CBT on patients etc etc

    Consider Alternative: Explain why the opinions expressed are dangerous, either Ignore or Report posts and threads you dislike, and request specifc action from moderators via the "Report Post" button or by PM to moderators.

    Sorry Mark:

    I was explicitly and repeatedly writing about trolling and doublespeak

    , and I also think Parvo's post was quite clear about that.

    Besides, I find my own and Parvo's suggestions neither "ludicrous" nor "unfounded", and take exception to your saying so, if only because of the palpable honesty and concern of his and my posts. So, here is my refrain for this post, that you refrain in all of its length to properly discuss, logically speaking - and (properly admitted) members of CoFIBs may well sing along as this theme repeats itself, like a refrain in a song, throughout this post:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: At this point in time, we should all, internationally, be getting behind that and other initiatives and not wasting time disputing semantics, so I hope we can all agree on that.

    Now if you think so, why did you write this looooooooong post I react to? And I am NOT discussing "semantics": I made a point about trolling on this forum:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: Maarten and Parvofighter have raised important questions, and I have many ideas and suggestions for moving forward, including that I support (with some qualifications) many (but not all) of the proposals made by them regarding moderation, management of disputes, and other questions.

    It would have been a LOT clearer if you quoted the "questions" and "suggestions" and indicated what and why you (dis)agree.

    Mark: I am in general principle strongly in favour of free speech

    Noble of you, and I agree, but it's a red herring and Parvo and I are talking about trolling on the forum, not about general principles.

    Mark: Note that I find the term "game" Maarten uses a little troublesome here, only because it risks being seen by some as trivialising an extremely serious and important endeavour, but technically I agree it is a correct and useful analysis.

    That is academicalese. FWIW: I used the word commonsensically correctly (Shorter OED), psychologically correctly ("Games people play") and logically correctly (Games theory in logical semantics), but in general, and unless I say otherwise, on this forum I write ordinary English, my way.

    Mark: ...a daunting task due to the length of what I want to describe...

    My advice is to serialize it, with every element in the series treating one (set of) topics. (You loose many potential readers with loooooooong posts.)

    Mark: Many comments have been made on this thread which may well be construed as personal and ad hominem attacks on myself and Esther12, in contravention of forum rules. Since neither Esther12 nor I have requested that these allegations be censored, I have not moderated these comments myself, but I draw attention here to veiled insults which, if applied to me, are both offensive and incorrect.

    Again: I'm talking about "trolling for suckers", and have been talking about trolling all along. I think it="Esther12" is a troll. I do not think you are one, and we have pm'd.

    Also, one can't discuss (with) trolls on a list as one discusses (wIth) persons who are not trolls.

    Furthermore, I think it is in general wise if a moderator who gets caught up in a discussion he or she is moderating on one side of the discussion asks another moderator to moderate the discussion. Ths avoids appearances of moderating according to one's own personal bias (I know there is a lack of moderators...).

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: With regards to the reference to "mere ghostly trolling spooks with issues" I have examined the wikipedia definitions provided, the allegations by Parvofighter (in full) and my own conscience, and I can confidently assert that this label is a completely false, incorrect, and grossly unfair description if intended to apply to myself.

    OK Mark: I accept that mostly (probabilistically, as with most empirical judgements), and never thought otherwise. However... "grossly unfair description if intended to apply to myself" is too woolly and poly-interpretable for my logical tastes: Suppose - to take a member of this forum - I would think you are trolling. Suppose I think I have some evidence for that. Suppose it is in fact false and incorrect (what's the diference, BTW?). Suppose I care that this forum prospers. Then HOW am I going to discuss my suspicions, on an anonymous list, on which it is only rational to assume there is a goodly chance of trolling by KCL and CDC staff, simply because their heads, careers, status, personal finances etc. are on the block if (i) ME/CFS has a proven medical cause and (ii) there is a well-organized forum of patients with ME, without speaking about trolling

    Mark: I have a very thick skin,

    Hmm....nothing personal, although we PM'd, but most on the Phoenix forums are thinskinned about some issues relating to how ME/CFS is discussed, and rightly so and IMHO moderators should be aware of this

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    - Mark: Parvofighter's posts were very well-written and clearly heartfelt. However in every case the headline conclusions (or rather, rhetoric and supposition) are not supported by the evidence presented. In every section, a more modest conclusion could have been reached which was not so personally abusive and incorrectly suggestive of ulterior motives, hidden agendas, secret CBT practice and other ideas frankly laughable to those on the receiving end who - let's please bear this in mind - actually do know the truth of their own situation.

