WoV Clean Air Act

A proposal for the forum, RE: Trolls.

Seems to be the topic of the week, what with the new lows to which we have sunk. In reading teddys (I think it was yours) thread on repeated alias for perpetually banned persons, it seems there are a lot of opinions. Most of us here prefer discussion, prefer enlightment, and even prefer to argue when arguing is done in a gentlemanly fashion. There even seems to be a minority that enjoys people like Singerryicioustut, as they 'stir things up'. I'll admit, I somewhat enjoy the theatre as well, up until the point of cheering family death and proposing fisticuffs as if we were back in the high school cafeteria. When things reach this point, I feel we are all taken down a peg.

Sure, there are measures to avoid this. The block feature's there (although it messes with the flow of a thread) the flag-and-remove feature is there (likewise interupts the flow) and of course, The Wiz can send folks into oblivion. Yet with all these features, we have had what I consider to be the worst pile of filth I've ever seen, which was the Suspension thread and especially the embodiment of repulsion that was the PM's to Nareed. I'd wish to never see this type of behavior again, nor would I like to see this site resemble the link that highlighted a battle between Singer and Arcimedes.

What can be done? Sure, I'd like The Wiz to have one of them IP blocking doohickeys (I'm tech dumb, 'doohickey' is the correct term, no?) but really. I don't expect The Wiz to invest even more time and money into a site of info and entertainment for the sole purpose in making us behave like adults. It's borderline offensive, IMO. I would propose we establish a code of ignorance. A troll's sole purpose is to disrupt, to inflame, to incite. A troll cares not how you are bothered but only that you are bothered. If we can safely assume JL1 and 2, helacious, Altut, arcimedes, etc are all one person, then just look at that example. He was on Nareed's case about TGness because TG is who Nareed is. He was on JimMorrisons case of gambling for a living because that's what JM does. He bagged on athiests and tooted his hyper-religion horn to drive mkl nuts. And of course, since most here are knowledgable and make it a point to debunk shams, he hopped on the Singer bandwagon which was guaranteed to rile a great deal of people here. My point is, no matter what the issue, if someone voiced a strong opinion on it, it was probable that this person would come back with an opposing ideal and voice it in an inappropriate manner for the sole purpose of harming the individual.

I say we ignore the person. And I mean IGNORE. No bitching to each other about the person (that notifies the troll you're affected), no telling the troll he's blocked (another notification) no quoting the troll (unless in PM to The Wiz), just pure ignorance. Most here are aware enough to spot a troll when they see them. Most here can argue and discuss disagreements in a civil manner. mrjjj touts a system not many believe in, yet there hasn't been a big dust up about it. tuttigym also, I'm not sure what that hoax thread is about, but no one dropped the gloves in the course of discussing it. And good ol 98steps, he seems to be flying into the face of an eternities worth of mathematics, but damned if he wasn't proper in doing so. These people are definately not trolls, and these discussions are great. Arguing is great. Opposition is great. But arguing and debating a troll is not only fruitless, it is bound to bring the other person down. I've heard many who were involved say just that... "admittedly, I said some things I shouldn't have..." why let them do that? You people, the senior members, the one's who have shown who they are, you guys don't need to defend yourself. We see the trolls for who they are. If 'MrX' says "hey DJTeddy, blah, blah, blah, badwords, insult, hahaha" I dont think DJTeddy is badwords, insult, hahaha, I think MrX is a D-bag. If DJTeddy then bites his thumb at MrX and farts in his general direction, who reputation does that hurt?

Maybe I'm out of line. I'm surely not intending to point fingers, I'm just not digging the level to which this has been taken lately. I'd just personally love to see these types of people not given the time of day. Feel free to comment back, I'd not mind the lesson.

If I reply to this does that mean that I'm recognizing that there are trolls?

Hehe, I haven't made a single troll post yet specifically for that reason. However, I thought that maybe this could help and felt it worth breaking my record. It's kind of like drinking your own piss in the desert. Once might help you. Any more than that and it just hurts. =)

I made a few, then just stopped. It wasn't worth my time. Trolls are things. It is a mistake to anthropomorphize them and engage them as if they were humans.

Quote: Mosca

I made a few, then just stopped. It wasn't worth my time. Trolls are things. It is a mistake to anthropomorphize them and engage them as if they were humans.

They sure don't look human to me.

Quote: FarFromVegas

They sure don't look human to me.

This is closer to the actual thing.

Quote: Face

Most here are aware enough to spot a troll when they see them. Most here can argue and discuss disagreements in a civil manner.
...
You people, the senior members, the one's who have shown who they are, you guys don't need to defend yourself. We see the trolls for who they are.

