Don't feed proselytization trolls!

[Cognisant]

Trolling as it is commonly known is motivated by malice and it is by this that it is commonly recognized, however this is not always so, there are other kinds of troll who, though motivated differently, still have the same damaging influence upon online communities.

A proselytization troll is a particularly interesting species of troll in that their motivation at least appears to be evangelical, however their methods are so zealous and misguided that like the Westboro Baptists the effect of their "evangelism" is anything but and it is this that clues us in to what's really going on. A proselytization troll isn't stupid or insane in a diagnosable sense, indeed they can be quite intelligent (in a perplexingly tunnel visioned way) instead, despite outward appearances, the evangelism of others isn't actually their goal, rather they're evangelizing themselves.

The neurosis of a P-troll is essentially a form of escapism, a delusion which is maintained by "winning" arguments, which seems absurd given how counter intuitive their evangelism is but you see in their case winning has nothing to do with convincing anybody, it's all about having the last post. It is in this that their true trollish nature is revealed, because the more you respond to them the more the argument is worth to them and no matter how brilliant or extensive your arguments are in the end you will get fed up and they will get the last post.

The thing is deep down a P-troll knows there is no god, they know it doesn't make any sense, but these poor people (pitiable, as infuriating as they may be) are trapped between faith and atheism, they can't go back because once you open that Pandora's box of truth there's no closing it, and they can't go forward because the cumulation of lifestyle, social expectations and their own existential crisis creates an insurmountable barrier.

Escapism is the only way out of their entrapment.

But still they're trolls, this is the Internet and if we get right down to it they're really no less wretched than the regular kind of blatantly malicious/manipulative ego motivated trolls so do the merciful thing and stop feeding them, stop feeding the trolls.

Also when you see a troll flag it with a "Don't feed the trolls sign", if we cooperate on this then eventually the mods will get the message and either get their hands dirty or find themselves an exterminator.

 

[Jennywocky]

... but they're hungry.

Shouldn't we give the starving waifs a crust of bread and a tin of water, in their moment of need?

Poor li'l guys.


EDIT: Exterminators? Like the Wyld Hunt out of Exalted 2nd Edition? Ooooh.....

 

[Cognisant]

Shouldn't we give the starving waifs a crust of bread and a tin of water, in their moment of need?

No, this is why:

Spoiler

 

[Jennywocky]

At least they wouldn't look like Furbys anymore....

WYSIWYG!

 

[Cognisant]

EDIT: Exterminators? Like the Wyld Hunt out of Exalted 2nd Edition? Ooooh.....

A tabletop fantasy RPG with cybernetics? Links NAO!

WYSIWYG!

...When yonder serpent is winning yell GONADS!

 

[Thurlor]

@ Cognisant

I wonder who has motivated this?

Though I do see where you are coming from.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I wonder who has motivated this?

Probably me.

 

[Cavallier]

It is difficult to identify proselytizing as trolling at times. It's a bit like the perfect crime if it's surrounded in a casing of Debate. Even when you know as an Admin/Mod it's proselytizing and you know it's insidiously bringing down the quality of the forum there are always groups of members who still vehemently argue for not banning the member. They like a good debate.

Then you have to make a choice: Ban for the greater good knowing that certain members WILL cause a fuss for the sake of someone who they hated yet can't stand not having around. OR, do you Not Ban for the greater good in an attempt at keeping the rabble from causing a mess?

Really, I just wait for the tide to turn.

 

[Cognisant]

Most reasonable people don't care, the one's that object are either biased by faith or "professional protesters" who will take any opportunity to cause trouble for it's own sake and undermine authority, as I'm sure you'll agree Cavallier, I should know

 

[Agent Intellect]

I think trolling and proselytizing have very different intentions behind them. A lot of things could be interpreted as proselytizing if people talk about it enough, especially if you disagree with them on that subject. But even people legitimately proselytizing at least think what they're doing is constructive (even if it's not), whereas a troll intends to be destructive.

