Dealing with trolls

[Aquacorde]

I'm going to point out that the initial wording made it rather ambiguous as to whether victims of trolling responding with validated anger would be punished or not. Since it was already clear to many of us that purposefully feeding the trolls was already a punishable offence, we were confused as to why this would need clarification. The conclusion was that staff was intending to silence the people who are prone to being baited rather than working with them to deal with the trolls.

Now, this is not the case. But at the time, that is what it seemed like. So I'm not going to have you come in here and berate us all for misunderstanding when the intent wasn't actually clear. Beyond that, you ARE saying that people who are prone to being riled up should be punished, which is honestly pretty awful. A lot of us discussing in this thread are older, have had more time in the community, and are better at identifying when people are trying to get a rise. However, a lot of PC's demographic is younger with less experience in that. And even a few years makes a huge difference at this point. So whe you say that "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", what you are saying is "those kids that don't know how to handle themselves or get them out of a situation should be punished instead of worked with and helped to understand".

I'm sure you realize that's not cool in the slightest.

 

[moon]

Now, this is not the case. But at the time, that is what it seemed like. So I'm not going to have you come in here and berate us all for misunderstanding when the intent wasn't actually clear. Beyond that, you ARE saying that people who are prone to being riled up should be punished, which is honestly pretty awful. A lot of us discussing in this thread are older, have had more time in the community, and are better at identifying when people are trying to get a rise. However, a lot of PC's demographic is younger with less experience in that. And even a few years makes a huge difference at this point. So whe you say that "people who disrupt the forum's discussion because they're baited into bullmuk should be punished because they're being just as disruptive as the trolls themselves", what you are saying is "those kids that don't know how to handle themselves or get them out of a situation should be punished instead of worked with and helped to understand".

I'm sure you realize that's not cool in the slightest.

Still, staff consists of relatively mature individuals (or so I'd like to believe) who will always do their best to not jump to conclusions and hand out infractions like automatic robots, as I'm sure you know. If you can see the difference between someone purposefully trolling back and someone who is unfortunately buying the trolling, I hope staff can too.

Like you said:

The conclusion was that staff was intending to silence the people who are prone to being baited rather than working with them to deal with the trolls.

maybe that was what it looked like first, but it would be pretty darn evil if that was our true intention. One thing that helps in stopping a troll is simply to make it clear - even for those who didn't quite realize it - that responding in kind is not helping. :)

 

[Nah]

I'm going to point out that the initial wording made it rather ambiguous as to whether victims of trolling responding with validated anger would be punished or not. Since it was already clear to many of us that purposefully feeding the trolls was already a punishable offence, we were confused as to why this would need clarification. The conclusion was that staff was intending to silence the people who are prone to being baited rather than working with them to deal with the trolls.

Now, this is not the case. But at the time, that is what it seemed like. So I'm not going to have you come in here and berate us all for misunderstanding when the intent wasn't actually clear. Beyond that, you ARE saying that people who are prone to being riled up should be punished, which is honestly pretty awful. A lot of us discussing in this thread are older, have had more time in the community, and are better at identifying when people are trying to get a rise. However, a lot of PC's demographic is younger with less experience in that. And even a few years makes a huge difference at this point. So whe you say that "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", what you are saying is "those kids that don't know how to handle themselves or get them out of a situation should be punished instead of worked with and helped to understand".

I agree that the rule wasn't written very well at first and I'm sorry for the confusion it caused.

But about this:

Since it was already clear to many of us that purposefully feeding the trolls was already a punishable offence, we were confused as to why this would need clarification.

That's the thing though, it apparently was not clear to many of you that troll feeding was something to not do, which is why we felt the need to address this in the first place.

And really, I don't see why some people had to lose their shit and start flipping tables about this instead of asking us to clarify what exactly the rule was about or calmly point out issues they see with this rule re-write.

But I think that everyone understands what the rule is really about and how staff is gonna handle this rule now, so there's not much more to say I suppose.

 

[Guardian]

Another really cool thing mods could do is that once they ban a troll, they could also like, I dont know, leave them banned, maybe? I've seen several trolls banned, an then unbanned within FEW DAYS, if not less. That has NOTHING to do with moderators not being here all the time. (I dont know the reasons behind those actions, but that's what I see).

 

[Guardian]

We review users who should be banned case-by-case. Otherwise, most of the bans are automatic. Most trolls have been unbanned in the space of two weeks and some would end up being banned permanently soon after.

