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

[Timsup2nothin]

Perhaps that crack was really an abyss.

I plan to challenge my next infraction on the grounds of "since you haven't ruled on the last one yet the rule in question is obviously too vague to be enforceable."

 

[Birdjaguar]

I plan to challenge my next infraction on the grounds of "since you haven't ruled on the last one yet the rule in question is obviously too vague to be enforceable."

You could, but it is simpler to just not get infracted.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm disappointed that none of the moderators are contributing to the discussion about how thread meltdowns are handled and and what the staff positions on the matter are. These are opportunities ti build strong connections between staff and members so that there are fewer tense moments in the future.

Having been effectively gone from CFC for a couple of years, I'm slowly easing back into regular moderator responsibilities. My thoughts here should not be taken as any indication of a consensus among OT mods, as I haven't been her for much of the trouble that this thread highlights.

There is no way to moderate OT with a one-size-fits-all approach. That was the tendency many years ago as @JollyRoger noted. The consensus among posters and staff was that it needed to be relaxed, that context and intent should be taken into consideration, that moderators should *not* be using an iron fist, that we should try to be more nuanced in our approach.

I still think this approach leads to a better outcome than a hard, fast, inflexible sentencing chart. Unless directed by the Supermods and Admins, I will continue to approach the job that way. The goal is to foster a relaxed and friendly environment for non-civ-related discussion. Trolling can disrupt that, and repeat offenders may be forced to take breaks from time to time if they don't remember that it's not a free-for-all. We are all assumed to be adults here, and some degree of self-control is anticipated.

I'm glad this thread was opened so that we moderators could hear about some of these concerns. That sounds pretty vanilla as I write it, but it's true.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Having been effectively gone from CFC for a couple of years, I'm slowly easing back into regular moderator responsibilities. My thoughts here should not be taken as any indication of a consensus among OT mods, as I haven't been her for much of the trouble that this thread highlights.

There is no way to moderate OT with a one-size-fits-all approach. That was the tendency many years ago as @JollyRoger noted. The consensus among posters and staff was that it needed to be relaxed, that context and intent should be taken into consideration, that moderators should *not* be using an iron fist, that we should try to be more nuanced in our approach.

I still think this approach leads to a better outcome than a hard, fast, inflexible sentencing chart. Unless directed by the Supermods and Admins, I will continue to approach the job that way. The goal is to foster a relaxed and friendly environment for non-civ-related discussion. Trolling can disrupt that, and repeat offenders may be forced to take breaks from time to time if they don't remember that it's not a free-for-all. We are all assumed to be adults here, and some degree of self-control is anticipated.

I'm glad this thread was opened so that we moderators could hear about some of these concerns. That sounds pretty vanilla as I write it, but it's true.

Nice post. I certainly realize that you are only speaking for yourself and not for the staff. None-the- less, speaking out is a plus for building relations with members. Good relations leads to fewer angry responses from members when moderators take action. The more we understand how you/staff anticipate moderating, the more we can set our expectations and not be surprised. It leads to greater civility. And I think civility in and around the forums is one of the site's goals.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You could, but it is simpler to just not get infracted.

And let the trolls troll with impunity? Who benefits from that?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And let the trolls troll with impunity? Who benefits from that?

The community? There are trolls here that are very frustrating. When they get too much for me I just ignore them. There is no winning here when battling ignorance. There are only casualties.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The community? There are trolls here that are very frustrating. When they get too much for me I just ignore them. There is no winning here when battling ignorance. There are only casualties.

This would be a good place for that badly overused thing about evil triumphing and good men doing nothing. Pretty easy to see how it became so overused.

 

[peter grimes]

Trolls feed only on responses and discord. If you don't take their bait they will seek out more Target rich environments, even if that means leaving entirely, no?

They thrive when they get under your skin. I know this from being on both sides of the troll fence, so please don't read this as a defense of trolling.