In both cases it's a free market. The more people respond to them, the more they will proselytize/troll. Is banning either of these types of posters really for the greater good if the free market shows that it's what people want?

 

[Latte]

In both cases it's a free market.

Speaking of free market...

I'm sure some of you know what I'm getting at.

 

[Cognisant]

Proselytization itself is not the problem, it's proselytization trolling that's the problem because it is proselytizing continuously and beyond reason, a ceaseless unwavering attack that nobody who actually intends proselytize legitimately would do. For example every now and then someone will state Pascal's wager, it will be refuted and the person who stated it will accept that it has been refuted, so they won't bring it up again, but a proselytization troll does not listen to reason and will bring it up again and again and again.

C'mon we all know who I'm talking about, has anyone ever been able to convince Da Blob of anything, seriously go look up his posting history, it's the same stuff he has always said and it is the same stuff he will always say and in every thread he enters he will make his agenda the focus of discussion. Heck I've posted in threads where people have ignored him or let him have his sideshow with another poster while they separately discussed the actual topic because that was the only way to stay on the actual topic.

Look I have my pet agenda too, c'mon you all know what it is, but do I make it the focus of every single fucking discussion I'm in, do I preach the singularity, do I proselytize people through private messaging until they stop replying and/or ignore me altogether?

I said it before and I'll say it again, Da Blob is as convincing as the Westboro Baptists, that is to say not at all, well he is perhaps more insidious than them in that he's constantly looking for a new approach and knows when to play innocent, which doesn't work if you go back and read his earlier posts and see that he's changing the meaning of his words, I digress, my point is he's not posting, he's not even really preaching, he's trolling.

If people want to keep him so bad, fine, throw him in the oubliette, it won't make an iota of difference as far as constructive contributions are concerned and people can use him as a grindstone for their wit to their heart's content.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'm not defending anyone in particular as much as I'm defending the idea of free speech in general. I think it's easy to see someone as proselytizing if we disagree with them (I'm sure some people think I'm somewhat of an atheist apologist).

However, I do agree that a lot of the discussion in the philosophy/faith forum does tend to be dominated by arguments with Da Blob and that nothing really new has been said on the subject in a long time. But, just like Fox News, Da Blob is what the people want simply because he is so polarizing. I'd say there have been a few times in the past when SpaceYeti approached the other end of the spectrum, but people don't notice as much because more people agree with him.

 

[Jennywocky]

Proselytization itself is not the problem, it's proselytization trolling that's the problem because it is proselytizing continuously and beyond reason, a ceaseless unwavering attack that nobody who actually intends proselytize legitimately would do. For example every now and then someone will state Pascal's wager, it will be refuted and the person who stated it will accept that it has been refuted, so they won't bring it up again, but a proselytization troll does not listen to reason and will bring it up again and again and again.

*groan*

We're still talking about Pascal's Wager? Even just to say we shouldn't be talking about Pascal's Wager? lol!!

C'mon we all know who I'm talking about, has anyone ever been able to convince Da Blob of anything, seriously go look up his posting history, it's the same stuff he has always said and it is the same stuff he will always say and in every thread he enters he will make his agenda the focus of discussion. Heck I've posted in threads where people have ignored him or let him have his sideshow with another poster while they separately discussed the actual topic because that was the only way to stay on the actual topic.

Kind of like someone running interference, to "take one for the team."

Look I have my pet agenda too, c'mon you all know what it is, but do I make it the focus of every single fucking discussion I'm in, do I preach the singularity, do I proselytize people through private messaging until they stop replying and/or ignore me altogether?

I think the ideal type of discussion that encourages conversation is where people are responding in specific ways to the specific issues raised in a thread, rather than just basically cutting the same text over and over again. Also, there just doesn't seem to be a point in starting a thread about the same information you have already discussed over and over in other threads. It just gets redundant.

