Response to Trolling

[pepperlandgirl]

Caerie started a thread in the Hive about the appropriate response to trolling, and since I still have thoughts on the matter, I thought I would start this thread here.

For what it's worth, I don't think that there should be two extremes of "ignore the troll" or "ban the troll." I think that threadshitting should be dealt with swiftly and unambiguously. A mod should be able to have the power to kick a threadshitter out of a thread and stop said troll from participating in that particular discussion, with the threat of a stint in Room 101 as backup. Allowing the troll to continue to engage in the conversation does absolutely no good for anybody, and in the cases of a few threads, could actually do harm. I also don't think mods should have to wait for a report to act. Perhaps if the threadshitting has gone on for some time, the threads can be separated, with the trollish posts being sent over to Room 101.

[McNutty]

Agreed, and I'd like to add that "trolling" is quite a subjective term, and in general, mods should not have to use some specific criteria to justify whether something constitutes trolling or not. It's their call and they should feel free to set their own personal bar for it. If a mod has a particularly miscalibrated bar, it'll get figured out. We don't need to agonize over every call.

[Sarahfeena]

I agree with you 100%, McNutty. Too hard to define, anyway...I think we need to be able to trust the mods to use their judgement.

I also think that pepperlandgirl is right...we can't let things get out of control to the point where the action taken is an immediate banning. If behavior in a particular thread is inappropriate, tell the person they can't participate in that thread anymore. If the wrong call was made, it's easy enough to change.

[Exy]

This was discussed in long and hideous length in chat, and I think it's a good idea.

The way I envision this going is this: a mod gets a report of a problem, or sees it, and has the authority to just go into the thread and leave a modnote saying something like: "Poster_A, please do not in this thread again. If you do, you will be suspended to Room 101." I envision mods using this for both trolls and just when someone starts getting out of hand in a thread as has been known to happen. I think it's a nicely minimal solution that prevents further derailment of a thread (the poster could argue it in the Dome if they wanted, but not in the same thread), and is narrowly focused, leaving them free to cool off and post elsewhere. If they fail to comply, then they can be stuck in 101 for a day or two -- but that will be their own fault.

What I'm hoping is that, since this would be narrowly focused and wouldn't involve actually taking someone's posting privileges away where they're not causing problems, and would be clear-cut (not "no more trolling" but "no more posting here"), that it would lead to at least somewhat less rules-lawyering and drama, since by targeting the problem more narrowly the stakes are a little lower and thus bitching about it will, hopefully, be seen as less legitimate and will generally be discouraged. And since such bitching would then be in another thread, in the Dome, it won't have to continue distracting people.

I don't think the mods should be bound to only use it in some extremely specific set of circumstances, but rather that it would basically be up to them. I don't think lots of legalism and games of trying to be close to the line without going over helps create a good atmosphere.

I'm not saying the moderators should apply this rule boldly, either, but I think it should be used at their discretion, and hopefully a little more freely than now, since the only thing at stake is one person's participation in one thread -- and not their continued membership here. When the only option at hand is the nuclear option, it discourages the moderators from being able to moderate, and encourages lots of argument over otherwise small decisions. I'm hoping this would help open up some new avenues for the mods to manage to moderate without creating a users-versus-mods atmosphere, which I think is what we saw way too much of at the SDMB.

[prr]

"Trolling" is an all-purpose catch-all for "I don't like you" and pretty close to meaningless, at least as it's applied at the SD and possibly here, though I don't believe this is necessary. It's possible to contrive a tight definition that, while still depending on mods' judgments, succeeds or fails at telling whether someone is a troll.

I have been accused of trolling on several occasions, always by someone disagreeing strongly with one of my opinions. I won;t even defend myself any more against such a vague and stupid charge. I'm a troll? Okay, fine, what's your point?

[Sarahfeena]

Prr, the thing that seems to make people think someone is trolling is when they appear to be disingenuous. Now, I know you pretty well at this point, and I don't think you are a troll. However, if I didn't know you, I would have had my doubts about you based on your first post in my "Ask the Catholic" thread. Not because you challenged me, and not because you weren't all that polite about it. Rather, because your questioning didn't seem sincere. I mean, you were REALLY unsure as to whether or not people believe in their religion? Really? That's the thing that seems trollish.

