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

[GeoffC]

Some posts seem deliberate to provoke a reaction, not always easy to see whether it's part and parcel of 'normal' banter (especially if not a newbie).

I think the 'testing' layer for newbies might be more successful with the added comfort that spam could be isolated before it hits the threads. (although with the ease in which someone can edit their own and others' posts, once in they can "attack".)

[astra]

I normally don't ignore users. However, sometimes it is just fun
# 1 was Moejoe
Yesterday I added two more # Cheeseandpickles # jswinden.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by astra

I normally don't ignore users. However, sometimes it is just fun

I used to have maybe 3 or 4 ignored users. Than I realized that it was less disturbing *to me* not to ignore them a priori but de facto. Than, I found out that it was amusing to read their post. Not pornography, that I avoid carefully because it takes away some pleasure from sex.

But it is not me there, it is just my alter ego. He is there for that. I live in other dimensions that I share with my friends, some also in the real world, some just virtual, but with them, ...

With a masochist that implores :" Hurt me, hit me, burn me with that torch, pinch me with those pliers, ..." the most cruel thing is to smile so sweetly, light a cigarette for suspense, stare coldly (my eyes are the color of ice), blow the smoke in the face (do not try a ring, it make your face funny), than slowly and calmly turn around and go for a walk. Leave the door open so the neighbors ear the curses.

That is what you just did, Astra, my friend, ...

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Some posts seem deliberate to provoke a reaction,

Originally Posted by astra

I normally don't ignore users.

I don't like to ignore users, but those that deliberately want to provoke a reactions, not once but several times, I'll ignore. There are even whole threads I'm ignoring... (actually those threads are started by persons I'm ignoring...)

[FizzyWater]

I would imagine ignoring certain posters would make some threads read....very oddly!

Does ignoring a person also ignore when someone quotes them?

[Javed]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Does ignoring a person also ignore when someone quotes them?

No. If someone that is not ignored quotes an ignored member then the quote will be visible.

[GeoffC]

which is why i stopped ignoring, it became pointless, so I just skip over - it's neater....

besides, the ignoree(s) occasionally make sense sometimes now and again ....

[MrPLD]

Agreed... even a broken watch is right twice a day

Okay, that was uncalled for from me. I might sometimes flick on the /ignore flag for 24~48 hours just to flush them out of my system but invariably remove it so that the conversation flows properly again.

Paul.

[Falcao]

There are two rules about dealing with trolls:

1.- Do not feed trolls.
2.- Do rule #1.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

One cannot help but feel that there is a small coterie of members who are immune to the usual restraints which some of us adhere to.

(...)

It isn't only the trolls who are a problem.

I would have to agree with this. In the recent incident, the person who was later revealed as a troll started out with relatively reasonable posts, and remained so for a long time in the face of vehement replies from several members. The only offensive aspect, at first, was the number of posts, which had the effect of completely hijacking one thread, and probably would have done so with another.

On the other hand, we have a number of long-standing, and usually also reasonable, members who seem to go up in flame when certain subjects are mentioned. It seems understandable to me that mods will hesitate before censoring them, and yet it can give the wrong idea to new users, and it may encourage trolling in some cases.

Originally Posted by TGS

It's an imperfect world - and I don't think it can be legislated to perfection.

I agree 100%, and I think mods have been doing a great job so far. I don't think that adding more rules will make things better. Possibly it could make them worse.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

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.

Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons why more rules would probably be counter-productive.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I would have to agree with this. In the recent incident, the person who was later revealed as a troll started out with relatively reasonable posts, and remained so for a long time

You are either misremembering things or have a vastly different definition of what constitutes "reasonable" and "trolling" than I do. It was full-speed, double-barreled (yep, a mixed metaphor) trolling from the very first post onward:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=82

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Falcao

There are two rules about dealing with trolls:

1.- Do not feed trolls.
2.- Do rule #1.

The problem with that comes in when lurkers and new users see the troll's statements unchallenged, and believe that they are accepted by MobileRead members ... even true.

For example, let's say I posted "All [group] people are dirty." Arguing with me about that would, of course, be feeding a troll. But if you don't argue with me, people are likely to believe that you (or MR in general) agree that [group] people are, in fact, dirty. That's not what you want either.

That's why trolling works so well: you can't not respond without giving silent assent, and of course if you do respond, they've got an answer waiting for you. Dealing with it requires action on the parts of both the users (posting "No, we do NOT think that all [group] people are dirty") and the mods (shutting them down) ... and the latter, of course, starts getting into free speech issues. It's a hairball, and there's no good way to deal with it, only less-bad ways.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

The problem with that comes in when lurkers and new users see the troll's statements unchallenged, and believe that they are accepted by MobileRead members ... even true.

For example, let's say I posted "All [group] people are dirty." Arguing with me about that would, of course, be feeding a troll. But if you don't argue with me, people are likely to believe that you (or MR in general) agree that [group] people are, in fact, dirty. That's not what you want either.

That's why trolling works so well: you can't not respond without giving silent assent, and of course if you do respond, they've got an answer waiting for you. Dealing with it requires action on the parts of both the users (posting "No, we do NOT think that all [group] people are dirty") and the mods (shutting them down) ... and the latter, of course, starts getting into free speech issues. It's a hairball, and there's no good way to deal with it, only less-bad ways.

why should they? posts without reply or comments are not that exciting. If there is a pattern, lurkers and new comers are likely to discern it. On MR people tend to be intelligent and cultured.

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by beppe

why should they? posts without reply or comments are not that exciting. If there is a pattern, lurkers and new comers are likely to discern it. On MR people tend to be intelligent and cultured.

I agree with you. It's like when a child throws a tantrum -- I believe the best way to deal with that is to NOT reinforce the behavior with any attention until he/she quiets down. Hopefully bystanders don't believe that the child is always right!

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by beppe

why should they? posts without reply or comments are not that exciting. If there is a pattern, lurkers and new comers are likely to discern it. On MR people tend to be intelligent and cultured.

This is to my mind an accurate statement, but in practical terms it requires not a tendency but for a unanimity that is not going to happen. It is along the lines of the Religion and Politics guideline - it is not a tendency for polite discussion that is being guarded against, but for the almost inevitable impolite posts outside any such tendency. There will be people compelled to post their response and offense at a comment they perceive to be offensive, and there is often, by definition, no way to be certain that the offending comment is not a genuinely-held view rather than a trolling one. And once that kicks off...

Membership terms are often not good guides, seeing as we fairly regularly have legitimate, longterm members being accused of "trolling". It's why I personally don't think, in most cases, that "trolling" is a useful accusation to make in-thread. It's usually an obstruction to continued constructive discussion. This is not to say trolling is okay, but rather, like spamming, I think it's best reported via the "!" button (along with any extra info or supporting posts). It's no end of help in Star Chamber discussion.