The guilty pleasure of troll voyeurism

by HB on Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:10 pm

I read somewhere that if a lion attacks and kills a gazelle, the rest of the herd returns to grazing moments later, acting as if nothing has happened while the fallen antelope is torn to bloody shreds 20 yards away. Man's more civilized environment echoes similar behavior where one gawks with impunity while passing a car wreck, ignoring the 5-mile long backup it creates. Our fascination with knowing about the aftermath of disaster is reflected in our news too. With only one exception, our local news stations spend the first 10 minutes recapping who died and how that day; they're especially pleased if they can show twisted wreckage, distraught loved ones, or dry commentary on the planned investigation from police representatives.

The last couple weeks, I've noticed my similar "interest in disaster" playing out on Coffeegeek's forum and to a lesser extent on this forum over the Baratza Vario grinder. It began when some members incredulously responded to reports that the lowly $429 grinder was holding its own against competitors costing two to three times as much. Two posters who recently joined the site went as far as accusing Jim Schulman of accepting "payola" for reporting positive results, not realizing they were slamming someone with a triple A reputation and an online track record that extends for more than a decade. At first I planned to ignore the controversy, but found myself closely following the discussion's development. Reflecting on my motivations, I realized it was partially rooted in my interest in observing the denouement of trollish behavior; it's truly engaging, in a slow-motion train wreck sort of way.

Those of you who followed What to do about newbie noise will recognize how this post continues the theme of the social aspect of online forums. As I concluded then that a sprinkling of newbies is a vital part of any thriving online community, I am now wondering if a modest level of heated controversy from time-to-time is just as necessary to satisfy our guilty pleasure of voyeurism.

PS: For those new to HB, this post is a continuation of my semi-retired blog Overextracted.

by **drdna** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 am

HB is not dissimilar from other online communities inasmuch as the vast majority of posting is a form of dominance behavior that is common among most primates in defining a social hierarchy. This is not to say it need be overtly aggressive, though it is occasionally so. Most communities are stabilized by the complementary nature of the interpersonal interactions amongst its members. Individuals not fitting the pattern will tend to demur from posting. In this case, it has been my observation at least, that dominance behavior at HB seems to be primarily manifested by the framing of the professor-student dynamic, with the dominant "alpha-male" posters taking on a professorial role to define their higher ranking in the hierarchy. This is certainly in part due to the fact that the core group of members was extant when the website was created, and those members are extremely active posters. This defines a comfortable hierarchy from the get-go, whilst in other online forums with larger groups of members and less frequent posters leads to an ill-defined hierarchy and to more overt aggression in posting behavior.

by **AndyS** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:35 am

drdna wrote:HB is not dissimilar from other online communities inasmuch as the vast majority of posting is a form of dominance behavior that is common among most primates in defining a social hierarchy. This is not to say it need be overtly aggressive, though it is occasionally so. Most communities are stabilized by the complementary nature of the interpersonal interactions amongst its members. Individuals not fitting the pattern will tend to demur from posting. In this case, it has been my observation at least, that dominance behavior at HB seems to be primarily manifested by the framing of the professor-student dynamic, with the dominant "alpha-male" posters taking on a professorial role to define their higher ranking in the hierarchy. This is certainly in part due to the fact that the core group of members was extant when the website was created, and those members are extremely active posters. This defines a comfortable hierarchy from the get-go, whilst in other online forums with larger groups of members and less frequent posters leads to an ill-defined hierarchy and to more overt aggression in posting behavior.

What he said.

by **timo888** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:47 am

drdna wrote:HB is not dissimilar from other online communities inasmuch as the vast majority of posting is a form of dominance behavior that is common among most primates in defining a social hierarchy.

by **Fullsack** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:15 am

HB wrote:I read somewhere that if a lion attacks and kills a gazelle, the rest of the herd returns to grazing moments later, acting as if nothing has happened while the fallen antelope is torn to bloody shreds 20 yards away.

Great analogy!

by **Ken Fox** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:04 pm

drdna wrote:HB is not dissimilar from other online communities inasmuch as the vast majority of posting is a form of dominance behavior that is common among most primates in defining a social hierarchy. This is not to say it need be overtly aggressive, though it is occasionally so. Most communities are stabilized by the complementary nature of the interpersonal interactions amongst its members. Individuals not fitting the pattern will tend to demur from posting. In this case, it has been my observation at least, that dominance behavior at HB seems to be primarily manifested by the framing of the professor-student dynamic, with the dominant "alpha-male" posters taking on a professorial role to define their higher ranking in the hierarchy. This is certainly in part due to the fact that the core group of members was extant when the website was created, and those members are extremely active posters. This defines a comfortable hierarchy from the get-go, whilst in other online forums with larger groups of members and less frequent posters leads to an ill-defined hierarchy and to more overt aggression in posting behavior.

