Ask not for whom the trolls troll - they troll for thee

[Timsup2nothin]

Its not that hard tim, ask to be a moderator or follow the rules

Noted. If that's what you've been trying to contribute I'm sure your utility is now obvious.

Moderator Action: Please do not be dismissive of the opinions of others. Trolling in a thread about trolling should not be happening. leif

 

[bernie14]

Its a game forum tim, usefulness is a rl experience

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Its a game forum tim, usefulness is a rl experience

This relates to the topic how, exactly? If you want to discuss real life, I'm certainly willing, but this isn't really the venue, is it?

 

[Camikaze]

*defined by, hey, he just got back from being banned for trolling, and has launched a series of posts that are basically carbon copies of the posts he got banned for, and his history reveals that this cyclic event is his only participation on the site

I'm interested in digging into this a bit more. If this were adopted as a new definition for use by moderators, I don't think you would like the results.

One of the very complaints that has typically given rise to the idea that you should be able to 'call a troll a troll', is that those who were doing the 'calling out' were themselves being banned for what has broadly been termed 'trolling', in what they saw as an unjustifiably mechanical implementation of the forum rules. Of course, if those posters were to then return from their bans and continue with that very same behaviour of impermissibly 'calling out' people they disagreed with, they would fit squarely within the definition you have outlined.

I assume that's not what you actually mean by the definition you've given, so I think something's missing from it. And I think it's a rather crucial element. How do the moderators identify this trolling in the first place? How does someone become tagged by the moderators as a troll? What are the unmistakable hallmarks of such a poster's behaviour, that distinguish them from someone earnestly expressing disagreeable viewpoints? It's begging the question to say that a troll is someone who the moderators have previously identified as a troll.

 

[tjs282]

What are the unmistakable hallmarks of such a poster's behaviour, that distinguish them from someone earnestly expressing disagreeable viewpoints? It's begging the question to say that a troll is someone who the moderators have previously identified as a troll.

Do the Mods/Admins have the ability to aggregate information regarding ordinary forum-users' lists of 'Ignored members' and 'Followed members'? (The latter doesn't seem to have any immediately useful purpose, but maybe I just haven't found the right button yet)?

I don't know what criteria other CFC-users apply, but I tend to be very conservative (NB small-c, non-political — mostly!) when it comes to Ignoring other members. Despite the acrimony that sometimes flies around in CFCOT, there are still only a couple of names* on my Ignored-list. In both cases, the Ignored individuals are/were people I repeatedly saw trying to twist threads (regardless of topic) around to their own personal hobby-horse(s), and/or posting the same nonsense (usually irrelevant, debunked and/or hateful) in multiple threads, and/or insulting the more 'reasonable' posters (again, IMHO). In other words, people I regard(ed) as trolls.

But I'm also fairly conservative about Follow-ing users, mainly because I don't want anyone to worry that they're being stalked. There are only a few more names on my Followed list than my Ignored list, because so far I've generally restricted this to users (mostly fellow Civ3 players/modders) who I've actually conversed with on a regular basis. However, if I knew that I could add (Admin/Mod-)visible 'value' to Forum-users whose knowledge/ experience I find useful/ interesting, whose opinions are fact-based and well-articulated (even if I disagree with their conclusions), and/or whose humour I enjoy (bonus-points if you fulfill all 3 categories!), then I would probably Follow (a lot) more of you than I do currently.

Now, there is a point to the above, honest! If my usage of CFC is representative (yeah, Mr Average, that's me...), it seems to me that if a particular poster was getting him/her/itself Ignored by significantly more users than were Following him/her/it (say, at least one order of magnitude difference; and perhaps especially if the poster seems to be getting ignored regardless of any previously stated political inclinations of those users), this might be a potentially good indication that the tends-to-be-ignored poster is contributing little to any discussion that they've inserted themselves into***, i.e. they're possibly just here for the troll-lol-lols.

*

Spoiler :

I suspect one of them might actually have been perma-banned already, but I don't care enough about them and their white-supremacist BS to go and check; certainly the other was/is still active, AFAIK — which sometimes makes it more difficult follow the threads he/she/it has posted in, but that's an inconvenience I'm willing to put up with.**

There are a couple more users who I've considered Ignoring just for their politics, but because those users also frequently offer interesting content in the non-political threads, they've escaped my (self-)righteous wrath. So far.**

**

Spoiler :

Another reason why my wielding of the Ignore-hammer is as restrained as it is; I have no interest in living in an echo-chamber.