I thought Blob's hands were not in good shape... at least, that is what he told me twice, as part of insinuating he'd rather not continue the two lengthy but civil rounds I had with him in one of the more recent threads. I expect that this means he would be cutting back on all the other activity as well, due to the pain issue, which would help resolve your issue of course.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not defending anyone in particular as much as I'm defending the idea of free speech in general. I think it's easy to see someone as proselytizing if we disagree with them (I'm sure some people think I'm somewhat of an atheist apologist).

Do you see me going after s0cratus?
There are many whales in the sea but there is only one Moby Dick.

Besides it's like the Westboro Baptists again, sure they have the right to speak but that doesn't mean we have to listen to them, what I'm saying is Da Blob can speak just fine in the oubliette, he can speak as freely as he likes, and if people choose to speak with him then that's their choice to make.

If anything I think he has received more than his fair share of clemency because there's that fear of appearing biased, but c'mon if I got up on my high horse and started pushing my beliefs as hard as Blob does I'd be in trouble within a week in spite of how right I may be and it would not be because of what I'm saying, it would be because of my methods, heck I've only gotten away with so much in this thread because you know I'm right.

I am blatantly attacking another member, and I'm the first to say so.

 

[nanook]

bad limitation of empathy, here! so the man is stuck on his level of complexity, so are the ones who get caught up in endless discussions with him. i'd never end up there, cuz i see and understand the stuckness in advance, meaning i know that certain arguments won't make a difference. (and few of you can be impressed by arguments!). but those who discuss with him have this to learn from dancing with him: a meta-awareness of the struggle they themselves are caught up in. it's evolution. so he is actually a valuable member of this community. and just as important: he may just end up learning the same lesson one day. there is no trolling involved at all. the stubbornness and coolness of a thinking type for sure. and the man has egoic attachments inside of his thinking, like most or all of us (i do), but he doesn't operate on ego entirely (which is what trolling is - posting without any regard for the experience of others). he's actually available as a human being, between the lines, within discussions - i have experienced that, because i don't approach him with hostile oppositon. i haven't observed whether the prosecutor is available in the same manner or not. so far i felt that the prosecutor wants to destroy his invincible opponent, not teach him anything, which would borderline on trolling, but i might be wrong, i'm not inside of the perspective of their dialogue experience. the whole thing might just be a projection. really though? how else could this thread be interpreted ... as part of a leraning experience, actually, even if it's border-lining on trolling. like the prosecutor is sharing his own albeit incomplete insight: "don't go into pointless battles." that's cute. he has jet to understand, why the battle is pointless though, because the trolling theory is not an understanding, it's just a lazy label. i'm okay with whatever you guys pull of at the end of the day, i just share my perspective.

 

[Jennywocky]

This was a response to Nanook, but he might have deleted his post now....

But by the definition that was given, I don't think anyone would ever be banned or curtailed -- anything (even being tortured and beaten) can of course be construed as a learning experience depending on the attitude of the person involved.

To keep it relevant to forums, if I were in charge, I'd probably just look at the big-picture output. How is the forum responding? If the forum is become more diverse, more engaging, attracting new members, increasing the longevity of members as participants in the forum conversation, then I'd conclude the randy seed was a positive influence; if it drives away members, decreases conversation, makes the forum more uniform, etc., then I'd conclude it was harmful to the forum experience and get rid of or restrict the member.

 

[nanook]

i'd very much understand valuing the forum quality over patience with the learning lessons of individuals. i think this forum is doing perfectly fine though.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Perhaps we should have forum trials for specific people.

Step 1: A poll is opened in the Crime and Punishment subforum asking "Is so-and-so a troll?" and people vote yes or no. If there is a sufficient ratio of yes:no votes, an accuser is named and a trial starts.

Step 2: Give the accused and the accuser a week to comb through the accused posting history and acquire evidence of guilt or innocence on the issue of whether the accused is a troll.

Step 3: Both sides make a case for the accused continuing right to post here. Another poll can be opened where people can review the accused case as well as the counter argument from the accuser and closing statements from both. The poll closes after a week or so and the fate of the poster is decided based on a sufficient guilty:innocent vote ratio.

