nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Trolling in AH

_Kaiser_

My experience in the last 48 hours...

I flagged some blatant trolling and baiting in one of the AH threads the other night, and repeated by flagging one of my own posts yesterday in an effort to highlight the issue again.
It's pretty rare I report anything to be honest, but the antics I was referring to are quite common or certain topics wherein (usually the same small groups) will attempt to derail or inflame others by posting styles and petty insults - generally leading to Mod action against their intended targets.

Despite AH having what, 10 mods (plus the higher-ups) at this stage... nothing! Not even so much as a PM to say "yep, we looked at that and in our opinion it's fine". I've been catching up on the thread in question tonight and more of the same continues.

And then ye wonder why people are distrustful or pissed off with the "escalation process" of the site? I'm not buying the "we are all volunteers" etc either.. ye either want to have your "corporate escalation matrix" and staff/structure it accordingly, or you drop the pretense and the notions (including a lot of the unneeded rules and regulations that are selectively or overbearingly applied) and run it as the discussion forum it actually is.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Discodog

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

My experience in the last 48 hours...

I flagged some blatant trolling and baiting in one of the AH threads the other night, and repeated by flagging one of my own posts yesterday in an effort to highlight the issue again.
It's pretty rare I report anything to be honest, but the antics I was referring to are quite common or certain topics wherein (usually the same small groups) will attempt to derail or inflame others by posting styles and petty insults - generally leading to Mod action against their intended targets.

Despite AH having what, 10 mods (plus the higher-ups) at this stage... nothing! Not even so much as a PM to say "yep, we looked at that and in our opinion it's fine". I've been catching up on the thread in question tonight and more of the same continues.

And then ye wonder why people are distrustful or pissed off with the "escalation process" of the site? I'm not buying the "we are all volunteers" etc either.. ye either want to have your "corporate escalation matrix" and staff/structure it accordingly, or you drop the pretense and the notions (including a lot of the unneeded rules and regulations that are selectively or overbearingly applied) and run it as the discussion forum it actually is.

I raised a similar point & got the same response. I raised a thread in feedback, got a response, replied but then nothing.

gandalf

Yep same experience here. Not having a working feedback where we can discuss common issues like the extremely light handed moderation on AH is extremely frustrating. Why is it frustrating you may ask, it's because for some reason I still give a **** about the community that has built up on boards over the years. There seems to be far more concern about stifling valid feedback than actually dealing with issues on the site.

Boards.ie: Mark

I've moved these posts to Help Desk because it's to do with a forum issue and moderation rather than Feedback on the Feedback format.

For starters, thank you for reporting posts. That's what mods need, especially in fast moving or contentious threads. At times, context is important - one reason that we ask people to PM mods and CMods when there are issues. If you pick one post to report and indicate that people are trolling/shilling/going off topic/being a dick, but the actual post isn't then the mods don't have the context (especially in a large thread they're not following). They just see a post that isn't actionable and possibly see no need to go further.

We have had pages upon pages of feedback saying that the site is overmoderated. If the posts in question are breaking site/forum rules then yes, action should be taken. However, people have said that threads should be allowed to meander and that not everything needs to be so serious. This has been suggested doubly so when it's the more casual After Hours as there is the Politics forum, and other more serious forums, which requires posting standards, links, etc.

If someone shows no interest in debating the topic, then please use the Ignore function. I know it's not perfect in that you'll see quoted posts, but you can see their username and know that it's reasonably safe to skip that post.

Wearb

*************(¯`·._.· BEFORE YOU START A NEW THREAD - READ THIS ·._.·´¯)
What is the helpdesk?
The helpdesk is a direct line to site admins. Somewhere where you can pitch a problem or query and only site admins can respond.
*******************
I know posting this here puts me in a Catch 22 situation, but the above thread and replies seem to totally disregard the first line of this stickey.

I will not be offended to see my post deleted after it has been read by an admin.

