Trolls

[swansont]

Old article, but I only came across it recently.

 

http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html

 

I thought the "bad conversation drives out good" comment (the reference to Gresham's law) was particularly insightful. It's why there we have moderation. The really bad conversation — spam and its ilk and obvious trolling — is eliminated as soon as we discover it. The lesser infractions have a weaker feedback, in an attempt to improve the quality.

[JustinW]

At first I thought the thread was about trolls as fictitious creatures and was going to comment about my mother in law.

 

I haven't seen too much of that sort of behavior in this forum. Of course I've only been a member for a couple of months, but I believe the mods are reasonable and willing to put a stop to any nonsense. It was an interesting article from a behavioral standpoint.

[Daedalus]

If you want to see examples of trolls go to http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php and read posts under Flat Earth Q & A. You'll appreciate what our mods do for us here after reading a few of the posts on that site.

[randomc]

But what's the appeal for the inner cliques that always seems to form on these forums? I mean, they don't seem to spend much time talking amongst themselves, their attention is much more directed at newcomers and outliers, people who don't 'get it'. Trolls can be unpleasant but the outcome is rarely worse than mischief. It's cliquey types that always seem to be really nasty, to cause distress to people - same in real life actually.

 

So if a troll is simply someone who acts on unpleasant motives in an online discussion, i think everybody trolls. The cliquey types are just a little more sophisticated.

Edited December 16, 2011 by randomc

[swansont]

But what's the appeal for the inner cliques that always seems to form on these forums? I mean, they don't seem to spend much time talking amongst themselves, their attention is much more directed at newcomers and outliers, people who don't 'get it'. Trolls can be unpleasant but the outcome is rarely worse than mischief. It's cliquey types that always seem to be really nasty, to cause distress to people - same in real life actually.

 

So if a troll is simply someone who acts on unpleasant motives in an online discussion, i think everybody trolls. The cliquey types are just a little more sophisticated.

 

That is a danger, because you have "inside" jokes and such, and there is history between members that can color the tone of a discussion, so newcomers who don't "get" that can feel excluded. But I think that's more of a problem in discussion of opinion or just chatting, so it doesn't have as much effect in the science topics. The main thing "cliquey" about science (that I see) is that e.g. I don't wander into the biology or chemistry areas very often to answer questions, simply because I don't have anything to add to the discussion.

[randomc]

The inside jokes are so often other people though. There was a guy who posted here a couple of years ago (i can't remember what he called himself, i just think of him as 'primal scream guy'), who was just obviously a dysfunctional personality, i mean, he was ill, and he was mercilessly torn to pieces. After he was ejected from here he popped up on another forum, where he got exactly the same kind of treatment, but worse. I just have a hard time seeing him as the bad guy.

 

It doesn't seem to be like that here now, i should add.

[Appolinaria]

The inside jokes are so often other people though. There was a guy who posted here a couple of years ago (i can't remember what he called himself, i just think of him as 'primal scream guy'), who was just obviously a dysfunctional personality, i mean, he was ill, and he was mercilessly torn to pieces. After he was ejected from here he popped up on another forum, where he got exactly the same kind of treatment, but worse. I just have a hard time seeing him as the bad guy.

 

It doesn't seem to be like that here now, i should add.

 

Yeah, I think this forum is run by some good eggs. Phi, Swanson, Mooey, Cap'n, to name a few...

 

It seems to be very fair and there are just all around genuine/mature posters on here, IMO.

[Phi for All]

The inside jokes are so often other people though. There was a guy who posted here a couple of years ago (i can't remember what he called himself, i just think of him as 'primal scream guy'), who was just obviously a dysfunctional personality, i mean, he was ill, and he was mercilessly torn to pieces. After he was ejected from here he popped up on another forum, where he got exactly the same kind of treatment, but worse. I just have a hard time seeing him as the bad guy.

But he WAS the bad guy. He joined, he was supposed to read and abide by the rules, and he didn't, right out of the gate. Trying to be diplomatic with someone as aggressive as that is like trying to stop a steamroller with a gentle slap. If there is any hope of getting them to change, the aggression needs to be met with a high degree of disapproval.

 

Often it's difficult to determine if someone is truly functionally disadvantaged or just being a complete asshole. If you join and immediately start in with dysfunctional behavior, who can judge whether that was your intent all along, or maybe you're off your meds or you were just having a bad day? The key is to express disapproval in a proportionate way, not simply meet aggression with aggression. If someone insults you personally, you let them know how weak that kind of argument is, you don't insult them back.