I don't know about other senior members (and I assume that I qualify as a senior member), but I had no idea about these trolls / alternate personalities until after someone else started the accusations.

Quote: Face

If 'MrX' says "hey DJTeddy, blah, blah, blah, badwords, insult, hahaha" I dont think DJTeddy is badwords, insult, hahaha, I think MrX is a D-bag. If DJTeddy then bites his thumb at MrX and farts in his general direction, who reputation does that hurt?

I frankly don't know if you're talking about me or Teddy. Teddy, as I recall, was involved in the troll wars. I kinda kept out of it, until after arcimedes Coming Clean thread, where I posted, what I hope people agree was a civilized comment about the whole thing. That said, I have no idea if this comment was about me or not, or if it is me, if I should feel insulted or not!

On a somewhat unrelated note, some years ago, my brother and I got into an argument. Having no remaining points with which to win, he said, "Aw, blow it out your ass." So I farted!

I know the best thing to do is ignore but I do have a temper and quite frankly yesterday I was bored.

That is of course the best way to deal with the problem. However, it is has been suggested at least 100 times, but we keep feeding the trolls. I have to admit I share some blame.

Often trolls start out fairly civilized, earning trust, and then gradually reveal their true nature. Once webmaster JB finishes with the Wizard of Odds clean up I will direct attention to adding features and fine tuning this site. Still, no matter what I do, the trolls will figure out a way to evade the defenses. Like spam filters, the more security I pile on, the more it can catch legitimate members and posts as well. I might add that trolls can also easily evade IP filters by going to anyplace with free WiFi.

Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to resist the temptation to respond to trolls, and to use the flagging feature with care.

Quote: Wizard

Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to resist the temptation to respond to trolls

The thing you're missing here is a couple of good mod's, besides you and JB. Thats how you control trolls. They can spot them early and take action. The burden is off of you and the trolls soon learn its not worth their time. I nominate Pacomartin or Nareed, they're here all the time and they would be very effective, IMO.

Quote: EvenBob

The thing you're missing here is a couple of good mod's, besides you and JB. Thats how you control trolls. They can spot them early and take action. The burden is off of you and the trolls soon learn its not worth their time. I nominate Pacomartin or Nareed, they're here all the time and they would be very effective, IMO.

Good Call. And may I add DJTeddyBear to te list of nominees.

Quote: EvenBob

The thing you're missing here is a couple of good mod's, besides you and JB. Thats how you control trolls. They can spot them early and take action. The burden is off of you and the trolls soon learn its not worth their time. I nominate Pacomartin or Nareed, they're here all the time and they would be very effective, IMO.

That is not a bad suggestion. Both of them I agree are worthy. Do I have any other nominations or volunteers?

Quote: Croupier

Good Call. And may I add DJTeddyBear to te list of nominees.

Trolls have certain traits in common. First and foremost, they post a lot as soon as they show up. They argue with everybody. They exaggerate their accomplishments to get a rise out of people. They seldom ask questions, and make lots of declaritive statements. On a forum with good mod's, they oftrn don't last a day. Not that Mike isn't a good mod, its just too big a place for one person to effectively moderate.

Quote: Wizard

That is not a bad suggestion. Both of them I agree are worthy. Do I have any other nominations or volunteers?

I nominate myself if no one minds. I tend to be here on a fairly regular basis (daily) and although I don't post nearly as often as the other members mentioned I also have very rarely been at anyone's throat. I'd like to see this place get back to the great site it once was without all of the nastiness and bickering.

What I've noticed recently is that too many threads and posts are simply about threads and posts and in general the place haas become much too inward looking and focused on certain individuals rather than the gambling/Vegas related forum topics listed... I'd like to be a part of cleaning the place up a bit so members can forget about all of the so-called "trolls" and get back to the fun, stimulating and intelligent conversation that has been the hallmark of this site.

If I'm not a suitable candidate then I third the nominations of those already mentioned.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I frankly don't know if you're talking about me or Teddy. Teddy, as I recall, was involved in the troll wars. I kinda kept out of it, until after arcimedes Coming Clean thread, where I posted, what I hope people agree was a civilized comment about the whole thing. That said, I have no idea if this comment was about me or not, or if it is me, if I should feel insulted or not!

I was using you, specifically because you've been absent from the mess. I didn't want to use an actual example and unfairly single someone out.

Quote: Wizard

Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to resist the temptation to respond to trolls, and to use the flagging feature with care.

