Dealing with trolls

[£]

When the obvious ones are rampant and are simply being patiently attended to rather than quickly swiped off, that bugs the living daylights out of me. How that guy simply got unbanned for being a blatant troll/wasn't quickly removed after making his intent clear was baffling to me. With a post like this it was never going to be a simple case of him completely reforming in the space of a fortnight, and I believe there should have been a one strike policy on him at even this point.

Okay, I was wrong to turn the tables on that particular troll, and I am sorry about causing any hassle for anyone by doing that as there was only one person who deserved any hassle. tbh I'd have been surprised if he hadn't been reported at least 10 times by this point and it felt like a standing joke that they were still around even though it was apparent to everybody.

I completely agree with Nick on the front of trolls being treated differently; if they've established intent to simply disrupt others/not contribute to the community, why take so much time to gently ease them through it? They're only going to claim it's an "unfair ban" regardless of how many times they've been permitted to violate the rules.

It's like giving a yellow card out for two footed tackles for no purpose other than breaking someone's leg. Is this the sort of refereeing people would simply stay calm about in sport? I can't imagine so, and I feel the comparison is very accurate in this case.

I'm going to do my best to leave them be, and I'm going to leave this be, but if this is simply going to turn into a culture where someone can get away with 10+ posts solely seeking to antagonise without removal/retort, then I'll probably end up working my way off this forum one way or another. This particular recent troll was not even subtle. If they were more subtle about it, I'd understand running them through the system if intent hadn't been established.

I've read through the rest of the topic, and if the issue is that only a small number of people can actually ban these people and that time is needed to review it, perhaps it would be a good idea to give non h-staff a way to briefly put a troll out of play? Is moderator approval on comments/posts for up to 24 hours a possibility for non h-staff to have? You'll get the intent quite clearly when you're reviewing any subsequent posts they attempt to make, and you'll have time to discuss it, they don't get the satisfaction of a response, and the drivel doesn't touch the forum in the first place. It's win-win-win-win, right?

 

[bcrobert]

I understand the people who are worried that the current policies are too forgiving, but we won't know how well the system works if nobody follows it. I agree that we need to give the staff more chances to resolve these situations. We've no right to complain about established systems if they aren't being used correctly by members. Just remember that a fight between a troll and a self-styled mini-mod never ends because only real moderators have the power to end it.

Just wanted to get that out there before this topic derails. The policy isn't phrased as a question and it isn't a poll. Sorry if siding with the staff makes me sound like a teacher's pet, but seriously guys. :/

 

[Guardian]

Ah, my name is all over this thread.

I agree with Patchisou Yutohru, who I assume is Nick.

It's definitely not a good idea to add oil to the fire and I already apologized for that every time I got a warning or infraction points, but as someone said, there would be less of these conflicts if trolls would be identified and dealt with faster.
This forum should be open to everyone, true, but come on, some trolls are obvious trolls.
Making a list of known members who should be banned, parent making an account to complain about a certain mod for supposed harassing. I know you cant just ban someone out of the blue, but then you should add info to the forums' rules that will specify what is considered as trolling, how it's going to be handled, and be in total control of it.
I dont know if any of this makes sense but there, that's how I see it.
If it makes any difference, Im not planning to get in conflicts with any future trolls anymore, or at least I'll try not to.
Peace

 

[Abnegation]

Gonna make this short and sweet as possible. This addition to the rules will likely never result in an infraction of a member, unless said member was to really go too far. It should be staff's policy to first PM a member regarding the issue, if they are arguing with a "troll" or participating in a flame war, then it should be up to a staff member to shy them away from that before ever considering action against the member.

Now on the matter of "not acting quick enough", there is a number of parameters here to be fair. The first is that staff aren't on 24/7, and much less HQ-staff who have the power to outright ban members (or trolls). So we may not act immediately, so it may come down to Moderators to try and keep the peace as best they can until the situation is resolved by a Super Moderator or Administrator.

The second most notable parameter is that it's sometimes hard to see the difference between someone who is "a troll" and someone who isn't following the rules. If we were to ban everyone completely on the subjective, then we could end up banning people too lightly and that does nothing but create a sour note between members and staff that could otherwise be resolved by a peaceful conquest.

I don't believe this rule will be used to punish members, but to deter them from attempting to get involved in public arguments. The best way to handle a troll is to steer clear and not get on the offence. So I'm confident infractions won't be given out, however there may be a rare case where a member completely ignores a staff member's council in stepping out of a baiting from a troll.

Bottom line is to not panic about this, it's simply a resolution in which we hope to achieve by asking members to avoid disrespect even if it's towards a troll. A troll may be someone who is here to cause problems but, disrespect to any member is still disrespect and nobody should have to see that.

 

[£]

I've read through the rest of the topic, and if the issue is that only a small number of people can actually ban these people and that time is needed to review it, perhaps it would be a good idea to give non h-staff a way to briefly put a troll out of play? Is moderator approval on comments/posts for up to 24 hours a possibility for non h-staff to have? You'll get the intent quite clearly when you're reviewing any subsequent posts they attempt to make, and you'll have time to discuss it, they don't get the satisfaction of a response, and the drivel doesn't touch the forum in the first place. It's win-win-win-win, right?

I'm very happy with the clarifications and such and I have confidence that things will be handled well. I feel my suggestion (above) may have been a bit overlooked in the wall of text I posted at the bottom of the previous page, and that might be particularly beneficial with regards to freezing a situation on the spot and making these cases much more manageable and small-scale?

I'm not saying it's something that I feel MUST be done but I really think it's worth some consideration at the very least.