Just spit balling here.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Don't feed proselytization trolls!

Verb

1. To encourage or induce people to join a religious movement, political party, or other cause or organization.
2. To convert (someone) to one’s own faith or beliefs

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proselytize

Isn't this thread is an example of proselytization? I don't think you're taking yourself seriously(even if you really don't like Blob) so I only see this thread as an intended troll(joke) itself created with possible hopes of administrative action against Blob.

There are many whales in the sea but there is only one Moby Dick.

Aye.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

It is difficult to identify proselytizing as trolling at times. It's a bit like the perfect crime if it's surrounded in a casing of Debate. Even when you know as an Admin/Mod it's proselytizing and you know it's insidiously bringing down the quality of the forum there are always groups of members who still vehemently argue for not banning the member. They like a good debate.

Then you have to make a choice: Ban for the greater good knowing that certain members WILL cause a fuss for the sake of someone who they hated yet can't stand not having around. OR, do you Not Ban for the greater good in an attempt at keeping the rabble from causing a mess?

Really, I just wait for the tide to turn.

I think one runs into trouble trying to decide the "greater good" for others. "Greater good" is rather subjective. But it makes sense to have a "P"-type rather than a "J"-type in charge, or at least one or two out of a triumvirate ruling party so that alternative possibilities can be proposed. "J-types" are susceptible to narrow-minded thinking. I know I'm hereby invoking Godwin's Law, But I'm sure Hitler also truly believed he was acting in the "greater good" of humanity. So do all dictators and politicians. The term should not be tossed around too liberally as you can use "greater good" to justify any action.

Proselytization itself is not the problem, it's proselytization trolling that's the problem because it is proselytizing continuously and beyond reason, a ceaseless unwavering attack that nobody who actually intends proselytize legitimately would do. For example every now and then someone will state Pascal's wager, it will be refuted and the person who stated it will accept that it has been refuted, so they won't bring it up again, but a proselytization troll does not listen to reason and will bring it up again and again and again.

C'mon we all know who I'm talking about, has anyone ever been able to convince Da Blob of anything, seriously go look up his posting history, it's the same stuff he has always said and it is the same stuff he will always say and in every thread he enters he will make his agenda the focus of discussion. Heck I've posted in threads where people have ignored him or let him have his sideshow with another poster while they separately discussed the actual topic because that was the only way to stay on the actual topic.

Look I have my pet agenda too, c'mon you all know what it is, but do I make it the focus of every single fucking discussion I'm in, do I preach the singularity, do I proselytize people through private messaging until they stop replying and/or ignore me altogether?

I said it before and I'll say it again, Da Blob is as convincing as the Westboro Baptists, that is to say not at all, well he is perhaps more insidious than them in that he's constantly looking for a new approach and knows when to play innocent, which doesn't work if you go back and read his earlier posts and see that he's changing the meaning of his words, I digress, my point is he's not posting, he's not even really preaching, he's trolling.

If people want to keep him so bad, fine, throw him in the oubliette, it won't make an iota of difference as far as constructive contributions are concerned and people can use him as a grindstone for their wit to their heart's content.

Maybe "the problem" lies in understanding the purpose and intent behind an internet forum in general.

Have you considered that it's unlikely we're going to come up with any new discoveries. Nor is it likely that any discussion here will provide some miraculous insight like when Einstein first revealed E=MC^2.

It's my opinion (of course) that the function of internet forums are more SOCIAL than INFORMATIONAL. If you really wanted to know the meaning or definition of something, that's what Google and Wikipedia is for.

If we're being honest, we all just crave attention in some form or fashion-- and this materializes for some by interacting with people online, on internet forums.

There are some things I don't understand, why girls go to clubs just to dance (as opposed to getting laid), why girls spend $700+ on leather bags just to hold their makeup when a plastic grocery bag suffices... and many more things about the opposite sex...

There are some things you don't understand, forum "trolling" I guess being one of them.