***

Spoiler :

Myself excluded, I hope! Don't ignore me, bro!

And FWIW, I think CFC(OT) would become a less interesting place if we were to lose either @Timsup2nothin or @metatron (to name but two) ...

 

[Silurian]

I'm interested in digging into this a bit more. If this were adopted as a new definition for use by moderators, I don't think you would like the results.

One of the very complaints that has typically given rise to the idea that you should be able to 'call a troll a troll', is that those who were doing the 'calling out' were themselves being banned for what has broadly been termed 'trolling', in what they saw as an unjustifiably mechanical implementation of the forum rules. Of course, if those posters were to then return from their bans and continue with that very same behaviour of impermissibly 'calling out' people they disagreed with, they would fit squarely within the definition you have outlined.

I assume that's not what you actually mean by the definition you've given, so I think something's missing from it. And I think it's a rather crucial element. How do the moderators identify this trolling in the first place? How does someone become tagged by the moderators as a troll? What are the unmistakable hallmarks of such a poster's behaviour, that distinguish them from someone earnestly expressing disagreeable viewpoints? It's begging the question to say that a troll is someone who the moderators have previously identified as a troll.

So what is wrong with the moderators, few that they are, taking a look at what has been posted by people who have recently completed a ban. How is this a new definition or even a change in the rules. I hope that the moderators want to actually moderate so it is logical to go where the problems are likely too occur. If just dismiss @Timsup2nothin suggestion out of hand, as you seem to be doing, you are like the cop who rather than patrolling where the drunk young people hang out and might have to give advice too or arrest them decides to go sit in some country lane and wait for a call on the radio.

I accept that calling a troll a troll is trolling but that is also different to calling someone who is not a troll a troll. When the moderators give an infraction for trolling I assume that it is because they believe that the person was actually trolling. When I was briefly a moderator I am sure that there were records of who had received an infraction with some details and assume that such records still exists. Just because someone was trolling does not mean that they will continue too troll but it is more likely that they will and the moderators should decide each case on its own merits. So if someone rightly calls a person a troll who the moderators had previously given an infraction for trolling and the moderators decide that the new case is actually trolling it should be viewed more leniently than call someone who is not trolling a troll.

If the troll has not received an infraction before is called a troll, after repeated trolling, then that should also be viewed more leniently; especially if it has been sometime since the troll was reported but there has been no visible response.

The moderators also have some responsibilities. Your post seems to be a smoke screen too allow you to hide in a country lane with the radio switched off.

"How do the moderators identify this trolling in the first place?" They apply the existing rules fairly.
"How does someone become tagged by the moderators as a troll?" The moderators using the existing rules decide that someone is trolling.
"What are the unmistakable hallmarks of such a poster's behaviour, that distinguish them from someone earnestly expressing disagreeable viewpoints? " Each case should be decided on its own merits in accordance with the existing rules.
"It's begging the question to say that a troll is someone who the moderators have previously identified as a troll" well yes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm interested in digging into this a bit more. If this were adopted as a new definition for use by moderators, I don't think you would like the results.

Then just like another staff member I am discussing this with, you don't understand what I've been saying. With him I could discuss a specific case as an example, which makes it far more irritating that he can't follow, and now I have to try to explain to you without being able to use an example. Great. But here we go.

I haven't made 30,000 trolling posts. It should be obvious that no one could get away with that, but you can check my posting history and see for yourself. In my discussion of a specific case using a specific example I have suggested this, and just recently recognized that the staff member I am discussing it with did not know that checking someone's posting history didn't require an OT moderator. It doesn't even require a moderator. I can do it myself, and anyone can check mine. So, if you do check mine you will see that I am very actively discussing American football with other fans of the game. I'm discussing a variety of political topics, sometimes heatedly, sometimes not. I'm here, discussing the forum environment. In OT we have a rants thread, a raves thread, a random thoughts thread, and a couple of picture threads. I participate in all of them, now and then. One of the posters who I frankly wish would stop posting nonsense in political threads and I have had a few civil conversations in a cooking thread. I visit the arts forum and talk about Star Trek and Star Wars with other people who find them interesting, and Superheroes in comics and film. I talk about movies and video games with people who are interested. Heck, every now and then I even talk about Civ with some rare like minded individual that I might encounter.