Thanks for letting me know. I dont understand though, why would they be banned. I assume that they get banned automatically cos of a big number of reports, but how do they get unbanned?
I am not going to name anyone, but two people I am referring to were clearly trolling, and I dont see how could a moderator go to their profile, see the posts they've made, and figure they should be unbanned?
I actually dont understand how they get unbanned at all, considering amount of spam and troll posts they make, they usually deserve enough points to pass the 9-point limit dozen of times.

Anyway, I think this approach is not completely correct, because people you say are retaliating are usually ( not always) those who really do care about the forums, and while you, moderators, get to ban the trolls and feel like you're doing good for the community, they cant. And it does sound silly, to you, maybe, but just looking at the spam/troll threads and posts, and not being able to do anything but report them (which is not even necessary since the mod who is in charge of the subforum would figure out something is wrong with the thread anyway) because you could get banned for it does NOT feel good. We are not all same, some people are more or less patient, and some people do actually have need to POINT OUT and CONFRONT to those who deserve that.
With rules like this, you might lower the number of conflicts between trolls and members, but you are also discouraging members to help you and are making more ways for trolls to have fun.

If trolls wants to troll, they will find a way to do that, getting in conflicts with other members is not the only way to troll.

To sum this up, encouraging members to ignore the trolls is definitely A WAY TO GO, but threatening with infraction points and consequently banning is kinda crossing the line.

Find a healthy balance, because as you said, moderators are not here 24/7, and if you want members to support you while you're not here, you'll have to support them back and understand them and their actions.

 

[moon]

Thanks for letting me know. I dont understand though, why would they be banned. I assume that they get banned automatically cos of a big number of reports, but how do they get unbanned?
I am not going to name anyone, but two people I am referring to were clearly trolling, and I dont see how could a moderator go to their profile, see the posts they've made, and figure they should be unbanned?
I actually dont understand how they get unbanned at all, considering amount of spam and troll posts they make, they usually deserve enough points to pass the 9-point limit dozen of times.

Anyway, I think this approach is not completely correct, because people you say are retaliating are usually ( not always) those who really do care about the forums, and while you, moderators, get to ban the trolls and feel like you're doing good for the community, they cant. And it does sound silly, to you, maybe, but just looking at the spam/troll threads and posts, and not being able to do anything but report them (which is not even necessary since the mod who is in charge of the subforum would figure out something is wrong with the thread anyway) because you could get banned for it does NOT feel good. We are not all same, some people are more or less patient, and some people do actually have need to POINT OUT and CONFRONT to those who deserve that.
With rules like this, you might lower the number of conflicts between trolls and members, but you are also discouraging members to help you and are making more ways for trolls to have fun.

If trolls wants to troll, they will find a way to do that, getting in conflicts with other members is not the only way to troll.

To sum this up, encouraging members to ignore the trolls is definitely A WAY TO GO, but threatening with infraction points and consequently banning is kinda crossing the line.

Find a healthy balance, because as you said, moderators are not here 24/7, and if you want members to support you while you're not here, you'll have to support them back and understand them and their actions.

I see where you are coming from. But one of the reasons we have appointed staff at all is so that members will not go around and call each other out on things and create a rough atmosphere in the forums. We, staff, are not perfect, no. But if every member, wise and mature or not, was allowed to argue with trolls or even hand out infractions as they saw fit, would you really feel safe and free on this forum? Reporting is the fastest way to help, at least up until now we haven't figured out a better system.

 

[Guardian]

I see where you are coming from. But one of the reasons we have appointed staff at all is so that members will not go around and call each other out on things and create a rough atmosphere in the forums. We, staff, are not perfect, no. But if every member, wise and mature or not, was allowed to argue with trolls or even hand out infractions as they saw fit, would you really feel safe and free on this forum? Reporting is the fastest way to help, at least up until now we haven't figured out a better system.

I completely understand and agree with you, but you have to understand that members are not forum robots. When they report, they do it cos they feel something, some people feel angered, some annoyed, some saddened. And the problem is that not everyone deal with those feeling the same way. Some will ignore them, some will have those feelings emphasized and feel the need to react harsher.
I mean this is a really complex issue and I could go on and on about it but Im too lazy.
The point is, you cant expect all the members to behave the same way, and you cant treat them the same way you treat trolls just because they want to help or want to do more then just report. It can backfire in many ways, from members caring less to trolls finding new rules' loopholes. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Aquacorde]

Just a few things—a sudden swift attack on the policy without actively seeking clarification isn't helping either. It's not the best action to make it sound like you're the one being targeted by this.

When you're in the schoolyard, when someone's picking on you, what's the teacher's suggestion? It generally goes like this: if you fight back, you're equally to blame. It's human nature to react, and it's also a sign of maturity to deal with it proper—and we're simply telling you how. (The effectiveness of anti-bullying tactics in schools is for another discussion.)