 

[Synobun]

Trolls feed only on responses and discord. If you don't take their bait they will seek out more Target rich environments, even if that means leaving entirely, no?

They thrive when they get under your skin. I know this from being on both sides of the troll fence, so please don't read this as a defense of trolling.

I don't know that this is entirely true. Of course it's a truth that trolls thrive on discord, but I think lack of response is a response of its own kind. Even if you ignore them, their antics take the wind out of the sails of a vibrant conversation. That's largely why you're not allowed to indefinitely scream on the street corner. Mostly everyone will ignore them but the quality of everyone's experience decreases the longer they're allowed to shout into the void. Disturbing the peace is still a disturbance even if the peace is maintained.

There's also an art form to trolling online nowadays, wherein the troll finds a balance between genuine contribution and stirring the pot in order to toe the line. Someone who only exists to break the rules doesn't last but someone who can play the part of a genuine community member can stick around for months or years without worrying about getting tossed to the curb in large part because their "genuine contributions to the community" are weighted against their failures or shortcomings.

Everyone in this thread likely has a few names come up in their mind when they think about "trolls on CFC", and just about everyone on those mental lists will fall right into the "toes the line while stirring the pot" basket. After all, this thread wouldn't exist if it only referred to people who exist only to be rude. Calling a spade a spade is an issue because it's most often used against people who toe the line and who can then stand behind a trolling or flaming defense.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Trolls feed only on responses and discord. If you don't take their bait they will seek out more Target rich environments, even if that means leaving entirely, no?

They thrive when they get under your skin. I know this from being on both sides of the troll fence, so please don't read this as a defense of trolling.

"Ignore them and they'll quit it."

Tell that to the ones who don't. They think that even if they're on the ignore list that they can keep spewing their trollish <stuff> and it's okay because if you don't see it, it's not an insult, right?

Wrong. And staff abets this behavior by dismissing it as "light-hearted ribbing" (it's not) and treating it as a one-time thing (it's been happening for years). And once others see such posts go unreprimanded, they think they can get away with such behavior as well.

You might as well paint a target on the targeted poster's profile and hang a sign that says "open season."

 

[Lemon Merchant]

This whole thread started as a result of a particular troll outbreak that happened when Arakhor and myself both had a catastrophic RL event and had to be off the forum for a day. Unfortunately it was at the same time and we couldn't deal with the troll fast enough. We're sorry, but life happens.

There have been a few valid points raised in the thread and I think that it is healthy to talk about them, but in answer to some of them, I would like to remind everyone of a few things:

1. Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid for this and we also have lives which come first. That means that we can't always be here all of the time.
2. As far as trolling goes, we can bust everyone who makes a trollish comment, but then guess what? We're accused of over-moderation.
3. If we under infract, we're accused of being too lenient on some posters.
4. Personally speaking, I think that if you have someone on your ignore list, then you should ignore them completely, even if you see their comment in a quote. What's the point of putting someone on an ignore list if you don't ignore them?
5. OT threads are slightly different in the way that they are moderated. That means unless it is an RD thread, we allow for a certain amount of rough and tumble in the posts. I personally only bother with egregious examples of blatant abuse or trolling, because if I infract every little thing... well... see #2.
6. Further to #5, speaking personally, I tend to shy away from acting if the post is obviously some good-natured ribbing or teasing. My belief is that if you can't handle a little bit of back and forth, you should stick to RD threads where that kind of thing is moderated a little more heavily, or else toughen up a little. If you can't do those things, then maybe forum life is not for you. Don't get me wrong, if someone posts in a hurtful or trollish manner, I will act, but not everything is a troll post.

In the end, we try to foster an environment where everyone can be heard, whether it's a funny comment or stinging rebuke. Good discussion is the most important thing we have here, and moderators are here to make sure that standard gets upheld.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This whole thread started as a result of a particular troll outbreak that happened when Arakhor and myself both had a catastrophic RL event and had to be off the forum for a day. Unfortunately it was at the same time and we couldn't deal with the troll fast enough. We're sorry, but life happens.