But just because I don't think it's necessary for girls to be "wasting" their money on expensive cowhides to tote their cosmetics, and although I find it annoying, I'm not going to make laws banishing the behavior. I try as best I can to understand their motivations, even if I cannot relate.

In the same way, I think it would expand your horizons to try and understand @Da Blob's motivations, and what his "trolling" behavior might serve to benefit his life.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe this is just his way of socializing, as a girl would go to a club just to socialize with her friends?

Anyways, this is just my free-write, as I don't really care too much what happens nor do I really have an overall point to this message.

I am somewhat sensitive to the liberal use of the word "troll" and "trolling," because similar to "porn" and "schizophrenia," when pressed for a definition, nobody can really come up with a definitive answer... and wikipedia does not count.

 

[Cognisant]

Perhaps we should have forum trials for specific people.

Step 1: A poll is opened in the Crime and Punishment subforum asking "Is so-and-so a troll?" and people vote yes or no. If there is a sufficient ratio of yes:no votes, an accuser is named and a trial starts.

Step 2: Give the accused and the accuser a week to comb through the accused posting history and acquire evidence of guilt or innocence on the issue of whether the accused is a troll.

Step 3: Both sides make a case for the accused continuing right to post here. Another poll can be opened where people can review the accused case as well as the counter argument from the accuser and closing statements from both. The poll closes after a week or so and the fate of the poster is decided based on a sufficient guilty:innocent vote ratio.

Just spit balling here.

We have mods don't we?

I used to be one until I banned Blob (after consulting Loveofreason who was a widely respected mod before I even new this forum existed but sadly isn't around much these days) and part of the reason why I stepped down from being a mod (nobody asked me to) was to settle the controversy over Blob being banned and the unfounded mistrust it was creating which I felt was bad for the forum.

Before I left it was stated that a mod's responsibility is to respect the discretion and stand by the decisions of their fellow moderators, apparently that doesn't apply to ex-mods because not long after I left Blob was unbanned and now he continues the behaviour that I banned him for.

If responsibility for this is shirked off to a poll, then why have moderators at all?

 

[Cognisant]

Isn't this thread is an example of proselytization? I don't think you're taking yourself seriously(even if you really don't like Blob) so I only see this thread as an intended troll(joke) itself created with possible hopes of administrative action against Blob.

Yes I am proselytizing, read the OP again, my point was that Da Blob is trolling under the guise of proselytizing.

 

[Agent Intellect]

If responsibility for this is shirked off to a poll, then why have moderators at all?

To approve blocked posts, of course!

Like I said, I was just spit balling. I don't think anything like what I said would be implemented anyway. It was more to illustrate a method of democratic due process than anything else.

I guess my concern comes down to this: if people can be banned for being perceived to proselytize, then anyone can be banned because proselytizing is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Some sort of democratic due process would make it much more clear that the accused has not actually contributed anything constructive to the forum before being banned.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I used to be one until I banned Blob (after consulting Loveofreason who was a widely respected mod before I even new this forum existed but sadly isn't around much these days) and part of the reason why I stepped down from being a mod (nobody asked me to) was to settle the controversy over Blob being banned and the unfounded mistrust it was creating which I felt was bad for the forum.

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the ecological niche. If not, the general rules are:

1. A niche is a specific set of conditions under which an organism can exist.

2. No two species can occupy the same niche simultaneously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

3. The width, breadth, and depth of a given niche depends on resource availability.

4. The more complex the system, the more stable it is. (Although current research is focused on identifying and testing upper and lower bounds of stability within the context of systemic diversity).


All niches are inextricably linked to each other within an as of yet incomprehensibly complex system which is all too often bastardized and pigeonholed into something called a food web.

The forum food web is simple: Each subforum and subcategory represent a niche, which is occupied by a multitude of species (forumites) who compete for ownership of said niche. Once a given species demonstrates superiority over a given knowledge base, direct competition for that space largely ceases except for occasional drifters attempting to expand or open up additional space on the edges of their existing adaptive zones. Losers must adapt (pick a new niche to fight for/occupy) or perish (leave the forum). If a given niche isn't large enough to support a high population of a given species, even additional individuals of the same species must compete for limited space, adapt to create new space, or die.