    I protest your description of Parvo's posts: He did NOT indulge in "rhetoric and supposition" and what he said was well "supported by the evidence presented". This does not prove logically and irrefutably that he is right, but we are not speaking about mathematics or logic: He and I are speaking about trolling for suckers on this forum.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: - "I am innocent of the charges made in Parvofighter's thread, and since I have been thus accused falsely, I tend to also believe that Esther12 has probably also been accused falsely"

    Mark: This logical fallacy should be called "Innocence by association".

    Mark: (however I have no way that I currently know of to definitively confirm the identity of Esther12, Parvofighter, Maarten or anybody else - short of meeting them in person - and I do not presently wish to do so urgently anyway).

    I think you are misrepresenting things here, Mark. As you full well know we must deal with probabilities since on anonymous forum

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    and it is hard to establish certainties about trolls on it, especially skilled trolls, and even more especially on anonymous forums. I have also PM'd with Parvofighter, and I am perfectly convinced he is precisely what and who he says he is, and indeed I never-ever thought otherwise.

    As to me=MM: Are you JOKING, Mark?! Apart from my family-name (which I want to and do avoid on the net because I have been threatened with murder by Amsterdam drugsdealers I opposed, who still occassionally threaten me with mails with "judicial steps", in my construction meaning "a bullett through the head", as happens often these days in Amsterdam, where mayor & aldermen protect the - indeed extra-ordinarily rich, powerful and dangerous - drugsmafia ), which is easy to find for anyone who really sends lawyers after me, simply by asking the University of Amsterdam, EVERYTHING on my site supports that I am who I say that I am and does so better than any site I know, since I am more honest, more detailed, and stand to loose far too much if I spoke falsely. (Also, at least one forum member knows my real name, by the way: Are you as disclosed as that, Mark, to someone on the forum?!)

    There is NOTHING available like that for either you or it: Either of you can be anyone, for all anyone else on this forum knows, whereas I, in view of my site (150 MB of text, mostly by me) can only be me, and absolutely noone else.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    And as to personal meetings: I'd like to meet it in the flesh, without anonymous BS, so I know what I am really writing about:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: Actually my own extremely verbose and classical style is quite unusual here in the UK too I think.

    Methinks you are both exaggerating and claiming too much:

    Mark: I don't always write like this, sometimes I am more succinct, but most of my opinions are subtle and complex rather than dogmatic and simple-minded, and that can cause confusion for my countrymen and women as well. In another context, I would be more than happy to talk with a US citizen using my language of choice when irritated or angered - choice Anglo-Saxon - but I'm told that this language is considered extremely offensive by many Americans as well as many UK citizens, and it would be counter-productive to paint the forum blue, so I restrict myself to what is considered acceptable. I am just as much inside a box here as Maarten is, but I have less issues with that then he does I think, since I consider that to be something we all just have to learn to live with in certain contexts, and that is life, which contains finite games within its rich tapestry.

    The writers of classy classical English write loooong sentences often, but they manage to be a LOT clearer than this, and than you manage, ordinarily, in my experience. (Not blaming you, merely defending Hazlitt, Dr. Johnson, Mandeville - countryman of mine! - and Swift.)

    Mark: Re: the unfair and incorrect "Doublespeak" analysis of my comments on the 'talking to psychologists' thread:

    Supposing this is as you say it is:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: In one of very few posts on the thread (2? 3?) I urged Esther12 to respect the group's clear and unanimous verdict and said (paraphrasing to explain my position further) that I personally would stop suggesting trying to discuss with psychologists via this forum, and discuss with them elsewhere (perhaps directly) if I wished to learn more of their views and enter into argument with them.

