Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

User avatar
Rosa
BANNED
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:22 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Rosa » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:51 pm

First one focuses on cosmetic details, any troll worth his salt can work out ways to fit his trolling into that template.

Second one depends on your own subjective interpretations.

Trust me, when I talk about trolling, I know what I'm talking about. I've been kicked out of more than one forum under charges of trolling, and every time it happened I was indignant: 'how dare they,' I thought, 'I was polite, I shared their views on lots of issues, I just disagreed on some points, what trolling? I cry foul!'
It took me quite some time to realize that they were right and I was wrong. Going to a forum, or any community group, and annoying people who like something, whatever it is, with negative comments and remarks they don't take well? That's not cool. That's a no-no.
"I assume that the creative team does read the boards and that, through
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."

(by @worldshaking00)

─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif

User avatar
Vitocap
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Vitocap » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:02 pm

Well explained, my lady. :-bd
We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5678
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Error of Logic » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:15 pm

Let's see, then...
constructive criticism wrote:Constructive criticism aims to show that an intent or purpose of something is better served by an alternative approach. In this case, making the criticism is not necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different route. Constructive criticisms are often suggestions for improvement – how things could be done better or more acceptably. They draw attention to how an identified problem could be solved, or how it could be solved better. Constructive criticism is more likely accepted if the criticism is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable.

Both negative and constructive criticism have their appropriate uses, but often it is considered a requirement of criticism that they are combined. Thus, it is often considered that those who find fault with something should also offer an option for putting it right. More generally, any rule for behavior of any kind usually implies both "do's" and "don't s". Doing something usually also implies not doing something else, and, not doing something, often implies doing something else. There is therefore a conscious choice "to do this, or do that", but not both at the same time.

So, to orient behaviour, people need to know both what is "ruled in" and what is "ruled out". If the criticism concerns only one aspect, but not the other, it may supply only incomplete information, which is not really adequate to orient behaviour or guide action. One of the most elementary reasons why a rule is ignored, flouted or subverted is, because either the positive or the negative aspect of what it means is unspecified.
Annnd...
trolling wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families". In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments.
Definitions copied as-is from a website not affiliated to these forums or anyone thereon, to the best of my knowledge.
Does anyone object to these?

jaimehlers
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:07 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by jaimehlers » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:16 pm

What they're doing with using the accents backstage is called "method acting". You get into your stage persona and stay there till you're done and out of the building - since you never know when someone might be watching.

It may seem strange for a strip club, but actors have been doing it for a long, long time.

User avatar
Rosa
BANNED
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:22 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Rosa » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:30 pm

Error of Logic wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:15 pm
Definitions copied as-is from a website not affiliated to these forums or anyone thereon, to the best of my knowledge. Does anyone object to these?
Eh, I don't much care for the first one, I'm, like, whatever, y'know? As long as you don't make people react the way a troll does, criticism or not, you're a-okay in my book.

The second one is a bit too long-winded for my taste (some points seem to be more about spammers than trolls, also talking about the intent of the troll or his subjective state of mind is kind of a waste of time) but it does get right the one most important thing: upsetting people and provoking readers by saying negative things about the stuff they like, it's inflammatory, it disrupts discussion and it's all around bad. That there's the ticket.

If you need examples, I can tell you what happened to me in a forum of white supremacists when I explained that white people were cool but black people were cool too, or in a forum of Tolkien fans when I said the dude was a swell writer but his Nazi sympathies (well-documented, and also obvious from his books) were kinda icky.
"I assume that the creative team does read the boards and that, through
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."

(by @worldshaking00)

─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5678
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Error of Logic » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:39 pm

No, thank you, I think citing individual experiences will not be necessary at this point in time.
The point here is to create - or at least locate - definitions which are acceptable to all parties in the disagreement which has been taking place, so we may discuss the matter in a clear way, with less chance of misunderstanding or twisting of words.

