what about limiting certain areas the site until someone has been a member "x" long?

[Worldwalker]

Would it be possible to restrict access on a per-user basis? For example, if someone has given helpful answers in the Kindle forum, but keeps trolling in the Lounge, shut him out of the Lounge, either temporarily or permanently?

The reason people respond to trolls, by the way, is this: Right now in MobileRead there are 112 registered users and 709 guests. Nobody, at least nobody who thinks about it, expects to tell a troll anything. That's kind of the point of trolling; they'd say the sun was purple if it would get people wound up. Rather, people are talking to the lurkers -- 6x as many, in this case, as active users. If people leave a troll's statements unchallenged (especially if they're carefully couched to sound not too outrageous at first read) then that appears to be the consensus of forum users to outsiders, visitors, Google, and so on. People can't leave a statement they find abhorrent ("all ereaders should be burned") unanswered for that reason. It's a bad situation, and one trolls thrive on: on one hand, you don't want to feed the trolls, and thereby encourage them, but on the other hand, you don't want to leave the trolls unchallenged ... and thereby encourage them. The only thing in my experience that discourages trolling is early and active deletion of their posts and banning of their accounts, and that brings in the nasty, tangled, grotty hairball of defining exactly what is a troll, how you know they're a troll, what posts should be deleted, and who decides who is allowed on the forums and what they're allowed to say. There is no easy answer for the troll problem, which is exactly why there are so many, and such effective, trolls.

[Alexander Turcic]

Totally agree with you - excellent comment. This is what makes moderating trolls most difficult: they are often not easy to detect - initially at least. To decide when a post is "trollish" is usually based on subjective judgment, and hence it requires more evidence of the troll's behavior to make an ultimate decision.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Speaking as a mod - the recent spate of unpleasantness in the llounge - and elsewhere - was quite disturbing - and the mods did their human best to keep up with - and stomp on - both the original offending posters and the resultant sockpuppetry. Members sending in reports as soon as the sockpuppets appeared helped us track them down through many forums. Unfortunately, there are simply individuals who have nothing better to do with their time than try to bring down forums/websites, etc. I don't know - maybe there's a club where they hang out and brag.

It is simply impossible for the mods to keep up with, let alone read, ALL the posts here. We rely on the MR members to alert us when things start to go bad. When you report a post as either spam or for being offensive, your reports go to a central thread that is monitored virtually 24 hours/day - given the spread of mods over the time zones. And EVERY report is read. Sometimes action is taken swiftly. Other times there is a delay, as decisions are made by the group of mods.

So, rather than imposing rules, I encourage all members to alert us as soon as you notice anyone or any post that is spam, offensive, or questionable. The sooner we know something is wrong, the sooner we can act to correct it, or modify the postings. You - the MR members - are the best means of keeping the trolls out of our forums. And I thank you all for helping us "greenies" keep up with that recent rash that KK described in the OP!

People like myself seem to feel that it's 'wimpish' to alert Mods if they are unfairly attacked. This will now change........big time.

Trolls and bullies have no place on MR.

We should be able to debate and have disagreements without the fear of attack.

Cheers.
PS Yikes!! Being a Mod would be too stressful for me.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Nobody, at least nobody who thinks about it, expects to tell a troll anything. That's kind of the point of trolling; they'd say the sun was purple if it would get people wound up. Rather, people are talking to the lurkers -- 6x as many, in this case, as active users. If people leave a troll's statements unchallenged (especially if they're carefully couched to sound not too outrageous at first read) then that appears to be the consensus of forum users to outsiders, visitors, Google, and so on.

Exactly-- last year, when a certain person was evangelizing the idea that ebook readers were a fundamentally horrible thing that would lead to a generation of people unable to think (because for some reason reading from a electronic display of any type affected the brain in a way fundamentally different than "real" books) I actually made comments "to Google" pointing out the lies and sockpuppeting. (Of course, that only has any meaning when someone is trying to build a reputation as an authority to be taken seriously using their real name.)

