Trolling in the Soccer Forum and other problems.

there have been a lot of reported posts from thsi thread since the time of my last post. I'm going to close the thread temporarily until I get a chance to go through it. its not a permanent closure, it *will* be opened again but RL is a bit busy right now so I cant give an exact time. Tonight at some stage.

LoLth

super-rush wrote: »

I'm sorry Khannie but it is. If someone can't tell the difference between an out and out troll then they shouldn't be a mod.

An "out and out" troll is easy to spot and ban I'll grant you. A low level troll is entirely different though. Your statement implies that as soon as you think someone is trolling (let's assume that you're a good mod ), and another mod disagrees, that they are not a good mod. Of course that's not the case. People disagree on what constitutes a low level troll.

I'm not referring to anyone specifically here. It's more of a general statement.

Des wrote: »

You also deleted a post of mine, but I don't get a PM.

I saw the reported posts have all received explainations in the Reported Posts forum, all but post of mine that was reported that is.

Some backscratching going on?

check your inbox. It has been sitting unsent since 11:00 today (approx) and any admin can confirm that based on my posts in the admin forum.

late night last night and quite busy so your PM was held off until I did some fact checking of my own.

also, I really dont appreciate the backscratching comment. Try using some tact and not being upfront insulting please.

Grayditch wrote: »

I'm sure they're afraid of drop-of-a-hat witch hunts that would ensue, if that happens.

This is the thing though, people aren't talking about that at all. The decision should only be taken when it's clear over a period of weeks/months that X, Y or Z's only interest in the forum is riling opposition fans. Not a spur of the moment decision by the mods.

The charter would deal with more common run of the mill type trolling.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So bite the bullet. Hand out a couple of bans and publicise what you have done and why. Stand over it in the DRP and have the courage of your convictions. You're trusted with decision making and trusted by the community so use that trust.

Agree that whatever happens it should be made known
It should be transparent and a marker set down IMO

blatant trolling is easy enough to catch. it gets spotted by posters and (hopefully) reported.

low level trolling is a whole different animal. It might be reported but the mods have to take into account whether its being reported because its rightly spotted as a troll or if it could be that the reporting user has a skewed perception of the post either through personal life or a past disagreement that might be on a completely different forum.

This was hard enough before but now, with the DRP it makes this kind of decision harder.(and dont get me wrong, I like the DRP as a procedure for users to appeal against what they feel is a wrongful punishment and the cmods do a great job trying to stay neutral when they are often put in a difficult position where they have to question a decision made by a mod who has possibly been on the site longer than they have and quite firmly believes that their decision was correct) Now the mod not only has to act on their "gut" feeling borne out of their experience and familiarity with the forum and its users but they also have to be able to convey that process to another mod (the cmod or admin) in a way that the decision can be understood and supported. This has the downside of constraining the natural mod instinct somewhat but has the upside of forcing the mods to develope that skill to the extent that fewer mistakes are made.

By its nature, this makes low level trolling not more difficult to spot or recognise but more difficult to gather a convincing body of evidence ot support it.

Ruling on low level trolling is even more difficult. Where exactly do the mods draw the line without killing the flow of conversation and suppressing the users convey their thoughts in a post that may be somewhat controversial.

Low level trolling is similar, but not exactly the same as an overly abrasive posting manner where the poster doesnt take into account the sensibilities of their fellow users or the tone of the forum or thread. There have been users who have been banned for abrasive posting that was a detriment to the forum but it was a long, very long, and drawn out process that took many many hours of mod/cmod and admin discussion before it was decided.

Is there a solution? I think there is (well, I hope there is). I dont think there's a magical yardstick that we can use to say "this far is user not getting it, this far is low level trolling, this far is blatant troll", boards.ie is too varied for any such system to be applied sitewide without allowing the mods room for their own decisions, and that room introduces disparity and the need for clarification from the mods in not just what the decision is but also how they came to that decision. I think its something only experience can bring about.

Flat out banning? it would certainly make life easier. It would speed up the process and protect the forum better but what happens when the flat out ban is wrong and proven to be wrong by the user? Will the next ban be trusted as much? Will the mod be called into question by other users? Will (more) feedback threads start appearing stating that overly harsh moderating is killing a forum?

I dont think a mod can please everyone all of the time, ever, so I would hope that they do their best to be as fair as possible to as many of the users as much of the time as they can manage.

modding is a tough job a lot of the time and I, for one, am very appreciative that the mods do not take the act of removing a users access to a forum lightly.

PHB wrote: »

I don't think it's anywhere near as easy as people make out to just bluntly ban people.

I've seen three people in this thread who support this sort of banning system who I believe personally massively de-rail threads and effectively troll, even though they never break the rules.