So, being compared to someone who gets banned for trolling, then returns by starting a controversial political topic backed by the mythical [RD] tag in which he makes a dozen or so infractable posts before the thread gets locked, then jumps to another thread where he makes however many posts he gets away with that are again almost universally rule violations until that thread gets locked and he is again banned does in fact offend me. That offends me, actually, more than the obvious troll does. And since my response to being offended doesn't usually take the form "oh thank you Mr Moderator who apparently doesn't even know you can check a poster's history before deciding on this issue but I honor and respect you for the great job I'm sure you will do" I've made yet another enemy on the staff. Yet here I am talking to you, because I actually do hope the problem gets solved.

The problem isn't me. The problem isn't even the one troll who cannot be named because that's a specific case. The problem is that the forum, specifically the OT forum, has no provision for dealing with trolls like him, so there are always trolls like him. They come here to get banned. We had more than one who advertised a right wing echo chamber forum in their signatures, and on that forum they discussed among themselves how long it took and how many posts they got in and who they got into trouble in the process. I know, because I got promptly banned there. Does that sound like someone who is subject to correction by "oh, just don't feed them, let the thread die, they'll go away"?

The internet is full of people who see a forum like CFC/OT and say "oh, that snotbag, I'm gonna jump in here and give them a piece of my mind." Sometimes they follow local rules, but usually they don't. Sometimes if they are warned that "hey, we have rules here" and they recognize that not everyone is a snotbag like the one they jumped at, and even that one isn't a snotbag all the time, they can be induced to hang around, but most times they are just going to file the target under "place to drive by and shoot up now and then when I'm in a mood." If the site administration makes no provision for that reality this is the results we get; a tiresome series of drive bys and the site taking it out on the people who shoot back, since they're around.

 

[metatron]

"One size fits all" rarely works

No, that's my point: There's too much different sizes and circumstancial judgement going on.
I have made this complaint to you, when you were mod, in all likelyhood. Even back then the mod staff overinvested in complicated, labor intensive and inevitably subjective ajudications of "offensiveness" of views, opinions, content, while at the same time underinvesting on reliable enforcement of the most basic rules vis a vis personal attacks, insults, name-calling on the one hand and outrageously bad form bordering on spam on the other hand.
In my view this has increased substantially since '14 and has completely escalated since summer '16, to such a degree, that i personally...
Well, i suppose the staff is trying, but i feel... unsure... whether there is such a thing as a common set of relatively equitably enforced rules governing this board.


A certain user from the other side of this argument and i are actually having a rather amiable pm exchange to the effect of agree to disagree about this affair.
My intent is to warn the staff that - whatever kind view they may take on any one episode at hand - they very much shouldn't soften any rules on personal comments, name-calling and insults, not even on calling supposed trolls trolls.
Of course my first post in this thread was somewhat dramatic, yes, but i do very much see this board on the brink. Any further step the mod staff takes in the direction in which it has travelled for the past two years may be the one to take things past a threshold. Beyond this will be a "democratic" board, where posts have an upvote button and a downvote button called "like" and "report".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@metatron
If you and I get in a name calling spat, we should both get in trouble for it. But truth is that yes, there is some aspect of democracy at play. There are people who would relish the opportunity to report you, and the there are also people who would relish the opportunity to report me. It's a bit unfortuanate that even if we can both find the maturity to work out our differences those relishers will still report us both. There might be some value in reducing action on third party reports, but that's not the issue of the moment.

The issue is that the dim glow of such a spat between us is lost in the pyrotechnics of drive by trolls immolating themselves in as gaudy a display as they can manage. What I'm looking for here isn't turning the board into a free for all where you and me can flame away at our various detractors. It's a process to more quickly extinguish those who are just here to start a fire so the mods can get a better view when we start throwing off sparks. Whether that better view winds up in overall improvement of moderation from your perspective I cannot predict, but it seems worth the try.

 

[Lexicus]

I think there kind of already is some context applied to these kinds of decisions. At least, I know I haven't been infracted in some cases where I certainly deserved it according to the letter of the rules because the people I was flaming or accusing of being trolls had created a larger poopstorm in which my actions apparently went unnoticed or were surreptitiously ignored.

I am not sure how to relax the prohibition on calling out trolls without allowing threads to degenerate into a sort of free-for-all where everyone who disagrees with each other will just accuse each other of trolling and the discussion will become entirely personal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think there kind of already is some context applied to these kinds of decisions. At least, I know I haven't been infracted in some cases where I certainly deserved it according to the letter of the rules because the people I was flaming or accusing of being trolls had created a larger poopstorm in which my actions apparently went unnoticed or were surreptitiously ignored.

