FYI... Beware of Trolls. (Your response appreciated)
Posted 10 March 2012 - 12:29 PM
The moderation team decided to institute this change to allow the community to decide for itself whether the posts of a certain individual were offensive or detracting from the atmosphere of the community.
It would be simple enough for the moderators to ban this person, as we had already identified him weeks ago as a previous trouble maker dodging a past ban. But of course once we ban him, it is very likely he will crop up again as another identity... as he has done on altenergy shift and NUMEROUS times on the now-defunct Treehugger Forums.
This same individual has been doing the same sort of trolling for about 2 years in my personal experience. His MO and tactics have changed very little in that time frame... which makes him so easy to re-identify.
To me it is remarkably sad that someone would spend this much time and energy just trying to be a nuisance. Which is why over time I have begun to contemplate his motivations... he must have something to "gain" by continuing to harass environmental communities.
Either money is a motivation (I would not be surprised if he is straight up paid as a professional troll across multiple platforms by some industry group), or he has real pyschological problems. You don't devote 2 years of your life to harassing the same group of people for simple kicks and giggles... he should have grown bored with it by now, if that was the primary motivation.
What do you think?
Is a serial troll likely to be motivated by money? Do you think the guy is just crazy? Are there other possible motivations you can think of that could be driving this behavior?
And in light of the motivations, how do you think the moderators should deal with this individual going forward? Should we immediately re-ban this person everytime we even suspect it is him? Or should we continue to rely on the up/down vote system to allow the community to institute discipline and a ban when this person starts to reveal their negative influence on the board (posting intentionally misleading information, being rude to other members, etc)?
We are simply trying to handle this situation in a way that limits the negative influence of this troll (and others) on the board, without undermining the opportunity for open, fair, and honest discussions on green issues.
Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:16 PM
But deniers are fighting a loosing battle. Trolling forums motivates those trying to make a difference and fuels our convictions.
Call it persecution for our resolve to shift from oil companies and to move towards alternative energies, a greener planet and greener living.
Posted 10 March 2012 - 02:35 PM
Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:20 PM
of hitting the wrong button through distraction, a "typo" type situation or kitties too close to the keyboard.
Can up/down votes be reversed?
Ok, back to topic. Outright banning quickly is really not a good option. tigerlily and I both know from
experience, we banned this particular person (and a few others) over at the old treehugger forums,
and they kept coming back. (This one in particular even changed "sex" to get in)
It's difficult to deal with because as Hayden said above, we can ban these types, but they come back.
If we don't ban them, then we risk the ire of our regular members by allowing no action to be taken.
And IP's can be quickly changed, or hidden if they know their stuff, and most trolls know how to game
As for tigerlily's question, I'd vote for continuing the up/down system for now. Trolls are like roaches-
they live through the toxins to bug you another day. (And I'll be extra careful with which button I hit.)
Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:06 PM
And about the vote buttons strange enough the Like system can be reversed (like/unlike) but while testing on your above post with the up/down system, I can't reverse my up vote. I haven't tested down. Will do so on myself with a test account later.
Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:39 AM
Seriously. I think the community should vote on people like him. We all pretty much preach to the choir here and while we see what's going on in the world with deniers and dirty politicians, I think it's useful to actually have to deal with them personally, because you never forget what the stakes are when you do. It's good to see first-hand what the world could be like and what people could be like if we lose. That dude was a great example.
Posted 11 March 2012 - 01:27 AM
Whenever I come across someone like this, I just thank my lucky stars my life is not so meaningless that I have to spend my days consciously upsetting and annoying strangers. Let's treat him with the contempt he deserves, because he's not important enough to be banned.
Posted 11 March 2012 - 06:17 PM
Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:28 PM
With everyone's help we'll be able to simply ignore these types of users and continue to enjoy our efforts.
Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:14 PM
I do like the up/down arrows, and tried to UP the comments that I found particularly helpful. However, “You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day” won’t allow me to do so! I guess that helps prevent “ballot-stuffing”
Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:02 PM
Here are the reputation levels:
Bad -10 points
Poor -2 points
Good 5 points
Great 50 points
Excellent 100 points
Elite 1000 points
Hope this helps.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:20 AM
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:34 AM
But do you feel there is something disingenuous about posting/re-posting mistruths for the intended purpose of forcing other people to address the misinformation and counter it? It's clearly much easier to regurgitate nonsense someone else wrote than it is to construct an intelligent and insightful counter argument based on real facts.
That is the tactic which I think bothers most of the members here. It's like when a spoiled child acts out just to get attention... it wastes everyone else's time and energy to deal with it.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:35 AM
disruptive to the community. Often, people like this come to sites like this (and other green or discussion sites/blogs)
just to start a fight.
It's not just the disagreement. That's fine. We have to debate issues. But it's often the language posters
like this use-demeaning and hurtful.
It's the old argument of -yes, we have freedom of speech, but we shouldn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater
just to prove it.
And I also think that the up/down vote is a better system for that reason.
Previously, we could only "like" a post. But we had no where to "dislike" or "disapprove" of someones
statements. Now we do. And we let the community decide.
Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:01 PM
Posted 21 May 2012 - 07:09 AM
Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:09 AM
.........Seen leaving in a huff, mumbling under their breaths- "I'll be back" as they often do.
Some determined ones we've had even changed gender.
Quoting Willow from the movie Willow to Val Kilmer's character- "I hate trolls."
Posted 21 May 2012 - 03:35 PM
Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:13 AM
I disagree, because if the disagreers agree, then it's not consistent disagreement to them. I think that's the strength behind a message board -- diversity of opinion. An occasional threadlock can help when things get real unruly.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users