Online trolls are 'everyday sadists'

[The Computer Audiophile]

Interesting article.

 

Survey: Online trolls are 'everyday sadists' - CNN.com

[Jud]

Hi Chris. It would be nice if the survey results could be relied on, but from the questions quoted in the article it seems really easy to "game" the results: I love trolling, torturing fools online, and playing the villain in MMORPGs! MWAHAHAHA!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chris. It would be nice if the survey results could be relied on, but from the questions quoted in the article it seems really easy to "game" the results: I love trolling, torturing fools online, and playing the villain in MMORPGs! MWAHAHAHA!

Yeah, I hear ya.

[Jud]

Especially those psych students.

[InfernoSTi]

The survey speaks to the sadistic nature of pouring gasoline on the fire and taking joy from deliberately angering or belittling people. Yet we allow that why?

 

Do we really believe we are serving a "greater good" by allowing sadistic behavior that serves no general purpose other than to be mean?

 

Not really expecting much change, I will offer this (humorous) flow chart suggesting better choice opportunities by individuals making hateful, personal attack posts. We would all be better off just making a sandwich, it turns out. Of course some people just enjoy watching the thread burn...

 

[PopPop]

Hi Chris. It would be nice if the survey results could be relied on, but from the questions quoted in the article it seems really easy to "game" the results: I love trolling, torturing fools online, and playing the villain in MMORPGs! MWAHAHAHA!

 

Conversation overheard between a masochist and a sadist,

 

"Please hurt me"

 

"NO!"

[Paul R]

Hi John - how do you apply any kind of pattern analysis to behavior that is non-sane? It's like trying to predict what molecule in a gas is going to impact any other specific molecule. You know there will be an impact, but you just don't have the tools to figure out exactly what or when that impact will occur, or with whom.

Drives me slightly batty.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

The survey speaks to the sadistic nature of pouring gasoline on the fire and taking joy from deliberately angering or belittling people. Yet we allow that why?

 

Do we really believe we are serving a "greater good" by allowing sadistic behavior that serves no general purpose other than to be mean?

 

Not really expecting much change, I will offer this (humorous) flow chart suggesting better choice opportunities by individuals making hateful, personal attack posts. We would all be better off just making a sandwich, it turns out. Of course some people just enjoy watching the thread burn...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10766[/ATTACH]

[InfernoSTi]

Paul,

 

I don't think that letting personal attacks escalate until they become so egregious that someone gets banned is the right balance. I believe small corrections earlier is the better answer.

 

I will use an analogy as an example. When I used to run sports cars at the race track, the difference between intermediate and advanced drivers was not the number of mistakes they made but the speed with which they recognized the problem and the size of the correction needed to keep from going off track.

 

The intermediate drivers recognized they went in too hot at apex and either had to slow down significantly at exit if they could or go off. That is not a fast way around the track. The advanced drivers recognized it at turn in and made smaller corrections before they were at the apex and were fast and clean exiting the corner. That is the fast way around the track.

 

This site is still driving like an intermediate driver allowing things to get so bad that we either have to slow way down or go off the track. That doesn't have to be the way we "drive" though. We know when a thread is going bad, we see those that need moderating to keep the thread from escalating in personal attacks, and we don't have to have everything end in a ban before we start acting civil again.

 

We aren't the first to deal with this issue. There is an answer and it does not involve letting threads burn until someone gets banned (and it doesn't involve keeping people from "going in too hot" either).

 

To summarize, for the same mistake, faster recognition and smaller corrections in a timely manner resulted in better outcomes. That is the mark of a skilled race car driver and a skilled forum administrator/moderator.

 

John

[Paul R]

Yes, that works if you assume that "X" behavior always or almost always leads to "Y" behavior. But people, being people are going to have A-Z behavior, as well as a-z, 0-9, and other behavior variants as well. Throw in an international mix where A may mean C and D may mean A, well.

 

A good example of a self moderating thread I think was the Roger Waters / Israel thread. That was a very hot emotionally charged topic, yet for the most part, things remained civil and calm. When someone went too far off the beam, postings just stopped for a while, then seemed to cautiously resume. Good sane behavior.

 

That kind of sensitivity is what we need to encourage in audio discussions I think.

 

Also, people have been known to act like trolls when being completely innocent of any such intent. That usually happens when they are not sensitive to the audience and feel like everyone *must* agree with them because what they are talking about is *obviously* true and unquestionable.

 

Like I said, not sensitive to the audience.

 

-Paul

 

Paul,

 

I don't think that letting personal attacks escalate until they become so egregious that someone gets banned is the right balance. I believe small corrections earlier is the better answer.