I think that if people questioned whether I was a troll more than a time or two, I would seriously rethink my posting style. I'm just sayin'

[Heffalump]

I think that if people questioned whether I was a troll more than a time or two, I would seriously rethink my posting style. I'm just sayin'

OK, I'm willing to learn. I've been called a troll more than a time or two. What do I need to do differently?

I like to give my opinion on some topics and that doesn't always agree with others' opinions. I often ask questions in order not to assume what they mean because that makes people mad sometimes. So I ask quite a few questions. And I ask questions back to them to see if they understand the direction I'm taking. Some people do and some people don't.

So anyway, what do I need to do to not have people call me a troll or disingenuous? And btw, should they really be trying to read my mind about how I'm feeling about something? Or is that a disingenuous question? Because yeah, I don't think they should, but you might think differently.

[Truth and Beauty]

My thoughts on this:

I agree on the principle that there can be some middle path between total freedom for posters and relegation to Room 101 with no access to the community.

However, I think the proposal here has several glaring flaws.

First of all, like prr says, trolling is often in the eye of the beholder. People reading this will think that yes the modes should have more power to tell people to knock it off, because they think that this will only happen to people they don't like. But once it starts happening to themselves or their friends, they'll be singing a different tune.

Should there be clearly-defined rules as to what constitutes bad behavior? Some people will say the rule should be vague like "don't be a jerk" to give maximum leeway to the modes. Let me put on my SDMB historian hat. In my first months at the SDMB I saw a very instruction post by one of the mods there, maybe UncleBeer or Gaudere. This post talked about the history of the SDMB. When the board first started there was no Pit. The mods thought that they would just tell people not to fight. That didn't work, was useless, so they had to create a Pit. At first they had no list of rules, let the mods use their best judgement. That ended up with the mods having to explain each decision in detail - all you needed was one poster to disagree, or the person who was the "victim" of that decision to protest. It was horribly time-consuming. That's why they came up with those lists of rules - many people where happy to see the rules posted instead of having the moderators fly by the seat of their pants. The argument here is that at DoMeBo we have good mods and at the SDMB we had terrible mods - I don't buy it. Look at manhattan at the SDMB - half the people loved him because he would smack trolls down hard in GQ, the other half were always complaining about the inconsistency in the rules that only the mods could insult people in GQ. Look over here - Winston Smith makes a decision to stop MC from posting links to child porn by banning him: did that make everybody happy? No. Caerie posted in a thread that a certain topic was hijacking: did the people in the thread agree? No. If the mods want to have to sit through tedious explanations of everything they do, then sure, don't publish any rules. Excalibre, I love you most of the time, but you know you'll be the first to be complaining when a mode makes a decision you don't agree with. Posting the rules requires a lot of arguing up front but makes life much easier in the long run.

Giving the moderators more leeway also has these risks: like prr says, they are going to come down harder on people they don't like. Then the charges of inconsistency will come up. If one mod has a bug up his butt about a certain topic, he's going to make that topic taboo and another mod isn't. Again inconsistency. Also you run into the huge risk of this paternalistic behavior that I got so sick of at the SDMB: if a moderator decides that a poster is posting something that the posters shouldn't talk about, the moderator steps in and says "don't talk about this any more." Can't the posters decide for themselves what's appropriate or not? Are we children? Again, look at the example of Caerie stepping in CairoCarol's thread about domestic help in Indonesia - did we really need a mod to nanny us?

Think carefully about what you guys want to do.

[Heffalump]

I agree on the principle that there can be some middle path between total freedom for posters and relegation to Room 101 with no access to the community.
<snip>
Posting the rules requires a lot of arguing up front but makes life much easier in the long run.
<snip>
Think carefully about what you guys want to do.

So is your suggestion that more rules should be posted?

[prr]

because your questioning didn't seem sincere. I mean, you were REALLY unsure as to whether or not people believe in their religion? Really?

You're kinda making my point for me here, Sarah.