_Kaiser_

Thanks Mark.. I assume you can see the reports myself - the first one concerned a specific user who's contributions have been mostly along the lines of the one I highlighted.. baiting others, low-level insults ("for the slow learners" etc). It seems to be an ongoing thing among a small group in that thread.

But it's not restricted to just that thread/topic either - any of the Immigration threads for example, or the Welfare debates, will attract a small group of posters who will do their utmost to derail the thread or belittle other posters whose view they don't agree with. Unfortunately others get frustrated and respond in kind and the situation becomes a tit-for-tat escalation until Mods step in and the thread gets locked or those who responded are sanctioned.

Whether this is down to people not reading the threads fully, or whether it's down to personal bias in some cases I don't know, but it's incredibly frustrating all the same.

Spear

Wearb wrote: »

*************(¯`·._.· BEFORE YOU START A NEW THREAD - READ THIS ·._.·´¯)
What is the helpdesk?
The helpdesk is a direct line to site admins. Somewhere where you can pitch a problem or query and only site admins can respond.
*******************
I know posting this here puts me in a Catch 22 situation, but the above thread and replies seem to totally disregard the first line of this stickey.

I will not be offended to see my post deleted after it has been read by an admin.

Having only admins respond is an option, but not a requirement. Those who can contribute will get posts approved normally.

Ken.

During the recent feedback thread in AH it was said a few times that threads need to be allowed to run without mod interference. We've been trying really hard to not interfere as much and have only stepped in when stuff got really out of hand.

As to the 8th thread, who am I or anyone else to say what someone elses believes may be. Just because they seem trolling because they disagree with your point of view does not mean they are trolling.

Also, can you imagine the unholy row there would be if we banned the entire one side of a debate.

Beasty

Just to add to Conspectus' comments I do recall that AH thread was critical of overmodding, and I know AH were trying to adopt a softer stance on the back of those comments.

The problem is that with any contentious topic there's likely to be extreme positions. That does not imply that those adopting such a position is trolling - it perhaps highlights how passionate posters can be. If, though, posters appear to simply take a contrary position across numerous topics I could see it could be considered trolling. However topics like the 8th Amendment are going to attract a lot of debate from both sides of the argument.

Another problem I suspect arises when people make statements as fact, when they are simply personal views. Sometimes such comments are responded to with challenges to "prove it". Then we can get a blurring between what is fact and what is opinion. A question as controversial as when life itself begins is always going to be contentious.

Beasty

Wearb wrote: »

*************(¯`·._.· BEFORE YOU START A NEW THREAD - READ THIS ·._.·´¯)
What is the helpdesk?
The helpdesk is a direct line to site admins. Somewhere where you can pitch a problem or query and only site admins can respond.

Just on this, it's a point we've been conscious of in the current "Feedback" debate. In practice the idea that only Admins respond has not been applied for as long as I can remember, and as a CMod we were actively encouraged to get involved here.

I think we need to better define how Help Desk fits into the wider site and indeed what role it has in feedback. That's another topic though, and is something we are considering in connection with the Feedback discussion

gandalf

There is a difference between light moderation and just throwing your hands in the air and ignoring threads. When I modded Politics we knew that if a topic appeared about Israel or SinnFein/NI it would attract the same old characters who would pump out soundbites and not engage in any discussion at all and if they were unhappy with the direction a discussion was taking they would deflect, misdirect and derail the thread. We can now add Russia to that list. Personally if I was modding still I would ensure that someone from the moderation team was proactively reviewing these threads and on the first hint that this behaviour is occurring to stamp it out. How you allocate that is up to you but given these are politically contentious subjects I'd suggest that you have a couple of mods who can cover AH, Politics and the Politics Cafe. At the moment a number of the Russian threads in AH are a complete and utter cluster****.

Discodog

I raised this issue on a separate feedback thread but there is a potential issue that a lot of this trolling is coming from people that are organised to present a particular view. For example, if you post any comment that might be read as opposing Putin, there will be an almost instant response from a group of posters supporting him.

