Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

“The best method is shooting the trolls dead”, John Wayne would probably say. :sunglasses: :laughing:

But, honestly, I would say that the method Uccisore is making use of is already a good one, but it is not good enough.

A good example:

Much effective, Carleas, because trolls can be identified very quickly.

Welp I haven’t gotten any warnings or bans, but I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I’d be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate. “You don’t agree with me, you’re an idiot”. The only time I will say something is if someone starts calling me an idiot or insulting me, we may do philosopby but this doesn’t imply we shouldn’t or won’t defend ourselves when provoked.

And that must apply to each member of ILP. “Exceptions” are not allowed.

I agree, but I think the person who starts the ad hom should be getting in trouble. It’s flame baiting.

So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?

Are you asking Artimas or me?

Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas’ ideas that you seemed to agree with).

I appreciate Uccisore’s moderation style, it’s very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).

I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.

More generally (and this I don’t intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I’m pretty easy going, and I don’t find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.

Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don’t. That’s why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that’s important on a philosophy forum, because it’s easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.

So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong.

It is right that I recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach. But one requirement is that the moderator is capable of practicing it rightly. If so, then the moderator can ban early and often. Ad homs, insults, off topic should lead to ban or even permaban, but again: the moderator must be capable of practicing it rightly.

I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good.

Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

Howsoever. … Trolls must be punished. :sunglasses:

Think of John Wayne:


I can agree with that.

ILP revolt.

It would be the first one.


So is the problem is that we have two too many marks?

Or, if it’s that there’s no permanent ban at the end, the reality is that there’s no such thing as a permanent ban on the internet. We could say ‘permanent’, but that just means that the user name is dead, not that the poster is banished in practice.

I can agree with Artimas’ suggestions concerning the mark system, but, for me, the mark system is not the main aspect of handling the problem. The main aspect of handling the problem are the administrator(s) and moderators, especially their personality and motivation. Therefore I mentioned the good example given by Uccisore.

I am convinced that the number of the trolls will soon lower after the trolls will have realized their absolutely indisputable undesirability.

That’s good that there is a mark system, they serve the most justice from what I can tell. The part where we have a problem is having your system better enforced i’d say. Only a few times have people been banned or warned. There are quite a few times where ad hom has happened and no system was enforced.

The mods aren’t bad, the only one I got in an argument with was Ucc really, but I agree with his assertiveness. We just need more assertion behind the system is all. Step 1: identity the troll/flame baiter. Step 2: warn/ban the troll/ flame baiter. Step 3: continue the process, the more marks the harsher the justice.

Perm banning is near impossible due to proxies, ip changes, etc. Range bans are good, but this is also bad due to limiting the forum population by what places you ban and people being banned who didn’t do anything, it raises the chance of new users not knowing we even exist.

Yes, of course, but it already exists, and it is not the main issue. The main issue are the administration and moderation - without them all mark systems are useless.