We will give you tips on how to avoid an issue like such. Some of you are prone, and we recognise that too. Know that staff have always exercised discretion and their best judgment in dealing with matters—in no point have we purposely tried not to, and while you may have personal qualms with the staff themselves, I would hope you'd try to recognise that too.

First off, I'm going to point out that the reply you quoted was an attempt to have daigonite and others understand where my point if coming from rather than attacking dissenters without context.

I would also like to point out that my first post in this thread was a question of further clarification, which I do not believe could be interpreted as an attack on policy.
"So is trolling itself still going to be handled on a case-by-case basis, with more staff follow-up with members involved? It's been my experience that anything but outright trolling is mostly dismissed, and even outright trolling not always given as much consideration as would be appreciated."

My second post gave more of an insight into why the phrasing of the rules bothered me, and further explored the multiple sides of the argument. My opinions on staff behaviour may not be fully relevant, but my experiences with staff handling of trolling is a valid thing to bring up in this thread.

My third post was a further request for assurance that people who are prone to trolling be helped rather than punished.

Despite staff opinions on me personally, all of my posts have been valid questions and requests for clarifications. So please do not act as if I have a personal vendetta that I am bringing to this thread or that I am using it as a platform to rage against staff.

 

[Omicron]

I completely understand and agree with you, but you have to understand that members are not forum robots. When they report, they do it cos they feel something, some people feel angered, some annoyed, some saddened. And the problem is that not everyone deal with those feeling the same way. Some will ignore them, some will have those feelings emphasized and feel the need to react harsher.
I mean this is a really complex issue and I could go on and on about it but Im too lazy.
The point is, you cant expect all the members to behave the same way, and you cant treat them the same way you treat trolls just because they want to help or want to do more then just report. It can backfire in many ways, from members caring less to trolls finding new rules' loopholes. That's all I'm saying.

This is why it will be treated on a case to case basis. The point here is that members have intentionally trolled the trolls/baited the trolls/insulted the trolls knowing the repercussions it may have and they thought that because the user in question was a troll, the rules didn't apply. But they do apply and that is what has been tried to been clarified here. If you're not doing anything on purpose to have a response from the troll, insult them when you weren't involved in the issue, trolling them back, there'll be no problem at all. Even then, you won't get an infraction immediately. First there'll be PMs and warnings, if it continues then an infraction would come in hand, but we don't think it'll ever need to get to that.

 

[Nah]

The problem with members trying to deal with trolls themselves is that you're doing exactly what the troll wants you to do. Just think for a moment what would happen if no one ever posted in a thread made by a troll, if no one ever VM'd a troll. The troll would begin to starve and leave. If they don't, then we bringth the banhammer upon them.

I know that people have emotions and wanna help, but members confronting trolls never has and never will make things better. I'd like to think that there's plenty of mature individuals on PC, and mature people aren't completely ruled by their emotions and just lash out at trolls.

And no one is getting infracted simply for interacting with a troll. We've more or less decided that how we're going to handle people getting confrontational with trolls is first to send them a PM about it, and if they persist after that PM, then the get yellow carded. If they still keep it up after that, THEN comes the infraction. But I'd like to think that we shouldn't have to get to the infraction point.

This is not about punishing people who wanna help.

 

[Dragon]

I completely understand and agree with you, but you have to understand that members are not forum robots. When they report, they do it cos they feel something, some people feel angered, some annoyed, some saddened. And the problem is that not everyone deal with those feeling the same way. Some will ignore them, some will have those feelings emphasized and feel the need to react harsher.

Yeah, which is why, again, that we're not going to punish members for anger. Even if things get more nasty than just the expected aftermath argument, or heck, when people are intentionally egging them on, thaaaaats when we just tell them politely to cool it, and even again, we're not punishing them. Its when that members commit rule-breaking offenses themselves that we have to act, just to stop a situation from escalating further.

It's just recommended that everyone keeps a cool head. We understand that things can get out of their control, which is why we're just stepping in to break everything apart before they get worse, y'know? Because no one wants heated conflicts, right?

I mean this is a really complex issue and I could go on and on about it but Im too lazy. The point is, you cant expect all the members to behave the same way, and you cant treat them the same way you treat trolls just because they want to help or want to do more then just report. It can backfire in many ways, from members caring less to trolls finding new rules' loopholes. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, and again, we understand that, but you have to understand that there's really no reason to engage trolls in any sort of fashion, because.. what are you going to get from it? Why take it upon yourself to dive in a gross situation that serves no benefit to not only you, but to the community? All we're asking for is to stay as calm as you can and we'll handle the rest.