People joke on the thread about these posters being paid etc but it is well known that organisations do pay for supporters to troll & present the corporate/group view. Increasingly the spotlight is being put on influence of social media sites on elections referendums etc.

Boards.ie: Mark

As Beasty said though, if you put up a position/opinion contrary to what some others think, there will be people/supporters along to debate, argue, counter, etc. That applies to serious discussion like Putin or the 8th Amendment right down to more recreational things like Films (the Star Wars threads have caused plenty of debate, for example), Music, Reality TV and so on.

It has been highlighted on various social media networks that organised campaigns are an issue, but one of the greatest issues raised is genuine users sharing disinformation inadvertently. As dudara mentioned in another Help Desk thread, separating the trolls from the genuine users can be tricky sometimes.

Boards users have long operated with the mantra, "Don't feed the trolls." That can entail reporting the post rather than responding, simply rolling your eyes and ignoring the post, or putting a user on ignore. Provided they're not breaking the rules of the forum/site then there isn't a lot that mods can do in many cases - otherwise the mods fall afoul of one of the other feedback points that was raised of not allowing opinions that don't toe a particular line. If, however, a user is problematic then the mods can apply action (not all of which is visible to users), including thread bans.

gandalf

I'm sorry but when you have a user posting quite frankly crud, deflecting, not responding to queries and engaging in low level trolling you don't expect the mods to go off and hide.

This evening on one of the Russian threads we had a mod finally thread ban one of these users to only roll back on his decision because two other of the "useful idiots" started to whine on the thread.

No wonder this site is going to the dogs with that sort of spineless moderation. What's the point in us reporting anything if all we are going to get is snowflake moderation.

robarmstrong

Completely agree with Gandalf.

I get threadbanned for calling a prick a prick but said prick gets to disregard the manner in which my partner and I've lost our babies in order to manipulate statistics to further a pro-life agenda? Fair enough I shouldn't have called the user a prick, but extremist views like such and obvious flaming needs to be addressed. You've trolls and soap boxers and cretins just roaming around pissing people off and upsetting them and sweet FA is done.

It's okay to have an opinion, it's not okay to express said opinion like a dick.

gandalf

Further update on this. Yesterday the same mod banned another user so as an experiment I queried that banning on thread (yes I know that's a no no normally) and that user was unbanned and my post was removed. Now I don't know what interactions went on between that mod and the user in question but from an optics point of view it doesn't look good.

Either this mod is so mallible that any challenge to their decision results in a reversal or they are banning people on reports and then only checking it's valid. Both conclusions seriously call into question their ability to moderate effectively.

Boards.ie: Mark

robarmstrong wrote: »

Completely agree with Gandalf.

I get threadbanned for calling a prick a prick but said prick gets to disregard the manner in which my partner and I've lost our babies in order to manipulate statistics to further a pro-life agenda? Fair enough I shouldn't have called the user a prick, but extremist views like such and obvious flaming needs to be addressed. You've trolls and soap boxers and cretins just roaming around pissing people off and upsetting them and sweet FA is done.

It's okay to have an opinion, it's not okay to express said opinion like a dick.

This is an emotive topic, but no you should avoid calling someone a prick. I'd advise reporting the post and if they are refusing to engage then put them on ignore; you're not missing out on much if they aren't debating properly.

gandalf wrote: »

Further update on this. Yesterday the same mod banned another user so as an experiment I queried that banning on thread (yes I know that's a no no normally) and that user was unbanned and my post was removed. Now I don't know what interactions went on between that mod and the user in question but from an optics point of view it doesn't look good.

Either this mod is so mallible that any challenge to their decision results in a reversal or they are banning people on reports and then only checking it's valid. Both conclusions seriously call into question their ability to moderate effectively.

I think PMing the mod would be the best thing to do here. As you say, there is no way to know what discussion they had with the user in question. IF they talked about it with them and came to an agreement then reversing a ban is a positive step in my opinion - again, it takes prior feedback into account.

robarmstrong

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

This is an emotive topic, but no you should avoid calling someone a prick. I'd advise reporting the post and if they are refusing to engage then put them on ignore; you're not missing out on much if they aren't debating properly.

