Response to Trolling

[Heffalump]

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.

I like that a lot for myself personally.

But there are a lot of people like Hawkeyeop and featherlou who seem to want the mods to do most of the heavy lifting. You both can correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

And I think that's where the options reside. Do you want a community where:

1) the posters take responsibility for themselves

or

2) a community where the mods do a lot of the heavy lifting and the posters have to just be happy with their decisions?

While it's not exactly that black and white, once that's determined, a lot of the direction moves from there, IMO.

[McNutty]

I think that was a great post WhyNot, and I agree that that can frequently be the solution. But I also think that it's ok if the mods are a little more proactive in stopping trolls. I think, for example, that T&B was being intentionally annoying with the color schtick, and his "oh my, I'm sorry, I had no idea" is just part of his troll act, which he's good at. His game is to dance back and forth across the line of making you think he's sincere or annoying.

I like the idea of letting mods subjectively decide someone is being a troll and tell them they have to stop posting in a specific thread. It allows there to be a decision which stops the problem behavior, and yet still doesn't have awfully oppressive consequences. So you can't post in one thread, big deal. Go flame about it in the thunderdome if you want, or start your own thread to honestly argue the point you wanted to discuss. There's the argument that it could be used to harass one poster, but I'd say that if multiple mods keep coming to the conclusion that someone's trolling in a variety of threads, it's not simply a case of someone innocently asking questions that piss others off; it's a pattern, and either all the mods have gone bad or that person's a die-hard troll and should be considered for going to room 101. And, of course, if you ignore the directive to not post in a thread, then you're just 101'd.

[WhyNot]

I think that was a great post WhyNot, and I agree that that can frequently be the solution. But I also think that it's ok if the mods are a little more proactive in stopping trolls. I think, for example, that T&B was being intentionally annoying with the color schtick, and his "oh my, I'm sorry, I had no idea" is just part of his troll act, which he's good at. His game is to dance back and forth across the line of making you think he's sincere or annoying.

It may very well be; I know I'm a bit of a Pollyanna when it comes to assuming the best of people. But I'm also a cynical pragmatist: it really doesn't matter to me whether he's really sorry or he's sarcastically sorry as long as he stops doing it!

And I do agree that the mods can harden up a little and I won't squawk. But I still think we breed a lot of passive aggressive pussies around here who need to learn to use the Thunderdome for its intended use, and if we do that more, the mods will have less to do and less bitching to hear.

[Zuul]

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.

Your suggestion here is good and I do agree that the posters in general need to be more direct in the same way you've described here.

However.

Expecting that alone to handle the problem is unrealistic. Ignoring trolls helps, too, but you cannot expect a large group of people to do it. Pretty much any plan that requires a group of people on the Internet to collectively be reasonable without guidance is doomed to failure. That's why there needs to be a plan of action for the mods to take as well.

[What Exit?]

Out of the discussion in the two threads, do you see a clear instruction to give the mod group Caerie? Simple is better.

[Exy]

But I still think we breed a lot of passive aggressive pussies around here who need to learn to use the Thunderdome for its intended use, and if we do that more, the mods will have less to do and less bitching to hear.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do this, but people who are actually hear just to stir shit up for the lulz are definitely not going to be put off by Thunderdome threads. It's not how it works. And people ignoring trolls en masse never works either, since people just don't do it. It doesn't happen. That's why modes are needed.

[The Logos]

As indicated by several other posters, there are challenges associated with policing trolling per se, namely those of the subjectivity of trolling, and the problem of divining the intent of the poster. The de facto response, which I favor, appears to be addressing the symptoms of trolling, and the troll by proxy. If a thread is being hijacked, resolve the hijacking; repeated offences of threadjacking by a single poster should result in disciplinary action. If there are insults and abuse outside the Thunderdome, resolve the conflict; repeated offenses of insult and abuse by a single poster should result in disciplinary action. If we center board policy on trolling about the personality of the troll, we unnecessarily run the risk of misdiagnosing a poster, censoring speech, and cutting off potentially interesting lines of discussion.

[featherlou]

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.

I like that a lot for myself personally.

But there are a lot of people like Hawkeyeop and featherlou who seem to want the mods to do most of the heavy lifting. You both can correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

And I think that's where the options reside. Do you want a community where:

1) the posters take responsibility for themselves

or

2) a community where the mods do a lot of the heavy lifting and the posters have to just be happy with their decisions?