    Quite so, and that is my recommendation to it: come to my site, after disclosing such personal details as I asked, for a real discussion with a real psychologist, or go elsewhere to find them:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: This despite the fact that (as far as I am aware) nobody reported the thread for moderation and nobody that I saw asked for the thread itself to be shut down!

    Mark: Personally, I would not ask a moderator I suspected of playing a trolling game on purpose or through being taken in by a "troll fishing for suckers" (Wikipedia) to moderate the thread.

    Also, the task of moderators is difficult enough with honest members of the forums (>99%), and is much more difficult with trolls on the forums:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: I may have been wrong to assume that forum posters should be treated like adults in these matters, and I am open to the idea that a majority of the forum wish this place to be a space where they can be protected from views, theories and individuals which they and I find problematic - even abhorrent. If I made any mistake here, it was to have over-confidence in the ability and will of the forum to tear any such muddle-headed somatising arguments to shreds.

    You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting here, besides being quite condescending to me and many others.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: I do not feel that I have an absolute responsibility for everything that happens on the forum. I merely aim to make a contribution as and when I am able to.

    Indeed, and that's true for everyone on the Phoenix Rising Forums, with one exception: Cort. Which is why I EM'd him about this matter, for

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Speaking for myself - who CAN create a forum on his site if he wants - I'd kicked "it" long ago from any forum for people with ME, but than I am me and not Cort.

    Mark: Again: bear in mind that, even if nobody else can know the truth about this, Esther12 and I can know that truth definitively.

    You seem to be a Cartesian, Mark ;). I am not, and again the issue is other than you write: It is not that it and you know your personal details, it is that noone else on the forums know these, and that

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: Ridiculous false allegations like this are exactly what make me believe that Esther12 is likely to be in just as genuine a situation as I am, by extension of the fact that you are quite happy to bandy these allegations around falsely about me based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.

    The same "innocence by association" fallacy again. And

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Apart from The FULL Proof of it's real identity: I thought for a long time it is obnoxious and loves being so, and the n-word trolling trick it used was clear enough to convince many of the same.

    Mark: I personally don't have a problem with people then debating the issues and reaching a conclusion.

    Mark, you are - again and again - making things more complex than they need be, and here you are - IMHO, knowing you wrote a looooong post - either condescending or tautologous.

    Mark: (..) I did make a mental note to ask Esther12 to stop winding people up quite so much. I also meant to say "Folks, don't get so wound up, you don't want this so obviously it isn't going to happen"

    Isn't there a proverb here, about good intentions etc? But I am willing to believe you, although once more

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: - I am certainly not, and I do not believe Esther12 is, conducting "wilful and continuing abuse", intentionally causing "gratuitous offence", "making a sport of manipulating patients on this thread with thinly disguised CBT" or "making dangerous recommendations about health practices"

    Then we have a difference of opinion, and I find it rather unpleasant that you again and again and again avoid discussing the real issue at hand:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: I have lots of other ideas about democratic means of resolving disputes, but they would need to be thought through carefully together so that may be an idea for later.

    There's 2400 year long tradition about this (just helping you not to reinvent the wheel ;) and I am quite happy about how the Phoenix Forums are doing, in almost all respects, but

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: - I fail to see how sending a forum member PMs would be an abuse of my position!

    So do I.

    Mark: However I do see how trying to talk to someone with their fingers stuck firmly in their ears and promising not to read anything I write by way of reply is a waste of energy. I will just ask those reasonable friends of Parvofighter to message him/her if you feel it would be worthwhile explaining my response and where I am coming from.

    Parvo is very ill. Parvo's post was QUITE clear. I dislike innuendo. The length of your oratios pro domo are clearly such that he cannot - and indeed also should not - be fairly asked to read them, in his condition, let alone answer them.

    Mark: I think it would be better for all if we were fighting on the same side in common cause.

    You claimed in you PM to me to have studied mathematical logic. Could you please save on the gratuitous and insinuating totalitarian BS?! (For non-logicians: Mark's statement suggests strongly that who disagrees with him is not fighting on his side. If this is not what he meant to convey, it is not what a good logician ought to miss.)