But sure what's the point in reporting them? Nothing happens, the mods have stepped back in that thread and it's encouraged nothing but flaming and trolling, I dunno how it hasn't been picked up yet. Why should I have to put them on ignore? Surely if I have to put someone on ignore that means a mod has failed to do what they're meant to do?

Also - I won't avoid calling someone a prick if they are being a prick, kinda ridiculous that calling someone a prick warrants mod intervention but someone BEING a prick gets left to it? The inconsistency is rife and ridiculous, it ruins genuine discussions by allowing muppets to come in and spout ****e. Everybody knows they're spouting ****e, sure there's one poster in particular who's been threadbanned from pretty much every thread regarding the 8th, so why are they still on the site if they've been threadbanned so much it's quite clear what the intentions of their posts do?

gandalf

Ah but Mark you are completely missing my point here. One of the biggest gripes that users have expressed in the feedback thread is the lack of consistency in moderation. This is a prime example of this and maybe even worse. Maybe it's unfair to ask the AH mods to deal with subjects like this and these threads should be moved to politics where they belong.

I understand that you wanted to try a more relaxed moderation style but even you will have to concede it has blown up in our faces with politically motivated topics. The rules on politics were honed over the years for very good reasons. They ensured that discussion was allowed to flow and if users disrupted the flow they were dealt with. What is happening now is an absolute cluster**** and it is stifling any real discussion.

Beasty

Having seen some of the comments in this thread I took the trouble to head over to AH to "engage" in one of the relevant threads here

Now my views were very different to those being expressed by pro Russia posters. Did I think they were trolling? Actually no I didn't. I recognise some people perhaps have ideologies that are very different from mine. I was happy to highlight some of what I considered to be the absurdity of comments made. They disagreed, which I have no issue with. I think anyone reading the thread can make up their own mind as to whether they believe the "Russian" side of things, in the same way posters can express disdain or support for the behaviour of people like Trump. Does that mean one, or both, side(s) are trolling? If the relevant posters had a history of doing so I may agree, but in this case they most certainly did not

On the topic of moving threads to Politics, or indeed Politics Café, that's certainly an area where the recent feedback within AH was that posters wanted this type of topic to be discussed in AH, precisely because of the more stringent rules applied within the other forums, and indeed the pre-registration requirement for the Café

Alas yet another example of damned if you do and damned if you don't from a mod perspective

Beasty

robarmstrong wrote: »

Also - I won't avoid calling someone a prick if they are being a prick, kinda ridiculous that calling someone a prick warrants mod intervention but someone BEING a prick gets left to it?

So who decides who is being a prick? It may be your view but other posters and indeed mods may see it differently. So you are essentially back-seat modding as well as being abusive. You really cannot complain if you are pulled up for either

Ken.

gandalf wrote: »

Further update on this. Yesterday the same mod banned another user so as an experiment I queried that banning on thread (yes I know that's a no no normally) and that user was unbanned and my post was removed. Now I don't know what interactions went on between that mod and the user in question but from an optics point of view it doesn't look good.

Either this mod is so mallible that any challenge to their decision results in a reversal or they are banning people on reports and then only checking it's valid. Both conclusions seriously call into question their ability to moderate effectively.

So I give you a break by not carding the questioning mod instructions on thread and still get hammered. Won't make that mistake again.

gandalf

Ah Beasty I have no problem with someone having a perspective that's different to mine but I'm talking about absolute deflection and derailing of threads totally away from what is being discussed and I do believe it is a deliberate tactic by some users. This has to be dealt with and from what I have observed the AH mods either don't have the experience to deal with them or are not bothered.

osarusan

The problem with AH is that threads on serious topics are allowed, but, apart from not insulting other posters, there is absolutely no moderation of the debate, in terms of quality or standards.

Anybody can claim anything, ignore anything, shoehorn in any other topic, and it isn't against the rules.

