NationStates

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Phocidaea wrote:
But it's a lot more efficient if we're allowed to take this into our own hands. Besides, by making it still "legal" in the moderation section, all that will change about the handful of people who actually are only calling troll for lulz will be that they will have to switch sections of the forum.

But the Banhammer shall ride forth and smite them mightily. Trust me, mob rule is never a good idea. If the mods feel that someone is trolling, they'll make them flatter than a pancake soon enough. If you can't trust their judgement in the matter, maybe another forum would be better?

i am not always looking to get someone smacked by a mod, moderation should be a last resort, not a first, unless it is completely blatant.

I asked a question in moderation that was called rules lawyering by a mod, so i still don't know if it was acceptable or not.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:At this point, I would suggest that anyone who at any time gets so much as the slightest inkling of a tickling feeling that a post might just, if you squint in just the right way in a full moon at high tide, possibly have a remote chance of maybe being kind of a troll post, go ahead and report it as a troll. Just to be safe.

Then the mods will be forced to decide if they really want to go through with this. Because this nonsense has got to stop if NSG is to remain a functioning community.

We generally can tell when someone (or several someones) is intentionally making tons of frivolous or nearly-frivolous reports. They typically get told that the complaint is not actionable or to grow a thicker skin, and if a pattern... perhaps one specifically geared to very intentionally waste as much moderator time is possible starts to emerge, then we have to get a little bit more... stern.

Just sayin'.

which again, discourages the reporting of legitimate trolls.

NERVUN wrote:I'm curious here, can those who are against this rule point out a thread where the ability to call someone a troll has indeed proved helpful? Because the reason being put forth against this is that somehow calling someone a troll in thread, as opposed to reporting it in Moderation, helps self-police the thread.

the thread where cholorozone on whatever his name is reported me for, for implying he was unintelligent.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:But the Banhammer shall ride forth and smite them mightily. Trust me, mob rule is never a good idea. If the mods feel that someone is trolling, they'll make them flatter than a pancake soon enough. If you can't trust their judgement in the matter, maybe another forum would be better?

i am not always looking to get someone smacked by a mod, moderation should be a last resort, not a first, unless it is completely blatant.

I asked a question in moderation that was called rules lawyering by a mod, so i still don't know if it was acceptable or not.

I doubt that the mods first action will be a PermaBan®, they will point out to the Troll that they need to not if they wish to continue posting, then will sit them in the corner for a time so they can think about what they've done, and then if they keep pushing the button despite repeated warnings will hit them with the BanHammah™. If you can't control the language enough to legitimately destroy someone's points when they "may" be trolling, then how are you adding to the conversation by saying "TROLOLOLOLO"

Phocidaea wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:If you have a concern about a troll, REPORT THEM.

We're not being thrown to the wolves in the wild. The Mods will handle it.

But it's a lot more efficient if we're allowed to take this into our own hands. Besides, by making it still "legal" in the moderation section, all that will change about the handful of people who actually are only calling troll for lulz will be that they will have to switch sections of the forum.

That's the same as being a civilian vigilante, and they aren't in the real world either. I'd say a ban is too extreme, but some logical, proven reason to call one a troll should be allowed. Its like saying everyone has to tolerate the annoying immature teenager in a group of gamers. It wont happen, even when rules state it MUST happen.

NERVUN wrote:I'm curious here, can those who are against this rule point out a thread where the ability to call someone a troll has indeed proved helpful? Because the reason being put forth against this is that somehow calling someone a troll in thread, as opposed to reporting it in Moderation, helps self-police the thread.

Well, with the rule in place for a couple days, telling people not to feed trolls has pretty much become something I really miss. It's difficult to quantify how helpful that was, though.

Laerod wrote:

NERVUN wrote:I'm curious here, can those who are against this rule point out a thread where the ability to call someone a troll has indeed proved helpful? Because the reason being put forth against this is that somehow calling someone a troll in thread, as opposed to reporting it in Moderation, helps self-police the thread.

