Is Countertrolling a Troll The Answer

[Max Rockatansky]

I've noticed a trend over the years where someone comes along and engages in similar behavior to MMM.  Every time said person gets the axe they are quickly replaced by someone else who the same thing anew. 

I haven't quite come to my own conclusion if this is just something endemic to the road community.  I occasionally see like behavior in other road groups but it is often swept away fairly quickly due to social media platforms usually having more authoritarian moderation.  In the groups I manage/admin someone who acts as MMM does probably wouldn't make it a week on average. 

Personally I'm not a fan of ignoring stuff and hoping it goes away.  My observation is that said tact just encourages the problem people to fester.  Crash_It is probably the most recent and extreme example of someone where ignoring them didn't work. 

[Scott5114]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

[CoreySamson]

I tend to agree with sprjus4. I've realized that interacting with someone who is a troll or is acting like one is fruitless. I also try to avoid "controversial" threads (Fritzowl thread, MMM threads, Illinois is ___ threads, etc.) so that they don't clutter my unread replies and also because there's no real reason to post in them. I suggest that others do the same.

I do realize that I have engaged in posting in the past that has egged on a troll or needlessly complicated a controversial topic where it was not needed. I apologize if anyone ever was annoyed by that behavior.

[Roadgeekteen]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

Ban personal soapboxes like that one. Nobody should be allowed to create a thread that's just about them rambling. Wouldn't solve the problem but would help.

[Molandfreak]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

"Try to stick to the main topic as much as possible and don't put words in others mouths?"  I really want to solve the problem that's making fictional highways less fun to post in, too...

[Scott5114]

Ban personal soapboxes like that one. Nobody should be allowed to create a thread that's just about them rambling. Wouldn't solve the problem but would help.

How do you define "personal soapbox" in a way that doesn't ban the entire "Minor things that bother you" thread?

[J N Winkler]

Ban personal soapboxes like that one. Nobody should be allowed to create a thread that's just about them rambling. Wouldn't solve the problem but would help.

How do you define "personal soapbox" in a way that doesn't ban the entire "Minor things that bother you" thread?

"Minor things that bother you" is essentially a round-robin based on the principle of sharing.  You talk about your garage door, I talk about my mojibake problem, Zloth talks about whatever is going on with LastPass, and so it goes.

Containment threads have the disadvantage of potentially becoming attractive nuisances, and this seems to have happened with MMM's two to a much greater degree than was ever the case with FritzOwl, for example.

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

In cases where an annoying poster maintains surface compliance with the rules, deciding whether to act and what action to take is inevitably a judgment call to some degree, which is where Jake's approach--the complete opposite of mother-may-I--comes in handy.  One way to finesse this issue may be for a moderator to make a determination that someone is posting excessively--just the fact that MMM threads routinely overspill the "Recent Posts" box points to this happening--and subject that poster to a lower daily posting limit (say just five a day) than is otherwise provided for in the rules.  The poster would then have the opportunity to bail out of the restriction by demonstrating that he or she has useful things to say within that limited posting window.

This system would need some checks and balances to ensure it is fairly applied and doesn't become a vehicle for personal animus.  One such check might be to require buy-in from another moderator who hasn't previously had to act against the poster in question.

[hotdogPi]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

That's why I've mentioned WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE twice before. Do the rules actually need to be objective? Wikipedia works just fine with general guidelines (and a rule saying that intentionally trying to game the system isn't allowed).

As for something that satisfies all four criteria, "can be banned by 2/3 community vote" works.

[Rothman]

I've noticed a trend over the years where someone comes along and engages in similar behavior to MMM.  Every time said person gets the axe they are quickly replaced by someone else who the same thing anew. 

I haven't quite come to my own conclusion if this is just something endemic to the road community.  I occasionally see like behavior in other road groups but it is often swept away fairly quickly due to social media platforms usually having more authoritarian moderation.  In the groups I manage/admin someone who acts as MMM does probably wouldn't make it a week on average. 

Personally I'm not a fan of ignoring stuff and hoping it goes away.  My observation is that said tact just encourages the problem people to fester.  Crash_It is probably the most recent and extreme example of someone where ignoring them didn't work.

From what I saw, your particular engagement with Crash_It filled the forum with your debates.  He was never fully ignored.

[Rothman]

Ban personal soapboxes like that one. Nobody should be allowed to create a thread that's just about them rambling. Wouldn't solve the problem but would help.

How do you define "personal soapbox" in a way that doesn't ban the entire "Minor things that bother you" thread?

I am all for those threads like Fritzowl in a thread or MMM in a thread.  I'd rather only have one to skip rather than twenty.

[kalvado]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

You, as a moderator, have 3 choices here:
1. Exercise your judgement (aka brute force), hit "ban" and endure consequences (not too bad)
2. Keep procrastinating over the thing
3. Seat back and enjoy the show.