I'd say it'd be extremely difficult for even all the mods to agree that someone should be banned.

Also, bans of longer-term "trolly" posters is not as good as people might think, as oftentimes the people who mess things up are the infrequent posters, but because the regular posters post more, they are more likely to be banned. As such, we increase the number of older posters. But the people who have been around longer in general are much better posters.

It certainly is not easy PHB, but I also don't think it is as hard as some are thinking it is. The truth is always somewhere in the middle in fairness.

On your point regarding some people calling for action, who might well end up being victim of such a policy, I can't disagree with that. If that happens, then so be it I say. People make their bed, and people are going to have to lie in it. Thankfully the witch hunt against 1 poster in particular has stopped, this thread should be about the low level trolling being carried out by several posters. As for everyone having to agree, well, imho that would be an ideal scenario, but if the Mods themselves could come up with a workable system, whereby a majority/a certain number of them agreed, then action could happen. Thats for the Mods to decide on though.

The infrequent posters are a different matter, and should be dealt with as per the charter, if someone is a regular enough poster though and is acting the d1ck then a) they should know better and b) if they weren't acting the d1ck then they would have no need to worry.

Just because someone posts lots, doesn't and shouldn't give them any more leeway to act up. If you can't post in a reasonable manner, as per the rules well then personally I don't care who you are, you should be sanctioned.

From reading this thread it seems the modding of the soccer forum has gone the way of modern day refereeing. Too many guidelines/red tape with decisions based on the letter of the law rather than using common sense.

Opr

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's worse then that. You'd swear they are worried the lad will run to his solicitor when he is banned and sue boards.ie for banning him.

Isn't that just pressure from the boards.ie overlords that requires them to act in conjunction with the new media friendly face of the site. Referee's seem to be subject of intense scrutiny with things such as after match review panels. It seems the only way they feel safe is to referee to the letter of the law and that way they can't be judged as technically they made the right decisions.

I would guess if some of the mods actually decided to show some balls and make decisions off their own bat they are worried about the ramifications towards themselves.

Opr

K-9 wrote: »

I suppose it is something similar to soap boxing in the politics forum, difficult to deal with, often posters don't report, they just tune out and ignore the posters, they usually are single issue posters, one trick ponies basically. Takes time to build a case against them but it can de done and is being done there.


Posters whose main interaction with the board seems to be to rile up or get digs at a certain section of the soccer fora would be similar. They don't really add anything other that their hobby horse, hatred of Liverpool, United etc. Again, it would take time, maybe going back over a couple of years to build up a case.

Just like soap boxers they'll argue over every single rule and deny, deny, deny. Their case could well be technically correct but as per the best point made on this thread, they aren't acting within the spirit of the board, which is a very important one, a board where opposition fans can interact relatively well, debate, slag and talk about football.

If somebody is using it the majority of the time to just get digs at their hated club, it will be plain to see over time, no matter what rules they hide behind.

Thing is back in the day on the forums I read on boards this guy would just have been regarded as a blight on the forum and thus told where the door is. I don't understand at what stage the right of the individual on boards outweighed the users.

Why am I getting banned ?

I miss the days when the response would have been "This isn't a democracy,you're a dick bye bye!"

Opr

opr & LL : I've been on boards since the beginning as a user, I've been a mod since the Arts/literature forum was set up (it was my suggestion in response to a post from cloud i think, and in those days if you suggested a forum you modded it), I've been cmod since the Arts category started its existence and now I'm an Admin. I have never, once, in all that time been asked to consider something for reasons of revenue or red-tape.

Yes, advertising revenue may be a side benefit of the procedures and requirements that have been put in place (and thats a good thing, revenue = servers chugging = usable boards that dont fall over) but all along the main focus of any decision that has been made is making boards.ie better for users.

The red tape you refer to is for the mods, to protect the users, to give the users a place to appeal a mod action. This existed in helpdesk but that was deemed unsuitable, primarily by users, as it was one user vs many mods/cmods/helpdesk and was generally quite confrontational. DRP was introduced to make it a more one to one affair, with oversight at all levels in response to user requests.

Insta-bans and zero tolerance were scaled back and mods asked to tone down their punishments (no permaban for first time troll etc, graduation of punishment from warning to ban to permaban) in response to user reactions and user complaints of overreaction.

From your posts you seem to want boards to do away with all of that and go back to mod rule with an iron fist, no discussion, no recourse, no second chances. That may have worked for a small community of gamers that pretty much all knew one another to some degree but it wont work with the size and diversity of the forums as they stand now.

If mods were to "man up" and flat out ban users based on their own instinct and without evidence, if they were to simplify it and remove the ability to appeal i can guarantee there'd be streams of threads of posts containing pitchfork and flaming brand emoticons calling for mod removal. The site would lose its usefulness and a lot of the sense of community would be lost.