I was TOTALLY sincere in asking you whether you really, truly believe that stuff or whether you're just mostly getting with it to get along with people. And frankly your answers persuaded me more that you probably don't believe a whole lot of it, and you don't enjoy thinking about this stuff too deeply, and why do people need to ask you difficult detailed questions about stuff you haven't thought a whole lot about, as opposed to persuading me that you are a completely devout person who believes, body and soul, in everything the Catholic Church says you need to believe. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose (I believe in some things that I can't begin to defend, or at least can't go into a bunch of detail about)--but the fact that you could take someone asking sincere questions that go to the heart of religion--i.e., do you believe in that stuff?--and find that person's questions to be typical of trolling tells me how prepared you are to accept someone's hardcore atheism. I mean, if I don;t understand the first thing about the appeal of religion to a rational human bing in the 21st Century, and you're offering to answer questions about your faith, why would you think it insincere that someone wants to know if you really believe in it? It's such a fundamental, important question, it seems to me.

Which is not to the point here--but judging sincerity as a way to find someone guilty of trolling is dangerous, and that is the point here.

[Sarahfeena]

You're not getting it, prr. As I said, I'm not accusing you of trolling...I believe you when you say you weren't. What you don't realize is that the way you frame your questions gives the impression that you are not being sincere.

See, I didn't start that thread to presenting myself as a sincerely devout person, and I said so at the outset. So when you immediately go for the "you don't really believe that stuff, do you?" it seems a lot more like you're trying to trap a person into a corner for your own jollies, vs. actually trying to learn about a thought process, which I think would be a legitimate line of questioning for such a thread. I've come to realize that it's just your abrupt style, but I'm not surprised that people have read you the wrong way.

H&R: You know, your question is a good one. I'm not sure why it is that people have accused you of being a troll...I'm not sure that I've ever seen what I think seems like disingenuousness from you. But as far as your description of why you ask a lot of questions...could it be that it seems to people that you are asking questions deliberately to draw out a train wreck or something like that? I mean, I really don't know, I'm just surmising, and that's the only thing I can think of.

[featherlou]

I think that if people questioned whether I was a troll more than a time or two, I would seriously rethink my posting style. I'm just sayin'

OK, I'm willing to learn. I've been called a troll more than a time or two. What do I need to do differently?

I like to give my opinion on some topics and that doesn't always agree with others' opinions. I often ask questions in order not to assume what they mean because that makes people mad sometimes. So I ask quite a few questions. And I ask questions back to them to see if they understand the direction I'm taking. Some people do and some people don't.

So anyway, what do I need to do to not have people call me a troll or disingenuous? And btw, should they really be trying to read my mind about how I'm feeling about something? Or is that a disingenuous question? Because yeah, I don't think they should, but you might think differently.

If I recall correctly back in The Olde Place, you had a way of asking questions that was more direct than most people's, and I think that put people off at first. I think we got used to your style and realized you weren't trolling or asking questions for your own jollies, but you really were interested and trying to engage the askee. I know I did, anyway.

[Myrnalene]

Ok, it has been 10 hours now and none of the other mods have responded to Caerie's thread.

Mods, this is a major issue. I know that I have a reputation (occasionally deserved) for bitching about the moderation, but believe me when I say, respectfully and with love, that this is one of the most important things we have to decide as a board. We are waiting for your leadership, please.

[Heffalump]

Thanks Sarahfeena and featherlou. But from what you say, people might confuse my posting for trolling even if I'm not. And that makes me agree with prr here:

but judging sincerity as a way to find someone guilty of trolling is dangerous, and that is the point here.

[prr]

it seems a lot more like you're trying to trap a person into a corner for your own jollies, vs. actually trying to learn about a thought process.

Suppose I start a thread "Ask the Person who thinks 2+2=5" and you barge in and ask me a direct question like "How much is "2+1+1?"--I could say the same thing, couldn't I, that you're trying to trap me into admitting that 2+2=4, and that youre trolling me, or at least by the abruptness and directness of your question, you're setting a trap for me to fall into. If I go down the line you're proposing, I'm bound to get caught up admitting that some of my logical premises are flawed, or that I don't really understand some basical premises of mathematical thinking, or that I don't like thinking about these things, I just like believing what I was brought up to believe. By asking such a blunt question, you're learning what my defense of my ideas of will be--some defenses will lead to different types of followup questions, but first we need to see what defense is being offered.

