Trolling Revisited

[BigBallinStalin]

The purpose of this is to get a clearer definition of trolling for the benefit of all of us. It's not just about AoG, so a merge into that thread is unwarranted. (EDIT, actually this thread's purpose is to open up conversation on how to improve the fora.)

I wish to address the following PM from clapper to the public because the collective wisdom of all ConquerClubbers must be engaged in order to bring about a much better understanding for everyone:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131064&p=2873026#p2873026

Trolling the forums is when a poster has the intentions of provoking other users into a desired emotional response intentionally disrupting normal on-topic discussion. They get pleasure from being annoying/obnoxious or just plain offensive. BY intent and provoking it is meant (mostly in a flaming and baiting way) not in a haha you made a funny.. not in a joking manner..but with intent to be offensive to get the other person or people into a heated discussion. As for the "evidence" as you stated..you are not AOG therefore myself and other moderators are NOT at liberty to say why he was banned. For that you would have to ask AOG himself to show you any emails he wold have received. If this case were about you, then I would be able to explain it to you better.

ps: my definition of trolling is much more detailed then the general guidelines state.

clappy

And what's wrong with heated discussions? Let's take a look at bedub's thread about how California sucks. Certainly, by your definition he is trolling, but I wouldn't want him banned or even warned for his supposed trolling because his topic makes for interesting discussion. Albeit heated, it's still interesting and provides everyone the opportunity to engage in ameaningful discussion.

What aspects and issues of life aren't "heated"? We'd have to ban many people to enforce such a definition.

Also, regarding "on-topic" discussion, if one were to strictly enforce such a policy, levels of "warm and fuzzies" brought about by spontaneous and hilarious comments would be severely limited. Like Juan_Bottom stated on behalf of jonesthecurl in the locked AoG thread (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131064&start=30#p2872194),

And another thing, part of what makes the SIB forums so special is that we allow our conversations to flow, as Jonesy said "like a conversation at a bar." Our threads de-rail all the time, but that's a good thing. That's probably why SIB regulars make such good Moderators. They have a much firmer understanding of what this place is.

The issue isn't really whether or not someone's comments bring about this "hotness" level of discussions. It's really about the harm such comments bring. However, harm is highly subjective, and the people who determine such damages are highly susceptible to nepotistic tendencies and bias. That is the main problem.

If one really wanted to improve this site, the current business as usual policy administered on behalf of the mods must be reformed. Otherwise, the forum and the Live Chat participation will slowly die due to an overwhelming lack of anything interesting and due to the ongoing oppressive stance on fun, which would inevitably result in a loss of business only to placate a few power-trippers.

[BigBallinStalin]

Solutions:
If you got any, please post 'em.

1) I'd suggest removing certain people from their mod status based on their past, poor performance. We can list names here and give reasons. (EDIT: actually, maybe start another thread, we'll see...)

2) The laws regarding trolling need to be clearer and less subject to a mods' interpretation.

3) As Juan_Bottom stated above, let CC'ers moderate to a certain degree without interference from above. We ourselves can make others stay on topic by simply asking them too. If they don't, then their reputation is harmed and nobody likes the guy. The system takes care of itself given enough time. If that thread-derailer continues to be a complete ass to the overwhelming majority of the fora-goers, then some punitive action is warranted.

4) Regarding punitive action, more warnings should be given, instead of immediately bumping people to the next ban-level.

5) Decrease incarceration rates. Perma-bans in most cases are unnecessary, and 6 month bans are in most cases overwhelmingly unfair (take pimpdave's case, and many others).

[aage]

2) The laws regarding trolling need to be clearer and less subject to a mods' interpretation.

Don't really care about the other suggestions, but this has been true for ages. Should defenitely happen.

[PLAYER57832]

I have seen a lot of changes and fully admit that my own posts have gotten more antagonistic. The problem is that antagonism breads antagonism. It used to be considered "fine art" to find ways to "insult" without truly insulting. It was called "debating". In the internet, with quick responses possible, without seeing people's reactions, it is too easy to lapse into the lowest forms of discourse. You are among those who generally can make a point, when you wish, with humor and talent.

[theherkman]

I was warned for trolling in the locked AoG thread. Here is the response.

Community Guidelines:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438

Trolling is the intentional attempt to cause chaos.

show: Trolling Specifics

[denominator]

I don't often post here in the off-topics forums, but I do often lurk and read the threads, so I feel I am in an interesting position on this one.

