New forum offense: Trollnaming

[Page]

Seems risky and a potential way for trolls to become immune from being reported.

If one calls out a troll for trolling then one can earn a "trollnaming" offense.
If one reports a troll then the wording implies that they can then be subject to a "mods as weapons" offense if their reports on people they view as being actual trolls are mistaken to be against a specific player (such as a troll)

What exactly then can one do if one finds one is being trolled if one can get in trouble for naming a troll in a thread as well as for reporting a troll repeatedly for being consistently offensive?

Agreed. It's especially a bad situation regarding the trolls the mods have decided aren't trolls, because they have previously refused to take action against people who will not be named, so now the only other option people had to publicly call them out is also gone.

[Laerod]

Seems risky and a potential way for trolls to become immune from being reported.

If one calls out a troll for trolling then one can earn a "trollnaming" offense.
If one reports a troll then the wording implies that they can then be subject to a "mods as weapons" offense if their reports on people they view as being actual trolls are mistaken to be against a specific player (such as a troll)

What exactly then can one do if one finds one is being trolled if one can get in trouble for naming a troll in a thread as well as for reporting a troll repeatedly for being consistently offensive?

Actually, it doesn't:

This specifically does NOT apply to Moderation forum reports. If you feel another player is trolling, report it, and we will act as necessary.

[Natapoc]

Seems risky and a potential way for trolls to become immune from being reported.

If one calls out a troll for trolling then one can earn a "trollnaming" offense.
If one reports a troll then the wording implies that they can then be subject to a "mods as weapons" offense if their reports on people they view as being actual trolls are mistaken to be against a specific player (such as a troll)

What exactly then can one do if one finds one is being trolled if one can get in trouble for naming a troll in a thread as well as for reporting a troll repeatedly for being consistently offensive?

Actually, it doesn't:

This specifically does NOT apply to Moderation forum reports. If you feel another player is trolling, report it, and we will act as necessary.

Yes it could. If you continue to read Frisbeeteria's post you'll note the potential problem.

If a player consistently misuses moderation reports to shut another player down, they'll be subject to Mods-as-weapons warnings as well.

You see, the problem here is that "misuses" and "consistently" are arbitrary and have no defined meaning other than what whomever is reviewing the case submitted is feeling at the time or perhaps a consensus discussed in the secret forum.

The problem is you'll never know if your report of someone who is trolling you will be viewed as "misuse" or if your report of someone who consistently harasses you a second time will be viewed as "consistently."

I feel this will make people afraid to report actual trolls which will make the forum an even more hostile place. In the past, politely pointing out trolling behavior has been one way that players could let a troll (and others) know that you felt they were engaging in a behavior that was counterproductive to open and honest discussion and one could choose only to report the most severe or offensive trolling.

Now that it's illegal to communicate to someone who is trolling that they are indeed trolling we must instead report them to the mods. But in doing so we run the risk of being secretly judged as "using mods as weapons".

This process has no transparency and it's impossible for a person to know if his or her moderation report will be judged as "using mods as weapons"

This becomes increasingly important now that it's no longer acceptable to inform people when they are engaging in trolling behavior directly.

[Nadkor]

There is a difference between occasionally making a reasonable enough report where there are two sensible sides to the argument over whether or not a poster is a troll (but which the mods might come down on the "not a troll" side) and constantly attempting to abuse the system to report people for behaviour that clearly is not actionable just because you don't like what someone's saying. In fact, there's a clear difference between repeatedly doing the former and repeatedly doing the latter.

One of my old lecturers used to tell me to consider this when I was trying to decide if arguments I was making were stupid - would you be embarrassed to stand up in court and argue it? If the answer is "yes" then you need to come up with a better argument.

Apply that logic to reporting trolls.

[Laerod]

Yes it could. If you continue to read Frisbeeteria's post you'll note the potential problem.

Actually no:

Note also that the usual "Mods-as-weapons" rules apply.

(Emphasis mine)
It's always been like this, and having lurked in moderation quite a bit, I can only recall one person that got whacked for making repeated reports that could be construed as such. And I've seen lots of people report stuff that was considered "not actionable" without that happening.

[NERVUN]

Seems risky and a potential way for trolls to become immune from being reported.

If one calls out a troll for trolling then one can earn a "trollnaming" offense.
If one reports a troll then the wording implies that they can then be subject to a "mods as weapons" offense if their reports on people they view as being actual trolls are mistaken to be against a specific player (such as a troll)

What exactly then can one do if one finds one is being trolled if one can get in trouble for naming a troll in a thread as well as for reporting a troll repeatedly for being consistently offensive?