We're sorry, but we have no idea what goes on in moderators' RL events. Forgive us for not being mind-readers. BTW, there are other mods listed for OT besides you two. Where were they? Were all of you having RL events?

1. Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid for this and we also have lives which come first. That means that we can't always be here all of the time.

In the past, it was considered normal for moderators who couldn't be present due to RL issues to take a break and actually let people know they were taking a break. I'm aware that moderators don't get paid. I was one, after all, and still am on other sites.

3. If we under infract, we're accused of being too lenient on some posters.

The accusation is valid if you (general 'you') are being too lenient on some posters. I've seen some people skate for things that other people would be hammered for... continually. That sort of thing gets noticed by people, and rarely leads to fostering a sense of trust between these members and moderators. There are long-time posters who left in disgust over this sort of thing, and CFC is poorer for their absence.

4. Personally speaking, I think that if you have someone on your ignore list, then you should ignore them completely, even if you see their comment in a quote. What's the point of putting someone on an ignore list if you don't ignore them?

When they go out of their way to make that difficult or impossible, it's unreasonable for staff to blame the target for being angry.

5. OT threads are slightly different in the way that they are moderated. That means unless it is an RD thread, we allow for a certain amount of rough and tumble in the posts. I personally only bother with egregious examples of blatant abuse or trolling, because if I infract every little thing... well... see #2.

Some things are always trollish, or always cross a line.

6. Further to #5, speaking personally, I tend to shy away from acting if the post is obviously some good-natured ribbing or teasing. My belief is that if you can't handle a little bit of back and forth, you should stick to RD threads where that kind of thing is moderated a little more heavily, or else toughen up a little. If you can't do those things, then maybe forum life is not for you. Don't get me wrong, if someone posts in a hurtful or trollish manner, I will act, but not everything is a troll post.

¹⁰

What looks like "good-natured ribbing or teasing" to one person may be extremely hurtful or yet one more volley in years' worth of attacks to the target. This is why being aware of past forum history is important. Speaking personally, I always tried to find out the the source of a dispute or feud when having to deal with one, since it can lead to figuring out a solution that will satisfy everyone. When it doesn't work, at least the moderator will have tried, rather than either dismissing things or whipping out the mod text or issuing another infraction that won't accomplish anything other than fostering more ill will. When it does work... it's a beautiful thing that helps create harmony on the forum where there was once chaos.

"If you can't handle it, get off the forum" is really condescending. Thanks so much for that. I handle much more now than I could when I started on forums, but there is only so much that people should be expected to tolerate.

In the end, we try to foster an environment where everyone can be heard, whether it's a funny comment or stinging rebuke. Good discussion is the most important thing we have here, and moderators are here to make sure that standard gets upheld.

Some standards have slipped badly, and others are all over the place to the point where it's impossible to figure out where the line actually is.

Moderator Action: Use of the smilie is trolling. Please stop. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Synobun]

This whole thread started as a result of a particular troll outbreak that happened when Arakhor and myself both had a catastrophic RL event and had to be off the forum for a day. Unfortunately it was at the same time and we couldn't deal with the troll fast enough. We're sorry, but life happens.

There have been a few valid points raised in the thread and I think that it is healthy to talk about them, but in answer to some of them, I would like to remind everyone of a few things:

1. Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid for this and we also have lives which come first. That means that we can't always be here all of the time.
2. As far as trolling goes, we can bust everyone who makes a trollish comment, but then guess what? We're accused of over-moderation.
3. If we under infract, we're accused of being too lenient on some posters.
4. Personally speaking, I think that if you have someone on your ignore list, then you should ignore them completely, even if you see their comment in a quote. What's the point of putting someone on an ignore list if you don't ignore them?
5. OT threads are slightly different in the way that they are moderated. That means unless it is an RD thread, we allow for a certain amount of rough and tumble in the posts. I personally only bother with egregious examples of blatant abuse or trolling, because if I infract every little thing... well... see #2.
6. Further to #5, speaking personally, I tend to shy away from acting if the post is obviously some good-natured ribbing or teasing. My belief is that if you can't handle a little bit of back and forth, you should stick to RD threads where that kind of thing is moderated a little more heavily, or else toughen up a little. If you can't do those things, then maybe forum life is not for you. Don't get me wrong, if someone posts in a hurtful or trollish manner, I will act, but not everything is a troll post.

In the end, we try to foster an environment where everyone can be heard, whether it's a funny comment or stinging rebuke. Good discussion is the most important thing we have here, and moderators are here to make sure that standard gets upheld.

This would certainly get a lot of head nods at a weekly corporate meeting. I'm uncertain what this is actually trying to say in the context of a real conversation, though. I don't believe anyone participating in this thread is in need of being reminded of those things. It seems that everyone is on-board with the idea that moderators are volunteers, that time constraints are a very real issue, and that there's a delicate balance to be found between letting people sling epithets at each other and cracking down.

The last paragraph, as well, is also something everyone is in agreement on. Moderators are here to make sure that standard is upheld. Boundaries are being questioned, and the way this standard is being upheld is up for debate. At least, that appears to be the attempt to me.

So your reply says a lot of right things, albeit sprinkled with off-hand defensive remarks that could be taken as rude or dismissive... and it ultimately ends up saying nothing new. Everyone is already in agreement with what you've said. So what comes next?

There appears to be a real need, or at least a strong desire, for something to change in regards to how incendiary members are handled. Whether or not the current moderation team is capable of changing that is another question, but largely I don't think anyone believes it is a personnel issue and they instead consider it a numbers issue. Your comment "We're sorry, but life happens." was intended to be dismissive towards those who have complained in this thread but I think touches on a real problem: there isn't enough manpower for total oversight, and any loosening of the reins on how the community can deal with incendiary talking points will come with the natural consequence of fanning instead of dousing the flames. As I mentioned elsewhere, a large portion of the moderator team is publicly on record with admitting that they rely on reports to remain abreast of issues and that they check the reports section infrequently. Daily, but infrequently. That's problematic in a high-volume environment, and loosening member standards a little in the pursuit of allowing the community to resist incendiary behaviour won't lead anywhere fruitful so long as that remains the case.

Calling a spade a spade, and being allowed to call a spade a spade, can only be effective if there's an authority capable of coming along and dealing with the spade. Otherwise, the quality of discussion plummets as a result of everyone becoming an arson instead of only a select few.

Being a moderator, and taking a proactive role in that position, can be mentally taxing. Asking for more from those who are already on the team isn't appropriate, and I don't think any of us are asking for that per se. More work will just lead to an overall less effective team. But some back and forth in regards to community standards and what the future holds would be ideal. The moderators that have participated thus far in this thread have been good with providing talking points when poked enough times but little has actually developed on the dialogue front, at least publicly. If there's an internal discussion going on, there's nothing to show for it, and as of right now it's impossible to suss out what anyone in a position of authority on CFC actually thinks about any of this. It feels very strongly as though the members are being given this one thread to tire themselves out in and the actual underlying problem is being swept under the rug. This is likely not true in reality, but that's how this all comes across.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trolls feed only on responses and discord. If you don't take their bait they will seek out more Target rich environments, even if that means leaving entirely, no?

They thrive when they get under your skin. I know this from being on both sides of the troll fence, so please don't read this as a defense of trolling.

I am certainly familiar with both sides of the troll fence, but I don't agree with you. When I go trolling on the comments section of Breitbarf I don't need anyone to respond to know that my comments are irksome to any Breitbarfoon that reads them. In that echo chamber any dissenting opinion is a violation of their safe space, and besides, it's a comments section with no rules so I'm not shy about just outright namecalling. Sure, it's fun if someone tries to answer the facts I throw at them, and fun if someone thinks they can "win" a name calling exchange, but it's hardly necessary.

