Do "we" use the word "Trolling" a little too liberally?

wegs said:
I think this happens a lot on forums, which is odd. When this site had a lot of traffic, it seemed like there was a sense of equity in terms of rule following, You’d think it would be harder to get most people on the same page when the group is larger, as opposed to now, when its much smaller. For such a small group, there’s a lot of disagreement and baiting into arguments over minor issues.
Click to expand...
Possibly an effect analogous to natural selection? Less contentious people don't "survive" and "reproduce" as well on the site, leaving an increasingly large proportion of the contentious and those who are not much fazed by contentiousness. :cool:
 
wegs said:
I think this happens a lot on forums, which is odd. When this site had a lot of traffic, it seemed like there was a sense of equity in terms of rule following, You’d think it would be harder to get most people on the same page when the group is larger, as opposed to now, when its much smaller. For such a small group, there’s a lot of disagreement and baiting into arguments over minor issues.
Click to expand...
I'm actually surprised. I was a frequent poster for a long time on a national scuba diving forum with hundreds of active posters in many different sub-forums. It was informative, friendly, etc.

Later I saw a small sub-forum with just a few active members and it was to talk about anything other than scuba so there were a few long time divers who were just tired of talking about scuba because they had heard it all.

It was more contentious and there was a moderator but they never (rarely) needed to moderate. If someone new came in and started cursing at fellow members, it just didn't go well. Self-moderation took care of most of it. If someone was extreme, they got banned but it rarely happened.

Everyone learned all the different personalities and if someone was too sensitive they got their buttons pushed a little and they got the message and it just worked well. People still disagreed but there was no vulgar name calling and no one there was really mean spirited and no one was overly sensitive.

I do admit that everyone was at least honest in their arguments and not there just to push people's buttons. That's not always the case here it seems but even though would take care of itself without moderation provoking it even more.

I think that would be the result here, for the most part, if only the extreme behavior was moderated.
 
TheVat said:
Possibly an effect analogous to natural selection? Less contentious people don't "survive" and "reproduce" as well on the site, leaving an increasingly large proportion of the contentious and those who are not much fazed by contentiousness. :cool:
Click to expand...
Thinking back as a kid on the playground, there were no "moderators" and kids eventually became "socialized" and learned basic lessons, like don't provoke unless you can handle getting the same in return.

It gets tiring after awhile and everyone learns to handle themselves including just mellowing out most times. If there had been a "hall monitor" there "reporting" everyone, there would just be constant fighting (like here).
 
TheVat said:
Possibly an effect analogous to natural selection? Less contentious people don't "survive" and "reproduce" as well on the site, leaving an increasingly large proportion of the contentious and those who are not much fazed by contentiousness.
Click to expand...

That’s it! But, I’d say it’s because contentiousness tends to get more attention, which for websites in a broad sense, can be worthwhile, except if it leads to echo chambers. :rolleye:
 
wegs said:
That’s it! But, I’d say it’s because contentiousness tends to get more attention, which for websites in a broad sense, can be worthwhile, except if it leads to echo chambers. :rolleye:
Click to expand...
Except, here, often times, most of the actual posts aren't about a discussion but rather 10 pages of bickering between a member and a moderator. Had there been no moderation, that would have been eliminated.

The problem, IMO, is an inherent double standard or conflict. It's not workable to be an active moderator and an active poster and be overly sensitive and tell other members that "you must be stalking me, be a sock puppet, if you disagree you must be in love with some other member, it must just be due to past history".

If you want to be just a regular poster, just like everyone else, you have to act like everyone else and no one else can be overly sensitive and then take action against others.

That's really the only issue with this site, IMO. Everyone else has to get along and one doesn't. That's not to say that there should be no rules but most people don't need most rules most of the time.
 
Seattle said:
Except, here, often times, most of the actual posts aren't about a discussion but rather 10 pages of bickering between a member and a moderator. Had there been no moderation, that would have been eliminated.

The problem, IMO, is an inherent double standard or conflict. It's not workable to be an active moderator and an active poster and be overly sensitive and tell other members that "you must be stalking me, be a sock puppet, if you disagree you must be in love with some other member, it must just be due to past history".

If you want to be just a regular poster, just like everyone else, you have to act like everyone else and no one else can be overly sensitive and then take action against others.

That's really the only issue with this site, IMO. Everyone else has to get along and one doesn't. That's not to say that there should be no rules but most people don't need most rules most of the time.
Click to expand...
Yea, I’ve seen this actually on other sites. But who moderates the moderator, when things go awry?
I think if there were more active mods, then there would be more of a balance.
 
wegs said:
Yea, I’ve seen this actually on other sites. But who moderates the moderator, when things go awry?
I think if there were more active mods, then there would be more of a balance.
Click to expand...
That should be the case but when the other moderators were Bells and Tiassa, the drama still stayed on high alert.:)

The bottom line is threads don't need to be closed, people warned about "trolling" on most sites, the moderators aren't the most active posters in my experience.

