Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

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:

:laughing:

I can agree with that.

ILP revolt.

It would be the first one.

Or:filpr.jpg

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.

Hi Carleas. I wanted to bring to your attention a matter that has arisen with Uccisore. It seems he has been baiting and provoking, through mild trolling in numerous responses to me. I didnt instigate this and it is continuing in other threads. So I’m concerned that he, as a moderator, is essentially breaking the rules of the forum. One example being here, where he basically accuses me of bigotry and prejudice - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187609#p2597449

He’s often putting words in my mouth and assuming things that I didn’t state here. because he takes things out of context and seems to be reading what he wants to read, one example here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190064&start=25#p2595841

Here he quotes me out of context and ignores the reasoning I gave in matters that he attempts to argue against, while ignoring the reasoning I had already gave…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004&start=75#p2593891

Now it seems like its repeated behavior of him trolling me, but only on threads that have a similar theme. I already had reported another one of his replies to me, but Only_Humean basically didn’t see the need to “sanction” Uccisore because of his pronouncement. Which was accusatory. So he often has been misquoting me out of context, ignoring my reasons and interjecting assumptions based on his preconceived notion of me and what my motives are it seems. I don’t know why exactly, but it seems he has a big beef with New Atheists and has labeled me one. I’m not very aware of what type of people “New Atheists” are, or what he perceives them to be, but I have heard a lot of negativity about them and he seems to be one of those people that may understand it better than I and has some vendetta to crush whatever he suspects is New Atheist hogwash, or whatever. But I have been providing a consistent, related philosophy of mine within the forum the past month or so - and he has been providing rather trollish remarks instead of reasoning. I mean, for a regular member to do that would probably fly, but when a mod does I’m concerned. Is that a double standard of mine? Perhaps, but I would expect mods to enforce and abide by the rules moreso. Yes Carleas you do seem to let things slide. I think Humean does a great job of moving threads to where they belong… I don’t see much from Uccisore myself. I could provide some examples of what I suspect is trolling from Uccisore to me, if wished. But I really think he’s just trying to smear my philosophy because he doesn’t like it. Not because I’m not providing reason…

I don’t mind people disagreeing, and Uccisores methods of most others comes across to me as trolling. I haven’t gotten that from any other poster here that disagreed with me on any thread. Only him thus far. So I think he is biased of course and being unreasonable in certain threads, but not in others. He seems to quick to assume things, insult, and project superiority… which by projection it seems he accuses me of thinking I’m superior, when its really him who he thinks is superior. As a mod, I find it very unbecoming for him. He likes to hold his misunderstandings of me and carry them to other threads and insult. I do usually, not always, return somewhat in kind. So I’m not always taking the high road myself. But nonetheless I find him to be instigating, baiting, and attempting slander on me with downright accusations and some subtle accusations, and using smear tactics with quoting me out of context. So, I don’t think highly of this moderation. Humean, Yes. Everyone else is doing a fine job from my vantage, at least.

I actually don’t have much of a problem with ‘ad hom’ as long as it’s in a post that’s furthering the discussion and isn’t being reported as harassment. If somebody is saying “Your argument is incorrect because A, B, C, D, E…asshole” and the person they are writing too isn’t reporting them, I just figure they’re both adults and that’s sometimes how adults talk. I’d much rather see a mean, insult ridden, and yet on-topic discussion than somebody posting innocent pictures of fluffy kittens everywhere instead of a discussion.

Part of the reason for this is that I find when moderation is strict about insults, the result is that people just more clever about insulting people. I also find that the people who are the best at cleverly insulting others are oftentimes the least desirable people to discuss philosophy with. I’ve seen forums lose good people to banning because those people weren’t interested in playing coy with somebody that was calling them a motherfucker in a way that technically wasn’t against the rules.

I admit this is a big difference between me and how other people in other parts of the internet moderate things.

Yeah, that sounds right.

This is the kind of thing that pushes me towards articulable standards: when something seems clearly true to us, someone disagreeing seems like they must be trolling: how else could they not see? But people actually disagree, and they perceive each other as trolls, and that’s OK.

But what it seems to me like you’re alleging is just that Uccisore is making bad arguments, and ‘bad arguments’ can’t be subject to a blanket prohibition in any reasonable articulable standard of moderator intervention.

Well bad arguments + insults

Philosophy forum rules:

Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.

So no, I welcome criticism and disagreement - it’s a manner in which it occurs that I think is unbecoming particularly for a mod