Well, with the rule in place for a couple days, telling people not to feed trolls has pretty much become something I really miss. It's difficult to quantify how helpful that was, though.

It is hard to tell who's a troll and who's an idiot individual with wildly differing views than the societal norm.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:We generally can tell when someone (or several someones) is intentionally making tons of frivolous or nearly-frivolous reports. They typically get told that the complaint is not actionable or to grow a thicker skin, and if a pattern... perhaps one specifically geared to very intentionally waste as much moderator time is possible starts to emerge, then we have to get a little bit more... stern.

Just sayin'.

That's not the point.

If enough people start doing this, and you start getting literally thousands of such reports a day, you'll still have to wade through them all. Are you really willing to do that?

And even if you do that, then if you want to have any hope of retaining whatever small credibility (most of) you have left, you'll find yourself "sanctioning" just about every regular contributor. NSG would then be dead, and you'd have nowhere to throw your weight around. Is that a risk you're really willing to take?

All because you were unwilling to admit that maybe, just maybe, you had a bad idea. Is that really what you want?

They didn't have a bad idea. Trollnaming is downright spamming, they just decided to give it a fancy name because it often happens right beside an argument.

What you're proposing is that we get butthurt over a new, and not very radical rule, and make the mods job easier, just because you want to be able to go, "TROLL!!1!1!!!!one!" At every dissenting opinion, which is, quite frankly, what happens to the more radical opinions in every fucking thread here. I've seen even Sidhae called a troll, and he actually stands by his arguments.

This isn't a stupid rule, it's a necessary one, because the trollnaming is rediculous.

Condunum wrote:This isn't a stupid rule, it's a necessary one, because the trollnaming is rediculous.

...At first I wondered if you had just misspelled ridiculous.

And then I got it. Clever!

Neo Art wrote:

NERVUN wrote:I'm curious here, can those who are against this rule point out a thread where the ability to call someone a troll has indeed proved helpful? Because the reason being put forth against this is that somehow calling someone a troll in thread, as opposed to reporting it in Moderation, helps self-police the thread.

Helpful? You want players to have to justify their actions by proving that their posts are helpful?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful. It has to do with being vaguely, mildly, temporarily amusing.

Which is the only reason anyone actually posts here at all. All these years, you still haven't figured that out?

That's nice. However, since you have other amusements, you shan't miss this one then.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:We generally can tell when someone (or several someones) is intentionally making tons of frivolous or nearly-frivolous reports. They typically get told that the complaint is not actionable or to grow a thicker skin, and if a pattern... perhaps one specifically geared to very intentionally waste as much moderator time is possible starts to emerge, then we have to get a little bit more... stern.

Just sayin'.

which again, discourages the reporting of legitimate trolls.

This has been the standard for years and yet... Moderation still gets reports.

Ethel mermania wrote:

NERVUN wrote:I'm curious here, can those who are against this rule point out a thread where the ability to call someone a troll has indeed proved helpful? Because the reason being put forth against this is that somehow calling someone a troll in thread, as opposed to reporting it in Moderation, helps self-police the thread.

the thread where cholorozone on whatever his name is reported me for, for implying he was unintelligent.

Link please.

NERVUN wrote:

Neo Art wrote:
Helpful? You want players to have to justify their actions by proving that their posts are helpful?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful. It has to do with being vaguely, mildly, temporarily amusing.

Which is the only reason anyone actually posts here at all. All these years, you still haven't figured that out?

That's nice. However, since you have other amusements, you shan't miss this one then.

I'm truly baffled at the point you're trying to make here. I'm not even intending to be snarky, I'm utterly unsure how you got from point A to point B.

You were the one who asked for an example of when it was helpful. Not me. I merely pointed out that "helpfulness" is not, was not, and has never been a requirement of ones posts. Nobody on NSG has ever been required to be helpful, and to support a policy because the now banned practice wasn't helpful is to impose a standard that has never once been part of NSG, not in all the years I've been here.