 

I will use an analogy as an example. When I used to run sports cars at the race track, the difference between intermediate and advanced drivers was not the number of mistakes they made but the speed with which they recognized the problem and the size of the correction needed to keep from going off track.

 

The intermediate drivers recognized they went in too hot at apex and either had to slow down significantly at exit if they could or go off. That is not a fast way around the track. The advanced drivers recognized it at turn in and made smaller corrections before they were at the apex and were fast and clean exiting the corner. That is the fast way around the track.

 

This site is still driving like an intermediate driver allowing things to get so bad that we either have to slow way down or go off the track. That doesn't have to be the way we "drive" though. We know when a thread is going bad, we see those that need moderating to keep the thread from escalating in personal attacks, and we don't have to have everything end in a ban before we start acting civil again.

 

We aren't the first to deal with this issue. There is an answer and it does not involve letting threads burn until someone gets banned (and it doesn't involve keeping people from "going in too hot" either).

 

To summarize, for the same mistake, faster recognition and smaller corrections in a timely manner resulted in better outcomes. That is the mark of a skilled race car driver and a skilled forum administrator/moderator.

 

John

[InfernoSTi]

Yes, that works if you assume that "X" behavior always or almost always leads to "Y" behavior. But people, being people are going to have A-Z behavior, as well as a-z, 0-9, and other behavior variants as well. Throw in an international mix where A may mean C and D may mean A, well.

 

A good example of a self moderating thread I think was the Roger Waters / Israel thread. That was a very hot emotionally charged topic, yet for the most part, things remained civil and calm. When someone went too far off the beam, postings just stopped for a while, then seemed to cautiously resume. Good sane behavior.

 

That kind of sensitivity is what we need to encourage in audio discussions I think.

 

Also, people have been known to act like trolls when being completely innocent of any such intent. That usually happens when they are not sensitive to the audience and feel like everyone *must* agree with them because what they are talking about is *obviously* true and unquestionable.

 

Like I said, not sensitive to the audience.

 

-Paul

 

Paul,

 

This is exactly why small corrections work far, far better than big ones after things have escalated. I'm not saying it is easy or doesn't take skill. I'm saying it is what separates the intermediate from the advanced. It is the goal to work towards, and simply saying "it's too hard, we can never understand all the variables" is a sure way of staying intermediate, not advanced.

 

This is a standard management practice in any field, by the way. Making many small adjustments instead of one large adjustment is what distinguishes the expert with a fine touch from the intermediate who is ham-fisted.

 

Big, ugly corrections after doing nothing is wrong, in my opinion.

 

Best,

John

[PopPop]

In my opinion the value and usability of any forum is defined by the level of moderation exercised by the site owner. Some of the threads I have read on CA are like staring a a bad accident; you want to look away but just can't - you want to intervene and help, and that just feeds the trolls. One thing I've learned is that you usually can't convince people of anything by giving them information to support your claim. Success comes from answering and asking the right questions and trying to ignore the tyranny of ignorant and inflammatory comments.

 

Chris, thanks for your help on a recent thread. We had a bad actor who needed some time in the box.

[Paul R]

Yes, but let's think about "corrections" for a moment. What is correct and what is merely eccentric?

 

There are no clear guidelines because in a very real sense, the forum parts of the site are evolving and growing in response to the preferences of the users. There is no rigid pseudo military like definition as on, for example, the Gasbag forums.

 

And, in my experience, over moderation will kill a system far faster than rigid moderation. Posting general rules of behavior, which are available in the Terms of Service at the bottom of each page, is a wise move.

 

Yes, the result of a light hand with moderating is - upon occasion - you might have what you call "big ugly" corrections. But a better word for that might be "dramatic" corrections, which get everyone's attention. Infrequently. I think that better than frequent but smaller corrections, which often, if given enough time, turn out to be self correcting.

 

YMMV.

 

P.S. When one of these sadistic monsters is identified however, I have no problem with drastic action.

 

Paul,

 

This is exactly why small corrections work far, far better than big ones after things have escalated. I'm not saying it is easy or doesn't take skill. I'm saying it is what separates the intermediate from the advanced. It is the goal to work towards, and simply saying "it's too hard, we can never understand all the variables" is a sure way of staying intermediate, not advanced.

 

This is a standard management practice in any field, by the way. Making many small adjustments instead of one large adjustment is what distinguishes the expert with a fine touch from the intermediate who is ham-fisted.

 

Big, ugly corrections after doing nothing is wrong, in my opinion.