Agreed. It's especially a bad situation regarding the trolls the mods have decided aren't trolls, because they have previously refused to take action against people who will not be named, so now the only other option people had to publicly call them out is also gone.

Just because you disagree with a person does not mean they are a troll.

[NERVUN]

Actually, it doesn't:

Yes it could. If you continue to read Frisbeeteria's post you'll note the potential problem.

If a player consistently misuses moderation reports to shut another player down, they'll be subject to Mods-as-weapons warnings as well.

You see, the problem here is that "misuses" and "consistently" are arbitrary and have no defined meaning other than what whomever is reviewing the case submitted is feeling at the time or perhaps a consensus discussed in the secret forum.

The problem is you'll never know if your report of someone who is trolling you will be viewed as "misuse" or if your report of someone who consistently harasses you a second time will be viewed as "consistently."

I feel this will make people afraid to report actual trolls which will make the forum an even more hostile place. In the past, politely pointing out trolling behavior has been one way that players could let a troll (and others) know that you felt they were engaging in a behavior that was counterproductive to open and honest discussion and one could choose only to report the most severe or offensive trolling.

Now that it's illegal to communicate to someone who is trolling that they are indeed trolling we must instead report them to the mods. But in doing so we run the risk of being secretly judged as "using mods as weapons".

This process has no transparency and it's impossible for a person to know if his or her moderation report will be judged as "using mods as weapons"

This becomes increasingly important now that it's no longer acceptable to inform people when they are engaging in trolling behavior directly.

Normally we just assume that other people are going to be reasonable about it.

[Ethel mermania]

Agreed. It's especially a bad situation regarding the trolls the mods have decided aren't trolls, because they have previously refused to take action against people who will not be named, so now the only other option people had to publicly call them out is also gone.

Just because you disagree with a person does not mean they are a troll.

Agreed, but your kind of taking away the ability to call someone one. chronic trolls are going to get away with being chronic trolls, because you are putting greater risk on the person calling the troll out.

[Johz]

Just because you disagree with a person does not mean they are a troll.

Agreed, but your kind of taking away the ability to call someone one. chronic trolls are going to get away with being chronic trolls, because you are putting greater risk on the person calling the troll out.

But chronic trolls are usually quite obvious, and the moderation forum is quiet easy to switch to. Alternatively, if someone is being a chronic troll, you can just ignore them, either by using the forum mechanism for ignoring, or just by choosing not to read any meaning into the posts they are making.

Calling someone a troll is not adding to the conversation. I assume a post containing a casual remark about trolling ("Please can you stop trolling, <coherent rebuttal>") would be allowed. The issue is posting simply to call someone a troll, which isn't going to help the situation in the first place.

[Ethel mermania]

Agreed, but your kind of taking away the ability to call someone one. chronic trolls are going to get away with being chronic trolls, because you are putting greater risk on the person calling the troll out.

But chronic trolls are usually quite obvious, and the moderation forum is quiet easy to switch to. Alternatively, if someone is being a chronic troll, you can just ignore them, either by using the forum mechanism for ignoring, or just by choosing not to read any meaning into the posts they are making.

Calling someone a troll is not adding to the conversation. I assume a post containing a casual remark about trolling ("Please can you stop trolling, <coherent rebuttal>") would be allowed. The issue is posting simply to call someone a troll, which isn't going to help the situation in the first place.

Sometimes a troll needs to be called out, but going to moderation is really too much. Moderation should be for when self policing fails.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I have to agree that it is highly annoying sometimes.

I guess we can maybe bring this up in Moderation?

Indeed. You guys can bring up rule changes you'd like to see in Moderation at any time. We do actually listen. If the fixed meme is getting out of hand again, it might be something to take a look at. It used to be banned until a number of players asked for it back for joking purposes IIRC.

I don't think "fixed" posts ought to be banned. They can be used to make legitimate arguments as well as humor. Some fixes are better than others, but I don't see any need to ban the practice in general.

[Nadkor]

Indeed. You guys can bring up rule changes you'd like to see in Moderation at any time. We do actually listen. If the fixed meme is getting out of hand again, it might be something to take a look at. It used to be banned until a number of players asked for it back for joking purposes IIRC.

I don't think "fixed" posts ought to be banned. They can be used to make legitimate arguments as well as humor. Some fixes are better than others, but I don't see any need to ban the practice in general.

The way to make legitimate arguments is to address the points made in the post you're quoting and rebut them, providing a sustainable and reasoned platform for debate, not to simply replace select words in the post you're quoting and to declare it to have been "fixed".

[Norstal]

Good. Now when will you mods take my advice and make a rule about proper grammar and spelling?