And if it was banned for reasons other than "not being helpful", then I'm really not sure why you're asking for such examples.

Me gusta le decision alot.

Is it just me, or was I the only one who already assumed this rule was in effect?

Seemed like a solid giveaway when crappy debaters resorted to the "you're a troll" argument.

Nadkor wrote:Good move. Any chance you can add the "fixed" thing as well?

God I hate those.

Neo Art wrote:

NERVUN wrote:That's nice. However, since you have other amusements, you shan't miss this one then.

I'm truly baffled at the point you're trying to make here. I'm not even intending to be snarky, I'm utterly unsure how you got from point A to point B.

You were the one who asked for an example of when it was helpful. Not me. I merely pointed out that "helpfulness" is not, was not, and has never been a requirement of ones posts. Nobody on NSG has ever been required to be helpful, and to support a policy because the now banned practice wasn't helpful is to impose a standard that has never once been part of NSG, not in all the years I've been here.

And if it was banned for reasons other than "not being helpful", then I'm really not sure why you're asking for such examples.

But playing forum-cops by publicly declaring someone a violators is surely not helpful. All you get is people getting worked up over an allegation which you - as a regular forum-dweller - have no right to voice outside of the provided forum.

I mean, how hard is it to go to a forum designed just for that rather that nerf an entire thread by calling someone a troll. It's not helping anyone, but if you want it dealt with - which I assume since you want to call someone a troll - report him/her on the forums rather than playing forum law enforcement officer yourself. It's not your job, and you're definitely not in a position to make such claims as long as you haven't been assigned as a moderator. Don't play the hero, call the cops.

Esternial wrote:

Neo Art wrote:
I'm truly baffled at the point you're trying to make here. I'm not even intending to be snarky, I'm utterly unsure how you got from point A to point B.

You were the one who asked for an example of when it was helpful. Not me. I merely pointed out that "helpfulness" is not, was not, and has never been a requirement of ones posts. Nobody on NSG has ever been required to be helpful, and to support a policy because the now banned practice wasn't helpful is to impose a standard that has never once been part of NSG, not in all the years I've been here.

And if it was banned for reasons other than "not being helpful", then I'm really not sure why you're asking for such examples.

But playing forum-cops by publicly declaring someone a violators is surely not helpful. All you get is people getting worked up over an allegation which you - as a regular forum-dweller - have no right to voice outside of the provided forum.

It's been customary to drop a "don't feed the troll" in a thread as advice to newbies and oldies that don't realize someone is really only here to get them to get themselves into trouble or to bask in causing people to rage at their bad spelling and faulty logic, and thus denying the troll the very thing they came for.

Laerod wrote:

Esternial wrote:But playing forum-cops by publicly declaring someone a violators is surely not helpful. All you get is people getting worked up over an allegation which you - as a regular forum-dweller - have no right to voice outside of the provided forum.

It's been customary to drop a "don't feed the troll" in a thread as advice to newbies and oldies that don't realize someone is really only here to get them to get themselves into trouble or to bask in causing people to rage at their bad spelling and faulty logic, and thus denying the troll the very thing they came for.

Customs can change, replace it with going to to moderation and you'll be just fine. By commenting with such 'mememic' replies you're only risking more issues rather than having a mod promptly deal with the issue at hand.

Unless there aren't any Mods online, but most of the time there are.

NERVUN wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
which again, discourages the reporting of legitimate trolls.

This has been the standard for years and yet... Moderation still gets reports.

Ethel mermania wrote:
the thread where cholorozone on whatever his name is reported me for, for implying he was unintelligent.

Link please.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=200011&p=10963596&hilit=ethel#p10963596


i'm not referring to his bitching about me, but the initial post i was responding too, which he helpfully provided. Now any other conversation we have about it as a meta conversation, will violate a few forum rules. Do i have permission to do so?