By the way the rules are written, the mods have done absolutely nothing wrong. The rules are written very vaguely, and I suspect this is largely to allow for some decision making by an individual mod on a case-to-case basis. Obviously, this is the way it has to work in the forums as everyone's definition of what "trolling" is varies (see above posts).

There are two places that the system is clearly broken - the appeals process and the punishment process.

For appeals, it seems quite often that once a ban is handed out, it's over and done with, case closed. Most enquiries are responded with "you know what you did, don't do it again" or "well, the other mods agree with the decision", which really isn't a fair system. I also think that the method it's handled in - via the PMs and e-tickets, is not conducive to discussing the issue, and that often the community at large is left wondering why User X was banned. The banned person should have an option to disclose the information to the rest of the public, so that if User Y asks why User X was banned, Mod A can give a true answer rather than "it's private, ask User X".

The punishment process, on the other hand, is too rigid. Given how flexible the bans are on a case-by-case basis, it's hardly fair that the punishment is not handled on a case-by-case basis. I think a better system would be to have an escalating range of bans, such that for the first offence User X can be banned for 24hours-1week, second offence is 24hours-2weeks, third offence is 48hours-1month, etc. This means that if you have a major second offence and a minor third offence, the punishments have some flexibility as to the duration based on the offence. It also allows the mods some flexibility in banning users who have multiple offences.

In the end though, it really doesn't matter. I often find it humourous that in a forum specifically designed for off-topic posts, Mods will post that people need to stay on topic, or that you can be banned for trolling or spamming in the off-topics section. Most of us who pay here pay to play the game, and know that our money is forfeit if we break the rules (variable as they may be).

[theherkman]

.

[Darwins_Bane]

the definition of trolling as per the community guidelines is,

Trolling is the intentional attempt to cause chaos.

To be more specific,

• Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.
  
• Don't Bait or provoke others. Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably receive a disciplinary action from a mod.
  
• Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.
  
• Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.
  
• Don't flog a dead horse. If a discussion is over, it's over. Screaming louder, more or in a different place is not going to change the answer already given. If you think the answer was wrong, PM an Admin. If you think the admin is wrong, then this probably isn't the right community for you.
  
• If someone is trolling or baiting, don't fall for it. The best way to irritate trolls and ultimately drive them away is to ignore them. These people crave attention in any form, be it praise or condemnation, and will stay in an argument for the thrill of the battle. Ignore them and it will hurt more than any "zing" or insult you might come back with.

There is little that is more annoying than a troll. This will get you removed from the CC community quicker than almost anything else.

I don't understand how you feel that the rules are not clearly defined. Could you please elaborate on that point.

As an addenum, I believe that the people who moderate the forum (such as clapper) have an even more specific definition of trolling.

[aage]

Regards,
The Soviet Russia

I lol'd, but is it really necessary to post this everywhere?

[theherkman]

Actually the original posted by AoG had it signed by andydhasasmallpenis and there were a couple more edits I had to make. Fogot about the Soviet Russia one... Whoops...

[theherkman]

Oh, and yes it does need to be posted everywhere. We must tell all the peoples of the coming mutiny...

[PLAYER57832]

The biggest problem is extreme variation in how the rules are enforced. But, I don't want to get into details here. Been over a lot of this many times before.

[BigBallinStalin]

the definition of trolling as per the community guidelines is,

Trolling is the intentional attempt to cause chaos.

To be more specific,

• Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.
  
• Don't Bait or provoke others. Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably receive a disciplinary action from a mod.
  
• Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.
  
• Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.
  
• Don't flog a dead horse. If a discussion is over, it's over. Screaming louder, more or in a different place is not going to change the answer already given. If you think the answer was wrong, PM an Admin. If you think the admin is wrong, then this probably isn't the right community for you.
  
• If someone is trolling or baiting, don't fall for it. The best way to irritate trolls and ultimately drive them away is to ignore them. These people crave attention in any form, be it praise or condemnation, and will stay in an argument for the thrill of the battle. Ignore them and it will hurt more than any "zing" or insult you might come back with.

There is little that is more annoying than a troll. This will get you removed from the CC community quicker than almost anything else.

I don't understand how you feel that the rules are not clearly defined. Could you please elaborate on that point.

As my associate and fellow ConquerClubber denominator previously more or less mentioned: An elaborate set of guidelines doesn't mean squat if the people in power can administer such a harsh punishment by such vague guidelines.

Nor do the guidelines themselves really correct the problem with such unfair punishments as I've stated above.