Now, you're perfectly okay, in my book, saying "I don't know the answer to that" or "I trust what my priest concludes, though I don't follow the fine points of his reasoning so well" or some such, leaving me free to conclude that some Catholics accept the faith from early childhood and never budge from that position and never question what I would be boiling-mad over from about the age of eleven on, but why question my sincerity because I'm devising a difficult question for you to answer? I realize that you, Sarahfeena, are not accusing me, prr, of trolling here (I never did) but I'm asking why not simply answer hostile-sounding questions rather than assume even the bluntest questions are insincere? To my mind, people use the accusation of "trolling" to cover "You don't sound very warm, friendly, accepting, or supportive to me."

[Exy]

Thanks Sarahfeena and featherlou. But from what you say, people might confuse my posting for trolling even if I'm not. And that makes me agree with prr here:

but judging sincerity as a way to find someone guilty of trolling is dangerous, and that is the point here.

Someone might accuse you of trolling, but the mods shouldn't immediately leap to punish anyone who is even reported as trolling. The point is that there have been various users here who are engaged in clear attempts to troll us -- as there are in every online community. You're not one of them. Not having a clear, legalistic definition doesn't mean the mods are going to leap in in an aggressive attempt to shut down any discussion they don't personally enjoy.

[What Exit?]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.

Of the people who have posted in this thread, 5 have been called trolls, though I did not know that about Heffalump and Roo. I have already at different times argued that 3 of those accused of being trolls are not. I actually consider myself to be Internet friends with the 3. Only one appears to be a troll to me and he plays the game of following our loose rules well. I don't think he has crossed any line and I don't think trips to 101 would make him a better poster. So I try hard to answer questions without and rancor as I know I could be wrong. I would rather give the benefit of doubt.

What does the community want us to do with trolls? Who defines a troll?

[hawkeyeop]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.

Why wouldn't we want mods to make decisions like that? Isn't that kind of the purpose of having Mods?

[What Exit?]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.

Why wouldn't we want mods to make decisions like that? Isn't that kind of the purpose of having Mods?

Should we be taking polls for the 6 mods to vote in? If 4 mods think a post is a troll do we ban them? Do we expect them to stay banned? We don't hunt socks here. Does it take all 6 to ban a poster? Maybe just 5? Does 101’ing an actual troll do any good? If you had a bad day and we tossed you in 101 for a day, I would expect you to return to your normal good posting ways when you were let out and maybe even have some fun with being in 101. I think for real trolls like MC we probably should have banned him long ago. We basically left him in 101 for the amusement of some posters that were amused by his antics. Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

Do we just decide a troll is a troll and 101 them? Do we 101 more often? I at least hope you don’t want us to act unilaterally unless the need is pressing.

Mainly my point is there are a lot of questions and too much unrest for such a small board. I would rather we could remain passive in our moderator roles as most people who came to Domebo did not want aggressive modding.

Jim

[Truth and Beauty]

So is your suggestion that more rules should be posted?

I'm not saying that's what I necessarily want. But if the posters here want the moderators to become more active in moderating than they have so far (and I don't agree with that - I think the board has been well moderated, with a few minor exceptions, until now), then, if you judge by the SDMB example, the moderators are going to have a miserable life without explicit rules. Some people will think "well, we're not the SDMB". That's true. Yet where did 90% or so of our posters come from? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result - this way lies madness.

Regardless of all the people affirming in this thread that the world is black and white, there will not be agreement amongst all the posters of what constitutes trolling. We've seen disagreeements in this very thread. And some of the posters in here asking for more moderation will be the first to scream when a moderator takes an action they disapprove of.

[Truth and Beauty]

Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

I think this rather reinforces my point. You're never going to please everybody. Danceswithcats wanted more moderation and was shot down by (IIRC) some of the people saying now that they want more moderation. I'm sure a lot of people want more moderation, but only in the exact way that they think moderation should happen - anything else will be cause for a huge whinefest. I think that, given the climate of this board, you are better off with the loose style of moderation you have used so far.