 

[Abnegation]

Luck Hax, certainly something to consider. It's a bit complicated because Moderators are limited to managing their sections, but perhaps if there's a troll in their section they should have the option to "lock" a member from posting until there is a decision made. As it could be a decent resolution while staff attempt to resolve the situation properly.

That said, it's a bit of a messy situation if we were to put ourselves in it. I'm not entirely sure this crops up frequently enough to start implementing systems to prevent it but, never say never.

One thing I was talking to the Moderator team about was making a Moderator Guideline for helping them deal with trolls. Since we have a decorum on how to handle these situations as Super Moderators and Administrators, I see no harm in giving Moderators some form of ammunition on how to deal with trolls.

So in essence I certainly agree with you, but I believe staff may need to discuss on how best to set up such guidelines to ensure fair outcomes.

 

[bcrobert]

Luck Hax, certainly something to consider. It's a bit complicated because Moderators are limited to managing their sections, but perhaps if there's a troll in their section they should have the option to "lock" a member from posting until there is a decision made. As it could be a decent resolution while staff attempt to resolve the situation properly.

On a smaller scale it could be as simple as locking the member in question out of just a specific thread until the case can be reviewed. (If that functionality can be added.) Most troll attacks are concentrated, so removing their playing field without really banning them might actually work. They may not be willing to quit and rejoin under a different name when they realize their attacks aren't going anywhere. It wouldn't give section moderators too much more power, and it has potential as a deterrent.

 

[JustAnotherIllusion]

I've seen many a troll being fed in my day, so I'm glad this is being implemented. The less they are fed, the less they will excrete, I guess...

That is possibly the best analogy ever.

 

[Ooka]

This will definitely take care of all the trolls, good job.

 

[Aquacorde]

I would appreciate assurance that members who do get involved with trolls will be reached out to by staff as soon as possible to try and talk them down. Those who are blatantly egging on trolls are clearly trolls themselves and I think should fall under that umbrella, but victims of the trolls need to be dealt with much differently.

 

[Dragon]

I would appreciate assurance that members who do get involved with trolls will be reached out to by staff as soon as possible to try and talk them down. Those who are blatantly egging on trolls are clearly trolls themselves and I think should fall under that umbrella, but victims of the trolls need to be dealt with much differently.

Yeah, I think that's what we're going for here - I thiiiink there has been a miscommunication here with the whole point of this thread. XD

I don't think we're going to instinctively punish people just because they're angry with a troll. That'll be silly! And of course, there's a clear difference between people who are victims of trolls, and those who are just egging trolls on which each situation will be resolved in accordance. We just don't want a situation escalated further so that it'll be easier to deal with situations and problems involving trolls, y'know?

 

[Sydian]

I would appreciate assurance that members who do get involved with trolls will be reached out to by staff as soon as possible to try and talk them down. Those who are blatantly egging on trolls are clearly trolls themselves and I think should fall under that umbrella, but victims of the trolls need to be dealt with much differently.

That's my personal plan on handling these situations, pretty much.

 

[Abnegation]

Like I said previously and to reiterate again as well as back up Syd and Dragon; punishment of members who interact with trolls is extremely unlikely unless said members completely ignore the efforts of staff members who try to intervene.

I would personally reverse any infractions given to someone who egged on a troll and didn't receive a PM/verbal warning not to first.

 

[Bellsprout]

here's to my once a month laughter gone

 

[Galmar]

No more fun for trolls anymore

 

[Aeroblast]

There's a button up at the top right for reporting troll/flame posts. Use it, people.

 

[Livewire]

It's not that we're penalizing people for being angry with trolls. These rules are meant to address a few recent episodes where some people took things too far and outright trolled the troll right back. That is what isn't ok, and needs to stop. Just hit the report button and let us take it from there.

It's not that we aren't dealing with the actual trolls themselves, because we have been dealing with most of them that I can think of rather quickly, although I will admit that I think we could be a little tougher/quicker in dealing with some of them.

 

[Tek]

I get where Patchisou is coming from. At the same time, removing people who start crap (trolls) and discouraging others from perpetuating that crap are complimentary strategies. I think having both will work better than either alone.

I don't think we're talking about victim blaming; we're recognizing that there are two parties involved in every argument.

 

[Polar Spectrum]

I can dig this.

I think some disgruntled critics of this amendment would be keen to note that it says nothing about altering existing punishment for trolls, by the way. In case it had been forgotten immediately upon reading - or wrongfully assumed that that was the case. I'm pretty sure it's still highly punishable.

Staff aren't omnipresent. We outnumber them, and their eyes. The report button is a more effective retaliation than any retort you could type out to a troll.

Flipping.

Use it.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I can't believe that people seriously took a thread saying "don't feed the trolls" and made it about "victim blaming". 2014 is ending on a swell note.

Anyways I don't really see what's wrong with it since it causes a lot of disruption and yeah, nobody gives a shit about someone getting your panties in a twist. I have not seen a problem at all with trolls not being punished for their actions on this forum ever and I've been around here for almost 6 years. People who disrupt the forum's discussion because they're baited into bullshit should be punished because they're being just as disruptive as the trolls themselves.

It's like telling people to not put gasoline on a kitchen fire, it's not that hard people. Just because it's a liquid doesn't mean it will make the problem better, just because it makes you feel better temporarily doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do.

Telling people to not feed the trolls is basic internet etiquette. They do it so they can get a rise out of you. Use the report button and leave the whining to skype or something.

Probably should be more of a warning than 4 freakin points (I'm pretty sure my censor bypass when I was a 2edgy4me 15 year old was only like 1 point) but yeah that's just my two cents.