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: I feel proud to consider many people here as friends and there is nobody who I do not want to count in that category - including Maarten, Parvofighter and Esther12. I too hope that Parvofighter will remain with us.

    It is not my friend and will never be - yea even if it looked like the astounding (and especially if she - Gong Li, of course! - had a Ph.D. pure maths)...

    http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/1114999/Gong_Li

    ...and I do hope that it will move itself elsewhere. If it were honest, it would have picked up my gauntlet. It didn't.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: (...)(and understanding of how we all sometimes lash out at those closest to us and most concerned for our well-being.

    Did you lately read too much SW, Mark? He keeps assuring pwME just the same since decades.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: We have all been there, so none of us can ultimately judge another for it.

    How do you know "all"? Why do you make undergraduates mistakes about elementary logic? And rest assured: Whether I have been there or not, I am quite capable of ultimately and otherwise making my own judgements.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: I will therefore redouble my efforts to be sensitive to these sensibilities and cautious in judging those whose perspective is different, and hope that my best is good enough.

    For someone claiming to write "classical English", you are remarkably close here to a classical sales-pitch (Toyota-type). Also, I dislike the suggestion that Parvo and I (and others) are overly given to "these sensibilities" and lack suffiicient being "cautious in judging".

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Mark: Anyone doubtful of the above who wishes to know more about my opinions and intentions can see my other recent posts which are quite clear

    "Anyone"?! C'mon Mark: Your posts (and PMs) are often not "quite clear", though I take it this is not done on purpose, and you do your best, and have a debilitating illness. Besides, your posts regularly are way too long for many with ME to read, and I think you ought to excuse yourself to Parvo for treating him the way you do. (I did not PM him for days, so there is no secret collusion going on.)

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    Finally: I'd like to discuss trolling in this thread, and not the loooooong posts of a functionally anonymous moderator defending his own bona fides, though you certaintly have a right to do so. However.... the effect of your post is that, once again, I have spend a good part of my available energy for the day of today on answering it. May I suggest that

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    And you have not - properly or at all - answered one of the issues I raised in my posts on this thread about trolling, other than by handwaiving and assuring us that Mark means well, whence, by firm logic, innocence by association is guaranteed to all, and especially to it.

    If it doesn't disclose itself RSN and debates with me on my site, for all who wish to see and savour academic logical argument or academic blood sports, I favour it's exclusion from this forum, since it thereby clearly has shown itself to be dishonourable and up to no good: If you crave "objective discussions about CFS" for months and months on end on this forum, and you are offered a fair chance to have such a discussion, with a real pro also, on a fine well-read site, and you do not take this up, it must be because you like trolling but dislike being found out. I can't make anything else from the evidence, rationally speaking.

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    And can we now PLEASE discuss trolling on this forum, and what to do against it, such as imposing the rules Parvo and I proposed?!

    Thank you very kindly.

    Maarten.

    P.S. This is the last post (or PM) of this length I am writing to Mark and the reason is this:

    I'd expected something considerably more logical and clear of someone who claims to have studied mathematical logic and 'to fully comprehend me=MM but for 1 thing':

    It's not a matter of (dis)agreements about the forum etc. but simply a matter of my personal standards for (i) being logical if one claims to have studied it and for (ii) spending what remains of my life sensibly.

    Feeling myself obliged to write loooooong posts to loooooooong posts about an issue that in my view is obvious and important, but that keeps being danced around without being really touched, as if that is rational or reasonable, is not what I want to spend energy and pain on:

    Again: Trolling is an issue for a forum like this.

    And no Marky, I am not saying you are trolling but I am saying that even someone as intelligent and learned as you are may be duped, even by trolls. Yea, even I may be duped... for which reason I propose rules to remove probable trolls from the Phoenix Forums, if not forever at least for 3 months or so, and at he behest of the owner of the site, simply to preserve and protect the quality of the Phoenix Forums, and because it also is not as if there are no other forums to troll or propound seriously that Wessely and co, after all, if you look at them without prejudice may be right, until The Full Proof is in (and then they may be right because they allow ME may have a physical component a.s.o. a.s.f. ad nauseam).