As an addenum, I believe that the people who moderate the forum (such as clapper) have an even more specific definition of trolling.

It's more specific, but is it more effective? I've earlier shown where it falls short.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have seen a lot of changes and fully admit that my own posts have gotten more antagonistic. The problem is that antagonism breads antagonism. It used to be considered "fine art" to find ways to "insult" without truly insulting. It was called "debating". In the internet, with quick responses possible, without seeing people's reactions, it is too easy to lapse into the lowest forms of discourse. You are among those who generally can make a point, when you wish, with humor and talent.

I really do cherish that last sentence.[/sincerity to the fullest]

With such brevity, the beauty truly flows, does it not? =P

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't often post here in the off-topics forums, but I do often lurk and read the threads, so I feel I am in an interesting position on this one.

By the way the rules are written, the mods have done absolutely nothing wrong. The rules are written very vaguely, and I suspect this is largely to allow for some decision making by an individual mod on a case-to-case basis. Obviously, this is the way it has to work in the forums as everyone's definition of what "trolling" is varies (see above posts).

There are two places that the system is clearly broken - the appeals process and the punishment process.

For appeals, it seems quite often that once a ban is handed out, it's over and done with, case closed. Most enquiries are responded with "you know what you did, don't do it again" or "well, the other mods agree with the decision", which really isn't a fair system. I also think that the method it's handled in - via the PMs and e-tickets, is not conducive to discussing the issue, and that often the community at large is left wondering why User X was banned. The banned person should have an option to disclose the information to the rest of the public, so that if User Y asks why User X was banned, Mod A can give a true answer rather than "it's private, ask User X".

The punishment process, on the other hand, is too rigid. Given how flexible the bans are on a case-by-case basis, it's hardly fair that the punishment is not handled on a case-by-case basis. I think a better system would be to have an escalating range of bans, such that for the first offence User X can be banned for 24hours-1week, second offence is 24hours-2weeks, third offence is 48hours-1month, etc. This means that if you have a major second offence and a minor third offence, the punishments have some flexibility as to the duration based on the offence. It also allows the mods some flexibility in banning users who have multiple offences.

In the end though, it really doesn't matter. I often find it humourous that in a forum specifically designed for off-topic posts, Mods will post that people need to stay on topic, or that you can be banned for trolling or spamming in the off-topics section. Most of us who pay here pay to play the game, and know that our money is forfeit if we break the rules (variable as they may be).

quoted for "Yeah, this is what I'm looking for."

On behalf of the principles of BigBallinStalinism, I present you with this medal of achievement which unfortunately doesn't exist and will probably be taken away from your person at a later date in accordance with the principles of BigBallinStalinism.

[thegreekdog]

2) The laws regarding trolling need to be clearer and less subject to a mods' interpretation.

Don't really care about the other suggestions, but this has been true for ages. Should defenitely happen.

Caveats to the following:

(1) I'm not making a smart-ass remark or trying to bait, flame, troll, or otherwise get anyone's goat. I'm genuinely asking these two related questions.
(2) The following does not indicate a potential change in the rules regarding trolling or any other rules.

Caveats done.

What would you change about the "laws regarding trolling?" Can you provide specific language for your ideal rule?

[bedub1]

Let's take a look at bedub's thread about how California sucks. Certainly, by your definition he is trolling, but I wouldn't want him banned or even warned for his supposed trolling because his topic makes for interesting discussion. Albeit heated, it's still interesting and provides everyone the opportunity to engage in ameaningful discussion.

W00t! I'm famous! I got mentioned in a thread that's not even mine. Yes Yes Yes!!

[BigBallinStalin]

Trolling itself is defined more-so subjectively and to a much lesser degree by the guidelines themselves; therefore, more decision-making powers should fall to the people's hands in order to genuinely reflect that subjectivity, and less "mod-itivity."

Until such questionable mods are removed from their duties and/or until there's a nice standard of professionalism implemented and enforced among their ranks, then I'd like more involvement in the banning process by the plebian ConquerClubbers themselves.

Disclosure of the banning process is a must as well (of course, given at the bannee's consent, as denominator already mentioned).


Recall AndyBanana's reasoning for AoG's ban for Trolling/Spamming. That was a rather weak justification for enforcing the guidelines on trolling. Look at how much the community is in disagreement about whether or not it was Trolling/Spamming. It clearly wasn't. Andy just finds AoG annoying, and then bans him at the expense of the majority's enjoyment of AoG's benign presence.