In the Scuba board that I mentioned earlier, the owner was actually the moderator and he posted from time to time and was actually kind of a jerk at times :) but he rarely moderated anyone, knew how to do it sparingly so he was just treated like a regular poster and acted accordingly so it still worked.

Do you see much moderator on other sites? I think there is more here than on any forum I have ever been a part of.
 
Seattle said:
That should be the case but when the other moderators were Bells and Tiassa, the drama still stayed on high alert.:)

The bottom line is threads don't need to be closed, people warned about "trolling" on most sites, the moderators aren't the most active posters in my experience.

In the Scuba board that I mentioned earlier, the owner was actually the moderator and he posted from time to time and was actually kind of a jerk at times :) but he rarely moderated anyone, knew how to do it sparingly so he was just treated like a regular poster and acted accordingly so it still worked.

Do you see much moderator on other sites? I think there is more here than on any forum I have ever been a part of.
Click to expand...
I think what tends to work best from what I've seen used on other forums, is moderators not only posting in different colors when they're moderating, but a moderator involved in a discussion where the other member(s) was/were violating forum rules, can't be the same moderator who issues a ban. I think being a moderator isn't easy, but they're human like the rest of us, and can break forum rules, while they're arguing their point with another member. So, a moderator not involved in that discussion, should look at both 'sides' of the argument, and decide if bans should be issued.
 
Seattle said:
Do you see much moderator on other sites? I think there is more here than on any forum I have ever been a part of.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's done with the parameters that we're talking about. So, if a mod is involved in a heated debate with a member, and that member starts flinging insults, that mod isn't the one who gives the infractions/bans. And the mods, if they engage with the topic of discussion, have to follow the basic rules of decorum like other non-mod members. (no vulgarity, insults, etc)

It does seem to work, but I've noticed that people aren't returning from bans like they used to, because honestly, if your ban is long enough, you eventually stop caring about whatever the site was that banned you.

All of this to say, I believe that most members of forums appreciate the idea of reasonable moderation because sites can easily become hostile environments if there aren't at least some guard rails set up. The sites where I've noticed the strictest moderation, where they don't let anything slide, are usually getting some kind of funding through advertising, and want to maintain a decent image to keep attracting new members. I do put myself in James' shoes sometimes, and his ''role'' as a mod isn't to make everyone feel comfortable, as much as it is to keep the integrity of the site in mind, from a science perspective.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
...moderators not only posting in different colors...
Click to expand...

I guess I'll throw my two cents in before this thread is closed.

If memory serves me, I believe both Bells and Tiassa used blue text for their moderator comments.

This would seem to be a good compromise vs maintaining two separate accounts. Of course, it doesn't allow for putting the "non-moderator" posts on ignore, which also seem like a reasonable request - I just don't think JamesR is on board with that plan.

Blue text would at least allow the members to discern exactly which words are intended as moderation. It may even "force" the moderator to give more consideration to the tone of the post - pausing to think whether it is "official" business or an informal reply...
 
Randwolf said:
I guess I'll throw my two cents in before this thread is closed.

If memory serves me, I believe both Bells and Tiassa used blue text for their moderator comments.

This would seem to be a good compromise vs maintaining two separate accounts. Of course, it doesn't allow for putting the "non-moderator" posts on ignore, which also seem like a reasonable request - I just don't think JamesR is on board with that plan.

Blue text would at least allow the members to discern exactly which words are intended as moderation. It may even "force" the moderator to give more consideration to the tone of the post - pausing to think whether it is "official" business or an informal reply...
Click to expand...
I agree that it's helpful.
 
wegs said:
I agree that it's helpful.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is that you can insult someone but just claim "I wasn't wearing the moderator hat" and then put on the moderator hat and "warn" them. So it can be a difference without any meaning.

Look at the 10 pages of insults that go back and forth. It's apparently not in the official moderator role but it's still the moderator and a member. It's not "equal" in terms of potential results.

It may just be human nature so it's no one's fault. It would just be best to have a system that didn't allow that.
 
wegs said:
Yes, but it's done with the parameters that we're talking about. So, if a mod is involved in a heated debate with a member, and that member starts flinging insults, that mod isn't the one who gives the infractions/bans.
Click to expand...
That's what we did. It was mostly organic, since I have a MUCH higher tolerance for someone attacking me than attacking the other mods. But that requires at least two engaged moderators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top