Esternial wrote:But playing forum-cops by publicly declaring someone a violators is surely not helpful. All you get is people getting worked up over an allegation which you - as a regular forum-dweller - have no right to voice outside of the provided forum.

I mean, how hard is it to go to a forum designed just for that rather that nerf an entire thread by calling someone a troll. It's not helping anyone, but if you want it dealt with - which I assume since you want to call someone a troll - report him/her on the forums rather than playing forum law enforcement officer yourself. It's not your job, and you're definitely not in a position to make such claims as long as you haven't been assigned as a moderator. Don't play the hero, call the cops.

Playing forum-cops? Declaring someone a violator? No right to voice? Don't play the hero?

My god man, it's NSG, not Die Hard.

Neo Art wrote:

Esternial wrote:But playing forum-cops by publicly declaring someone a violators is surely not helpful. All you get is people getting worked up over an allegation which you - as a regular forum-dweller - have no right to voice outside of the provided forum.

I mean, how hard is it to go to a forum designed just for that rather that nerf an entire thread by calling someone a troll. It's not helping anyone, but if you want it dealt with - which I assume since you want to call someone a troll - report him/her on the forums rather than playing forum law enforcement officer yourself. It's not your job, and you're definitely not in a position to make such claims as long as you haven't been assigned as a moderator. Don't play the hero, call the cops.

Playing forum-cops? Declaring someone a violator? No right to voice? Don't play the hero?

My god man, it's NSG, not Die Hard.

You have the right to voice.

Why is it so hard to do it in Moderation, really? Is there a force-field preventing you from going to the forum there and reporting the troll in question, because you're approach is less effective in comparison.

And yes, openly declaring someone a violator is prohibited. Only the Mods get to determine whether someone breaks the rules, I had assumed that'd be clear for most people who've been here for some time. You can voice any suspicions in Moderation, but not post in the thread in question "You're obviously a troll".

And yes, don't play try and play the hero. You're not a mod, don't act like one; it'll probably just make things worse anyway.

Esternial wrote:You have the right to voice.

Why is it so hard to do it in Moderation, really? Is there a force-field preventing you from going to the forum there and reporting the troll in question, because you're approach is less effective in comparison.

And yes, openly declaring someone a violator is prohibited. Only the Mods get to determine whether someone breaks the rules, I had assumed that'd be clear for most people who've been here for some time. You can voice any suspicions in Moderation, but not post in the thread in question "You're obviously a troll".

And yes, don't play try and play the hero. You're not a mod, don't act like one; it'll probably just make things worse anyway.

My primary objection to this new "policy" was that it spent such considerable effort not just drafting but actively enforcing a ruleset prohibiting something so utterly unimportant, completely irrelevant, and so piddlingly inconsequential that it made the whole exercise the biggest waste of energy since the Exxon Valdez.

Apparently I was mistaken. Seriously Business and all.

I feel like Kevin Bacon in Footloose, or maybe that little robot from Short Circuit. All I need is a montage. Preferably set to "Holding Out For a Hero" by Bonnie Tylder

Neo Art wrote:

Esternial wrote:You have the right to voice.

Why is it so hard to do it in Moderation, really? Is there a force-field preventing you from going to the forum there and reporting the troll in question, because you're approach is less effective in comparison.

And yes, openly declaring someone a violator is prohibited. Only the Mods get to determine whether someone breaks the rules, I had assumed that'd be clear for most people who've been here for some time. You can voice any suspicions in Moderation, but not post in the thread in question "You're obviously a troll".

And yes, don't play try and play the hero. You're not a mod, don't act like one; it'll probably just make things worse anyway.

My primary objection to this new "policy" was that it spent such considerable effort not just drafting but actively enforcing a ruleset prohibiting something so utterly unimportant, completely irrelevant, and so piddlingly inconsequential that it made the whole exercise the biggest waste of energy since the Exxon Valdez.

Apparently I was mistaken. Seriously Business and all.