While it's not exactly that black and white, once that's determined, a lot of the direction moves from there, IMO.

At this point, I don't particularly want one approach over the other. I just want us to pick a direction and stick to it.

Regarding mods doing more patrolling and enforcing on their own recognizance, without waiting for reports of trolling, I don't have a problem with that, either. If they start acting like they're seeing trolling everywhere, I guess we discuss it then. So, in conclusion, my vote is in favour of the motion on the table for mods to stop trolling when they see it in threads, and for posters to treat trolls any way they like.

[WhyNot]

But I still think we breed a lot of passive aggressive pussies around here who need to learn to use the Thunderdome for its intended use, and if we do that more, the mods will have less to do and less bitching to hear.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do this, but people who are actually hear just to stir shit up for the lulz are definitely not going to be put off by Thunderdome threads. It's not how it works. And people ignoring trolls en masse never works either, since people just don't do it. It doesn't happen. That's why modes are needed.

Oh, absolutely. I never said, nor do I think we should, get rid of mods. And of course, asking a true troll nicely to stop trolling is not going to work. But it may stop irritating behavior by non-trolls or allow for further explanation of behavior, like we've seen in this thread from prr and Heffalump, and in the thread I linked to from Truth and Beauty. Does that mean none of those three are trolls? Of course not, maybe they are trolls in some philosophic sense. But it means that the specific irritating behaviors can either cease or be accounted for.

And, if a poster is asked to stop, his response or lack thereof is in itself a much less ambiguous indicator of trolldom than trying to suss out "intent", don't you think? If they don't want to play nice (and mind you, "I've considered what you have to say and no, I'm not going to stop doing that, because it's not hurting anyone and it amuses me" is still nice - I'm not saying everyone has to get along and sing Kumbaya), that in itself is a symptom of Trollitis. Asking nicely/Thunderdoming may not be a cure, but it's a step towards a differential diagnosis.

[Exy]

It's only necessary to spend a long time becoming absolutely sure of someone's motives if you plan to ban them. I would rather that, in general, intervention be limited to keeping individual threads from going all retarded. I don't personally feel any need to have moderators ban users to protect me from ever interacting with someone disingenuous. I just don't like seeing otherwise interesting conversations get derailed.

[Zuul]

It's only necessary to spend a long time becoming absolutely sure of someone's motives if you plan to ban them. I would rather that, in general, intervention be limited to keeping individual threads from going all retarded. I don't personally feel any need to have moderators ban users to protect me from ever interacting with someone disingenuous. I just don't like seeing otherwise interesting conversations get derailed.

This is the heart of the issue, I think. After considering this, I think using the label "troll" may have been a mistake on my part.

Ultimately, whether someone is trolling or not is a serious consideration that would need the consensus of several different people, because it is very subjective. When things get to that point, banning or Room 101 can be discussed.

Disruptive posting, however, does not require threats to ban. It doesn't require trying to determine someone's motives. There were a number of posters on the SDMB who were not trolls and yet derailed every discussion they entered. Sometimes, there will be interesting hijacks in a discussion. Sometimes, there are hijacks that kill a thread or turn it into a clusterfuck. What I'm suggesting is that mods be more proactive about watching out for these clusterfucks. It doesn't require a new rule or complicated discussions about what trolling consists of. If there is disruptive posting and a poster has a habit of taking threads over, the mods should put a stop to it.

If someone is causing problems in a thread without actually doing anything warn-worthy, a mod should tell them to, quite simply, stop posting in that thread. If posters disagree with that action, they can open another thread to discuss whether or not the mod made the right call, but the disruptive posting and discussion of the mod's action should be taken elsewhere so that the thread can continue.

[What Exit?]

It's only necessary to spend a long time becoming absolutely sure of someone's motives if you plan to ban them. I would rather that, in general, intervention be limited to keeping individual threads from going all retarded. I don't personally feel any need to have moderators ban users to protect me from ever interacting with someone disingenuous. I just don't like seeing otherwise interesting conversations get derailed.

This is the heart of the issue, I think. After considering this, I think using the label "troll" may have been a mistake on my part.

Ultimately, whether someone is trolling or not is a serious consideration that would need the consensus of several different people, because it is very subjective. When things get to that point, banning or Room 101 can be discussed.