 

Best,

John

[PopPop]

Corrections can be made in accord with a well written acceptable use policy. There shouldn't be a time when it is acceptable to continue an argument with accusations, condescending tone, or ridicule. On the other hand, users have to understand that there is a lot of meaning that gets lost in translation on the Internet because we can't read each other's non verbals. And clever sarcasm gets lost in the ether. And, although it might not be the best form to belittle someone for double thumbing a key and miss spelling the work "dumb" we should have the maturity to understand the absurdity of that and be able to laugh at ourselves.

[tne]

I actually appreciate the anarchy that the internet allows. Trolls are so obvious that they can be ignored. Why feed them?

 

In this regard I appreciate the very light touch that Chris uses for moderating this site. Sure the back and forth between the usual suspects gets tiresome at times, but I still have learned a great deal from this site about music, DACs, speakers, etc.

 

The only other forum that I regularly read is one for expatriates in Shanghai. Now that one can get vicious and makes anything ever said on this site seem like an afternoon tea.

 

Oh, in another note, not about CA but fun nonetheless, have a look at this video of two crazy Russian guys climbing the Shanghai Tower, which is still under construction but will be the worlds second tallest building. I can see this building from my apartment window :-)

 

Make sure you're sitting down when you watch it.

 

[InfernoSTi]

Yes, but let's think about "corrections" for a moment. What is correct and what is merely eccentric

 

I get this sometimes at work. Some employee who is making another miserable with constant but lower than threshold bullying hides behind the "I'm just joking" veil (essentially your "eccentric" position). Other times, there is an overly sensitive employee who imagines they are being picked on when, in fact they aren't. What standard should one apply and how to tell the two apart? The simple fact that building a cohesive team is good for productivity requires that a manager address this very question and not let it languish until it blows up.

 

On a forum, we are there voluntarily, so I would agree the threshold is much higher on both counts. Yet believing that the lessons learned are helpful when someone is banned is only as effective as the next member who joins and didn't learn that lesson. So it is a system that is doomed to repeat even though for the long time members, they have learned the rules several/many times over. Nobody is served well by a system that is designed to not improve but merely be stagnate at best.

 

And, in my experience, over moderation will kill a system far faster than rigid moderation.

 

Are we saying the same thing about "over moderation"? To be clear, I said small corrections, not big, heavy handed ones. If you mean "over moderation" being quick ban, of course that is the opposite of "small corrections", but you know that. Again, the art of the well moderated forum is one almost doesn't see the moderation in action. Like a good referee, you should not notice him nor should he have to go straight to ejection to do his work. In fact, in almost every example I can think of (cars, referees, work, etc) small, early, artful corrections are nearly always preferable to the big off, ejection, or banning. And an overly heavy hand is not the solution in any of the examples.

 

I suppose many people have not experience artful management, refereeing, car handling, etc. Once you have, you never want to go back to the less artful style. It is never as effective or enjoyable.

 

John

[crisnee]

I actually appreciate the anarchy that the internet allows. Trolls are so obvious that they can be ignored. Why feed them?

 

In this regard I appreciate the very light touch that Chris uses for moderating this site. Sure the back and forth between the usual suspects gets tiresome at times, but I still have learned a great deal from this site about music, DACs, speakers, etc.

 

 

I feel the same way. It's interesting to see what people act like and I prefer they not be shut down or up when they become unpleasant. As you said, it's easy enough to ignore those one can't abide, and it's really so interesting to see what people will act like when they don't feel they need to hide the way they do in "real" life.

 

The more annoying and tedious folks are those who go on and on about the same thing over and over again from one thread to the next. They should be banned or at least put on temporary leave of absence. Why? Because they are boring and hurt my eyes.

 

Chris

[InfernoSTi]

The only meaningful reason that "anarchy" (although it isn't really anarchy, it is more "laissez faire" where anything goes as long as certain rights aren't infringed upon…in this case when personal attacks escalate to creepy "personal research" being posted on those being attacked or other flagrant offense) is that, under this system, personal attacks are being allowed to escalate well past the point of basic civility and being allow to get to the point where there is the real potential of personal harm being inflicted and only then is something happening. In my opinion, the "sport" of watching threads burn is superseded by the need to draw an earlier line.

 

People know where the line is and will attack right up to that line and are inflicting real hurt on other members…as demonstrated by the retribution the hurt members inflict back in unrelated threads. And those that are new who have not seen a banned individual, think there is no limit and it escalates past the line drawn by Chris.

 

In short, the system is set up to produce vengeful feuding that turns off many very important contributors (we have all seen this and don't need examples) and countless potential members who, upon reading a flame thread, never join. And those that do join are those that enjoy flame wars.