We have had plenty of trolls pass through here who operate the same way. There is absolutely no evidence that not confronting them will lead to them "just going away." There may be a case to be made that if everyone pooled together and ignored them they would escalate into something that would be recognizably beyond the rules so they would get infracted (which in itself violates the pooled ignoring), but there's also the reality that putting together such an effort is a 'herding cats' project.

I considered running a demonstration, but how about we just use it as a hypothetical since theoretically at least some of the moderators and staff beyond our two beloved and badly overworked OT mods are paying attention to this thread.

Say I start systematically working my way through the Civ game boards. I search through the current, recent, and even the not terribly long dead threads. ANY thread with a topic that can be in any way related to leaders, leader traits, etc...and let's face it there are gonna be plenty of those...I post something to the effect of "Hitler should definitely be in the game. He was a GREAT leader! One of the best human beings ever to grace this sorry planet." Shift the wording around as I go, so it isn't "spam." It's on topic. It is very unlikely that it would be ignored, and even if it was ignored if I were looking for the satisfaction of knowing that I had been annoying I could easily manufacture it for myself. And there's no question that if I did it again next week it would be even easier to convince myself of how grandly annoying I was. But most likely I'd get flamed and could chuck a few not really flames myself in return.

Now, oddly enough this hypothetical that I chose not to make an actual demonstration of clearly illustrates what I think needs to be done to solve the problem we actually have. It would take about thirty seconds for a mod that frequents the Civ V board to say "This frickin' troll has never even posted here before! He has nothing to contribute, and no interest in contributing anyway. He JUST POSTED in a thread on OT that he doesn't even HAVE Civ V. He is OUTTA HERE like a long fly ball." And rightfully so.

There are people who I have flamed for trolls and gotten in trouble over who do exactly that in OT, and their posting history (which is readily accessible) demonstrates it. This really shouldn't be so hard.

 

[metatron]

1. Moderators are volunteers. We don't get paid for this and we also have lives which come first. That means that we can't always be here all of the time.
2. As far as trolling goes, we can bust everyone who makes a trollish comment, but then guess what? We're accused of over-moderation.

1. The degree to which OT mod staff members show appreciation for the reality that users have real lives, time constraints, crises, pain etc. is subject to significant variance, too.

2. My criticism has been that the staff is overpolicing what staff members will often call "inflamatory" or "offensive", essentially opinions that offend other users, while simultaneously underpolicing very straightforward rule violations like name-calling.
(I deem the former category problematic because it implicitly and inevitable furthers bias and partisanship. I.e. most of the staff wouldn't even know what i would find "extremely offensive" let alone have any willingness to police it.)

Then there are other users who have different views, who want you to do the exact opposite. The reasons may be argued. Maybe i'm right, maybe they are.
The point is: Both know exactly what they want; and what they want is in itself consistent and rather straight forward.
So i'd appreciate it if the staff were to stop implying that people's complaints about moderation policy were naive or badly thought out.
They're not.
Not sure if you meant to do that here, but generally speaking the staff does that a lot.

Moderators are here to make sure that standard is upheld.

What standard? There hardly is any standard anymore.
All that is left is some plurality consensus of feelings about "offensiveness".
And what kind of person one is deemed to be.

Not that that's naturally reinforcing itself or anything...

There is no way to moderate OT with a one-size-fits-all approach. That was the tendency many years ago as @JollyRoger noted. The consensus among posters and staff was that it needed to be relaxed, that context and intent should be taken into consideration, that moderators should *not* be using an iron fist, that we should try to be more nuanced in our approach.