Disruptive posting, however, does not require threats to ban. It doesn't require trying to determine someone's motives. There were a number of posters on the SDMB who were not trolls and yet derailed every discussion they entered. Sometimes, there will be interesting hijacks in a discussion. Sometimes, there are hijacks that kill a thread or turn it into a clusterfuck. What I'm suggesting is that mods be more proactive about watching out for these clusterfucks. It doesn't require a new rule or complicated discussions about what trolling consists of. If there is disruptive posting and a poster has a habit of taking threads over, the mods should put a stop to it.

If someone is causing problems in a thread without actually doing anything warn-worthy, a mod should tell them to, quite simply, stop posting in that thread. If posters disagree with that action, they can open another thread to discuss whether or not the mod made the right call, but the disruptive posting and discussion of the mod's action should be taken elsewhere so that the thread can continue.

This I agree with completely.

[ivan astikov]

On the first messageboard I joined, I managed to clock up 2,000+ posts before getting banned, during which time(about 6 mths) I also got banned from 2 other sites, one after just over 100 posts, and the other after 100+ and 50+(for being a 'sock'.). Since then I have never bothered signing up at my first site again - it was far too slow and dull! - and the other 2 I have rejoined and made 300+ and 3,000+ posts, respectively.

In addition, I have made 18,000+ posts at a place that makes 4chan look sensible, and have clocked up over 2,000 posts here.

Was/Am I a troll?

If I had a dollar for everytime I've been called one, I could probably afford a nice new laptop, but if a troll is mainly someone intent on disrupting the messageboard they are posting on, I don't see how this has ever applied in my own case. I know others may beg to differ, but I'd be slightly interested to hear their arguments.

[Truth and Beauty]

I think, for example, that T&B was being intentionally annoying with the color schtick, and his "oh my, I'm sorry, I had no idea" is just part of his troll act, which he's good at.

I see. So if I post in colors, I'm being a troll. If I agree not to post in colors when someone asks, I'm being a troll. In other words, there's no way I can win here. Thanks. Now I know where I stand.

[Truth and Beauty]

Out of the discussion in the two threads, do you see a clear instruction to give the mod group Caerie? Simple is better.

With all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the modes need to step in more, I have yet to see any concrete examples. Can anyone show an example of a thread that was hopelessly derailed without the moderators stepping in?


Let's take my case. According to McNutty, I am an irredeemable troll. Can anyone show an example of a thread that I hopelessly derailed/hijacked without the moderators stepping in?

[WhyNot]

I think, for example, that T&B was being intentionally annoying with the color schtick, and his "oh my, I'm sorry, I had no idea" is just part of his troll act, which he's good at.

I see. So if I post in colors, I'm being a troll. If I agree not to post in colors when someone asks, I'm being a troll. In other words, there's no way I can win here. Thanks. Now I know where I stand.

Well, the only way to win is not to play the game. You did come in here (meaning the messageboard as a whole, not this thread) with a lot of noise and bluster, disrupting quite a few threads and being very confrontational about the way the board is run, the posters and mods here, inflammatory and inaccurate comparisons to the worst parts of the SDMB,* etc. I won't say that makes you a troll, but your actions did give you a reputation that's got quite a few of us on edge around you. That didn't happen all by itself, your actions put you in a losing position.

Can time and further posting put you back in a win? Sure. hatesfreedom's done it. He started out on the wrong foot, nearly got banned for being a troll and a jerk, and he dailed it back, became downright adorable, and now he's probably got more freedom for poor behavior than many of us. It can be done. But, just like your actions got you into this position of suspicion, only your actions over time can get you back out. Y'know, if you really want out.

* viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1084&p=22787#p22787
viewtopic.php?p=22747#p22747
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1265&p=33673#p33673

[Heffalump]

That didn't happen all by itself, your actions put you in a losing position.

Can time and further posting put you back in a win? Sure. hatesfreedom's done it. He started out on the wrong foot, nearly got banned for being a troll and a jerk, and he dailed it back, became downright adorable, and now he's probably got more freedom for poor behavior than many of us. It can be done. But, just like your actions got you into this position of suspicion, only your actions over time can get you back out. Y'know, if you really want out.

* viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1084&p=22787#p22787
viewtopic.php?p=22747#p22747
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1265&p=33673#p33673

Your pick of threads is a great example of what happens when people label others as trolls.