 

People often come here with an attitude and get piled on by just about everybody. The ones who care about staying get the message when THAT many people call them out on their behavior. If the behavior is modified, people lighten up and start responding with respect. I've seen it happen a thousand times here. If someone acts like a jerk in one thread and acts responsibly in another, you'll see the same people responding to both threads with appropriate and proportionate replies.

 

It doesn't seem to be like that here now, i should add.

Well, good. We're all here to learn, and I'm glad it seems to be working.

 

Yeah, I think this forum is run by some good eggs. Phi, Swanson, Mooey, Cap'n, to name a few...

Except that Phi guy tells too many bad yolks....

[Appolinaria]

I like my eggs funny side up

[CaptainPanic]

The strong opinions of trolls can start quite entertaining threads. As long as trolls take aim at a concept or theory, rather than at someone personally, it can also make the place more lively. And whether it is intentional or not, this forum seems to have found the sweet spot - allowing just enough trolling to keep the place fun and also slightly provocative. Exactly what science needs.

 

Often it's difficult to determine if someone is truly functionally disadvantaged or just being a complete asshole.

I do not think that is even relevant.

If we (e.g. you, as a mod) would know for a fact that someone is "functionally disadvantaged" and therefore not able to behave properly, and it's also not provocative in a functional way... would there be any reason to tolerate such behavior? I don't think so.

Edited December 19, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

The strong opinions of trolls can start quite entertaining threads. As long as trolls take aim at a concept or theory, rather than at someone personally, it can also make the place more lively. And whether it is intentional or not, this forum seems to have found the sweet spot - allowing just enough trolling to keep the place fun and also slightly provocative. Exactly what science needs.

 

We try to be careful to only clamp down on behavior when it's disruptive, which includes personal attacks, but that's also part of insisting on scientific discourse — calling someone a jerk, etc. doesn't address the topic and is usually used in the context of an ad hominem fallacy. So that's bad for discussion.

 

A difficulty arises in differentiating between a true troll — someone who is intentionally posting provocative material to stir things up — and someone who is simply a crackpot and truly believes what they are posting. The result is often the same; they are typically impervious to learning and refuse to acknowledge valid counterarguments. But it can be a good exercise to find the flaws in their posts and hone your own rebuttal skills.

[ewmon]

I see the cliques/elitists more of a concern than trolls, especially when it's a moderator or when two or three essentially hijack a thread by use of fast and furious postings on some slight detail to the point that other concurrent conversations/posts are woefully diluted/lost. It's even worse when their posts are several screen lengths long due to them quoting and replying to each other's every sentence, phrase and/or word. It's then that a moderator should cull their postings and make them a separate thread.

 

In the very few instances where I've been involved in these thread hijackings, I try to narrow down the points instead of fighting each point to the bitter end. It's about picking the battles worth fighting.

Edited December 19, 2011 by ewmon

[Phi for All]

I see the cliques/elitists more of a concern than trolls, especially when it's a moderator or when two or three essentially hijack a thread by use of fast and furious postings on some slight detail to the point that other concurrent conversations/posts are woefully diluted/lost. It's even worse when their posts are several screen lengths long due to them quoting and replying to each other's every sentence, phrase and/or word. It's then that a moderator should cull their postings and make them a separate thread.

 

In the very few instances where I've been involved in these thread hijackings, I try to narrow down the points instead of fighting each point to the bitter end. It's about picking the battles worth fighting.

People (myself included) often post things that need correction, because NOT correcting them lends a sort of tacit support, especially on a science forum. Replying to every sentence is supposed to show support, clarification and rebuttal where it's appropriately due, though I admit it can often seem tedious. Sometimes we need to let people know that ALL the battles are worth fighting if they're posting trollish garbage.

 

As for Mods swarming when blood hits the water, imo it's only occasionally an overreaction. Sometimes we just want a poster or two to know they can't get away with crap, and sometimes it's just because we're all interested. And much of the time it's because someone used the Report Post feature and we're just trying to do our jobs.

 

I should note that when we're actually posting in a thread, we don't use any Moderator functions, other than to point out the rules, which anyone is free to do, short of threatening enforcement. We try to have a Mod who isn't involved be the arbiter if there is even a hint of an interest conflict.

[swansont]

In the very few instances where I've been involved in these thread hijackings, I try to narrow down the points instead of fighting each point to the bitter end. It's about picking the battles worth fighting.

If you're responding to points that are raised, it's generally not a thread hijack. And the counter to this is that the other poster will sometimes complain that you didn't respond to a point and occasionally accuse you of dodging the issue. So IMO it's not as clear-cut as all that.

 

As far as splitting thread hijacks goes, the "new" software makes that harder than it used to be. We can no longer make a copy of a post, so if it contains information that is both on- an off-topic, you can't copy (and then edit) to create a pristine thread on the tangent material.