From my moderating experiences elsewhere, 2 is the least productive. I usually settle with 3, staying away as much as I can and push against any escalations from either side. Using 1 too much leads to internal tensions within the group...

[wanderer2575]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

You, as a moderator, have 3 choices here:
1. Exercise your judgement (aka brute force), hit "ban" and endure consequences (not too bad)
2. Keep procrastinating over the thing
3. Seat back and enjoy the show.

All of us, as the group of forum users, have a fourth option:  Ignore it and don't respond at all.  I've mentioned that before.  Stop picking at a wound and it will soon go away.

I am all for those threads like Fritzowl in a thread or MMM in a thread.  I'd rather only have one to skip rather than twenty.

If there's a middle ground, which I concede would be fair to a troll, I agree it's this.  (For the record, these are two threads I always skip.)

[kalvado]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

You, as a moderator, have 3 choices here:
1. Exercise your judgement (aka brute force), hit "ban" and endure consequences (not too bad)
2. Keep procrastinating over the thing
3. Seat back and enjoy the show.

All of us, as the group of forum users, have a fourth option:  Ignore it and don't respond at all.  I've mentioned that before.  Stop picking at a wound and it will soon go away.

I am all for those threads like Fritzowl in a thread or MMM in a thread.  I'd rather only have one to skip rather than twenty.

If there's a middle ground, which I concede would be fair to a troll, I agree it's this.  (For the record, these are two threads I always skip.)

Unrealistic , especially given educated troll. Another unrealistic ones are to oversmart or overtroll.

[1995hoo]

The root problem is that there isn't any way I know of to write a fair, airtight rule that says "Don't be annoying". I can call "annoying" when I see it, but if I were to enforce it, I'm going to have to explain to the user exactly how they violated the rule. If it's too unclear or subjective, there's no way I can explain it in a way that won't lead to a pointless circular conversation I don't particularly have time to engage in. I suppose we could assert plenary powers and just ban people by edict the way Jake used to do when he was head admin, but I'm not really comfortable doing that. Absolute power corrupting absolutely and all that.

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

"Don't be annoying" is too vague anyway. I'm sure we've all met people who don't think they're being annoying, or who think that something they're doing is perfectly acceptable, but who simply annoy everyone else regardless of intent. I knew a guy in high school who was like that, so much so that years later when I saw the South Park movie and heard Saddam Hussein's character sing the line, "It's not because I'm evil–I just fuck up, try as I might," I thought of the guy I knew in high school. In his case it was just a lack of common sense. I'll never forget the time he was driving and trying to get this girl's attention, so he bumped her car twice with his car when they were stopped at a red light.

Then you have the case of certain forum members who believe that if something is true (in their minds) it must be acceptable to say, and cannot be annoying, because it is true.

[Scott5114]

That's why I've mentioned WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE twice before. Do the rules actually need to be objective? Wikipedia works just fine with general guidelines (and a rule saying that intentionally trying to game the system isn't allowed).

As for something that satisfies all four criteria, "can be banned by 2/3 community vote" works.

Of course, the problem with the Wikipedia model of governance is, because all of the management decisions are out there for all the world to see, there is no end of drama and in-fighting. That's an acceptable sideshow when there's an end product that everyone is working on, but here, there is no real end product other than hanging out and communicating with one another. And so governance drama has a higher risk of harming the comity of the forum. (That's why the moderator discussions are not held publicly a la ArbCom.)

While I can appreciate the notion of a community vote to ban someone, I don't see how it could be conducted in a way that wouldn't cause a pretty massive amount of drama. If the ban goes through or SNOW-closes, it ends fairly quickly, but imagine the aftermath of a no consensus result.

[GaryV]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

[hotdogPi]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

There's a soft limit of 32, but it's really only a suggestion and isn't even enforced (MMM went over in his early days).

[1995hoo]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

From the "Forum Guidelines" thread, there are what the moderators called something like "post quality rules" that were instituted in part because of a certain now-banned member:

What's not allowed:

....

• Excessive posting. Users posting messages at a high frequency (such as more than 8 posts in an hour or 32 posts over a 24-hour period) may be subject to a temporary cool-down ban if the moderation team judges that a user is making a high rate of low-quality posts.

....

[webny99]

If anyone wants to suggest language for a rule that they think would 1) solve the problem 2) be non-subjective 3) be able to be fairly enforced 4) wouldn't also catch out innocent members of the community that have been here for years, I would be all ears. Max is right that it does seem to be a recurring problem, I just don't know what a solution would be.

This is somewhat parallel to JN Winkler's idea, and I'm not sure if it exactly meets all of these criteria, but how about "Users may not make more than 15 (or 20?) posts in a single thread in a 24-hour period"?