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

this most recent thread issue, it seemed like the regulars were doing a pretty good job of dodging the troll bombs and sticking to the topic at hand. we as a group are learning to do that better and better and then to have our good behaviour rewarded with early closure is very disappointing!

I see that Alex has shared that the moderators are looking at the issue to try to come up with ways to combat it.

One other thought I have is that there are legitimate "newbies" here, as well as long-timers. Those newbies haven't been around long enough to know what the "normal" atmosphere is here. They may feel intimidated and never come back. Hell, they may jump into the fray and feel confused when they're reprimanded for doing what to them seemed like common behavior.

[montsnmags]

Worldwalker, they are my thoughts on trolls too.

I have a problem with the label "trolls" because it is too easy to use. For my mind, a troll is intentionally trying to goad people. A couple of the recent bannings could be hypothesized as being trolls, but as longer-termers they could also be just expressing their actual views. In which case calling them "trolls" is almost as unhelpful as the views themselves, as it is, to me, another form of namecalling, which always degrades discussion.

This, of course, doesn't preclude there being actual trouble-making trolls - brand new folk (as KK is talking about) or post-ban sockpuppets (again as KK is talking about) who are playing the "Obvious troll is obvious" game (even though they don't realize how obvious they are, at least most don't). That's what, I think, KK is specifically talking about seeing as, for instance, a couple of the recently-banned would have been able to post in The Lounge under the suggested conditions. My issue is that I think The Lounge is the room after the Introduce Yourself anteroom, where new folk can get an "in" quickly and with fewer parameters and topic-knowledge requirements. I worry that setting any "qualification" on the more casual Lounge may have a greater impact in MR (by discouraging new member participation) than any troll or sockpuppet issues do.

I would say that I think if the recent two topics involved hadn't migrated to discussion of religion they would not have been affected so. For my mind it was hard (though most managed) to avoid discussing that topic because of the subject matter...perhaps it was inevitable. Knowing our Guidelines on religion (and politics), perhaps enforcement of them should have occurred much earlier. While I appreciate the ability of people to have such discussions in a polite and adult fashion, in my view that guideline is there as a preventative, with the awareness that, whether through trolling or sockpuppetry or "zealotry" or just strong feeling, such topics often end up the way those two did. Theoretically I think those two recent topics could have stayed on-topic without resorting to religious disagreement, and perhaps more immediate interjection by Moderators to encourage people to avoid religious argument would have helped there. I personally am only just on the "yes" side of the line that thinks those topics should have been okay to go ahead, at least under the Guidelines as they stand. I could be talked into "No" though, because I'm a worrier.

Which is all to say, perhaps the problem with the sockpuppets and trolls, and with topics going skewed, is less about the people permitted to post and more about the topic posted. Perhaps noting it's a risky topic at the start, offering direction, or just stopping it early, would in many cases be more effective, without precluding newbie presence in the (generally very friendly) Lounge. IMO, those topics should not have got to where they did if the Guideline on religion was acknowledged/enforced. (I do not comment on the Guideline itself - but only that it is a Guideline)

Cheers,
Marc

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

People like myself seem to feel that it's 'wimpish' to alert Mods if they are unfairly attacked. This will now change........big time.

Trolls and bullies have no place on MR.

We should be able to debate and have disagreements without the fear of attack.

Cheers.
PS Yikes!! Being a Mod would be too stressful for me.

Yes - my point exactly! It's impossible for mods to read or follow all posts in all threads all the time - we need your input to help us assemble the information necessary to make the kinds of decisions Alex was talking about in his posts.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Alas, it is not that easy. For instance, in this particular thread, the last user who has been interrupting the discussion with racist remarks has been a member here for almost two years, and he has made normal posts in the past. While restricting access may turn away the most obvious of trolls, it's not a solution to prevent some individuals from showing their worst when disagreeing with a topic.

Like I said, we're looking into this and contemplating solutions.

it is indeed unfortunate that it was a member of long standing. perhaps the most recent silliness provoked some anger issues and the person felt they needed to act out.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Would it be possible to restrict access on a per-user basis? For example, if someone has given helpful answers in the Kindle forum, but keeps trolling in the Lounge, shut him out of the Lounge, either temporarily or permanently?

