Saturday, July 30, 2016

Alpha Mail: Gamma and the banned trolls

Since a few people apparently don't understand why it is necessary to limit the access of problem commenters from time to time, I figured it would be a good idea to directly address the critics:
I think the more important question is why Vox Day is such a cunt that he feels the need to block people.
The reason it is necessary to block certain troublemakers is because failing to block those people would entirely destroy the comment system. It has nothing to do with my character, my opinions, or my preferences. The purpose of a troll is to disrupt the discourse, and their tactics range from artfully attempting to provoke reactions from the blogger and the commenters in order to change the topic to spamming the comments with tens of thousands of comments. There are others, usually politically motivated, who make a round of blogs posting the exact same comment at each of them. Most readers are unaware of how persistent these attempts at disruption are, or how destructive they would be if left unchecked.

For example, in one case, the troll commented 12,000 times in a single hour, posting messages that were so bizarre and disturbing that when I contacted the police in his hometown and sent them a copy of a few hundred of them, they sent an officer out to his house immediately. It turned out that it was a guy off his medication who might well have been a risk to himself or others.

Do you seriously think any site could possibly survive that level of disruption by mentally unstable individuals intact? Because it does happen and that is what you're going to get if you permit unrestricted comments on a sufficiently popular site.

I've been blogging for 15 years. I have learned how to quickly identify those commenters whose objective is to a) disrupt the discourse and cause problems, b) sell something, or c) work out their psychological issues in public. Since none of those objectives are even remotely in harmony with my own, I will quickly ban and spam any commenter who falls into one of those three categories.
I started a blog to be an extension of my presence on some forums. I got banned by two of them, and since I had no platform to argue my case from, I used my blog to examine what happened and the nature of the moderators. Afterwards, I would continue to examine moderator issues on my blog, gaining some readership--not to mention moderator criticism--in my posts.

My model for this: Vox Day's reaction to the SFWA. I was trying to emulate what he had done.

After I started to realize the moderators would not respond to me, and that most forum members simply didn't care that I was gone, I figured my reaction was ineffective from the beginning. Though, to her credit, there was at least one forum member who seemed to change her ways after some blog-to-forum dialogue.

In any event, after being ostracized and not really having any kind of a regular contact with my old online associates, I feel like it's all just wind and fury signifying nothing. I've been shutting down the blog in spite of growing traffic numbers. The whole thing just seems to be an exercise in gaining "atta boys," which doesn't interest me.

But this post and one on Vox Popoli does cause me to ask a question: Why isn't Vox's reaction to the SFWA considered a gamma response?
The most basic reason is that I'm not a gamma. The second reason is that the larger part of my "reaction to the SFWA" was demanded by the SFWA. They published a very long report and required me to respond to it, which I did in detail. The only thing I did that was unusual was do it all in public rather than behind closed doors as they preferred. They actually filed a DMCA takedown notice because they were so desperate to hide their embarrassingly absurd report. The third reason is that I can't simply accept my being "expelled" from SFWA for the obvious reason that I wasn't. It never happened.

The rules for expulsion that were applicable at the time are very clear. First the SFWA Board had to vote. Then the entire membership had to vote. No vote of the entire membership ever took place, nor has SFWA ever declared that I was expelled from the organization. All SFWA has ever declared is that the Board voted to expel an unnamed individual. And that's true. It did. But that's as far as the process ever went.

I'm not a Gamma who is upset at being rejected from a group, I am a Sigma who is exposing a complete charade that was perpetrated on the science fiction community by a very small number of people abusing their positions. Moreover, the conflict has been very good for me and for the publishing house for which I work, so I have no reason to ever let it end.
Vox, you usually post some good articles, but lately you've been dropping the ball. First off, if you are banned from a website/forum, you aren't able to comment, AT ALL. If the user is able to comment then he isn't banned. Second, a person who bans someone for having their views challenged is the definition of a coward since he fears confrontation and his views might not be as strong as he believes, this is basically SJW in a nutshell, SJWs love to block, shame and use guilt tactics to shut other peoples arguments.
First, that's very naive. For example, one troll at VP was known to use 31 different pseudonyms. There are at least two others who have utilized more than that; there are currently 39 different trolls in the autovanish list. Trolls also make use of different IP addresses to avoid IP blocks. Second, I don't ban people for challenging my views, as should be readily apparent by looking at almost any comment thread on either blog.

Trolls who are banned for their bad behavior often complain that they are being banned for challenging the site owner's views, but since so many others are not banned for doing so, that's obviously a false claim. What they are being banned for is their unacceptable, disruptive, and often intentionally destructive behavior, and that's the only reason.

Free speech cannot survive one person shouting everyone else down or constantly redirecting the subject to what they prefer to discuss. Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute or a practical policy. Maximal free speech is achieved by applying the minimum amount of moderation required to permit everyone their chance to speak. It is not achieved by allowing everyone to shriek as loudly as they can as often as they want.