    References:

    This shows how widespread the trouble with trolls, griefers and lamers is, and note all of the following is both relevant and composed wholly apart from this forum or this occassion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamer

    Df = Definition

    From the wiki on "Troll (internet)":

    Etymology
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s, but the earliest known example is from 1992. It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers. That phrase is itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat, waiting for fish to strike, a technique known as trolling. The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, as they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.
     

    “ Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

    Last edited by Maarten Maartensz; Today at 04:44 PM.

    "The object of the superior man is truth." -- Confucius
    "In a time of universal deceit,
     telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- Orwell
    "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

    E. Kim continues the thread


    _Kim_
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location New Jersey
    Posts 2,173

    I did not report posts on the 'Medic' thread because Mark, a moderator, was contributing to the thread. He was well aware that 60+ complaints were being posted and when I suggested that people stop reading and posting, Mark replied

    I'm very sorry Kim, but personally, I don't want the thread to die just yet.

    . That was a clear admission that moderation was not going to be employed and that gratuitous offenses were going to be, not only tolerated, but encouraged by the PR Administration.

    I was also surprised that Mark was encouraging the psych lobby to participate in dialogue on these forums, when, in December, he stated that they would not be welcomed.

    Simon Wessely on XMRV

    I have to point out to you that while it might seem a bit wet to you, practicality is that when you're trying to be productive in a big group, it doesn't quite happen if everyone starts shouting. But if ye can join in in the spirit of "we're all in this together", and provided of course you aren't a bespectacled genius shrink, then maybe there's room for you here after all.

    The issue of trolls on the forum was brought to your attention by Alice Band back in December on the CBT/GET potentially harmful to ME/CFS patients thread

    Originally Posted by Alice Band: I think that your analysis is very good. What you maybe didn't give enough weighting to is the problem of trolls and mind games on the CFS forums.

    Mark: Thanks very much for confirming there's been a history of such things. I had no idea about all that, I was just guessing based on what I've seen. What seemed like oversensitivity on the part of some of the most experienced posters was really baffling me.

    Mark, do you think more than 60 complaints on the Medic thread were another example of oversensitivity by experienced posters?

    I am concerned that you are unable to see when persistent troll-like behavior is present on the forums.

    On the CBT/GET thread, you stated:

    For some reason, I myself have ended up taking an interest in some of these arguments.

    Your interest in engaging in these arguments is now legendary. You have done so on the CBT/GET thread, on the Simon Wessely and XMRV thread, and on the Medic thread. Your support of members like Esther12 and Holmsey have not earned my trust that you can moderate fairly. Can you defer your own interest in engaging and perpetuating discussions where gratuitious offenses are blatantly and repeatedly committed? As a moderator, I would expect you to attempt to resolve disputes, to stop discussions that are escalating, and to act on behalf of the interest of forum members, rather than indulge your interest in perpetuating troll games.

    I understand why Parvofighter stepped in and shined a light on the Sun Exposure issue. It appeared that you were behaving in ways that were in consonance with your previous behavior.

    Trolling is an issue on a forum like this.

    Members that encourage trolls should not be moderators.

    "We have more possibilities available in each moment than we realize" ~ Thich Nhat Hanh

    F. Maarten replies to Kim


    Dear Kim,

     Originally Posted by _Kim_
    I did not report posts on the 'Medic' thread because Mark, a moderator, was contributing to the thread. He was well aware that 60+ complaints were being posted and when I suggested that people stop reading and posting, Mark replied . That was a clear admission that moderation was not going to be employed and that gratuitous offenses were going to be, not only tolerated, but encouraged by the PR Administration.

    I was also surprised that Mark was encouraging the psych lobby to participate in dialogue on these forums, when, in December, he stated that they would not be welcomed.

    Simon Wessely on XMRVThe issue of trolls on the forum was brought to your attention by Alice Band back in December on the CBT/GET potentially harmful to ME/CFS patients thread Mark, do you think more than 60 complaints on the Medic thread were another example of oversensitivity by experienced posters?