So, threads on a serious topic will almost always descend into a mess of repetition, deflection, strawmen, just ignoring posts that refute an argument, and so on.

All you need to see the terrible standard of debate is just to look at how incredibly rare it is for anybody to admit to being wrong about anything.

Gatling

I was one of the posters who got thread banded I was essentially called a liar so I responded ,but it is what it is ,
The moderation seems to be all over the place I got a thread ban and forum ban which was over turned quite easily and then re banned because a post got reported likely with the intension of getting me taken off the thread ,but nobody was aware my original ban was lifted ,

But back to the discussion at hand I honestly believe these threads don't belong in AH actually I'd love to know who actually wanted it considering its the same few posters posting ,
I believe a few in minority don't want the threads moved to politics because they have a poor quality of posts and resort into slagging matches to derail any discussion that doesn't suit a pro putin /Assad agenda ,

In the cafe or full politics forum you actually had to discuss your points in Ah all were getting is according to Kremlin media or wiki which happened to be edited very recently to back up a claim,
Now I believe I lost my rights to post in pc and politics but I think that threads like this should be moved

robarmstrong

Beasty wrote: »

So who decides who is being a prick? It may be your view but other posters and indeed mods may see it differently. So you are essentially back-seat modding as well as being abusive. You really cannot complain if you are pulled up for either

Ah here, try be more deflective. Mods are meant to decide who's being a prick, people don't just get called pricks for no reason.

I really can complain if I call someone a prick for showing that amount of disrespect to deceased babies seeing as I'm getting a slap on the wrist whilst more inconsistent moderation goes on and the individual in question gets to continue on.

The fact you're telling me I can't complain if I get pulled up for calling someone who's acting like a prick, a prick, whilst they completely distort things and continue to be a prick just demonstrates the inconsistency and snowflakeness of mods. If someone disregarded how some of your children died just to push their own agenda you'd be a liar if you didn't call them a prick.

_Kaiser_

Reported another post there in the AH thread for the same nonsense as referred to above. Appreciate if it can be looked at and someone get back to me or better yet, take action

Cheers

gandalf

Conspectus wrote: »

So I give you a break by not carding the questioning mod instructions on thread and still get hammered. Won't make that mistake again.

Well maybe if you and the other mods actually moderated the political emotive threads properly you wouldn't get "hammered" although I didn't mention you by name purposely. If you can't handle moderating them then divert all these political threads to politics.

The current half arsed situation is not working and is playing into the hands of those hell bent on derail discussion in threads that are challenging their world view.

_Kaiser_

gandalf wrote: »

Well maybe if you and the other mods actually moderated the political emotive threads properly you wouldn't get "hammered" although I didn't mention you by name purposely. If you can't handle moderating them then divert all these political threads to politics.

The current half arsed situation is not working and is playing into the hands of those hell bent on derail discussion in threads that are challenging their world view.

I'd go further than the above to be honest - and noting that I've had no response and seen no action on any of the blatant baiting and trolling I've reported..

If you can't handle the modding requirements, don't be a Mod. Let others step up who will do so! Shunting it off to Politics is a lazy pass-the-buck answer and moves an otherwise valid discussion to a hostile environment where (as I've said in one of these threads or the other!) the regulars have "notions" of themselves and what is "appropriate" discussion and level for "their" domain

This of course will no doubt result in a flurry of Mods jumping in defensively, but seeing as we're getting nowhere with this issue, maybe such a radical shake-up IS needed at this stage?

Boards.ie: Mark

I think you may well need to PM a mod/mods, _Kaiser_, because the two reports that you made are fairly innocuous from what I can see. If you discuss it with the moderator, it will provide you with a chance to highlight history and other relevant information which isn't evident in these reported posts.

I'm not promising that action will be taken, however. As we have said many times, moderation won't please everyone all the time.

If it's the same poster or handful of posters that's impacting your enjoyment of a thread, it's possible to ignore them. It was highlighted earlier that a script can be run to ensure they appear even less than they ordinarily would when on your ignore list.