Question: how to deal with trolls? Can't anybody do something about them?

[dbphoenix]

As a trader your job is to wait for the right setups and ignore the noise.

Axe grinders showing up in "your" threads are not going to hurt your points if your points are sound. Let people make their own decisions on what they see or don't see

And they have. With their feet. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of creating the threads in the first place.

You're free to disagree. And have. And are. And most likely will. Over and over again.

 

[justrading]

With all due respect, I really think it quite a stretch to make this a "Free Speech" issue. If you do want to take it there, then I suggest that it is more an "abuse of free speech" issue. I'd refer everyone back to Baron's analogy of the friends discussing football and the idiot who keeps popping up to say "football sucks!" every few minutes. He has his right to his opinion. He exercised his right to voice it. But do the others not have a right to peaceably assemble and discuss their mutual interest without this idiot adding nothing other mindlessly and hatefully repeating his unthinking mantra?

My point is that because I value free speech, anything that gets in the way of people freely and easily expressing themselves I see as unwelcome. I have no disagreement whatsoever with your point about the need to curb the idiots, as I also very clearly understand Baron's point. What I disagree with is moderation being left to the whims and fancies of individuals.

 

[dbphoenix]

My point is that because I value free speech, anything that gets in the way of people freely and easily expressing themselves I see as unwelcome. I have no disagreement whatsoever with your point about the need to curb the idiots, as I also very clearly understand Baron's point. What I disagree with is moderation being left to the whims and fancies of individuals.

You'd prefer to leave it up to the government.

 

[justrading]

You'd prefer to leave it up to the government.

Nice try. No, I'd prefer to leave it to a small group of people acting on a single set of standards who are unemotional about applying those standards because their fragile egos are not at stake.

 

[dbphoenix]

Nice try. No, I'd prefer to leave it to a small group of people acting on a single set of standards who are unemotional about applying those standards because their fragile egos are not at stake.

That's what a government is.

 

[justrading]

That's what a government is.

You missed the unemotional bit. There is a reason civilised society does not allow the victim or offended party to decide if there actually was a transgression and if so what the punishment should be.

 

[i960]

And they have. With their feet. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of creating the threads in the first place.

You're free to disagree. And have. And are. And most likely will. Over and over again.

Unfortunately you're forcing a correlation in that people have mostly been leaving due to interaction style and not just simply leaving for a 100 other unrelated reasons. It's weak at best.

Additionally, your attempts at pointing out the fact that I disagree don't take away from the veracity of my points - particularly as you yourself been frequently arguing the other side as well.

I'm starting to see an argument style you use which is manipulative. You hypocritically try to paint a poster in a certain light as a method of discrediting their points while at the same time frequently engage in the same behavior as those you're trying to discredit. You then depend on lack of critical thinking by others to not notice it.

At this point I simply believe you want this new feature mostly as a control angle and that you're more interested in fostering a rank and file type environment where you get to set rules others must follow in order to participate in "your" discussion. Any aspects of free and open discourse (including points you disagree with - even vehemently) are not something you're interested in.

 

[baro-san]

 

[dbphoenix]

You missed the unemotional bit. There is a reason civilised society does not allow the victim or offended party to decide if there actually was a transgression and if so what the punishment should be.

No, I didn't miss it. That's what a government is: legislative, executive, and judicial.

 

[dbphoenix]

Unfortunately you're forcing a correlation in that people have mostly been leaving due to interaction style and not just simply leaving for a 100 other unrelated reasons. It's weak at best.

Additionally, your attempts at pointing out the fact that I disagree don't take away from the veracity of my points - particularly as you yourself been frequently arguing the other side as well.

I'm starting to see an argument style you use which is manipulative. You hypocritically try to paint a poster in a certain light as a method of discrediting their points while at the same time frequently engage in the same behavior as those you're trying to discredit. You then depend on lack of critical thinking by others to not notice it.

At this point I simply believe you want this new feature mostly as a control angle and that you're more interested in fostering a rank and file type environment where you get to set rules others must follow in order to participate in "your" discussion. Any aspects of free and open discourse (including points you disagree with - even vehemently) are not something you're interested in.

More than a bit of projection going on here.