Is Countertrolling a Troll The Answer

[kphoger]

When I flew from Cap Haitien to Miami, we got to the airport an hour earlier than we needed to since the President of Haiti had eliminated DST a couple weeks prior but American Airlines was unaware of the fact and had the schedule wrong because of it.

This is actually of particular concern to me.  This summer, I'm taking a group trip in which some people are flying to Mexico and others are driving.  Those of us who are driving will be staying the night north of the border, then meeting the others at the Monterrey airport, then driving 170 miles west from there.  On the return trip, their flight is scheduled to depart at 10 AM, which means we'll need to leave town at like 5 AM in order to get them to the airport on time.  If United Airlines erroneously thinks Mexico will be on DST, then that might not only affect what time we need to leave in the morning, but it also might affect their connection in Houston.

I guess I'd better look into this...

I'm guessing, especially since AA flies to many destinations in Mexico, that they'll be a little more aware of the situation than they were of Haiti, a place they flew to two locations. Also, they have a lot more notice in your case.

So, I just checked.  Flights were booked on February 27, and the flight times on Travelocity as seen today match up to the minute.  I also did the math, and it's clear that United Airlines has correctly taken into account the elimination of DST in Mexico.  Wichita, Houston, and Monterrey are all in the same time zone, yet IAH→MTY arrives just 34 minutes after departure, whereas MTY→IAH arrives 2 hours 28 minutes after departure.  Clearly, each flight takes 1½ hours, but they're accounting for the difference between CDT and CST.

Whew!

Now I just need to correct my driving itinerary.  Unless my head is on backwards, I believe this means that, instead of getting to the airport an hour after they touch down, we'll actually get there on time.  Yay!

[J N Winkler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition may have some useful insight.

Another Wikipedia page explains the problems moderators face in handling trolls (or other problem users) who maintain surface compliance with the rules.

Why?  I understand wanting to be fair and ethical, but limiting yourselves to a list of discrete rules isn't the same thing as being fair and ethical.  That is to say, it is perfectly possible to be fair and ethical while banning a troll who hasn't technically broken any rules.  This isn't a court of law:  it's an internet forum, and common sense can carry the day just as easily as technicalities.

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

It was certainly conceptually possible to ban MMM on that basis.  It wouldn't even have been necessary to say something asshole-ish like "Because you were an asshole"--a formulation like "In our judgment, your posts fail to contribute to comity on the forum" would have sufficed.  But how many members would be comfortable with us running the forum in that way?  For better or for worse, the rules have evolved into an indirect mechanism for holding moderators to account.

[kalvado]

I don't understand why a state on the western edge of the time zone is trying to do this.

We like our late sunsets. Go to the Panhandle and it's annoying to see the sun set at 7:30 in July.

Permanent DST doesn't even affect the time in July.

Overall this is not about "western edge", this is about "too far south". Dst works for certain band of longitude. Too far south and there is too little change from summer to winter. Too far north, and it's a polar day or night anyway.

[JoePCool14]

There is something oddly poetic about this thread about trolls turning into another classic DST thread.

[kphoger]

It wouldn't even have been necessary to say something asshole-ish like "Because you were an asshole"--a formulation like "In our judgment, your posts fail to contribute to comity on the forum" would have sufficed.

Or just not even respond at all.

But how many members would be comfortable with us running the forum in that way?

In general, I doubt most of us would be OK with that as a general m.o.  However, I don't see that as precluding non-standard emergency action.

For better or for worse, the rules have evolved into an indirect mechanism for holding moderators to account.