Mainly my point is there are a lot of questions and too much unrest for such a small board. I would rather we could remain passive in our moderator roles as most people who came to Domebo did not want aggressive modding.

Jim, I think you are being the voice of reason.

[prr]

I'm not saying the mods are not in a position to identify a troll as a troll--I think they are, and I think they should. I certainly don't want to empower a poster to bandy "troll" around whenever he or she disagrees with or is offended by another poster's position. I wish the mods would respond to false accusations of trolling more forcefully, like "Hey, PRR--shut up, already--we've received your numerous complaints about Heffaroo's so-called trolling, we have found her posts, while provocative, to in no way constitute trolling, we have informed you of our decision, publically and privately, and are now starting to feel that you are calling her a troll out of frustration and desperation for your own inability to engage her in argument. If you can't argue with her, then we advise you to ignore her, but we would like to warn you that simply repeating ad infinitum your baseless accusations of trolling in a feeble attempt to mischaracterize Heffaroo will be not tolerated for very long. Thank you for acceeding to the considerered judgment of the Mods in this."

IOW, a charge of "Troll," once found to be false, should be considered a sort of character assassination, and itself be forbidden beyond a certain point. It just muddies the waters of discussion, as it is a serious charge that needs to be taken seriously. Once it has been, the issue should be considered as settled, not as needing to be raised again and again.

[Truth and Beauty]

IOW, a charge of "Troll," once found to be false, should be considered a sort of character assassination, and itself be forbidden beyond a certain point. It just muddies the waters of discussion, as it is a serious charge that needs to be taken seriously. Once it has been, the issue should be considered as settled, not as needing to be raised again and again.

+1

[featherlou]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.
<snip>

If I'm understanding the proposed changes correctly, that is exactly what is wanted. It will be completely subjective, and therefore every mod action telling someone in a thread to knock it off is likely to be questioned fiercely.

[What Exit?]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.
<snip>

If I'm understanding the proposed changes correctly, that is exactly what is wanted. It will be completely subjective, and therefore every mod action telling someone in a thread to knock it off is likely to be questioned fiercely.

BTW: I have still missed something, where are the proposed changes? Is it Caerie's Hive thread or another thread or buried in chat?

[featherlou]

I think the proposed changes are in the OP of this thread.

ETA: Oh yeah, Excalibur's post, too.

[Myrnalene]

Jim, did you read Exy's long post in this thread? It addresses some of the points you were asking about.

[Zuul]

I'm sure nobody wants a policy of "I know a troll when I see one." Even though I of course think I am quite good at spotting trolls, no one wants me or the other mods to make decisions like this.
<snip>

If I'm understanding the proposed changes correctly, that is exactly what is wanted. It will be completely subjective, and therefore every mod action telling someone in a thread to knock it off is likely to be questioned fiercely.

For the record, I don't see questioning and discussion of moderator actions--so long as they're in the appropriate place--as a negative. It's not tantamount to a lynching or anything. The majority of posters can discuss and question things without it being a call for a mod's head, assuming the mods can take it.

[Truth and Beauty]

The majority of posters can discuss and question things without it being a call for a mod's head, assuming the mods can take it.

Sure, but all you need is a minority of obnoxious posters to make it irritating.

[Exy]

Should we be taking polls for the 6 mods to vote in? If 4 mods think a post is a troll do we ban them? Do we expect them to stay banned? We don't hunt socks here.

Right. Hence not banning people all the time. That was the problem at the SDMB. That's why we should have solutions short of banning.

We basically left him in 101 for the amusement of some posters that were amused by his antics. Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

It can't have been THAT reasonable a suggestion given that he's back and posting again with nary a peep from the modes.

Do we just decide a troll is a troll and 101 them? Do we 101 more often? I at least hope you don’t want us to act unilaterally unless the need is pressing.

Jim, modes on EVERY community act unilaterally. That's the point of having modes. The alternative is called the snarkpit. If you are willing to at least consider actions short of suspending and banning, then hopefully we won't have to choose between letting people deliberately derail good discussions and banning left and right. I don't understand the unwillingness you're showing to even consider doing things other than the way they were done at the SDMB.