Even though you might not see anything wrong with it, that doesn't mean other people won't take offense to being called a troll, or anything else for that matter. The term itself can be regarded as an insult, which might provide enough sparks to get a minor or even significant inflammatory response.

So try and look from another point of view, it might help you get a better grasp on the situation. Posts with little more than "OP is a troll" are a terrible waste of space and only proves how terrible someone is at properly debating. If you think the topic isn't worth replying to, don't reply at all.

Because that would be a waste of energy and space.

Esternial wrote:So try and look from another point of view, it might help you get a better grasp on the situation. Posts with little more than "OP is a troll" are a terrible waste of space and only proves how terrible someone is at properly debating. If you think the topic isn't worth replying to, don't reply at all.

You're right in the sense that "You're a troll" is a terrible method of proper debate. And that would be of relevance, if NSG was, even tangentially, a place where something that could even extraordinarily generously be described as "proper debating" actually happened.

But it's not, and it gets further and further from that point every year.

And if the culture of this site was such that actually encouraged, fostered, supported and nurtured intelligent discussion, discourse, and debate, then I'd be behind this rule 100%.

But it isn't, for reasons far more pervasive than "You're a troll!", which makes this rule less "supporting intellectual debate" and more "niggling micromanagement".

Virtually nobody here is engaged in anything remotely close to "serious debate". And I count myself amongst that group. The only difference is, I'm honest about it. The irony being I'm one of very few people on NSG to really attempt an ACTUAL formal debate, back in the day.

It's never been a place for real debate, it's just a place to kill time, with a ruleset that suggest that if we're going to kill time, we can try to at least not be overtly hostile to one another. Expanding that premise into the realm of "thou shalt not say" is just..well..niggling micromanagement seems to fit best.

Neo Art wrote:

Esternial wrote:So try and look from another point of view, it might help you get a better grasp on the situation. Posts with little more than "OP is a troll" are a terrible waste of space and only proves how terrible someone is at properly debating. If you think the topic isn't worth replying to, don't reply at all.

You're right in the sense that "You're a troll" is a terrible method of proper debate. And that would be of relevance, if NSG was, even tangentially, a place where something that could even extraordinarily generously be described as "proper debating" actually happened.

But it's not, and it gets further and further from that point every year.

And if the culture of this site was such that actually encouraged, fostered, supported and nurtured intelligent discussion, discourse, and debate, then I'd be behind this rule 100%.

But it isn't, for reasons far more pervasive than "You're a troll!", which makes this rule less "supporting intellectual debate" and more "niggling micromanagement".

Virtually nobody here is engaged in anything remotely close to "serious debate". And I count myself amongst that group. The only difference is, I'm honest about it. The irony being I'm one of very few people on NSG to really attempt an ACTUAL formal debate, back in the day.

It's never been a place for real debate, it's just a place to kill time, with a ruleset that suggest that if we're going to kill time, we can try to at least not be overtly hostile to one another. Expanding that premise into the realm of "thou shalt not say" is just..well..niggling micromanagement seems to fit best.

It avoids petty discussions and possible tread-jacks at bay, although one minor addition to the rules might seem like micromanagement to you, I can see why it does.

But by chipping away some of the impurities, even if only one by one, we might be able to attain a close equivalent of a pure sample. I agree with your arguments, but this rule will probably just keep out some of the factors that turn any attempt of intellectual debate into something far less intellectual.

Sure, it might be micromanagement, maybe; but it also supports debate on NSG by filtering out the posts that don't add any value to the thread. Trolls must be reported and their remains sterilized and removed; all those "you're a troll posts" are leftover junk that just lingers in the thread doing no good to anyone, so everyone might as well avoid dumping it there in the first place.

The Mods might add more rules like this to remove more impurities, I'm not sure. Most of it already fell under the spam-category, though. I mostly see it as an addendum to the "no-spamming rule", because that's what 'troll-naming' is in my eyes.