Correct me if Im wrong but are yellow cards really only handed out for posts?

Why not hand them out personally. Why not say to a user 'a lot of your posts are being reported, you are upsettng people in the forum' and hand out an infraction for that (after the mods have deemed that they are in fact up to divilment)... that could be easily added to the charter. And as behaviour can only be monitored over a length maybe infract 3 times instead of 6 before a ban. This essentially monitors low level trolling and allows you to modedrate for the spirit of the law

Its a way of bringing back don't be a dick but with fair warning, as opposed to just dropping the ban hammer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In other words: the minority of troublemakers are hampering everyone's experience of the website, but their feelings must be pandered to, at the expense of everyone else.

not pandered to but certainly taken into account up until they are identified as trolls and not just users. I think all users opinions and experience of the site should be taken into account up until they break the rules and then they give up any expectation of being treated as equal to any other user. Once a user is identified as a troll I would fully expect, and support a mods action to warn them and then ban them, if not ban outright . The important bit for me though is that the mod take the time to identify them as a troll first and not just ban "on the off chance". I'd prefer 1 low level troll to last 1 month longer than have 10 users feel hard done by and not return because of overly harsh reaction to a posted opinion. <-- thats my opinion, its not policy as far as I am aware.

And anyway, it's quite a jump from what people are calling for to what you are suggesting.

-Nobody is suggesting banning without evidence: people are calling for banning when it's clear over a period of time that the user is detracting from a forum.

and evidence takes time to collect. Calls of "ban the trolls as soon as they appear" only work for blatant trolls. low level trolling takes time to spot and confirm, as has been posted repeatedly in this thread but some posters are still thinking a troll is a troll is a troll and thats all there is too it.

-Nobody is saying remove their ability to appeal: people are asking to remove the ability of known troublemakers to hide behind the rules at every stage.

That was what I gathered from the post by opr . If I picked it up wrong then I apologise and will be happy to be corrected.

Why am I getting banned ?

I miss the days when the response would have been "This isn't a democracy,you're a dick bye bye!"

In those days there wasnt an appeal process until helpdesk came along and that was deemed not fit for purpose, by users and mods and cmods and indeed some admins.

Really, what's happening on boards.ie isn't unusual. In an effort to protect everyone and make sure nobody has to stick their neck on a line, everything has been drowned in red tape, committees, rules, procedures. It happens everywhere, and rarely to good effect. The referee analogy has already been given, but there are plenty more.

yes I agree there is more red tape. Sometimes I see a post and think "ban him! ban him nooooow!" but I dont because once that happens once, then how can we object when it happens again. Do I get to just delete any posts I dont personally agree with and ban any user who objects or complains? Would it be better if I could? You are correct of course that there is a committee instead of a single dictator. Admins take longer to reach a decision than Dev did when he did it on his own but, Dev couldnt, even if he wanted, run a site the size of boards on his own and quite often a point will be raised in an admin discussion that many of us, including Dev, havent thought of yet. So speed was sacrificed for accuracy and variety of opinion in the interests of making th esite better. Some may disagree with that decision, some may wish for the good ol' days but from the number of users joining and posting it would appear that the changes are welcomed by many. the balancing act is keeping the old atmosphere while catering for the new requirements and numbers.

I also totally disagree that the rule-with-an-iron-fist policy wouldn't work. It would certainly work on the soccer forum, where it is a tight-knit community where everyone knows everyone, and where there is a broadly agreed upon idea of accepted behaviour. It worked on the similarly busy Games forum of yesteryear, which was ruled with an iron-fist by Shinji, Amp and later by myself.

that is your opinion. I dont share it. And I think the majority of the soccer forum users wouldnt share it either. However, the soccer forum mods would know better than you or I on that issue. I believe the soccer forum has an end of season round-up and forum discussion each year, perhaps this is something they could discuss then where they can get a better representation from the actual soccer forum userbase.

Really, the soccer board would be in a lot better shape if the 2,300 word charter was replaced with "Don't be a dick".

the whole site was in better shape when that was the only rule but it was also much much smaller. it had less mods/cmods/admin to interpret exactly what "being a dick" entailed and even then there were disagreements over whether a post was or was not out of order. Amorphous rules leave too much room for interpretation and objection. Rigid rules leave too little room for personal expression or natural drift in fora and on threads. There needs to eb rigid framework to cover the big stuff and "dont be a dick" to allow wriggle room.

I'm sure that waaay back when, Dev and Cloud had a lot of arguments online , in game and in real life with users who felt wronged by the dont be a dick rule. I doubt it was as plain sailing as nostalgia would seem to suggest.