[Myrnalene]

I just want to voice my support of Caerie's post here and to state I have no problem relying on the mods using their discretion (although I think a majority opinoin should be reached first) to determine what is trolling and what it not.

[Truth and Beauty]

We basically left him in 101 for the amusement of some posters that were amused by his antics. Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

It can't have been THAT reasonable a suggestion given that he's back and posting again with nary a peep from the modes.

Wait, what? MC is back to posting again?

[What Exit?]

Should we be taking polls for the 6 mods to vote in? If 4 mods think a post is a troll do we ban them? Do we expect them to stay banned? We don't hunt socks here.

Right. Hence not banning people all the time. That was the problem at the SDMB. That's why we should have solutions short of banning.

We basically left him in 101 for the amusement of some posters that were amused by his antics. Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

It can't have been THAT reasonable a suggestion given that he's back and posting again with nary a peep from the modes.


[quote:3999t2sb]Do we just decide a troll is a troll and 101 them? Do we 101 more often? I at least hope you don’t want us to act unilaterally unless the need is pressing.

Jim, modes on EVERY community act unilaterally. That's the point of having modes. The alternative is called the snarkpit. If you are willing to at least consider actions short of suspending and banning, then hopefully we won't have to choose between letting people deliberately derail good discussions and banning left and right. I don't understand the unwillingness you're showing to even consider doing things other than the way they were done at the SDMB.[/quote:3999t2sb]
I am more than willing to try differently. I think my actions have shown that. Who exactly is MC posting as, I don't know as I wasn't even online yesterday. Even if I was suspicious of someone, I am not suppose to check IPs and that would probably not do any good anyway. Remember, I posted that banning MC was going to do little good as he would be back. But it was time for the sock to end at least.

As far as more notes to stop behavior with the threat of a warning and time in 101, I can go along with that. No problem. But I don't see anyway that MC's time in 101 was an overall benefit to the board or that Dances was wrong to ask about banning him.

BTW: How is more passive modding and less unilateral decisions repeating the mistakes of the Dope?

[Myrnalene]

Wait, what? MC is back to posting again?

Yeah, and oh hey that reminds me. Why was DeezerDee not warned for this post? It was reported yesterday.

[Truth and Beauty]

I don't understand the unwillingness you're showing to even consider doing things other than the way they were done at the SDMB.

P.S. I think that What Exit? is proposing is very different from the way things were done at the SDMB. And I like his style of moderation. What you are proposing is moving DoMeBo in a direction that brings it closer to the SDMB model, namely, the moderators taking a more active role instead of the loose style of moderation used so far.

[Truth and Beauty]

Wait, what? MC is back to posting again?

Yeah, and oh hey that reminds me. Why was DeezerDee not warned for this post? It was reported yesterday.

Do you mean he's back under a different name? The only way to stop that is for the mods to start sock hunts. Is that what we want here?

P.S. Also, you are kind of proving my point here - if we are asking the mods to do more, this forum will be filled with posts asking "Why didn't you warn this guy for being a troll? I reported it four hours ago and nothing has been done!"

[Exy]

I am more than willing to try differently. I think my actions have shown that. Who exactly is MC posting as, I don't know as I wasn't even online yesterday. Even if I was suspicious of someone, I am not suppose to check IPs and that would probably not do any good anyway. Remember, I posted that banning MC was going to do little good as he would be back. But it was time for the sock to end at least.

As far as more notes to stop behavior with the threat of a warning and time in 101, I can go along with that. No problem. But I don't see anyway that MC's time in 101 was an overall benefit to the board or that Dances was wrong to ask about banning him.

So the problem was not the user, not his threats to post illegal material, not his posts, but his username.

Well that makes sense.

BTW: How is more passive modding and less unilateral decisions repeating the mistakes of the Dope?

Refusing to deal with any problem user until absolutely everyone agreed they were a problem, and meanwhile allowing them to derail any thread they wanted, and then banning them forever is exactly what was done on the Dope. Why the hell do you think there's always been so much mod drama at the SDMB?