But it's a set of rules that is created and edited by the moderators, is it not?  When moderators perceived a problem with discussion of sexuality and gender identity, the solution was to add a rule.  When moderators perceived a problem with excessive posting, the solution was to add a rule.  The forum guidelines are hardly a mechanism for holding moderators to account, when the moderators can change the forum guidelines–at least any more than the community of moderators already hold each other to account as it is.  I don't see a substantive difference between these two scenarios:

1.  Perceived problem arises, moderators discuss, moderator consensus is reached that adding a new forum guideline is appropriate, new rule is added, forum member continues in problematic behavior, member is warned by moderators, member persists, ban is issued

2.  Perceived problem arises, moderators discuss, no new rule is added, member is warned my moderators, member persists, ban is issued

[kalvado]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition may have some useful insight.

Another Wikipedia page explains the problems moderators face in handling trolls (or other problem users) who maintain surface compliance with the rules.

Why?  I understand wanting to be fair and ethical, but limiting yourselves to a list of discrete rules isn't the same thing as being fair and ethical.  That is to say, it is perfectly possible to be fair and ethical while banning a troll who hasn't technically broken any rules.  This isn't a court of law:  it's an internet forum, and common sense can carry the day just as easily as technicalities.

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

It was certainly conceptually possible to ban MMM on that basis.  It wouldn't even have been necessary to say something asshole-ish like "Because you were an asshole"--a formulation like "In our judgment, your posts fail to contribute to comity on the forum" would have sufficed.  But how many members would be comfortable with us running the forum in that way?  For better or for worse, the rules have evolved into an indirect mechanism for holding moderators to account.

In a grand scheme of things, this is why 3 branches of power do exist. Not that having so much bureaucracy is a good idea for small forum, yet general rules vs actual implementation vs conflict arbitration is what you are talking about.
Pure IMHO, but I don't feel the ban on "asshole" basis would be seen as capricious given many people were asking for that. I am the minority, who thinks ban wasn't needed, but I still agree that popular vote went that way.
Again, as a pure IMHO, using rarely enforced rules - be it "you're talking crap, but that's not the ban reason" or "You're driving 5 MPH over, and I suspect you have drugs in your car - so everyone else may drive +15, but not you" are not the way to earn reputation of  unbiased enforcer. Pure IMHO, again.

[hbelkins]

.... I don't have fun engaging with trolls but I often can't stop myself from doing so. I also wouldn't call FritzOwl a troll IMO.I also have a tendency to try to "fix" the trolls and turn them into reliable members of the forum. ....

This one has always hit home for me. I have an almost allergic reaction to untruths and falsehoods. It gets under my skin to see blatant lies repeated as gospel, and it takes a great deal of willpower not to correct each instance I see. There's a particular one that's centered on Kentucky that occasionally floats to the surface, and it really irks me to see it.

[Rothman]

.... I don't have fun engaging with trolls but I often can't stop myself from doing so. I also wouldn't call FritzOwl a troll IMO.I also have a tendency to try to "fix" the trolls and turn them into reliable members of the forum. ....

This one has always hit home for me. I have an almost allergic reaction to untruths and falsehoods. It gets under my skin to see blatant lies repeated as gospel, and it takes a great deal of willpower not to correct each instance I see. There's a particular one that's centered on Kentucky that occasionally floats to the surface, and it really irks me to see it.

And yet, everyone is suckered in by a lie and thinking it is truth every now and then...

[webny99]

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

See, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Maybe I'm giving MMM too much credit, but I don't think he was anywhere close to the worst version of an internet troll.

What, pray tell, outside of blatant racism, sexism, or some other ism, would be worse? Just posting pictures of dead puppies or something?

Most other trolls on this forum have been much worse. Stating their ideas/beliefs as fact and forcing them on others, constant use of profanity, personal attacks on other users, etc. etc. MMM was highly annoying and posted questionable content at best, but I don't think his intentions were as malicious as your typical troll. The fact that he lasted for almost six months speaks to that, as the type of behaviors mentioned above would have led to a ban immediately or within days at most.

[kalvado]

.... I don't have fun engaging with trolls but I often can't stop myself from doing so. I also wouldn't call FritzOwl a troll IMO.I also have a tendency to try to "fix" the trolls and turn them into reliable members of the forum. ....