Indeed, let's. Funny thing is, I couldn't think of who to nominate as a Gatekeeper (Mod) due to the quality of the people here. I almost think those who'd be unworthy would be a shorter list. Too many good people is a good problem to have. Let's keep it that way.

I think the term is "thingamajig" but on the rest of the post you are spot-on. Quitting replying and more important quitting talking about them to each other is the best medicine. One of the reasons I raised a challenge during a thread that after that weekend we all quit mentioning JL/MKL forever. Not sure if I would be considered a senior member or not, but I have been here since near day 1 and can say I saw a definate change when those two came onboard. The place got less fun to visit. This was discussed at WoVConn-East.

Two suggestions to Wiz on controlling the board and they should be minimal work for JB.

First, assuming we get moderators here they need the ability to shut off conversation when a thread has gone on too long or gotten too out of hand. Edmunds.com does this. At some point the moderator puts up a post saying the thread is over and after that it is read-only. As this in a mini-nuclear option I'd have it set so 2-3 moderators must "turn their keys." Power does strange things to people.

Second, consider "mdoerated threads." USENET used to have these back in the day. When a post is made the post could "turn into" a PM for the moderator and he or she then posts it. (JB could make it simple with an "approve" button?) This would be used for a very minimal number of threads you want to keep alive and unpolluted (eg: the suspension list.) Consider making the title a different color.

Anyone else who has been online since "back in the day" have any ideas?

Quote: AZDuffman

First, assuming we get moderators here they need the ability to shut off conversation when a thread has gone on too long or gotten too out of hand. Edmunds.com does this. At some point the moderator puts up a post saying the thread is over and after that it is read-only. As this in a mini-nuclear option I'd hace it set so 2-3 moderators must "turn their keys." Power does strange things to people.

Actually, those with admin status can do this already. I almost forgot about it. While I could see the fight moving to another thread, I will make more use of that going forward.

AZ- when I first joined I responded on many 'dead' threads. I don't think you should ever need to terminally end a thread, if you are no longer interested you just don't have to go there. I love the 'many moderators' idea. The names mentioned previously I believe would do a good job. If anyone thinks they are abusing their power they could contact the Wiz. I doubt he would be bothered that often.

Quote: SOOPOO

AZ- when I first joined I responded on many 'dead' threads. I don't think you should ever need to terminally end a thread, if you are no longer interested you just don't have to go there. I love the 'many moderators' idea. The names mentioned previously I believe would do a good job. If anyone thinks they are abusing their power they could contact the Wiz. I doubt he would be bothered that often.

It isn't a matter of getting people to quit responding to "dead threads." There is reason to do so, the "Pawn Stars" one being an example. I am more saying sometimes you need to kill one. Think of a bartender telling two rowdy guys, "CHANGE THE SUBJECT" when things get out of hand and are bothering the other patrons. More peacefully, it is just the moderator saying, "you have beat this to death, move on" to keep the board fresh.

Not saying kill threads daily, but a board like this needs to be interesting and inviting to members and new members. Moderators sometimes need to prune a little to keep the garden growing.

I like the idea of locking threads that are way past their useful date as far as continued conversation goes. The moderators can make one of two decisions on them--

If the information is interesting and the conversation is within the bounds of good behavior, lock them and place them in a "closed threads" status.

If they have gone way off track and are not in keeping with the standards here, delete them.

I made a statement about something I had done that didn't sit well with a moderator on another board. In retrospect, she was basically correct because it may have impeded progress with something they were planning to do. What I did was most definitely not "wrong"; it just didn't suit the purpose of that board. The conversation continued in private and the thread disappeared. It ended up being a fair ending for both parties. Of course, I don't really have to be fairly treated on someone else's board...it isn't like I have some kind of first amendment right to do whatever I please. The board, and all final decisions, belong to the owner...I only have to decided whether to stay or go...

You have to remember one thing, anytime a board is overly moderated it generally dies. Deleting posts and locking threads on a small board like this should be rare occurrences. The sock puppets should have been stopped earlier, however I wouldn't overcompensate now and stifle the entire board. Sometimes people are controversial, sometimes people get pissed off, that's life. For a massive board like 2+2 a lot of moderation is needed but even then they go overboard. I think that a board the size of WoV will be hurt by over moderation. Even with flagging I see a lot of posts that disappear that I wouldn't allow to be vanished on my boards. It would be nice to see this board grow and flourish, let's not kill it because of one asshole.

Quote: Croupier

Good Call. And may I add DJTeddyBear to te list of nominees.

Thanks, but....