Similar to what occurs when a top predator is eliminated from a trophic hierarchy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopredator_release_hypothesis ), the removal of top tier occupants in a forum food web will result in a dramatic increase of subordinates formerly suppressed by competition who compete for the newly available space.

The moral of the story...? truism: If you kill all the wolves, you wind up with a lot of skunks/raccoons/coyotes et al and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade

Spoiler

As much as diversity may be undervalued and individual autonomy (in this context the right not to click upon, read, or post within a given thread, subforum, or subcategory) ignored, do you want to risk unleashing the Hydra?

 

[Cognisant]

Have you considered that it's unlikely we're going to come up with any new discoveries. Nor is it likely that any discussion here will provide some miraculous insight like when Einstein first revealed E=MC^2.

It's my opinion (of course) that the function of internet forums are more SOCIAL than INFORMATIONAL. If you really wanted to know the meaning or definition of something, that's what Google and Wikipedia is for.

How dare you the Internet is serious business

Granted this isn't a funded think tank but still I believe constructive debate can be educational and as I've said debating with Da Blob isn't constructive, everything he says he has already said before and will say again, and again, and again, while also disrupting other people's attempts at constructive debate.

In the same way, I think it would expand your horizons to try and understand Da Blob's motivations, and what his "trolling" behavior might serve to benefit his life.

I've been trying to understanding him for a very long time now and I think I understand him as well as anyone can, read the OP again and see my "Crisis Theory" thread, then talk to him yourself, I think it'll become readily apparent.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe this is just his way of socializing, as a girl would go to a club just to socialize with her friends?

And if I frequented a club I'd kick bimbos out of there too

 

[NinjaSurfer]

maybe installing an "ignore" function would be the best compromise? heh

 

[Cognisant]

You're speaking to it. Don't feed the troll!

@thehabitatdoctor
Pure speculation, besides in my observation Da Blob is a bulwark of sorts that enables other undesirables to have a niche, once his ever flowing fountain of bullshit is gone we'll have the time and energy to deconstruct less offensive postings.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

in my observation

Equal speculation.

Pure speculation, besides in my observation Da Blob the subforum entitled "Philosophy and Faith" is a bulwark

 

[Cognisant]

You're right philosophy and faith are totally different things, we should just call it Philosophy and put Faith in the Arena where it belongs

*orders a shipment of lions*

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the ecological niche. If not, the general rules are:

Spoiler

1. A niche is a specific set of conditions under which an organism can exist.

2. No two species can occupy the same niche simultaneously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

3. The width, breadth, and depth of a given niche depends on resource availability.

4. The more complex the system, the more stable it is. (Although current research is focused on identifying and testing upper and lower bounds of stability within the context of systemic diversity).


All niches are inextricably linked to each other within an as of yet incomprehensibly complex system which is all too often bastardized and pigeonholed into something called a food web.

The forum food web is simple: Each subforum and subcategory represent a niche, which is occupied by a multitude of species (forumites) who compete for ownership of said niche. Once a given species demonstrates superiority over a given knowledge base, direct competition for that space largely ceases except for occasional drifters attempting to expand or open up additional space on the edges of their existing adaptive zones. Losers must adapt (pick a new niche to fight for/occupy) or perish (leave the forum). If a given niche isn't large enough to support a high population of a given species, even additional individuals of the same species must compete for limited space, adapt to create new space, or die.

Similar to what occurs when a top predator is eliminated from a trophic hierarchy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopredator_release_hypothesis ), the removal of top tier occupants in a forum food web will result in a dramatic increase of subordinates formerly suppressed by competition who compete for the newly available space.

The moral of the story...? truism: If you kill all the wolves, you wind up with a lot of skunks/raccoons/coyotes et al and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade

Spoiler

As much as diversity may be undervalued and individual autonomy (in this context the right not to click upon, read, or post within a given thread, subforum, or subcategory) ignored, do you want to risk unleashing the Hydra?