In MMM-style threads, where there's an instigator interacting with several different users all at once, this would target the instigator because they would be likely to reach this threshold well before anyone else in the thread. If there's an ongoing debate between just two users, this could also be used to stop those two users from posting, while allowing the thread to continue. I'm not sure if it's possible to ban users from a particular thread, but even if it's not, a "warning" to those users would probably suffice in most cases.

(Edit: this doesn't seem so original in light of what 1995hoo just posted, but I guess there's no harm in posting it anyways!)

[Scott5114]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

Yes, there is, but it's a soft limit that requires us to manually look at the post history. (1995hoo already quoted it upthread.) The limit given is 32 posts per day, and MMM posted 38 times yesterday. Would him posting 6 fewer times yesterday have really helped matters all that much? I don't know that it would.

The situation that rule was formulated to address is where someone is making a large number of fast, effortless posts that essentially serve as white noise on the forum. It's a bit harder to get it to fit the situation we have at hand; for what it's worth I think it's obvious that MMM does put some degree of effort into the posts he makes. It's just that nearly everyone on the forum seems to think his opinions are badly reasoned and/or flat out wrong.

Unfortunately, I don't really think it's a good idea to set the precedent of banning someone for having stupid opinions. There are a few members on here I disagree with on just about everything. But they're, by and large, good people, and I wouldn't want them to worry they might get shown the door just because I think differently than them. If MMM is operating in good faith, that same courtesy should be extended to him. If he's not...well, that's another discussion.

(If I had my druthers, we could just mark certain threads invisible to the "recent posts" views, so someone could post ten thousand times and nobody would be any the wiser unless they picked that specific thread from the board listing. That probably wouldn't be too hard to code an extension for, but I'm not quite confident enough in my abilities to give it a try.)

[1995hoo]

CNGL-Leudimin once aptly referred to the poster who was perhaps the biggest reason for the "post quality" rules as being a poster who made "quantity-over-quality threads."

Edited to add: In a different thread from the one in which CNGL-Leudimin made that comment, Scott5114 made the following comment to the same poster. It's a pretty good rule of thumb as to how to decide whether a thread is worth starting or a reply is worth posting (all forms of emphasis in original):

The "Peekaboo!" thread was just you saying "I see you". Okay, so–

WHO is going to want to read that thread?
WHAT is going to be posted in it?
WHY would anyone else have a reason to read it?
HOW does that thread's existence benefit anyone but yourself?

Remember, you are not the only person on this forum. Your actions here affect the quality of the forum for everyone else. This isn't a site like Facebook that is so large that nobody will notice what you do. Fill the site with garbage and nobody else will want to come around here. Or you'll get kicked out before it can get to that point.

[Roadgeekteen]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

From the "Forum Guidelines" thread, there are what the moderators called something like "post quality rules" that were instituted in part because of a certain now-banned member:

What's not allowed:

....

• Excessive posting. Users posting messages at a high frequency (such as more than 8 posts in an hour or 32 posts over a 24-hour period) may be subject to a temporary cool-down ban if the moderation team judges that a user is making a high rate of low-quality posts.

....

I believe they were put in place due to Tolbs. Don't think they've been used ever since.

[Max Rockatansky]

Wasn't there at one time a limit to the number of posts a user could make in a day? Or was that some other forum I was on?

From the "Forum Guidelines" thread, there are what the moderators called something like "post quality rules" that were instituted in part because of a certain now-banned member:

What's not allowed:

....

• Excessive posting. Users posting messages at a high frequency (such as more than 8 posts in an hour or 32 posts over a 24-hour period) may be subject to a temporary cool-down ban if the moderation team judges that a user is making a high rate of low-quality posts.

....

I believe they were put in place due to Tolbs. Don't think they've been used ever since.

Yes, it happened at the Peekaboo/Mary Hannah incident.  There was a lot of random GSV links he was posting in rapid succession also.  MMM's closest analogs are have the over-sexualized TNG posts and now this "won't someone think of the children"  stuff he's on now.

[1995hoo]

I believe they were put in place due to Tolbs. Don't think they've been used ever since.

Of course. I just didn't see a need to identify the user. The quoted text from Scott5114 was related to the Peekaboo incident. I didn't use the type of quote tag with a link because the thread in which the quoted text appears is locked and I didn't feel like editing the tags.

[jmacswimmer]

(If I had my druthers, we could just mark certain threads invisible to the "recent posts" views, so someone could post ten thousand times and nobody would be any the wiser unless they picked that specific thread from the board listing. That probably wouldn't be too hard to code an extension for, but I'm not quite confident enough in my abilities to give it a try.)

This would be my ideal solution in a perfect world where bugs weren't a thing - I can definitely understand the concern for adverse affects. I'm in the "stop feeding" camp, and really my biggest gripe at this point is the universe thread clogging up the recent posts list (and more often than not, any other threads on the list are derailed threads such as that hotel one).