As I already mentioned, I've been doing this for a long time, and never more successfully than now. So, there is absolutely no reason to change what is quite clearly working, and I am not going to change it. Either abide by the guidelines I have established and pay heed to any warnings you are given or you will not be commenting here. It is as simple as that.

It's a big Internet. No one is forcing you to be here.

25 comments:

Laramie Hirsch said...

Oh wow! I appreciate the response, Vox. I wasn't being critical. I asked my question about the SFWA sincerely.

Your second reason for responding to the SFWA--responding to the long report--is definitely more technical and involved than my situation was. In my case, I was simply snuffed out for either being too anti-atheist or too anti-gay marriage in the forums I went to.

And these were forums that purported to be Traditional Catholic. In one forum, I simply wasn't gay-friendly and effeminate-friendly. In the other, I figured I was gaslighted and witchunted until moderators bought into the groupthink of a troublemaker (who has since then reformed).

"I'm not a Gamma who is upset at being rejected from a group, I am a Sigma who is exposing a complete charade that was perpetrated on the science fiction community by a very small number of people abusing their positions."

I thought I was being this way as well. I thought I was being a Sigma who was exposing a charade. As I said before, your response to the SFWA was sort of my model for fighting back against some corruption I saw. Your actions with the SFWA, as well as books like SJWAL kept me energized for a few years. I was dealing with moderators who posed as Christians, but instead their moderation was not Christian at all.

But that's my baggage, it's in the past, and I shut the blog down recently, anyway.

Aeoli Pera said...

The fact that you haven't banned me even once speaks volumes about your tolerance level for bullshit. I may have run afoul of cause #3 once or twice in the past, hopefully it's better now,.

Aurini said...

Gamma's just won't stop arguing, no matter how many times they're proven wrong. At best, they'll go silent for six months, and then bring up some old argument all over again that was thoroughly disproved.

You cannot argue with them - and you can't kill them - you just have to shut them out of your house, and hope they find something else to become interested in.

RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow said...

I've bashed christianity & women on here plenty of times, to Vox's credit not banned

For the record i'm not against christianity or women, I merely hate the idiosyncracies of their ideologies & their consequencies, which are never reigned in or corrected by christian fanatics

Christians should follow the rules of their religion, & avoid creating cultures & fads around their religion

Unfortunately because christianity is a socialist religion, it's notorious for serving as a handbook for pussifying men, as men are naturally tribal & competitive, it goes against the grain for most men

Allowing women into churches merely magnified the pussifying effects of religion ...

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

one troll at VP was known to use 31 different pseudonyms

Wait, what?! Who has time for this bullshit? Nutjobs.

Happy Housewife said...

It's not so different from kicking a problem child out of class. Distracts everyone else from learning if you indulge every emotionally incontinent gamma (or woman - GG, anyone?) along the way.

Trust said...

What find amusing is how disrupters accuse those discussing issues of being closed minded, and credit themselves wish openmindedness even as they won't tolerate other opinions.

The real goal of disrupters is to shut others up some because of disagreement. And when someone shuts them up because of their behavior, they scream intolerance and an unwillingness to discuss.

Fact is, this hypocrisy, projection, and lack of self awareness is very common. The frequency of accusations of close mindedness and intolerance coming from those who won't even let others speak is truly preposterous.

Jon M said...

There are only 39 commenters in the autovanish list? That's a surprisingly low number. It speaks well of your patience with commenters.

Eater of Rabbits said...

True, and necessary for the same reasons all human social groupings of any kind whatsoever discipline their member's behavior.

While lots of people troll on occasion - the Alt-Right has armies of people of various sociosexual ranks who troll globalists as a form of 4GW - nearly all longtime, solo, career trolls are omegas, gammas or low-SMV women. Omegas account for the deranged off-meds rants, while gammas and women can be lumped together as they behave much the same, and provide the special-snowflake fantasies of self justification.

Yet the snowflake complaints and recriminations made by banned or disciplined trolls on one site are exactly the same they and other trolls make on other sites, and their predecessors have made since the beginning of the internet. It is the same repetitive, never-changing routine... one they wish they dared make when, as happens often enough, they're ostracized from some real-life social grouping, except they lack the courage to try it face-to-face.

You could replace all their pages of verbally and emotionally incontinent blather with the same little tale: "And then... *sniff* And THEN, those stupid other kids kicked me out of their stupid club, but it wasn't my fault!!!" Add determination to never grow or learn from the experience, instead letting it fester, and you have the life story of just about every career troll on the internet.

Eater of Rabbits said...

Actually, in very recent, feminized and rabbit-ruled years, some gammas have gotten bold enough to mouth off in person, precisely because they think there will be no consequences. It doesn't always work out for them like that, of course.

dc.sunsets said...

Free speech cannot survive one person shouting everyone else down or constantly redirecting the subject to what they prefer to discuss.

Watching the crap that goes on at (for example) Milo's speaking engagements makes me want to choke the life out of the disruptors.