Just because you disagree with a person does not mean they are a troll.

Agreed, but your kind of taking away the ability to call someone one. chronic trolls are going to get away with being chronic trolls, because you are putting greater risk on the person calling the troll out.

Can you not call someone a troll in the Moderation forum, where it belongs?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I don't think "fixed" posts ought to be banned. They can be used to make legitimate arguments as well as humor. Some fixes are better than others, but I don't see any need to ban the practice in general.

The way to make legitimate arguments is to address the points made in the post you're quoting and rebut them, providing a sustainable and reasoned platform for debate, not to simply replace select words in the post you're quoting and to declare it to have been "fixed".

It really depends on what changes you are making. If you are tweaking the quoted post, but still keeping the meaning in the same ballpark, then it is definitely not baiting. I've seen people use "fixed" on my posts when they mostly agreed with me, but just had something they wanted to add or clarify, and there's nothing inappropriate about that.

Even changing a post to support the opposite side of the debate, like crossing out "conservatives" and writing in "liberals" or something along those lines is still stating an opinion about the issue at hand. It's only a minority of "fixed" posts that are attacks on a particular poster. There's no reason why the insulting ones can't get warnings for baiting without having a blanket ban on all "fixed" posts.

[Bitchkitten]

I am sure the potentially useful rule will be applied poorly to the continual protection of antisocial, immature users (I'm not naming names) who always stand right behind the rulebreaking borderline and game the system, to punish the people who call them out.

Nonetheless I applaud the effort though I think it will be a failure.

^This. We have a cadre of thin skinned whiners.

I don't agree with people who us continual flaming, flamebaiting or trolling as a substitute for debate. But I find certain people scream for a mod at the first sign of offense. How do these babies ever mean to function in real life without a mod at their sides constantly?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I am sure the potentially useful rule will be applied poorly to the continual protection of antisocial, immature users (I'm not naming names) who always stand right behind the rulebreaking borderline and game the system, to punish the people who call them out.

Nonetheless I applaud the effort though I think it will be a failure.

^This. We have a cadre of thin skinned whiners.

I don't agree with people who us continual flaming, flamebaiting or trolling as a substitute for debate. But I find certain people scream for a mod at the first sign of offense. How do these babies ever mean to function in real life without a mod at their sides constantly?

They tend to be the people who lurk by the boss' office ready to report some infraction or another, who then hide around the corner when the person responsible for the infraction is being instructed. They also tend to head straight for authority at the first sign of conflict. Trust me, this isn't a unique to forums issue. I like the new rule, even though I've had to watch myself several times since its implementation.

[Natapoc]

I am sure the potentially useful rule will be applied poorly to the continual protection of antisocial, immature users (I'm not naming names) who always stand right behind the rulebreaking borderline and game the system, to punish the people who call them out.

Nonetheless I applaud the effort though I think it will be a failure.

^This. We have a cadre of thin skinned whiners.

I don't agree with people who us continual flaming, flamebaiting or trolling as a substitute for debate. But I find certain people scream for a mod at the first sign of offense. How do these babies ever mean to function in real life without a mod at their sides constantly?

Such beautiful irony that you choose to post such a great example in this thread. Well done! I wonder how many people will get it?

[NERVUN]

But chronic trolls are usually quite obvious, and the moderation forum is quiet easy to switch to. Alternatively, if someone is being a chronic troll, you can just ignore them, either by using the forum mechanism for ignoring, or just by choosing not to read any meaning into the posts they are making.

Calling someone a troll is not adding to the conversation. I assume a post containing a casual remark about trolling ("Please can you stop trolling, <coherent rebuttal>") would be allowed. The issue is posting simply to call someone a troll, which isn't going to help the situation in the first place.

Sometimes a troll needs to be called out, but going to moderation is really too much. Moderation should be for when self policing fails.

Exactly where has self-policing actually worked?

Seriously, the whole reason we did this was because threads have gone to ARE NOT! ARE SO! ARE NOT! ARE SO! with a background chorus of TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! to the point where I have been tempted to ask if everyone has donned a viking helmet before they posted.

I mean, I WISH I could say that screams of "Troll!" are met with "I'm terribly sorry old chap, perhaps you are right, I shall moderate my position a bit" or "Good sir, I am not actually trolling as these are my firmly held beliefs because of X, Y, and Z reason" "Oh, I say, indeed you are not trolling and I withdraw the charge, but let me rebut with..." But sadly, that is NOT how NSG has been working as of late.

[NERVUN]

Good. Now when will you mods take my advice and make a rule about proper grammar and spelling?

Because I'd end up having to ban myself.

