We have all got tied up to a greater or lesser degree over the past week with helmet trolls. A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of us piling in while others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll or the thread. OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their posts unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums folk reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us. That way the troll's arguements are rebutted, the bandwidth is kept low, the rest of us can relax knowing its been dealt with and can go about our business. The first response could also carry a note of the designated responder scheme to encourage those new to the group to leave it to the designated person and not join in.
We have all got tied up to a greater or lesser degree over the past week with helmet trolls. A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of us piling in while others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll or the thread. OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their posts unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums folk reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us. That way the troll's arguements are rebutted
Since almost any of the large helmet threads contains all the neccessary facts (on both sides), a correct "minimal" response is
This has already been discussed; see previous thread: <ref>"
I see no need to address a troll's question induividually.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:29:23 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of designated responder scheme whereby (process yet to be determined) one of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us.
Far too organised for Usenet:-)
It is very easy not to see a helmet war if one is that way inclined. Just do not look at the threads. If people want to argue or play with a troll then those who don't want to take part can manage this very easily.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
In message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
We have all got tied up to a greater or lesser degree over the past week with helmet trolls.
No we haven't - I've been pretty oblivious to them in fact - most notice I've seen about the trolls is other people discussing them.
Quoted message said:
A lot of the bandwidth is created by several of us piling in while others, dreading the inevitable, kill file the troll or the thread. OTOH I have sympathy for Guy's view of not leaving their posts unchallenged given the wide audience of lurkers and cyclingforums folk reading. I wondered if it would work better if we had a sort of designated responder scheme
Feel free, personally I think trying to arrange such a thing would be waste of effort.
Personally I leave the trolls alone as a rule, if others feel that a subject such as helmets requires a response, well all well and good, it's their time and energy. you don't have to reply, you don't ahve to read a thread if you don't want to.
one of the regulars is designated to respond to a particular troll and the rest of us stay out, with the responsibility rotating round between us. That way the troll's arguements are rebutted, the bandwidth is kept low, the rest of us can relax knowing its been dealt with and can go about our business. The first response could also carry a note of the designated responder scheme to encourage those new to the group to leave it to the designated person and not join in.
URC is not a club for the benefit of the in-crowd.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:29:23 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Just a thought
In us.military.army they tried such a scheme. They called it "The Duty Roster". It didn't work.
With all respect, the troll's targets are people like you: those who show annoyance at their presence. People like Guy, who give serious or tongue in cheek, responses are not their target, and people like me who think live and let live are not their target.
I feel that the best strategy is to respond or ignore as you feel fit. Besides, trolls can come up with some interesting points for debate.
With all respect, the troll's targets are people like you: those who show annoyance at their presence. People like Guy, who give serious or tongue in cheek, responses are not their target, and people like me who think live and let live are not their target.
I'm not annoyed by their presence and I know how to killfile a person or a thread but there has been quite a few here who have expressed annoyance at the troll threads. I was just wondering if there was a better way to get a balance but it seems not.