Pretty sure that was an exaggeration, at least for this forum. Anyway you see this place as an ecosystem? I see it as a company office.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Pretty sure that was an exaggeration, at least for this forum. Anyway you see this place as an ecosystem?

It's sort of my default worldview, but well... it hasn't failed me yet.

The only things I left out were resources = respect and competition = debate, but that's sort of intuitive.

There are plenty of parallels. IMO Most noobs arrive and leave quickly having found no vacancies, and even established members withhold commentary on matters where they're lower in the hierarchy because of the possibility of pwnage. Lurkers lie in the shadows, reading and learning until they're comfortable showing themselves and attempting to stake a claim.

I see it as a company office.

A system as well.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

*orders a shipment of lions*

<- Certified in chemical immobilization.

Telazol anyone?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's sort of my default worldview, but well... it hasn't failed me yet.

The only things I left out were resources = respect and competition = debate, but that's sort of intuitive.

There are plenty of parallels. IMO Most noobs arrive and leave quickly having found no vacancies, and even established members withhold commentary on matters where they're lower in the hierarchy because of the possibility of pwnage. Lurkers lie in the shadows, reading and learning until they're comfortable showing themselves and attempting to stake a claim.

Not that I can't see it from that perspective, but I'd say it applies more appropriately to animals and environments with a greater focus on instinct and basic survival. Not so much us humans with a focus on escapism, recreation and socializing.

A system as well.

Yeah, it's really elaborate in my head, the parallels drawn are pretty interesting.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Not that I can't see it from that perspective, but I'd say it applies more appropriately to animals and environments with a greater focus on instinct and basic survival. Not so much us humans with a focus on escapism, recreation and socializing.

That simply indicates more complexity. This convo is moving in the direction of agent-based models...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That simply indicates more complexity. This convo is moving in the direction of agent-based models...

Not exactly. The view assumes it is actually that complex but have you not considered that some forum-goers don't post in certain sections because they simply don't care about those kind of topics? And those that tend toward a monopoly may be the only ones who do care.

Not everyone is trying to get a foothold is what I'm saying, unlike true ecosystems focused on survival and instincts.

 

[Cavallier]

I know I'm hereby invoking Godwin's Law, But I'm sure Hitler also truly believed he was acting in the "greater good" of humanity. So do all dictators and politicians. The term should not be tossed around too liberally as you can use "greater good" to justify any action.

I assume it's that easy emotional button pushing that is the real draw.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

have you not considered that some forum-goers don't post in certain sections because they simply don't care about those kind of topics? See original spoiler in post 25. And those that tend toward a monopoly may be the only ones who do care. <-This really calls into question the mechanism/s by which individuals assess this forum "niche" space relative to that in their physical/social/psychological environments... I can NetLogo a model for this...

Not everyone is trying to get a foothold is what I'm saying, unlike true ecosystems focused on survival and instincts.

But in a larger context, even those who aren't trying to get a foothold within the forum surely have footholds elsewhere (the forum being encompassed by something larger, which is likely encompassed by something larger, etc., ad nauseum). Perhaps the forum ecosystem comparison suffers from the same bastardization and pigeonholing that a real ecosystem experiences when it's stuffed into a simple food web. Maybe it would be more accurate to lower it a peg on the scale of organization and call it a community, which would still be bound by the same overarching axioms, whatever they may be. (Social niche partitioning + source-sink dynamics FTW).

I almost feel bad for hijacking the thread. Almost.

 

[Cavallier]

I know I'm hereby invoking Godwin's Law, But I'm sure Hitler also truly believed he was acting in the "greater good" of humanity. So do all dictators and politicians. The term should not be tossed around too liberally as you can use "greater good" to justify any action.

I assume it's that easy emotional button pushing that is the real draw.

I think this has gone long enough. Cog, was advised to not bully members and put on a temp ban of 1 week to cool off.