I think that when someone starts acting out the way these most recent ones have, they are going to act out anywhere/everywhere.
The reason people respond to trolls, by the way, is this: Right now in MobileRead there are 112 registered users and 709 guests. Nobody, at least nobody who thinks about it, expects to tell a troll anything. That's kind of the point of trolling; they'd say the sun was purple if it would get people wound up. Rather, people are talking to the lurkers -- 6x as many, in this case, as active users. If people leave a troll's statements unchallenged (especially if they're carefully couched to sound not too outrageous at first read) then that appears to be the consensus of forum users to outsiders, visitors, Google, and so on. People can't leave a statement they find abhorrent ("all ereaders should be burned") unanswered for that reason.
when it seems that it truly is trolling/spam, I have taken to responding to "spamtasitc" or "spamalicious" mainly because of that statement... to let new people or outside observers know that this is not what we expect or normally experience/allow
It's a bad situation, and one trolls thrive on: on one hand, you don't want to feed the trolls, and thereby encourage them, but on the other hand, you don't want to leave the trolls unchallenged ... and thereby encourage them. The only thing in my experience that discourages trolling is early and active deletion of their posts I think it would help a LOT if there was more deleting of posts (and a warning to the offender) than the locking of threads. along those lines a standard could be set up of say; three warnings and a (week?) suspension, another three and a (month?) another three and a (year?) or something like thatand banning of their accounts, and that brings in the nasty, tangled, grotty hairball of defining exactly what is a troll, how you know they're a troll, what posts should be deleted, and who decides who is allowed on the forums and what they're allowed to say. There is no easy answer for the troll problem, which is exactly why there are so many, and such effective, trolls.

Originally Posted by nohmi2

People like myself seem to feel that it's 'wimpish' to alert Mods if they are unfairly attacked. This will now change........big time.

Trolls and bullies have no place on MR.

We should be able to debate and have disagreements without the fear of attack.

Cheers.
PS Yikes!! Being a Mod would be too stressful for me.

I have and will have a hard time reporting personal attacks ON me. I think I only did it once I perceived it to be an issue in an ongoing argument. on the other hand if someone is being a jerk to someone else I have more of a tendency to report it or at least say something myself. I come from a culture of that's "tattling" when it is done to me, and if you can't stick up for yourself, you have no business being at the party

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I see that Alex has shared that the moderators are looking at the issue to try to come up with ways to combat it.

yeah, he is now. one of the reasons why I started the thread. I felt it needed some dialogue
One other thought I have is that there are legitimate "newbies" here, as well as long-timers. Those newbies haven't been around long enough to know what the "normal" atmosphere is here. They may feel intimidated and never come back. Hell, they may jump into the fray and feel confused when they're reprimanded for doing what to them seemed like common behavior.

that's one of the reasons why I have suggested keeping the lounge as a place to look forward to joining after one has been here for a little while. newbies come into the individual advice forums, the news, reading recs. and so on, get a lay of the land, start to know the forum, the tone the posters, etc. and after they have their feet under them be allowed into the lounge. along the lines of you don't bring your date to meet your family the first time out

Originally Posted by montsnmags

Worldwalker, they are my thoughts on trolls too.

I have a problem with the label "trolls" because it is too easy to use. For my mind, a troll is intentionally trying to goad people. A couple of the recent bannings could be hypothesized as being trolls, but as longer-termers they could also be just expressing their actual views. In which case calling them "trolls" is almost as unhelpful as the views themselves, as it is, to me, another form of namecalling, which always degrades discussion.