I can't imagine dealing with blog trolls.

liberranter said...

. Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute or a practical policy.right in a privately owned forum. It's your blog, and each of us is here at your pleasure and discretion. You could ban anyone or everyone here, for any reason or for no reason at all, at any time; that is your absolute right. Ditto for everyone else here on their own blogs or sites.

Like you said: it's a big internet out there. More than enough room for everyone to set up their own site with their own rules (or complete lack thereof, if that's what floats your boat).

liberranter said...

AAAARGH! SmartPhone fat fingers!

The intro to my last should read:

Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute or a practical policy.

Freech seech is not even a right in a privately owned forum...

Mr.MantraMan said...

Trolling does work, works for Trump he has stirred up the loons with the muslim soldier's father and mother. But you only attract fleas compared to the God Emperor level of trolling.

bonafide-0 said...

The problem is that the definition of a "troll" is assigned absolutely voluntarily.You see not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.The manosphere opinions on geopolitics is often absolute salad of conspiracy theories, anecdotal examples and stupid observations made by very stupid people. The opinions of women are also far from axioms.

You tend to publish a well balanced,intellectual articles. Yet 30-40% is an absolute bull crap, which pretty much in line with any other reasonable out there.

Blocking commentators is what nervous betas of manosphere do. For example roosh who has transformed in a weirdo with a full blown schisophreniform disorder.Or krauser-who is simply a clown poser with a thin ego.On the other hand heartiste does not tend to go on blocking frenzies-and he has earned the respect of many.

Don't block opinions (unless absolutely out of context,reason and common sense).

Austin Ballast said...

VD treats most disagreement with ignoring the poster. I would guess much of this is because he doesn't have time to engage everyone, but I am sure he has other reasons as well. He clearly likes some of the conversation, but it would be a full time job to respond to all the points made below a post.

Scott C said...

Vox likes to bait gammas by pridefully boasting about his intelligence, looks and worldly success. I've known successful people, but they didn't wear their success on their sleeves. They would never say "I'm highly intelligent, rich and women find me irresistible" because it would be crass. That's what blacks do.

But gamma doesn't know better and takes the bait. He then stirs up a shitfest in the comments, and we get another sermon about how "predictable" these types are.

The worst thing you could do to these men is pretend that they're not on your radar. They seek attention and drama. Starve them of attention and they will go elsewhere.

Kona Commuter said...

I was on one forum which was completely destroyed by a Troll. I migrated to another similar forum and when the Troll showed up (same name same mannerism) I repeatedly warned moderators but to no avail. Apparently reasoned arguments would win over the Troll. Nope, that forum was also destroyed. Off to a third forum. Fortunately this time the Troll was shut down very quickly and had to toe the line and that forum survived longer but still was destroyed

Trolls = one warning then ban IMHO

Trust said...

Amusing that those who think free speech means others are obligated to provide a platform and an audience are usually the same people who want to criminalize speech they disagree with.

Libertarians see freedom as a right we have not an obligation to others, socialists see freedom as an obligation on others to accommodate them.

Reminds me of all the children paraded at the Democratic conventions over the years. If you criticize this, they accuse you of denying freedom of speech, as if the right to say things is the same as providing a national audience for those who can barely pronounce the nonsense put in their mouths by socialist ingrates.

Shimshon said...

In my college days, I used to hang out at the Usenet newsgroup soc.culture.jewish. Every few months like clockwork, someone would discover the group and decided this was a nice captive audience to witness to. I saw it happen numerous times. It was ridiculously disruptive and classic troll behavior, and I believe at some point the group changed to moderated in reaction.

S. Thermite said...

If someone repeatedly shits on my rug I don't give them the benefit of critiquing the pattern of the stains they've tried to leave. Vox is a lot more patient than I would be.

Keef said...

Shut the fuck up insanity bytes you stupid bitch.

I've seen you over at dalrock's time and time again just trying to troll and derail the conversation.

You act so much like a gamma it's like someone is paying you to.

Keef said...

Ha! Vox already deleted the troll. Very nice.

Scott6584 said...

"Trolls who are banned for their bad behavior often complain that they are being banned for challenging the site owner's views, but since so many others are not banned for doing so, that's obviously a false claim. What they are being banned for is their unacceptable, disruptive, and often intentionally destructive behavior, and that's the only reason.

Free speech cannot survive one person shouting everyone else down or constantly redirecting the subject to what they prefer to discuss. Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute or a practical policy. Maximal free speech is achieved by applying the minimum amount of moderation required to permit everyone their chance to speak. It is not achieved by allowing everyone to shriek as loudly as they can as often as they want."

I'd like your permission to copy the above text when arguing for trolls to be banned on other sites. There is a particular troll on a NFL related comment site who is constantly redirecting nearly every thread, and I'd like to use your argument with the moderators of that site to open up their minds to banning him.

SirHamster said...

You act so much like a gamma it's like someone is paying you to.

She's a woman. Gamma is feminine thought process, so no surprise.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.