[NERVUN]

I am sure the potentially useful rule will be applied poorly to the continual protection of antisocial, immature users (I'm not naming names) who always stand right behind the rulebreaking borderline and game the system, to punish the people who call them out.

Nonetheless I applaud the effort though I think it will be a failure.

^This. We have a cadre of thin skinned whiners.

I don't agree with people who us continual flaming, flamebaiting or trolling as a substitute for debate. But I find certain people scream for a mod at the first sign of offense. How do these babies ever mean to function in real life without a mod at their sides constantly?

Very cute, knock it off.

[Norstal]

I am sure the potentially useful rule will be applied poorly to the continual protection of antisocial, immature users (I'm not naming names) who always stand right behind the rulebreaking borderline and game the system, to punish the people who call them out.

Nonetheless I applaud the effort though I think it will be a failure.

^This. We have a cadre of thin skinned whiners.

I don't agree with people who us continual flaming, flamebaiting or trolling as a substitute for debate. But I find certain people scream for a mod at the first sign of offense. How do these babies ever mean to function in real life without a mod at their sides constantly?

Yes, how does one post on the moderation forum instead of anywhere else.

Seriously people, you can still call people trolls in the moderation forum. I don't see the problem with it, other than the moderators actually having the final call whether or not someone is a troll.

[New Sapienta]

A rather unnecessary rule. Such an offense would most likely fall under spam.

[Natapoc]

I mean, I WISH I could say that screams of "Troll!" are met with "I'm terribly sorry old chap, perhaps you are right, I shall moderate my position a bit" or "Good sir, I am not actually trolling as these are my firmly held beliefs because of X, Y, and Z reason" "Oh, I say, indeed you are not trolling and I withdraw the charge, but let me rebut with..." But sadly, that is NOT how NSG has been working as of late.

I've had conversations like this. Although not from just one liner "Troll!" comments (as I can't imagine I'd make such a comment). It would usually be more like:

Poster Y, Poster X is just trolling you. Don't let him get to you. The real issue is x,y,z.

Or: Although the OP is clearly trying to troll [insert group here] [insert evidence here], there is an interesting discussion to be had on the general topic.

[insert non trollish point A]
[insert non trollish point B]
[insert non trollish point C]

I'm sorry to hear that discussion on NSG has degraded to the point where people are simply responding to posts with "Troll!".

ps. I actually looked at my post history and saw cases where I did what I just described in ways that I feel contributed to making threads be less hostile and provoke more rational discussion. I just don't like this rule because it seems overly broad, lumping the legitimate reasons (and methods) of calling out trolls with the illegitimate methods (such as simply saying: "Troll!" to anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint)

I'm just concerned about the chilling effect of such rules and how they may be used to stifle one of the useful tools for dealing with trolls. I'm not trying to claim that the problem of people simply saying "troll" instead of argument is irrelevant.

I know the moderators have good intentions.

[NERVUN]

I mean, I WISH I could say that screams of "Troll!" are met with "I'm terribly sorry old chap, perhaps you are right, I shall moderate my position a bit" or "Good sir, I am not actually trolling as these are my firmly held beliefs because of X, Y, and Z reason" "Oh, I say, indeed you are not trolling and I withdraw the charge, but let me rebut with..." But sadly, that is NOT how NSG has been working as of late.

I've had conversations like this. Although not from just one liner "Troll!" comments (as I can't imagine I'd make such a comment). It would usually be more like:

Poster Y, Poster X is just trolling you. Don't let him get to you. The real issue is x,y,z.

Or: Although the OP is clearly trying to troll [insert group here] [insert evidence here], there is an interesting discussion to be had on the general topic.

[insert non trollish point A]
[insert non trollish point B]
[insert non trollish point C]

I'm sorry to hear that discussion on NSG has degraded to the point where people are simply responding to posts with "Troll!".

ps. I actually looked at my post history and saw cases where I did what I just described in ways that I feel contributed to making threads be less hostile and provoke more rational discussion. I just don't like this rule because it seems overly broad, lumping the legitimate reasons (and methods) of calling out trolls with the illegitimate methods (such as simply saying: "Troll!" to anyone who disagrees with the majority viewpoint)

And those methods are still acceptable.

It's the TROLL! posts that are now not.

I'm just concerned about the chilling effect of such rules and how they may be used to stifle one of the useful tools for dealing with trolls. I'm not trying to claim that the problem of people simply saying "troll" instead of argument is irrelevant.

I know the moderators have good intentions.

We're not happy with it either, the problem is one of we're seeing it too many times.

[Blakk Metal]

I demand credit. This was my idea.