This, of course, doesn't preclude there being actual trouble-making trolls - brand new folk (as KK is talking about) or post-ban sockpuppets (again as KK is talking about) who are playing the "Obvious troll is obvious" game (even though they don't realize how obvious they are, at least most don't). That's what, I think, KK is specifically talking about seeing as, for instance, a couple of the recently-banned would have been able to post in The Lounge under the suggested conditions. yep, that is mostly what I am talking about, also, as I mentioned above that just maybe the whole temperment in the lounge from the real trolls and socks pushed some folks over the edge.My issue is that I think The Lounge is the room after the Introduce Yourself anteroom, where new folk can get an "in" quickly and with fewer parameters and topic-knowledge requirements. I worry that setting any "qualification" on the more casual Lounge may have a greater impact in MR (by discouraging new member participation) than any troll or sockpuppet issues do.and I think it can be a matter of encouraging people to stay and get to know people better. "after X amount of time, you get to go to the lounge! woo-hoo!

*snip*

Which is all to say, perhaps the problem with the sockpuppets and trolls, and with topics going skewed, is less about the people permitted to post and more about the topic posted. Perhaps noting it's a risky topic at the start, offering direction, or just stopping it early, would in many cases be more effective, without precluding newbie presence in the (generally very friendly) Lounge. IMO, those topics should not have got to where they did if the Guideline on religion was acknowledged/enforced. (I do not comment on the Guideline itself - but only that it is a Guideline)

once again, in both threads, I think we were behaving admirably well in comparison to some episodes in the past. I think that a) keeping new trolls out would have helped, b) judicious use of POST deletion and c) warnings to guilty parties, would have kept things much more in control

Cheers,
Marc

[bjones6416]

One of the basic guidelines on another forum I belong to is simply, "Don't Poke the Crazy." It would be naive of me to say that it always works, but I do try to just not engage if it seems as if somebody is trying to wind me up.

(And I always blame inexplicable behavior on the full moon. Makes people howl. I'm just sorry the mods have had to work double-time this week putting out fires.)

[Worldwalker]

It might help if we could follow people's posting behavior ... do they start with "hello" and then move to the Lounge, for instance? I know I didn't. If I recall correctly, I started out in the calibre forum. It's possible that we have multiple types of users. Those might include the technical-question user, who starts in the software/device/whatever forum they need, and later migrates elsewhere, the social user, who starts in "hello", moves to the Lounge, and maybe later on checks out News or General, and perhaps the author user, who posts mostly or entirely to Self-Promotion or Freebies. Those are all different sorts of people, and likely to act in different ways. Of course, they overlap in all directions (a recent problematic author comes to mind), and they morph into each other, but I think looking at where they start and where they progress might be important. That's particularly true for ourselves; in the discussion here, I've seen several people (me included) sort of assuming that users follow our own pattern, and that's really only true for our own flavor of users.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

It might help if we could follow people's posting behavior

You can. Click on the username and choose "find more posts by"

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

...
once again, in both threads, I think we were behaving admirably well in comparison to some episodes in the past. I think that a) keeping new trolls out would have helped, b) judicious use of POST deletion and c) warnings to guilty parties, would have kept things much more in control

And please don't think I don't agree about the "behaving admirably" part. I do think that for the most part in both threads it was demonstrated how "religion and politics" can be discussed. If I can talk out of school for a moment, I'll say that, in the Star Chamber, my concerns about the subject and its likely progress early on were given (justly) contrary views by others who pointed out just how reasonable it was going (relevant individuals aside). In that I offer as personal excuse/reason my own abhorrence of conflict...it's why we have multiple views and personalities there, I guess.

I think a) is hard, and that b) and c) are good points in hindsight, and good points to consider in future. I might add a d) that leaves the option for thread closure of a temporary kind when, let's say, a troll has successfully initiated heated mud-slinging generally, when people might not otherwise have done so (as Alex said in the last, perhaps time to sort things out, perhaps PM some warnings and "Settle" messages, and to let things cool a bit).

I know I'm a mod myself, but I should point out that all these views of mine in this thread are simply my own, and I'm not at all representing the views of any other moderator.

Cheers,
Marc

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You can. Click on the username and choose "find more posts by"

And multiply by 80,000 users? You first!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

And multiply by 80,000 users? You first!

it doesn't show the order that the person posted in does it?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it doesn't show the order that the person posted in does it?

Yes, they are ordered from most recent to oldest.

Edit-- but it looks like it shows only the most recent 500.