In every one of those threads, T&B was right. In the first, QED shouldn't have been giving those mod warnings. In the second, the registration agreement was inconsistent. And the third was a variation of the first. Historically, all those things have now been changed, so T&B's point was correct.

And in every one of those threads, T&B put up a non-insulting post to start.

viewtopic.php?p=22725&sid=a4349ecc47cec0388f4c7a6e ce6dac3b#p22725
viewtopic.php?p=22465#p22465
viewtopic.php?p=33650#p33650

And it was only after he was snarked that he snarked back. WhyNot, you're bringing up the example of the snark given in return.

If people are allowed to "kick" the trolls, bait the trolls or troll the trolls, they should be willing to take back in kind whatever they dish out. Hiding behind the rules and expecting someone to play nice after you (generic you) kicked them is unreasonable and unfair.

If you want people to take responsibility for their actions, then it has to be applied to everyone, not just to people that are labeled trolls or people that others don't like. Because sometimes (not always or maybe even often) the people labeled as trolls are telling the truth before others want to see it.

[WhyNot]

In every one of those threads, T&B was right. In the first, QED shouldn't have been giving those mod warnings. In the second, the registration agreement was inconsistent. And the third was a variation of the first. Historically, all those things have now been changed, so T&B's point was correct.

Of course he was sometimes right. But he was an ass. He was called a troll because he was a jerk, not because he was wrong.

But still, he WAS wrong, when it came to his accusations of arbitrary modding, being "worse than TubaDiva" and other assorted negative comparisons to the SDMB. He had no patience for growing pains, either personal or technical, or working things out together as many (most) of us want to do. He consistently portrayed this board and everyone on it in the most negative light possible, poisoning the well and attributing malice instead of inexperience, and on those topics, he was wrong.

Look, could I have picked some better examples? Probably. I just went to his posting history and picked the first few posts that seemed remotely illustrative of my point. I didn't really think he wanted a real answer, so I didn't spend more time at it. And now that he's left, I really can't be bothered.

[Heffalump]

Of course he was sometimes right. But he was an ass. He was called a troll because he was a jerk, not because he was wrong.

That brings me full circle to the point of the thread. Sometimes a poster that people are labeling a troll is right, but the people labeling don't like the person's style. And often, the person labeled as a troll gives as good as they get.

Those people can be modded out of the community. And diversity declines. That's the decision that the community makes when they allow modding based on posting style instead of on content.

But still, he WAS wrong, when it came to his accusations of arbitrary modding, being "worse than TubaDiva" and other assorted negative comparisons to the SDMB. He had no patience for growing pains, either personal or technical, or working things out together as many (most) of us want to do. He consistently portrayed this board and everyone on it in the most negative light possible, poisoning the well and attributing malice instead of inexperience, and on those topics, he was wrong.

To the extent that those are subjective claims, he may have been right or wrong depending on the person's perspective.

As to lacking patience with incompetent people who deny and defend instead of try to understand, I'll admit that I generally lack patience about that as well.

[Truth and Beauty]

Thanks Heffalump. I think you show that if someone reads my posts with an open mind they can see that actually I was often raising valid concerns.

WhyNot, you have a good point that I should not have brought up the SDMB comparisons and maybe I was too quick to judge, not allowing for growing pains.

I have to say thought, that I was surprised at the defensiveness of the posters and mods here, many of whom gleefully participated (I was one of those too, I'll admit) in constant threads excoriating the SDMB mods and board owner. Yet over here they bristled at the slightest criticism of any of the staff here. I thought then and still think now that it was very hypocritical. If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.

[Truth and Beauty]

[quote=Truth and Beauty]

Out of the discussion in the two threads, do you see a clear instruction to give the mod group Caerie? Simple is better.

With all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the modes need to step in more, I have yet to see any concrete examples. Can anyone show an example of a thread that was hopelessly derailed without the moderators stepping in?[/quote:2r5kn2oa]By the way, does anyone have any concrete examples? Or was this whole thread about a non-existent problem?

[McNutty]

By the way, does anyone have any concrete examples? Or was this whole thread about a non-existent problem?

There's actually a board function which shows concrete examples of this with a single click. It's near the top, labeled "view your posts." Note: doesn't work for everyone.