I think it is quite a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, most of your "alpha-male" posters probably think that the majority of the other "alpha-male" posters are completely FOS. In truth, there are a lot of different ways to arrive at a result that pleases at least some people. Most people enmeshed in a hobby like this one develop their own approaches and hence become quite stylized in their approach. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to see the merit in someone else's way of doing things, no matter how successful that approach might be for some other people.

ken

by HB on Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:30 pm

FYI, Rob's thread Posting just to post on Coffeegeek raises some of the same concerns as this one. George points to another potential source of learned trollish behavior:

GVDub wrote:The concept of conversations and interchange being composed of snark, zingers, and constant one-upsmanship is a legacy of the last 50 years of television screenwriting, because relaxed, civil conversations don't make for great entertainment from the outside. But that's a whole other rant.

Dana continues along a different tack:

dana_leighton wrote:Over on HB, their moderating is a bit more arbitrary, which I think may help increase the signal-to-noise ratio, but I like CG's tolerance of noise as long as it does not violate a rule. Often that helps create discussions by informed users that we might not ever have.

by **CafeNoir** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:42 pm

While I don't have first hand experience with lions or gazelles*, the car wreck analogy strikes me as apt. Like a car wreck, trolling and chattering back up traffic. So on CG it takes me longer these days to sift through the noise to find the technical info or good deal that I'm looking for.

All of which makes me wonder whether trolls and chatterboxes recognize why their behavior is met with snarky responses. From threads I've followed, I'd say generally not. Which reminds me of a few lines from Robert Burns' poem "To a louse":

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion...

Hmm, makes me think I should stand in front of a mirror when I post.

* bears, yes, but that's another story

by **zin1953** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:34 pm

There are many reasons to post. Some posts are worthwhile contributions; others may be made for the author to increase his or her "post count" or, for that matter, his or her own sense of self-worth. I shall leave it to others to decide where this post falls.

Of course, personally I see most of my own posts in the "contribution" category, but I am not blameless when it comes to George's examples of snarkiness. (OTOH, I'm not sure I've fallen into the "one-upsmanship" category; I hope not, at least.) But the car-wreck analogy is indeed a sound one, and often applies -- on a broad scale -- to definite "troll" situations.

Every online community involves people with a passion, be it about wine, espresso, art, motorcycles, politics, -- whatever. And passionate people often respond passionately. This is different than merely posting to "see themselves heard," so to speak. Some individuals are better than others at thinking before clicking "Reply," but opinions are fine -- as long as they are expressed as such. Opinions disguised as facts, however, are another matter. So, too, are unfounded accusations, personal attacks, and the like. I try to avoid making posts in these categories.

I know that I know "this much" when it comes to the coffee/espresso, and that I have "SO MUCH MORE" to learn. That doesn't stop me from posting on topics about which I know something, and -- to be honest -- I've commented on things in the past on which I have little direct experience . . . but in those cases I have tried to make clear the depth (or lack thereof) of personal experience and that I was expressing an opinion. I have always tried to make the distinction clear.

Not everyone does.

And there are those who always take some degree of delight in tweaking the tail of the "alpha-male" and then scampering up into the trees to avoid direct confrontation. These are the trolls.

C'est la vie. I am not sure one will ever be able to stop trolls. As for the gazelles, they know the lions can't eat more than one of them at a time, and it will take some time before the pride is sufficiently hungry again to launch another attack . . . they can graze in peace. People, OTOH, look at car wrecks and realize they, too, are safe . . . until they rear-end the car in front of them! :twisted:

Cheers,
Jason

by **Bluecold** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:57 pm

zin1953 wrote:"Reply," but opinions are fine -- as long as they are expressed as such. Opinions disguised as facts, however, are another matter.
Cheers,
Jason

I don't think that's always necessary. When someone doesn't back his statements with irrefutable evidence it can't be anything else than opinion and should be treated as such. Stating that it is your opinion is most of the time superfluous and just drives up Dan's bandwith bill. (in my opinion

).
Also, saying to someone "that's just your opinion" is a weak way of saying that you don't share that opinion. It is easier and straighter to the point to say "i don't agree with you because...".

by **shadowfax** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:16 pm

Roeland, I agree with you in many cases, but not all. In high-end espresso, there are facts, generally accepted opinions, and opinions. The good work done on this forum has been individuals stepping up and formulating experiments to test hypotheses. Certainly, qualifying your opinions with "IMO" is tiresome, redundant, and perhaps wasteful, but on the other hand, the big problem is putting one's weak assumptions/opinions under the guise of "well known facts" would seem to be the problem--people answering a question with opinions and misinformation disguised as factual information, e.g., "it's well known that a uniform distribution of particles is necessary for espresso extraction, and this is why whirly-blade grinders are awful." There's some expectation that one should do some research before acting like they have. If you haven't, at least don't say or suggest that you have, right?

by **Bluecold** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:32 pm

Posts full of misinformation don't get better by saying "in my opinion". The fact that some posters post wrong information is beside my point.
"it's well known that a uniform distribution of particles is necessary for espresso extraction, and this is why whirly-blade grinders are awful in my opinion"
See? the post didn't get any better.

by **timo888** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:22 pm

Men and women of good will with no axes to grind and who offer their honest opinions, have no problem recognizing each other as such even on impersonal forums on the internet where you don't get to meet each other eye to eye.