I am not sure how to relax the prohibition on calling out trolls without allowing threads to degenerate into a sort of free-for-all where everyone who disagrees with each other will just accuse each other of trolling and the discussion will become entirely personal.

Nobody is actually calling for such a relaxation. My suggestion is that when one of these self immolating individuals is recognized the administration should just get rid of them and not fret about rules that were broken by others responding to them. Calling them a troll is just an obvious example because when they are getting banned for their obvious trolling it is sort of an acknowledgement that you were right. But at the end of the day if someone is bent on crashing like a meteor and dancing in the wreckage until they get tossed what is the point of punishing people who got caught in the mess?

 

[Lexicus]

Nobody is actually calling for such a relaxation. My suggestion is that when one of these self immolating individuals is recognized the administration should just get rid of them and not fret about rules that were broken by others responding to them. Calling them a troll is just an obvious example because when they are getting banned for their obvious trolling it is sort of an acknowledgement that you were right. But at the end of the day if someone is bent on crashing like a meteor and dancing in the wreckage until they get tossed what is the point of punishing people who got caught in the mess?

Oh well that I would largely agree with. I say give em three chances and then boom.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not sure if this is on-topic or not, but it's worth pointing out that 'trolling' is sometimes defined as harmless joking. Confusing someone with clever wordplay or stringing them along in a conversation can all be called examples of trolling, but the mods always interpret the word as the official definition laid out in the CFC rules. So I can say to someone, oh you were just trolling me, okay, and the mods would infract me for accusing the other poster of violating the rules.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not sure if this is on-topic or not, but it's worth pointing out that 'trolling' is sometimes defined as harmless joking. Confusing someone with clever wordplay or stringing them along in a conversation can all be called examples of trolling, but the mods always interpret the word as the official definition laid out in the CFC rules. So I can say to someone, oh you were just trolling me, okay, and the mods would infract me for accusing the other poster of violating the rules.

In cases like that it's probably better, in this particular environment, to use a synonym. "Playing me" probably would fit that bill in most cases.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, that's my point: There's too much different sizes and circumstancial judgement going on.
I have made this complaint to you, when you were mod, in all likelyhood. Even back then the mod staff overinvested in complicated, labor intensive and inevitably subjective ajudications of "offensiveness" of views, opinions, content, while at the same time underinvesting on reliable enforcement of the most basic rules vis a vis personal attacks, insults, name-calling on the one hand and outrageously bad form bordering on spam on the other hand.
In my view this has increased substantially since '14 and has completely escalated since summer '16, to such a degree, that i personally...
Well, i suppose the staff is trying, but i feel... unsure... whether there is such a thing as a common set of relatively equitably enforced rules governing this board.

We could have crossed paths while I was a mod. My particular moderating style was very flexible and circumstantial; less by the book and more one to step in and try to guide the situation so that both infractions and banning were minimized. It was a kinda of "a different size for each". But that was then and this is now. It is a whole new world of moderators who have their own way of doing things.

I think that there are several questions worthy of discussing/answering:

• Should the Anno Domini poster have been watched more closely upon returning?
• Were reported posts responded to in a timely manner? (Which leads to a followup about the number of moderators actively monitoring OT threads. I only see two with any regularity and that seems like too few.)
• Were moderator actions taken before the full extent of the situation was known by those acting?
• When a thread goes bad and no visible moderator action is taken, what can reasonably be expected from posters who are involved after hours of inaction? (If you think the answer is "do nothing", you need to rethink.)
• Are any of the moderator actions in need of review?

In my experience as a moderator to discover a thread meltdown that you missed and that has gone on for hours is a terrible feeling. It is even worse if the forum is one where you feel like a regular participant, as well as, a moderator. This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last, and having a frank discussion is a good thing. It will be even better is more mods participate.

 

[Ryika]

I consider it a vigilante action. Those usually don't exist (in high numbers) when the police are doing their job. And yeah, imho, the core of the issue here is inconsistent moderation. A person should not feel the need to "feed the troll", they should be able to push that report button in cases of obvious trolling, and know that the person will be put in their place. That works even with "professional trolls", who are only here to troll if the response is somewhat contemporary.

If reporting a person who's clearly trying to troll people can have a response that ranges from utter silence to an infraction, seemingly based on who responds to that report and how they feel that day, then reporting the person doesn't really "feel right". If reporting a person does not give them what they "deserve" for trolling, then the will to engage that person directly becomes so much stronger. That's not "correct" behavior, but it's understandable I would say.