What you call long-windedness, I would posit is necessary to define the concept so there can be no misunderstanding.
Intent and state of mind are important; someone who provokes emotional responses for their own amusement is a troll; someone who provokes emotional responses with other intentions is not. A psychotherapist, for example, may wish to provoke a strong emotional response to help someone break out of a mode of thought which has become toxic to their wellbeing, or to unlock repressed memories. A teacher may provoke an emotional response in a pupil to put the fire in their belly so they will do better. And so on and so forth.

I would really like to hear whether the rest of the forum finds these definitions acceptable.
Last edited by Error of Logic on Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BioYuGi
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:28 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by BioYuGi » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:50 pm

Yeah it seems simple to me. Trolling is something you do to get a rise out of people, criticism is something you do with a hope people will improve.

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5678
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Error of Logic » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:51 pm

On a sidenote, as regards Rosa's claim about professor Tolkien, I would invite those interested to read the 'Views'-section of the professor's Wikipedia article. I will admit I found the accusation personally troubling, as I am a fan of Tolkien's work, and was therefore quite relieved to read the article in question.

dmra
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by dmra » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:53 pm

The definitions seem fine to me. I too think intent is important. We've all had times when we've said something that somebody else has taken in a way we didn't mean. That's inevitable in life but even more so on the net where a lot of social cues can't be seen. But if it's pointed out to most people in a reasonable way they'll probably apologise, explain what they were trying to say and try not to make the same mistake twice.

Somebody who won't listen or thinks they're always in the right is another thing altogether.

And it isn't necessarily inflammatory to say things that people don't like. It's just as valid to say "I don't like something because" as it to say "I do like something because". People can then discuss the "becauses" which is a lot more interesting than just people saying "isn't it great" "oh yes it's really great".

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5678
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Error of Logic » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:54 pm

BioYuGi wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:50 pm
Yeah it seems simple to me. Trolling is something you do to get a rise out of people, criticism is something you do with a hope people will improve.
Indeed, and agreed. But the simplest of things need a bodyguard of complexity so they may not be twisted and broken.

By the way, I would like to apologise to any and all who feel I am taking the thread off-topic. But we've been having some rather unpleasant arguing back and forth for several weeks now, and I feel we should start working towards a resolution, rather than rattling along in this metaphorical hamster-wheel.

User avatar
Valkog
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Valkog » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:14 pm

Personally, I don't mind the quick refresher. I'm not entirely certain it'll do very much good, considering the intent behind it, but I appreciate the effort.
**== **== **==

User avatar
Vitocap
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Vitocap » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:02 pm

Rosa wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:30 pm
If you need examples, I can tell you what happened to me in a forum of white supremacists when I explained that white people were cool but black people were cool too, or in a forum of Tolkien fans when I said the dude was a swell writer but his Nazi sympathies (well-documented, and also obvious from his books) were kinda icky.
:)) =))

My educated guess is that it was more or less the same that happened to this individual here:

Image


It is my understanding that you have a soft spot for Donald Duck comics authored by Carl Barks, so I'm confident that you will appreciate the reference. :p

But seriously, for once, I agree with EOL: further examples of trolling won't be necessary. Your description before -- "going to a forum, or any community group, and annoying people who like something, whatever it is, with negative comments and remarks they don't take well" -- was sharp on the mark and easy to understand. And, as it happens, we have plenty of that going on in this here forum.
We, the old ghosts of Pizen Bluff, who still roam about this dead forum screaming imprecations at the characters and whatnot.

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5678
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Error of Logic » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:11 pm

Too kind, too kind.

But will you go for a second, and agree with the definitions of constructive criticism and trolling I provided?

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 3363
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Fluffy » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:17 pm

Error of Logic wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:39 pm
I would really like to hear whether the rest of the forum finds these definitions acceptable.
They work fine for me.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

User avatar
Roborat
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 2-04-18 Your Big Secret

Post by Roborat » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:23 pm

jaimehlers wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:16 pm
What they're doing with using the accents backstage is called "method acting". You get into your stage persona and stay there till you're done and out of the building - since you never know when someone might be watching.

It may seem strange for a strip club, but actors have been doing it for a long, long time.
I assumed it was a "Moon over June" reference from the authors.

Post Reply