[Myrnalene]

Do you mean he's back under a different name? The only way to stop that is for the mods to start sock hunts. Is that what we want here?

I don't care who it is, there should have been some mod action on that post already. There were mods online after the post was reported. But I can't say more without getting bitchy so I will leave it at that.

I'm not and never have been concerned about MC coming back as a sock as long as he behaves himself.

[Truth and Beauty]

Why the hell do you think there's always been so much mod drama at the SDMB?

There was mod drama because, for the vast majority of the bannings, 95% of the people agreed or didn't care, but the 5% of the membership that did care started huge threads of complaint. We see the same thing here.

[Truth and Beauty]

There were mods online after the post was reported. But I can't say more without getting bitchy so I will leave it at that.

Oh come on, be yourself, Myrnalene! (joking of course)
Are you saying we need more mods? Perhaps it's time for a mod election?

[hawkeyeop]

Should we be taking polls for the 6 mods to vote in? If 4 mods think a post is a troll do we ban them? Do we expect them to stay banned? We don't hunt socks here. Does it take all 6 to ban a poster? Maybe just 5? Does 101’ing an actual troll do any good? If you had a bad day and we tossed you in 101 for a day, I would expect you to return to your normal good posting ways when you were let out and maybe even have some fun with being in 101. I think for real trolls like MC we probably should have banned him long ago. We basically left him in 101 for the amusement of some posters that were amused by his antics. Dances made a reasonable suggestion along that line and was vilified for it.

Do we just decide a troll is a troll and 101 them? Do we 101 more often? I at least hope you don’t want us to act unilaterally unless the need is pressing.

Mainly my point is there are a lot of questions and too much unrest for such a small board. I would rather we could remain passive in our moderator roles as most people who came to Domebo did not want aggressive modding.

Jim

I understand that you want community input. That is good, but this isn't a direct democracy. We voted for moderators in order for them to make decisions. Moderators are in charge and need to start acting like it, because "troublemakers" are running amok. There are people who’s contribution here is negative, and need to be dealt with for the benefit of everyone else. Not all members are good members. Part of deciding what this community should be is deciding what it shouldn't be as well. There has to be a line where you say enough, you are hindering our efforts, and we will be rid of you. You want set the line farther than the Dope is fine, but you still need a line. This can't be done with any firm rules, because as you have been shown, rules can be wiggled around. You need to sometimes make tough choices and accept the fact that you can't make everyone happy all of the time. So stop trying to.

As for my opinions, I would scrap 101 as a failed experiment. I mean trolls crave attention, and you punish them by giving them there own room? How exactly is that supposed be discouraging to that behavior? Especially, when they can just log in under another name if they want to partake in the main board, because having socks is a constitutional right or something. As you can tell, I would ban socks too. It is pretty clear that no one is really using them for their intended purpose. And if they "really" needed too, couldn't they just go to some other board to ask their questions. It isn't like we don't have a plethora of splinter boards.

Ultimately though are just my opinions. It is up to the moderators to decide.

[What Exit?]

Do you mean he's back under a different name? The only way to stop that is for the mods to start sock hunts. Is that what we want here?

I don't care who it is, there should have been some mod action on that post already. There were mods online after the post was reported. But I can't say more without getting bitchy so I will leave it at that.

I'm not and never have been concerned about MC coming back as a sock as long as he behaves himself.

Crap, sorry Myrna, first I saw that post. I will warn the user now in fact. It is not a note offense but a clear warning and any repeats will be off to room 101.

[Myrnalene]

Crap, sorry Myrna, first I saw that post. I will warn the user now in fact. It is not a note offense but a clear warning and any repeats will be off to room 101.

Hey, Jim, it's ok. You were not even here yesterday and I am not saying that mods have to be available all the time. It's just, if mods are online I think they should be responding to those types of things, especially if there is no one else here. There are mods that still have not responded to Caerie's thread, almost 24 hours later and it's a little disappointing.

[Truth and Beauty]

So the problem was not the user, not his threats to post illegal material, not his posts, but his username.

Well that makes sense.