In a world where trolling is properly defined in an objective way (and not just declared to be mostly "moderator discretion" in the rules), and a case of obvious trolling actually gets the person an infraction, there's no "need" to engage in anything other than pushing that button. And in such a world, a person who still engages a troll and breaks the rules while doing so, deserves the infraction they get, because they broke the rules while having a working alternative ready for them.

And then some types of trolling are seemingly not recognized at all. I literally just got a warning because I was DISMISSIVE of a post that was intentionally written as the most bad faith reading of my post. Can't show it because of PDMA obviously, but the general makeup of that sort of trolling is always something like this fictional example:

Person A: I think abortion should be legal, after all, a woman should be allowed to have full control over her body.
Person B: Why do you love arguing for the murder of millions of babies so much?
Person A: lol okay.

Person B is so clearly not trying to have an honest discussion, why this sort of behavior is seen as acceptable I don't understand. Why person A would need to be given a warning for their behavior when Person B is allowed to behave the way they do, is beyond me.

 

[metatron]

• When a thread goes bad and no visible moderator action is taken, what can reasonably be expected from posters who are involved after hours of inaction? (If you think the answer is "do nothing", you need to rethink.)

I don't need to rethink that.
If i am convinced - for whatever reason - that if i were in that user's shoes i'd be held to that standard (which is not a bad standard per se in the first place) i decidedly don't have to rethink the notion of holding them to that standard as well, thank you very much.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't need to rethink that.
If i am convinced - for whatever reason - that if i were in that user's shoes i'd be held to that standard (which is not a bad standard per se in the first place) i decidedly don't have to rethink the notion of holding them to that standard as well, thank you very much.

There is a very strong sense of community at CFC OT and when a thread goes bad, if moderator action is not apparent, folks will step into the breach. And each will bring their own approach to the problem. There is a strong sense of protecting the community from "bad stuff". You as an individual my not choose to, but others will. To expect otherwise is trending towards foolish. "Don't feed the trolls" is nice, but it is an unlikely to be achieved standard. It is easier if the perpetrator is an unknown spammer pushing links or hate or silly stuff. Troll threads by folks with a pc of 1 are often just reported and ignored. Regulars not so much.

The challenge for moderators is that most of the situations like this one cry out out for inconsistency as the best solution. And yet consistent moderation is a goal. It is a battle we faced in the moderator forums daily. I do not know how that is handled now. Perhaps an admin or supermod will enlighten us.

 

[HoloDoc]

There is a very strong sense of community at CFC OT and when a thread goes bad, if moderator action is not apparent, folks will step into the breach. And each will bring their own approach to the problem. There is a strong sense of protecting the community from "bad stuff". You as an individual my not choose to, but others will. To expect otherwise is trending towards foolish. "Don't feed the trolls" is nice, but it is an unlikely to be achieved standard. It is easier if the perpetrator is an unknown spammer pushing links or hate or silly stuff. Troll threads by folks with a pc of 1 are often just reported and ignored. Regulars not so much.

The challenge for moderators is that most of the situations like this one cry out out for inconsistency as the best solution. And yet consistent moderation is a goal. It is a battle we faced in the moderator forums daily. I do not know how that is handled now. Perhaps an admin or supermod will enlighten us.

I know I will post in a discussion, even if it is an viols troll thread, smoky to make sure lurkers or younger forum members don't think; well, no one is disputing this stuff, it must be right. This is especially an issue in racist threads. I'm sure there are likely many others who feel and act the same way.

 

[metatron]

There is a very strong sense of community at CFC OT and when a thread goes bad, if moderator action is not apparent, folks will step into the breach. And each will bring their own approach to the problem. There is a strong sense of protecting the community from "bad stuff". You as an individual my not choose to, but others will. To expect otherwise is trending towards foolish. "Don't feed the trolls" is nice, but it is an unlikely to be achieved standard. It is easier if the perpetrator is an unknown spammer pushing links or hate or silly stuff. Troll threads by folks with a pc of 1 are often just reported and ignored. Regulars not so much.

The challenge for moderators is that most of the situations like this one cry out out for inconsistency as the best solution. And yet consistent moderation is a goal. It is a battle we faced in the moderator forums daily. I do not know how that is handled now. Perhaps an admin or supermod will enlighten us.

You may feel that this is my fault, but all i see in any such precedent is further entitlement for the dominant faction among the staff and a certain class of users to enforce their views and biases.
I'm not being rhetorical; that is what i see.
Make of that what you will vis a vis that "community" you talked about.

I like rules. Rules protect me, while sentiment protects others.