 

[Guardian]

Yeah, which is why, again, that we're not going to punish members for anger. Even if things get more nasty than just the expected aftermath argument, or heck, when people are intentionally egging them on, thaaaaats when we just tell them politely to cool it, and even again, we're not punishing them. Its when that members commit rule-breaking offenses themselves that we have to act, just to stop a situation from escalating further.

It's just recommended that everyone keeps a cool head. We understand that things can get out of their control, which is why we're just stepping in to break everything apart before they get worse, y'know? Because no one wants heated conflicts, right?



Yes, and again, we understand that, but you have to understand that there's really no reason to engage trolls in any sort of fashion, because.. what are you going to get from it? Why take it upon yourself to dive in a gross situation that serves no benefit to not only you, but to the community? All we're asking for is to stay as calm as you can and we'll handle the rest.

I got infraction points (accidentally though) for that reason but they were reversed. I also got warnings and the yellow cards and whatnot. That was before, but I know it has been happening.

Anyway, I agree with all of you, I just wanted to make sure you guys are aware of other points of view.

I'm glad you guys are constantly working on issues and improving the system.

Peace :)

 

[Nick]

As for how we deal with trolls, we'll be reviewing the ways we handle them as we do a major rewrite of our rules. I suppose I've got a better idea of what members expect, so I'll look into this deeper.

This is all I care about and wanted out on my replies. My point in replying to this thread was to express my disapproval more-so for not addressing trolls directly, but rather the people who reply to them.

I remember the HQ post where we actually discussed making trolling a punishable offense and that was four years ago. So when a change finally comes around, and I see that it has more to do with the members than the troll, then that upsets me. Ideally, all I would like to see is for the staff to stop treating trolls like they treat members because trolls are an annoyance and are unwelcome contributions to our forum.

No, we haven't had a ton of trolls, but we've had enough to warrant some consideration for alternative ways of dealing with them.

My biggest issue lies in this:

They're given the same number of infraction points as people who disrespect members. That also is something that upsets me as well considering that's what the infraction people who reply to them will be getting for disrespecting them. It's not appropriate to respond to them the way that sometimes members do, no, but the prospect of getting punished for posting to someone who was only here to cause trouble being a troll yourself bothers me.

Members are banned when they join to advertise. Right on the spot. But trolls are given leniency until they reach the infraction limit and are banned then, just the same as everyone else. If a troll is smart, they'll wait it out until an infraction or two goes away. And then cause more trouble down the road. And even then, they're banned for a limited amount of time unless officially discussed to perma ban them. I just feel like that shouldn't be necessary.

A troll should be able to be banned at a moment's notice, because many times trolls are pretty obvious. No, you won't always get it right, but that's what the ban appeals forum is for. Sensible members will understand that we want to have an atmosphere here without conflict if they're banned on the suspicion of being a troll. In the event they are banned, they'll know that they did something to seriously disrupt the community and were banned under suspicion of being a troll: someone who is only here to disrupt the community.

 

[Oryx]

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. :/

Just wanted to chime in here and point out that if the staff didn't want replies, the post could have been posted as a locked thread or a locked addition to the small changes thread. If every post that wasn't a question or a poll was never responded to, then the forum would probably not exist.

Saying "I agree with the staff decision" is one thing. Saying "I agree with the staff decision and I think everyone who disagrees should shut up" is an entire other thing.

 

[Captain Fabio]

They're given the same number of infraction points as people who disrespect members. That also is something that upsets me as well considering that's what the infraction people who reply to them will be getting for disrespecting them. It's not appropriate to respond to them the way that sometimes members do, no, but the prospect of getting punished for posting to someone who was only here to cause trouble being a troll yourself bothers me.

This is something that I agree with. I feel there is a large difference between someone actively going out of their way to abuse/disrespect a member and someone who is baited into a reaction. While it might not make it right, there are certain parameters that should be taken into account. I feel that the 'infraction' should be lower.​

​

 

[Mana1]

Who said trolls aren't banned immediately? I don't know how much I can disclose but I'll at least say that higher staff are not waiting for infractions to build up with the more obvious trolls.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Who said trolls aren't banned immediately? I don't know how much I can disclose but I'll at least say that higher staff are not waiting for infractions to build up with the more obvious trolls.

Well, if the same ideals are in place when I was on the H-Staff, obvious trolls that joined to troll are banned, but others who are more crafty and plant the seeds are not looked at. A good few amount of times, they are 'established' members of the community, but for the wrong reason, but they wind up with warnings and sometimes infractions... trust me, I use to be a moronic troll.