Quote: Face

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I frankly don't know if you're talking about me or Teddy.
...
or if it is me, if I should feel insulted or not!

I was using you, specifically because you've been absent from the mess. I didn't want to use an actual example and unfairly single someone out.

... I tend to stay out of it because I truly don't want to be involved, don't was to say something that will cause me to become the next whipping boy. I tend to take the higher ground, while fearing I have a "kick me" sign on my back.

Quite frankly, I don't know if I'd be a good moderator here or not. I don't like the idea of ANY member having too much power and authority. Then again, maybe for that reason, I'd be ideal. For the record, I believe I've hit the Flag Post button maybe a dozen times in total. Half of those were due to a new member posting spam - what is obviously an advertisement / link to another site. The other half were for posts that were so inflammatory, that one need not have read anything else to be offended.

I do not think the Flag Post function is set up well. A couple members flags causing a post (or thread) to disappear is not ideal. What I think should happen is that the thread goes on a 24 hour lock status, with indication that it's only 24 hours (and perhaps a time remaining indicator). This provides a fair cooling-off period, without making any specific demands that the Wiz or any moderators take action or be responsible for not taking action.

Quote: Wizard

Actually, those with admin status can do this already. I almost forgot about it. While I could see the fight moving to another thread, I will make more use of that going forward.

Locking threads is a very effective moderator function. Sending posts to never-never land is not.

Sure, the fight can move to a new thread, but if that happens, the tolerance level is much lower because the fighters are on alert, and/or the fighters take on a much calmer approach.

Quote: AZDuffman

It isn't a matter of getting people to quit responding to "dead threads." There is reason to do so, the "Pawn Stars" one being an example. I am more saying sometimes you need to kill one. Think of a bartender telling two rowdy guys, "CHANGE THE SUBJECT" when things get out of hand and are bothering the other patrons. More peacefully, it is just the moderator saying, "you have beat this to death, move on" to keep the board fresh.

Not saying kill threads daily, but a board like this needs to be interesting and inviting to members and new members. Moderators sometimes need to prune a little to keep the garden growing.

I wonder if the 1.41% hoax thread would have been locked because it had gotten beaten to death. While many found it painful that Tutti remained unteachable and unconvinced, there was also a lot of good info in that thread.

If threads that become non-productive (or turn into ongoing feuds) were locked when that became obvious, then none of the threads in the "Top Threads" list would have ever acquired that status.

(If it's not obvious from some of my posts in the past 24 hours or so, I feel that the "Top Threads" list should be renamed "Worst Threads" or "Most-Annoying Threads".)

I thought about suggesting the moderator function to the Wizard, but thought against it. It's simple to ignore the offending person and they will eventually go away. I really think JL would have been tolerable here had it not been for MKL. Yes, we have one offender who (probably) keeps coming back as someone else. IMO, that adds to the personality of this forum. Does that then require a moderator?

If you do go down the (additional) moderator path I would think PacoMartin is a great suggestion. DJ would also be a fine moderator. I'd probably would also nominate PaiGowDan, or MathExtremist. I think they reflect the flavor of the site and seem to be fairly neutral.

I'd offer myself but I'm not consistently on the site and I would probably nuke AZ and EvenBob, just because I like to argue with them.

I agree that locking threads makes more sense then removing posts.

Face: That's a very sensible suggestion, but it won't work. Someone always takes on the troll, sometimes even with reason (such as correcting misinformation).

Croupier, Wizard and everyone else who suggested me for a moderator, I am flattered, but I must preemptively decline. I've done such things before, once I even ran a board as admin and proxy-owner for a few months. I'm a tyrant when it comes to such things. I don't tolerate trolls, baiters or flamers and have little patience for heated controversy.

Worse yet, when a flame war does erupt and common heavy-handed methods for dealing with the trolls don't work, I tend to abuse any power I have to the last drop.

I do a lot better just posting.

Quote: Wizard

That is not a bad suggestion. Both of them I agree are worthy. Do I have any other nominations or volunteers?

I'll second the nomination of Nareed, pacomartin, and/or DJTeddyBear.

Edit: Seems like most of these people have declined, and regardless, I don't think it is necessary to have additional moderators yet.

Quote: teddys

I'll second the nomination of Nareed, pacomartin, and/or DJTeddyBear.

Edit: Seems like most of these people have declined, and regardless, I don't think it is necessary to have additional moderators yet.

Most?

Yeah, Nareed declined, but Paco hasn't even participated in this thread yet.