I have an infinitely adjustable grinder that sold for $300+ new a few years ago (Jim called it "a sweet grinder" IIRC) and it does a very good job in a domestic setting. It's main PITA is that three or four beans get stuck in the hopper, and some grinds do collect in the chute to the doser. But the quality of the grind and the grinder's adjustability are not wanting. So I have no trouble believing that Jim is getting very good results from a grinder that costs $425+ in 2009.

by **zin1953** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:17 pm

The point I was trying to make about saying, "In my opinion" is to get away from sounding as if one is speaking factually. I have seen/read people making blanket statements and they may indeed seem at first read reasonable . . . until someone who has that machine, grinder, or _________ (insert item here) steps into the conversation to basically say, "What the heck are you talking about?!?!?"

Since I do not have that _________, and (as I said) at first read, it certainly seemed reasonable, it's not until the second post that I realize that the first individual didn't know what they were saying and was, instead, stating an opinion -- one, as it turned out, entirely devoid of experiential or factual basis.

In other words, I attempt to make clear the difference in my posts. And that's good enough for me.

Cheers,
Jason

by **Dogshot** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:27 pm

My theory on the 2 primary motivations working behind why people post to internet forums:

1) information sharing (the good reason)

2) self-esteem building (the bad reason)

Some people have a genuine desire to share information. Luckily, here on HB, there are many who are motivated to post through this desire.

Self-esteem can be increased by making a downward comparison. That is, a comparison against someone who is worse-off than you can bring it back up. The research on self-esteem shows that people, especially when their self-esteem has taken a hit, seek to redeem their self-esteem by developing a downward comparison.

I believe that people intentionally misunderstand others' points, or intentionally take a portion of others' posts to then construct a flawed argument from the other, and then proceed to demonstrate how the other poster is 'inferior' in some way. This constructed downward comparison comes across as snippy, or argumentative, but serves its purpose: to increase the self-esteem of the (snippy, argumentative) person. Plus, it's easy, free, can be done anytime, and can be done anonymously if desired.

On-line communities lack the geographic proximity of many other types of social groups. So, I think that most of the perceived benefits are psychological, rather than social. For example, alpha-males get to mate with more females in their social group. This benefit does not exist in on-line forums, and would provide less reward for achieving such status.

Mark

by **Psyd** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:06 pm

I think that some self examination is necessary. If your self-esteem is somehow tied up with how your posts on an internet forum are accepted, you have far larger issues than HB, CG, or The Amateur Psychologist Blog Forum are going to be able to tackle.
If you can't generate an apology, or accept that maybe your opinion is, perhaps, not the last word on a subject, or have difficulty with the concept that different folks may think differently than you, maybe it's time you start responding to the e-mails that you get telling you that they can increase your, uhm, endowment.

Oh, yeah.... lest someone take me too awful seriously... :wink:

by **ddr** on Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:57 pm

HB wrote:At first I planned to ignore the controversy, but found myself closely following the discussion's development.

Me too. I read the first post accusing Jim and I of being bought off and I really wish I stopped there. After all, it was just one troll "thinking" out loud. I had stopped reading CG months ago because of another troll, unfortunately I read a few more posts and saw that the second one had joined in. I have spent more time following those posts than I would prefer to admit. This has truly been a waste of all of our time, but other than ignoring them there is not much to be done. I suppose Mark has probably booted the first one, although the second has been starting more problems over there.

Anyway, to those who stood up and defended our comparison thanks. Hopefully the future will be quieter.

by **Rod Carmer** on Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:55 pm

Bashing products is much different than bashing people. We should always maintain a certain level of ethics when discussing products. Personal or Professional opinions about products should be cautious.

Bashing or suggesting dubious behavior about people should not be tolerated on any bulletin board. A direct PM should be sent and hashed out one on one. I have great respect for Mr. Schulman as he has called me on a couple of things but I still respect his views.

I hope everyone understands that I am here to help educate not just evaluate. I have seen tens of thousands of dollars wasted on products that simply do not work to their advertised capacities.

Note to all: learn as much as you can about the product you want. Use the golden rule and get a minimum three quotes and not simply look at the dollar amount but the product and its offerings.


Contact Us	Legal disclaimer and copyright: This content and all its parts are copyrighted, all rights reserved. Content including all text and images in part or in whole may not be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission. Home-Barista, Home-Barista.com and related logos are trademarks of Home-Barista.com, LLC. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. By accessing this site, you agree to the terms of service. Overall speed: fast, current page: 0.4s, avg: 0.5s, max: 2.3s