It is a weird situation and ruling to be put in place, in my opinion. But, if it can help deal with the situation, then that's good, but I don't think it will. I feel infractions will be handed out to people who are trying to defend themselves due to being hurt/offended/whatever, which will just make them feel more alienated for trying to stand up for themselves. It's like being at school, someone is bullying you and when you stand up for yourself, you get told off and get in trouble for defending your honour. The example might be an over statement, but there are similarities in my mind.​

​

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

Well, if the same ideals are in place when I was on the H-Staff, obvious trolls that joined to troll are banned, but others who are more crafty and plant the seeds are not looked at. A good few amount of times, they are 'established' members of the community, but for the wrong reason, but they wind up with warnings and sometimes infractions... trust me, I use to be a moronic troll.

It is a weird situation and ruling to be put in place, in my opinion. But, if it can help deal with the situation, then that's good, but I don't think it will. I feel infractions will be handed out to people who are trying to defend themselves due to being hurt/offended/whatever, which will just make them feel more alienated for trying to stand up for themselves. It's like being at school, someone is bullying you and when you stand up for yourself, you get told off and get in trouble for defending your honour. The example might be an over statement, but there are similarities in my mind.​

​

There is such a thing as turning the other cheek though. That's what I feel is what we should be trying to aim for here as part of this new amendment. Sure, some people might not like that, but personally that's a good life lesson to try to have when it comes to interactions. Ill just say it: people sometimes need to learn to control their emotions at times, and I don't think saying "I got caught in the moment" is a good excuse.

That's just my personal view of the situation and how as people we should try to act.

 

[Nah]

Well, if the same ideals are in place when I was on the H-Staff, obvious trolls that joined to troll are banned, but others who are more crafty and plant the seeds are not looked at. A good few amount of times, they are 'established' members of the community, but for the wrong reason, but they wind up with warnings and sometimes infractions... trust me, I use to be a moronic troll.

It is a weird situation and ruling to be put in place, in my opinion. But, if it can help deal with the situation, then that's good, but I don't think it will. I feel infractions will be handed out to people who are trying to defend themselves due to being hurt/offended/whatever, which will just make them feel more alienated for trying to stand up for themselves. It's like being at school, someone is bullying you and when you stand up for yourself, you get told off and get in trouble for defending your honour. The example might be an over statement, but there are similarities in my mind.​

​

I don't see why anyone should feel the need to defend their honor against a troll. It's a troll.

But that's not the point. The point is that this rule re-write is NOT targeted at members who become victims of trolls. It's targeted at the members who deliberately go out of their way to be disrespectful and/or feed the troll. That's the kind of thing we've seen happening more and more lately, not people standing up for themselves against trolls.

All we are asking is for y'all to stop feeding the goddamn trolls. We are not all sitting here with red cards at the ready to infract the first person who so much as says hello to a troll. Infraction is not the first thing on our list of things to do in regards to people confronting trolls, as has been said more than once in this thread.

I really want to get past this "zomg why u guys punishing the poor people who're troll victims?!" thing so we can start talking about actual issues like identifying trolls and how staff should respond to them.

 

[Aquacorde]

And the point multiple people are attempting to get across here is that 1) the original clarification was not very clear. 2) people who troll the trolls should be treated as trolls themselves. 3) staff should work with those prone to being trolled rather than punish them. 4) the point of having rules against trolling is to help protect the members we care about.

I would like to add in reference to Matt 5) we have many young people here who are a) hormonal, b) inexperienced, and c) emotional and therefore it's really pretty difficult for them to suck it up and control their emotions. The reason I continue to request that staff work with rather than punish the troll victims is so that they may continue to have an environment where they can learn lessons like this without feeling victimized or alienated, like what Will mentioned.

I will also add 6) for Zekrom: I assure you, we realize what is being asked at this point. It has been repeated many times by staff members. But as I said, some people don't realize they are feeding trolls. Some can't get themselves out of the situation. Sometimes it takes a little bit of work on the part of staff to help those caught in the moment.

What I'm mainly getting at is this: the rule would be clearer if it had been said "those who egg on or troll the trolls qualify as trolls themselves and shall be punished as such. If anyone thinks they have a troll on their hands, please report it so that staff may deal with them quickly. If anyone is being trolled and is getting upset, please contact staff so they may work with you on this issue." All I want is the valued members of the community to be helped. That is what staff are here for, are they not? To resolve problems by working with people? Not everything can be resolved with an infraction or ban.

And honestly, in regards to Zekrom's last point, I think I would have liked to see work on troll identification and dealing with the trolls first. Address the cause, not the symptoms, right?