    I am concerned that you are unable to see when persistent troll-like behavior is present on the forums.

    On the CBT/GET thread, you stated: Your interest in engaging in these arguments is now legendary. You have done so on the CBT/GET thread, on the Simon Wessely and XMRV thread, and on the Medic thread. Your support of members like Esther12 and Holmsey have not earned my trust that you can moderate fairly. Can you defer your own interest in engaging and perpetuating discussions where gratuitious offenses are blatantly and repeatedly committed? As a moderator, I would expect you to attempt to resolve disputes, to stop discussions that are escalating, and to act on behalf of the interest of forum members, rather than indulge your interest in perpetuating troll games.

    I understand why Parvofighter stepped in and shined a light on the Sun Exposure issue. It appeared that you were behaving in ways that were in consonance with your previous behavior.

    Trolling is an issue on a forum like this.

    Members that encourage trolls should not be moderators.

    + 1 my Kim (sorry: couldn't resist, and it's from a purely platonic hermit emeritus ;) ($$)

    Maarten (as always awed by your critical reasoning powers).

    P.S. For Mark: Since I have PM'd with you too: There's no collusion between Kim and me (on this thread, or indeed on the forums, except for some play we engage in, occassionally, and that too is spontaneous, between her and me, and not about ME/CFS) - I say truly. And she is wholly her own person.)


G.  Koan agrees


  1. #25

    Be the change.


    Join Date Jul 2009
    Location Ontario, Canada
    Posts 2,334

    I have long felt - and expressed - that trolling was an issue on this forum as it is on every other forum that has ever existed. Once, long ago, when I brought this to the attention of Admin. I was told, by way of a dressing down, that no-one would bother to troll these forums. I had no idea how to respond to that then and I have no clue now.

    There be trolls.

    There are also enormous differences in what people consider an acceptable level of discord in conversation. And, there's style and culture and language and emotional makeup and lability and self control and humour and... I do think we sometimes need to discuss how we are affecting each other and try to take that on board.

    I think this process is made more difficult by the forum rules which prohibit directly addressing the issue of trolls. I understand that a troll hunt can be perilously close to a witch hunt and nobody wants that. But, so long as we can't discuss trolls, trolls are free to do what they do. Of course, once you start discussing trolls, trolls are the first to scream: troll!

    It's tricky, tricky stuff.

    Smile, breathe and go slowly.
    Thich Nhat Hanh

H. Maarten answers Koan


  1. #26

    Hi Koan,

    As so often...

     Originally Posted by Koan
    I have long felt - and expressed - that trolling was an issue on this forum as it is on every other forum that has ever existed. Once, long ago, when I brought this to the attention of Admin. I was told, by way of a dressing down, that no-one would bother to troll these forums. I had no idea how to respond to that then and I have no clue now.

    There be trolls.

    There are also enormous differences in what people consider an acceptable level of discord in conversation. And, there's style and culture and language and emotional makeup and lability and self control and humour and... I do think we sometimes need to discuss how we are affecting each other and try to take that on board.

    I think this process is made more difficult by the forum rules which prohibit directly addressing the issue of trolls. I understand that a troll hunt can be perilously close to a witch hunt and nobody wants that. But, so long as we can't discuss trolls, trolls are free to do what they do. Of course, once you start discussing trolls, trolls are the first to scream: troll!

    It's tricky, tricky stuff.

    ...you are quite - and elegantly, si vous me permettez, mademoiselle - right.

    With this addition that a common and valid(+ated) assumption of this forum is that one can judge people from their writings - not unerringly, not fully - quite adequately, and sometimes surprisingly deeply, on a personal level, as well. (Eventually, perhaps, as some newbies may be initially misjudged...)

    Furthermore, about some there is just more evidence, as regular contributors, one has learned to know on various threads through their postings, so that one can often fairly and rationally conclude that so-and-so can be relied upon to be and mean and think as (s)he says, also if one disagrees. And everyone does have his or her's own unique experiences, needs and shortcomings.