Actually I totally agreed with putting MC in Room 101. It makes total sense to me. Otherwise you have the mods running around having to read his every post to see if he's posting unsafe pictures or starting fights or what not - and having to do it quick, otherwise you have posters (e.g. Myrnalene above) asking "I reported this X hours/1 day ago, why hasn't anything been done yet?" From a management point of view, if a poster is irredeemable, it's a lot easier to stick him/her in Room 101.

In any case, real life calls now, but I will leave this final thought for the mods:

How many posters do you have here at the board? And how many do you have here in this thread saying that things have to change? Do you really want to change the way you moderate to satisfy 1% of the posters? With the possibility that by making that 1% happy you run the risk of making unhappy a 5% group of other posters?

[Truth and Beauty]

If Excalibre wants more moderation, then how about using this as a test case - booting him out of chat for posting NSFW pictures, like he just did a couple of minutes ago? Or maybe Exy and his clique think it's OK to troll chat.

[What Exit?]

If Excalibre wants more moderation, then how about using this as a test case - booting him out of chat for posting NSFW pictures, like he just did a couple of minutes ago? Or maybe Exy and his clique think it's OK to troll chat.

It was borderline and he was told to stop it and I deleted it immediately. I have seen the same on commercials on TV so I don't think it was anywhere near as bad as what I 101'd hatesfreedom for, who is also considered part of the chat clique. If he repeats it, I will 101 him as I said.

[featherlou]

Good post, Hawkeyeop.

[Truth and Beauty]

I'm fine with your judgement, What Exit?, though personally I would disagree that Exy's picture is Safe For Work, and that he gets a pass when hatesfreedom was booted. But I'm not here to argue the minutiae of what's a safe for work picture. I wanted to point out, once again, the difficulties in determining what is trolling or not, and the hypocritical behavior of Excalibur, who is posting in this thread about giving trolls less leeway, and less than an hour later trolling chat to stifle discussion because people are discussing a topic he doesn't want to have talked about.

[What Exit?]

I'm fine with your judgement, What Exit?, though personally I would disagree that Exy's picture is Safe For Work, and that he gets a pass when hatesfreedom was booted. But I'm not here to argue the minutiae of what's a safe for work picture. I wanted to point out, once again, the difficulties in determining what is trolling or not, and the hypocritical behavior of Excalibur, who is posting in this thread about giving trolls less leeway, and less than an hour later trolling chat to stifle discussion because people are discussing a topic he doesn't want to have talked about.

Honestly a fair point.

[WhyNot]

How's about we stop harassing the mods about what they're doing or not doing, and start ramping up our own efforts?

There's far too much oblique, coy bullshit on this board, with "some posters", "a threadshitter" or "some trolls" instead of names and specifics*. Think someone's trolling, or being a jerk? Call them out already! We have a vast wasteland of a Thunderdome while people are tiffing in other threads. Ask them to stop before you run whining to a mod. And, as prr says, don't think that "TROLL!" wins you the argument or gets you your desired bannination. No, I don't want to make it an off-limits word like at the Dope, but neither is it a Trump card.

You know, sometimes asking someone to stop doing something that's irritating actually works. And you find out that the action wasn't trolling after all, but self-amusement.

Not to bring it back, again, to parenting, but when kids have conflict, I teach them a several step process for dealing with it, and I think the same process can and should be adapted on a message board.

Step 1: Ask the person nicely to stop doing what they're doing. (Can be done in a thread or via PM.)
Step 2: Tell the person why what they're doing is a problem for you, and repeat your request that they stop. (Thunderdome 'em.)
Step 3: Remove yourself from their presence. (Put them on ignore or don't open a thread that they've tainted, or both.)
Step 4: Involve authorities and/or consequences. (Report 'em, ask a mod to intervene, warnings, 101ing, banning, etc.)

Don't be that asshole neighbor who calls the cops instead of knocking on the door asking if you'd mind turning down the stereo. Take some fucking responsibility for your own message board and try addressing issues yourself first. Then maybe the mods can "soft mod" and be effective.


*And, to be specific, I'm talking about the other "Response To Trolling" thread in the hive, prior to What Exit?'s post naming names, but also many more posts and threads I'm too lazy to look for at the moment.