I'm sorry, but the sizes have gotten completely out of hand.
There are effectively different sets of rules by now for for different types of users.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Further to my post above on the issue of ignoring people: Due to the nature of XenForo, if someone on the ignore list happens to start a thread, that thread will be invisible to the person ignoring the OP. There are probably a few threads going on in OT now that I don't even know exist, but only find out because I get a notification of some other sort that someone on my friends list has replied to this thread. If it sounds like it could be an interesting discussion, I'd like to see what it is and if I'd be interested in replying to other posters, or if it's something I can offer help or advice on (I do get asked for help and advice on some matters).

Obviously this can't happen if I'm required to keep the OP on ignore. So this blanket "ignore them completely" order is just not workable for every situation.

 

[metatron]

Further to my post above on the issue of ignoring people: Due to the nature of XenForo, if someone on the ignore list happens to start a thread, that thread will be invisible to the person ignoring the OP. There are probably a few threads going on in OT now that I don't even know exist, but only find out because I get a notification of some other sort that someone on my friends list has replied to this thread. If it sounds like it could be an interesting discussion, I'd like to see what it is and if I'd be interested in replying to other posters, or if it's something I can offer help or advice on (I do get asked for help and advice on some matters).

Obviously this can't happen if I'm required to keep the OP on ignore. So this blanket "ignore them completely" order is just not workable for every situation.

Obviously - you know this - i agree with certain portions of LM's point #6. Or something in that ballpark anyway.
And i feel this makes her point #4 redudant. We surely agree to disagree on that.
I greatly appreciate your objection though, because the staff in general has a tendency to dole out advice based on the inspired notion that we surely haven't thought of the most blindingly obvious thing and/or if the most blindingly obvious thing doesn't work it must be our fault.

 

[Synobun]

What standard? There hardly is any standard anymore.
All that is left is some plurality consensus of feelings about "offensiveness".
And what kind of person one is deemed to be.

This doesn't seem different compared to the past. Just about any robust moderation system will focus on "plurality consensus of feelings about offensiveness", wherein the "offensiveness" is what aligns with accepted thoughts and beliefs in the community's local society. It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that there are people on CFC who are within the plurality consensus you refer to but still get infracted regularly. Even those who adhere to accepted beliefs need to do so in an appropriate way, and when they don't they get dinged.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Obviously - you know this - i agree with certain portions of LM's point #6. Or something in that ballpark anyway.
And i feel this makes her point #4 redudant. We surely agree to disagree on that.
I greatly appreciate your objection though, because the staff in general has a tendency to dole out advice based on the inspired notion that we surely haven't thought of the most blindingly obvious thing and/or if the most blindingly obvious thing doesn't work it must be our fault.

It's a problem most prevalent for long-term staff who have never actually seen and experienced the forum the way the members see and experience it (true of any kind of forum software; I've had to explain to staff how the ignore feature works for members for vBulletin, too).

I wouldn't have had a clue about my birthday thread last year if not for a stray notification, so after tweaking some settings, there it was. Of course it wouldn't be reasonable to expect me to keep my birthday thread invisible, and expecting me to ignore it would have resulted in a lot of miffed people who took the trouble to post very nice birthday wishes to me and there I would have been, just ignoring it all and not thanking anyone.

 

[Synobun]

If i had written about you what you have written about me, repeatedly, i would have looked at bans.
In fact i'd be lucky to come back from them.

So there's that.

Don't get me wrong: I like you. That's in fact what i told you in the face of your unmitigated tirades.
You're a bit emotional at times. Well, fine.
The point is: I can't be. I'm not afforded that humanity. Our dear friends on the staff would come crashing down on me like a cartoonish piano.

Why is this suddenly a personal jab at me? You quoted me and I responded by saying that everyone needs to behave appropriately regardless of their beliefs. Now this is about my unmitigated tirades, my emotional instability, my apparent abuse of you, and the staff's lack of treating you humanely?

I don't understand. How does this connect to the subject at hand?