And while I and not campaigning for the job, I have said that I am unsure I'd be a good choice. However, I would accept the task if assigned to me, and, unlike Nareed, I would tend to use the power sparingly - preferring to err on the side of 'providing benefit of doubt'.

I would volunteer as a mod, but maybe modding should be like politics. Anyone who wants to be a politician shouldnt be allowed.

My suggestion would be for the Wizard to select the candidates, and have a site poll for the community to elect the mods. The community could also hold the mods accountable, and if one has become power drunk the community also poll for the removal of certain people as mods.

But as its the Wizards site, it up to him and I support his deciion.

Quote: Croupier

I would volunteer as a mod, but maybe modding should be like politics. Anyone who wants to be a politician shouldnt be allowed.

My suggestion would be for the Wizard to select the candidates, and have a site poll for the community to elect the mods. The community could also hold the mods accountable, and if one has become power drunk the community also poll for the removal of certain people as mods.

But as its the Wizards site, it up to him and I support his deciion.

I don't quite agree with a vote but I do agree they should be "revoked" if they get power-drunk. This site is more of a "kingdom" not a democracy.

I think I have flagged 4-5 posts at most since we learned how it works, most of them in the recent flame-war in "suspension list." It works as intended, the one I flagged dissapeared before my eyes so I must have put it over the top.

Is it just me, or did 90%+ of these problems show up after JL and MKL showed up?

Quote: AZDuffman

... Is it just me, or did 90%+ of these problems show up after JL and MKL showed up?

I don't remember any problems before that, other than a few people who seemed to refuse to believe that mathematics could be related to winning and losing at casino games.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think I have flagged 4-5 posts at most since we learned how it works, most of them in the recent flame-war in "suspension list." It works as intended, the one I flagged dissapeared before my eyes so I must have put it over the top.

One thing I particularly like about the flagging is, the inflammatory stuff that can start a new round of comments and fighting when someone else shows up to read a thread are gone. So, while a few people may get into it for awhile, the source of all the flaming is removed for a larger number of people to engage in. Yes, its' trolls bringing it on initially, but it takes more than a troll to keep the Tango going on.

I know sometimes you may miss something you wanted to read, but hard to imagine any of that was life changing enough to worry about.

Quote: AZDuffman

Is it just me, or did 90%+ of these problems show up after JL and MKL showed up?

I'd say the 90% was a low estimate, but it really isn't important. Its only a matter of time before another one shows up, and I'm not referring to another alias.

I've been pretty selective with flagging. Besides a few spam I reserved it for what I thought appeared to be trolling or for blatantly abusive posts. Personally, I think the flag point total should be 21 so it would take 3 and not 2 like minded people before posts disappear. If its bad 3 will people will find it soon enough but it won't get lost if 2 people are ganging up on another.

As for moderators, consideration should probably be given to when they are active. If all the moderators post from 6 pm to midnight every day then a huge chunk of time there isn't anyone around to catch things. And I mentioned this before in another thread, but if there is a way to move a thread to a moderator only section of the forum rather than just lock or delete it that would allow time for the mods to discuss what the final disposition of the thread should be.

I think that part of what happens that clutters things up (apart from obvious trolls looking for trouble) is when 2 members start going back and forth within a thread and usually derail things with their own little battle that often is WAY off topic and adds nothing to the conversation. This has happened many, many times and I'd suggest it is one of the issues that, if eliminated, would clear up the board a little. I'm not sure how it would be done (moderators or otherwise) but perhaps a rule should be in place that when 2 members go off like that that their rant should be banished to PM's only between them and removed from the thread. I'm pretty sure that this would end the whole thing as usually what they want is simply a forum to flex their "muscle" and show everyone else who might be reading how smart or witty or (fill in the blank) they are. They want to be seen one-upping someone else and once they're relegated to PM-land they could either continue to their heart's content or just let things die (and I'd suspect the latter).

Any thoughts?

Posts about whether or not the moon landing was faked have been moved to The fake moon landing conspiracy theory.

Is it just me, or is anyone else watching every new poster for signs of Jerry's newest sock puppet?

Quote: Nareed

Is it just me, or is anyone else watching every new poster for signs of Jerry's newest sock puppet?

I'm not watching too close. It is like if a person was wearing full scuba gear and walked onto the floor at Bellagio, you will instantly notice.

Quote: Nareed

Is it just me, or is anyone else watching every new poster for signs of Jerry's newest sock puppet?

No, it's not just you Nareed. I find myself clicking on the Newest Members list as part of my routine. I'm also on the lookout for the three members who link to online casinos in most of their posts. We had one just this morning but it was quickly busted - sorry milton.