[ image ]

This one has always hit home for me. I have an almost allergic reaction to untruths and falsehoods. It gets under my skin to see blatant lies repeated as gospel, and it takes a great deal of willpower not to correct each instance I see. There's a particular one that's centered on Kentucky that occasionally floats to the surface, and it really irks me to see it.

And yet, everyone is suckered in by a lie and thinking it is truth every now and then...

There are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, statistics, and The Truth.

[Roadgeekteen]

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

See, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Maybe I'm giving MMM too much credit, but I don't think he was anywhere close to the worst version of an internet troll.

What, pray tell, outside of blatant racism, sexism, or some other ism, would be worse? Just posting pictures of dead puppies or something?

Most other trolls on this forum have been much worse. Stating their ideas/beliefs as fact and forcing them on others, constant use of profanity, personal attacks on other users, etc. etc. MMM was highly annoying and posted questionable content at best, but I don't think his intentions were as malicious as your typical troll. The fact that he lasted for almost six months speaks to that, as the type of behaviors mentioned above would have led to a ban immediately or within days at most.

Or maybe MMM being able to stay on the forum for 6 months make him a good troll?

[webny99]

We also don't have any sort of automatic alert system that tells us that someone has gone over 32 posts, so if one of us is going to your posts page and counting your posts to begin with, it means that we already feel like your posting is low-quality enough that the rule may need to be enforced. (And if we think you're making constructive posts that add value to the forum, then we have no reason to check how many posts you've made in the last 24 hours.)

Interestingly, while checking how many posts MMM had made in a single day earlier in this very thread, I realized that it's actually quite easy to calculate. In each user profile under "Show posts", there's a large count displayed above each post that starts at 1 for your most recent post, so it's only a matter of finding the last post with the bolded "Today" in the timestamp, and the number above that post is your answer. I was simultaneously impressed at how easy it was and disappointed that it took me six years to figure that out.

[kphoger]

Most other trolls on this forum have been much worse. Stating their ideas/beliefs as fact and forcing them on others, constant use of profanity, personal attacks on other users, etc. etc. MMM was highly annoying and posted questionable content at best, but I don't think his intentions were as malicious as your typical troll. The fact that he lasted for almost six months speaks to that, as the type of behaviors mentioned above would have led to a ban immediately or within days at most.

Or maybe MMM being able to stay on the forum for 6 months make him a good troll?

That's what I was thinking.  Being less obvious at one's trolling doesn't make it better.  It just means you're able to rope more people into your scheme.

[kphoger]

Interestingly, while checking how many posts MMM had made in a single day earlier in this very thread, I realized that it's actually quite easy to calculate. In each user profile under "Show posts", there's a large count displayed above each post that starts at 1 for your most recent post, so it's only a matter of finding the last post with the bolded "Today" in the timestamp, and the number above that post is your answer. I was simultaneously impressed at how easy it was and disappointed that it took me six years to figure that out.

OK, I just tested this out to confirm, and it does not count deleted posts.  That is to say, you still can't tell how many posts someone made that day–just how many of his posts remain from that day.

[kalvado]

Most other trolls on this forum have been much worse. Stating their ideas/beliefs as fact and forcing them on others, constant use of profanity, personal attacks on other users, etc. etc. MMM was highly annoying and posted questionable content at best, but I don't think his intentions were as malicious as your typical troll. The fact that he lasted for almost six months speaks to that, as the type of behaviors mentioned above would have led to a ban immediately or within days at most.

Or maybe MMM being able to stay on the forum for 6 months make him a good troll?

That's what I was thinking.  Being less obvious at one's trolling doesn't make it better.  It just means you're able to rope more people into your scheme.