[thegreekdog]

I appreciate your comments BBS, but I'm still kind of looking for a definition of trolling that could be applied with very limited, if any, application of subjectivity. Perhaps that doesn't exist because, as you've indicated, trolling is defined subjectively (subject to the guidelines). I like to think that I'm good with words, but I cannot think of a standard definition of trolling that takes the investigative part of the work out (and I have thought about it more than I would have liked).

To take up one of your comments (and the same caveats as my first post apply) - what sort of involvement with the banning process would you like to see? Just to refresh - right now we have the ability for users to report posts and for users to pm individual moderators to inquire as to certain threads, posts, etc. We also have the C&A forum. I guess I'm wondering what sort of additional involvement would be useful and doable (the latter being probably more of an issue than the former).

[BigBallinStalin]

May I present TGD with the Most Professional Mod Award on behalf of the BigBallinStalinAssociation, but on a less joking note, I've spent about 1 or 2 hours on the fora, and it's more important for me to study Intellectual Property Rights at the moment.

I'll revisit this hopefully by tomorrow in better detail. I think I could re-write the guidelines on trolling, but that's really depends on how well l elaborate on getting the people more involved in the banning process, and also it depends on how well the mods mete out justice (which largely falls on everyone's responsibility in exposing such weaknesses and then discussing them).

[karel]

This thread is to funny

[thegreekdog]

And I'll present the award for Reasonable Discussion in a Somewhat Tense Setting At Least For the Internet (the RDIASTSALFTI Award for short) to BBS on behalf of The Greekies (coming soon in 2010!).

I may not be around tomorrow, so if I'm not on it's not because I'm avoiding. And if I'm on and not answering, it's not because I'm avoiding (just playing my games). I'll definitely be back on Thursday.

[denominator]

Unfortunately, the very nature of trolling (and all the various parts that it consists of) leaves it in a position of being undefinable in strict terms. Mod A (or, to be even more general, Person A) can see an action or post and claim it's trolling while Mod B (/Person B) will have absolutely no issue with it. To even further complicate the process, the post/action could have been done by User X and viewed as trolling, while the exact same action completed by User Y would not be viewed as trolling (see the Juan and InsomniaRed thread for a perfect example of this).

For this reason, you cannot make hard rules about trolling in the same line of thinking as, say, multiple accounts. If User Z has accounts numbering greater than 1, he's breaking the rules. Period. There cannot be the same sort of rules, under any definition, for trolling.

However, the issue lies in that the punishments ARE hard-written. Infraction 1 = Punishment 1, Infraction 2 = Punishment 2, etc. So in terms of trolling (or, I would argue, all forum/Live Chat infractions), the punishments need to be more flexible to go with the flexible nature of the rules breach.

I only argue for the transparency of the process so that the remainder of the community can understand what is a rules breach and how to avoid it (see first paragraph to understand why this might not be clear to everybody). Obviously, when somebody is ejected from a game for breaking the rules, it's for multiple accounts, and we can all immediately understand this. However, forum/Live Chat bans are less rigid and in order to prevent further events occurring the process must be more visible.

[Fircoal]

2) The laws regarding trolling need to be clearer and less subject to a mods' interpretation.

Don't really care about the other suggestions, but this has been true for ages. Should defenitely happen.

Caveats to the following:

(1) I'm not making a smart-ass remark or trying to bait, flame, troll, or otherwise get anyone's goat. I'm genuinely asking these two related questions.
(2) The following does not indicate a potential change in the rules regarding trolling or any other rules.

Caveats done.

What would you change about the "laws regarding trolling?" Can you provide specific language for your ideal rule?

I would make them less strict and have more community involvement. Like if people post out like they have for AOG and say, "No what he did was fine, and we the members of the forum are ok with it," I don't see why the person should still be banned. Also before any major decision is made I think there should be a bit of discussion between mods about whether it's fair or not, or even with some choice members of the forum to get a better view of things. I mean honestly, part of the problem is giving out big bans for small things. The escalating punishments have to go. I mean I think it'd be much more understandable for someone to be banned for a small amount of time even if it's not the most agreeable case. It'll get the message across and is no where near as hard to deal with. Also I think there should be more warnings. I mean often times people don't see what they're doing wrong. (Though not always)

[Phatscotty]

The great thing about Conquer club is that we are not forced to play it or talk about how great a game site it is. If people don't like it, they can just quit (freemiums only!), but they still get to go around passing good word of mouth.