    And also: I did not speak lightly, nor without extensive evidence, nor did Parvo and Kim, I feel certain.

    Maarten.


I. Koan answers Maarten


  1. #27

    Be the change.


    Hey Maarten,

    I think you make really good points about how we come to know and trust people over time but new people do not have that benefit. And, you are so right, newbies can also be misjudged.

    And, I know that you would never speak lightly of such treachery - nor would clever and brave Parvo, nor our dearest Kim, nor any of us, really. We have shown ourselves to wish, more than anything, to include. This community is remarkable for its warmth and inclusiveness and its willingness to embrace and accept with intelligence. It is our greatest strength and yet it can be our weak spot. Maybe it is always thus.

    It is sure to be interesting as we move forward, is it not?!

    Smile, breathe and go slowly.
    Thich Nhat Hanh

J. Maarten agrees with Koan



  1.  Originally Posted by Koan
    Hey Maarten,

    I think you make really good points about how we come to know and trust people over time but new people do not have that benefit. And, you are so right, newbies can also be misjudged.

    And, I know that you would never speak lightly of such treachery - nor would clever and brave Parvo, nor our dearest Kim, nor any of us, really. We have shown ourselves to wish, more than anything, to include. This community is remarkable for its warmth and inclusiveness and its willingness to embrace and accept with intelligence. It is our greatest strength and yet it can be our weak spot. Maybe it is always thus.

    It is sure to be interesting as we move forward, is it not?!

    It is, Koan, it is. And this forum is the best thing happening to me as regards ME ever since I have it, 1.1.1979.

    AND there are very interesting things happening around ME in real bio-medical science, so there REALLY is realistic hope for all with ME:

    From real science, and from this excellent forum.

    "Never, ever give up!", as Dr. Myhill is fond of quoting:




    Maarten.


Summa

Nederlog again, 15 april 2010: Most of the above was written today and appeared today on the the Phoenix Forums about ME in the thread Legal-and-Ethical-Risk. If you want to understand all (or most), you should read all of the thread, and especially Parvofighter's excellent posts.

It's probable a few things have to be rectified in this piece, but that'll have to wait for later, and it is good as is.

($$) "" = Ascii 3 = a heart (not reproducible easily in this editor).


For more visual instructions:
 
Studies in MEdical Sadism - 6: Herr Professor & Frau Doctor Wessely


See also

And some of the evidence that Herr Professor & Frau Doctor Wessely vom Weasel zum Weisel are mentally sane if and only if (iff) I am not - as they wholly agree, miraculously almost!

But see here which of the two logical alternatives a true iff comprehends applies:

1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf)
5. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

6. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
7. Paul Lutus

Is Psychology a Science?

8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)

Short descriptions:

1. Ten reasons why ME is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
   "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
     insufficient evidence
".
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.

"Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure.
I ask the Earth, have not the mountains felt?
I ask yon Heaven, the all-beholding Sun,
Has it not seen? The Sea, in storm or calm,
Heaven's ever-changing Shadow, spread below,
Have its deaf waves not heard my agony?
Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!
"
     - (Shelley, "Prometheus Unbound") 

    "It was from this time that I developed my way of judging the Chinese by dividing them into two kinds: one humane and one not. "
     - (Jung Chang)

O yes: I am proud to be friends with Kim and Dr. Yes: who hurts them hurts me. They are great and good human beings, and highly gifted intellectually and morally.


P.S. As I write this Dr. Yes is still in his asylum, but alive and his witty self, Kim is still ill and her witty self, and I was here again to report that Yes, there are truly humane beings! But some of the best of them are threatened with extinction.

"Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure.
I ask the Earth, have not the mountains felt?
I ask yon Heaven, the all-beholding Sun,
Has it not seen?


(*) KCL = King's College London, an English university where professor Wessely teaches. GET = Graduated Exercise Therapy = Arbeid Macht Frei while CBT = Cognitive Behavorial Therapy = Jedem das Seine, all as translated and updated to postmodern psychiatry by professor Wessely.

Maarten Maartensz

        home - index - top - mail