There are different types of trolling. And of course there is a universally hated first amendment (yes, it doesn't apply to privately owned and maintained forum by the letter).
MMM gambled on inability of people to  disagree with others while still letting them speak; inability to hold the spirit of the first amendment if you will. I can certainly understand that people would be uncomfortable with something that can harm them personally one way or the other, like in political discussion. MMM's opinions were totally harmless in that sense - no insult, no offense, no -ism's, lots of poker face.
Tl; dr: MMM was an enjoyable show while he lasted.   

[webny99]

Most other trolls on this forum have been much worse. Stating their ideas/beliefs as fact and forcing them on others, constant use of profanity, personal attacks on other users, etc. etc. MMM was highly annoying and posted questionable content at best, but I don't think his intentions were as malicious as your typical troll. The fact that he lasted for almost six months speaks to that, as the type of behaviors mentioned above would have led to a ban immediately or within days at most.

Or maybe MMM being able to stay on the forum for 6 months make him a good troll?

That's what I was thinking.  Being less obvious at one's trolling doesn't make it better.  It just means you're able to rope more people into your scheme.

Then it goes back to the question of intent. Are they actually trying to rope anyone into any sort of scheme? What did the scheme involve, and what was the end game? From what I know of MMM, I'm not sure there was anything that deep going on with him.

But even if there was, if the trolling is subtle enough that it's not noticeably impacting the forum (as was the case for the first few months of MMM's activity), does it even matter? Plenty of long time users - me included - have engaged in subtle or borderline forms of trolling at times, possibly even subconsciously, without consequence. It was only when MMM's posts became incessant in nature and started consuming threads all across the forum that it eventually caught up with him, but I don't think that was necessarily something he had planned from the get-go.

[kphoger]

When I flew from Cap Haitien to Miami, we got to the airport an hour earlier than we needed to since the President of Haiti had eliminated DST a couple weeks prior but American Airlines was unaware of the fact and had the schedule wrong because of it.

I had an interesting situation back in December 2001.  I had planned a trip with my dad to the Copper Canyon, in southern Chihuahua.  Day 1 was basically traveling all day:  fly Wichita → Dallas—Fort Worth → El Paso, cross the border by taxi, bus Cd Juárez → Cd Chihuahua, bus Cd Chihuahua → Creel.  So two flights, one border crossing including paperwork, and two bus rides totaling 400 miles.  The lodging I had planned didn't accept reservations, but they told me over the phone that rooms are usually available.  When we arrived in Cd Juárez, I learned that the entire state of Chihuahua had switched from Central to Mountain time zone back in 1998.  Rand McNally apparently never got the memo.

Fortunately, this worked out in our favor, giving us an extra hour of travel, rather than stealing one hour of travel.  We arrived at around 11 PM, and there were no rooms, so we stayed in the shared hostel area instead.  One lady even gave up her bed and slept on the floor, so my dad would have a bed.

On the return trip, we had a schedule that was tighter by one hour than I had planned.  But it worked out anyway, because we ended up on a direct bus and didn't have to transfer in Cd Chihuahua.  We still got to the hotel in Cd Juárez after dark, though.

[kphoger]

I have received an email from him. Key points:

[...]

Most of the topics were trolling ...

MMM explicitly said in his email to me that I can post what he said in his email here.

Are they actually trying to rope anyone into any sort of scheme? What did the scheme involve, and what was the end game? From what I know of MMM, I'm not sure there was anything that deep going on with him.

Oh, he was trolling.  He said so.

But even if there was, if the trolling is subtle enough that it's not noticeably impacting the forum (as was the case for the first few months of MMM's activity), does it even matter? Plenty of long time users - me included - have engaged in subtle or borderline forms of trolling at times, possibly even subconsciously, without consequence. It was only when MMM's posts became incessant in nature and started consuming threads all across the forum that it eventually caught up with him, but I don't think that was necessarily something he had planned from the get-go.

Considering the list of topics he specifically said were troll topics, I'd say the scheme started really early on here.

