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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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!

Cheers,
Jason

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...".