[webny99]

But the one thing an actual troll would never do is publicly admit that they were trolling. To me that just means that, if he really was trying to be a troll, he was pretty bad at it. But even despite being a "subtle" troll, he ended up getting banned anyways, so he kind of got the worst of both worlds, except that he got to spend 6 months using the forum.

[kphoger]

But the one thing an actual troll would never do is publicly admit that they were trolling.

But he only did so after his ban.

[webny99]

But the one thing an actual troll would never do is publicly admit that they were trolling.

But he only did so after his ban.

Another thing a troll would never do: interact with users from a forum he's just been banned from.

An actual troll would be focused on making a return or trolling somewhere else.

[Roadgeekteen]

Interestingly, while checking how many posts MMM had made in a single day earlier in this very thread, I realized that it's actually quite easy to calculate. In each user profile under "Show posts", there's a large count displayed above each post that starts at 1 for your most recent post, so it's only a matter of finding the last post with the bolded "Today" in the timestamp, and the number above that post is your answer. I was simultaneously impressed at how easy it was and disappointed that it took me six years to figure that out.

OK, I just tested this out to confirm, and it does not count deleted posts.  That is to say, you still can't tell how many posts someone made that day–just how many of his posts remain from that day.

Most people don't delete tons of posts. MMM is one of the exceptions.

[kphoger]

The Venn diagram overlap is substantial, between people who delete a bunch of posts and people whose daily post count anybody cares enough about to actually look up.

[Scott5114]

I blame DST for my participating in this thread today.

I can only thank the Universe for the information that led to MMM's ban coming to light before we all had to suffer the indignity of whatever his opinions on daylight savings time were.

[Scott5114]

Why?  I understand wanting to be fair and ethical, but limiting yourselves to a list of discrete rules isn't the same thing as being fair and ethical.  That is to say, it is perfectly possible to be fair and ethical while banning a troll who hasn't technically broken any rules.  This isn't a court of law:  it's an internet forum, and common sense can carry the day just as easily as technicalities.

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

(I wrote this before reading J.N. Winkler's response, so some of this may be duplicative and/or already addressed in your response to him)

You're right, and in some situations, invoking plenary powers to perform a ban as discretion applies is probably justified. The problem, though, is that without a clear set of guidelines saying what an 'asshole' is, we risk allowing ourselves to identify anyone who is being a minor irritant as an 'asshole' and banning them. Basically, it would be a tool that might become too tempting to overuse, absolute power corrupting absolutely and all.  That wouldn't be fair, and would arguably make the forum a worse place than it would be if we merely had to suffer a troll every now and then.

If the community feels like you have the right of it more than I do, however, and there's enough trust in the staff that they'd be okay with us having easier access to the banhammer in extraordinary cases, I can certainly be convinced that I'm overthinking it.

This guy wasn't just annoying.  He didn't just have a stupid opinion.  He was committing the internet version of arson, and you don't have to determine exactly how a fire started before grabbing a fire extinguisher.  The answer to "Why am I banned?" could be as simple as "Because you were an asshole" and, while that would certainly be rude and perhaps uncalled for, it wouldn't make the ban itself unfair or unethical.

See, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Maybe I'm giving MMM too much credit, but I don't think he was anywhere close to the worst version of an internet troll.

What, pray tell, outside of blatant racism, sexism, or some other ism, would be worse? Just posting pictures of dead puppies or something?

Being a registered Republican?

Seriously, though.  Racism, sexism, and other isms aren't trolling.  They are either clear violations of forum rules or only require a simple message from a mod to correct.

There are plenty of registered Republicans I like just fine. I would argue that you can troll with racism, sexism, and other isms however. Dropping an n-word isn't inherently trolling. Continuing to do it when called on it is.

And we do have rules against racism, sexism, and such. Dropping the N-word would probably be the fastest way to get cashiered from the forum, since nobody can plausibly claim they thought it would be okay–it's not anywhere else, so why would it be here?