 

I don't think a system set up to create recrimination and feuding while also turning off good contributors is artful management. And I'm not saying a heavy hand is the answer, either. There is a third way besides hands off or heavy handed: it's called a skillful touch.

 

John

[Daudio]

the system is set up to produce vengeful feuding that turns off many very important contributors (we have all seen this and don't need examples) and countless potential members who, upon reading a flame thread, never join. And those that do join are those that enjoy flame wars.

 

... There is a third way besides hands off or heavy handed: it's called a skillful touch.

 

John,

 

This is not a new problem And there are solutions to it, just not here at CA

 

I have being lurking, reading, and contributing to forums since 1992 (Compuserve), and I still love them. CA... not so much lately since it seems to being taken over by members intent on forcing their opinions on others, delighting in contention, and just disgusting rudeness.

 

I think the problem is embedded in the CA forum setup and operation.

 

It annoys me that there are no User Profile fields for simple, non-threatening info like: First Name, Gender, maybe Length of Time in the Hobby. But more importantly I do not see any effort of guidance in getting newbies (and old hands) to put in any profile data at all, allowing anonymity to be the norm, rather then the exception. One problem leading to that is the confusing access to editing ones profile, I would look for 'My Profile' somewhere on the page, and yep, there is is a link, but it is display only. Except for a 'Customize Profile' link, which does little except confuse. I find it counter-intuitive that one has to find the 'Settings' (not even 'My Settings) link to edit ones Profile data. If one finds their way there, he finds tons of fields for info on a members audio system, but very few fields about the member, and those few are broken up in different locations, easy to miss.

Personal info fields are very helpful towards building a community, of course, they need to balance between privacy and community, but that is really not very difficult. And the user interface can contribute or detract to the effort.

 

Where are the rules and guidelines for posting on CA ?? I looked and all I can find is a big, legalese, boilerplate, 'Terms of Service' document from a small link hiding at the bottom of long CA pages. It is mind-numbing, and most people glaze-over, ignore, or don't even know or care of their existence. So where is the sticky thread with a laymans version of the TOS posting rules, or the link to that from the CA Home menu, or anything that would help newbies and oldies know what is cool, or not, here ??

 

But perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of moderation on the forum. Both Chris C's "laissez faire" approach (at least till it gets really ugly), and his increasing inability to see everything that is going on on CA, due to increasing members and traffic, I find to be very understandable. But his lack of recognition of the problem, and failure to delegate, at least some, of the moderation task, I do not understand I heartily subscribe to the 'a light hand heads off problems' approach, of course, but it needs authorized people to implement !

 

This is not rocket science ! Solutions exist. There are 'best practices' for forum and community management out there. So why are we a little backwater of a forum (in quality, not numbers) in this day and age ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

John,

 

This is not a new problem And there are solutions to it, just not here at CA

 

I have being lurking, reading, and contributing to forums since 1992 (Compuserve), and I still love them. CA... not so much lately since it seems to being taken over by members intent on forcing their opinions on others, delighting in contention, and just disgusting rudeness.

 

I think the problem is embedded in the CA forum setup and operation.

 

It annoys me that there are no User Profile fields for simple, non-threatening info like: First Name, Gender, maybe Length of Time in the Hobby. But more importantly I do not see any effort of guidance in getting newbies (and old hands) to put in any profile data at all, allowing anonymity to be the norm, rather then the exception. One problem leading to that is the confusing access to editing ones profile, I would look for 'My Profile' somewhere on the page, and yep, there is is a link, but it is display only. Except for a 'Customize Profile' link, which does little except confuse. I find it counter-intuitive that one has to find the 'Settings' (not even 'My Settings) link to edit ones Profile data. If one finds their way there, he finds tons of fields for info on a members audio system, but very few fields about the member, and those few are broken up in different locations, easy to miss.

Personal info fields are very helpful towards building a community, of course, they need to balance between privacy and community, but that is really not very difficult. And the user interface can contribute or detract to the effort.

 

Where are the rules and guidelines for posting on CA ?? I looked and all I can find is a big, legalese, boilerplate, 'Terms of Service' document from a small link hiding at the bottom of long CA pages. It is mind-numbing, and most people glaze-over, ignore, or don't even know or care of their existence. So where is the sticky thread with a laymans version of the TOS posting rules, or the link to that from the CA Home menu, or anything that would help newbies and oldies know what is cool, or not, here ??

 

But perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of moderation on the forum. Both Chris C's "laissez faire" approach (at least till it gets really ugly), and his increasing inability to see everything that is going on on CA, due to increasing members and traffic, I find to be very understandable. But his lack of recognition of the problem, and failure to delegate, at least some, of the moderation task, I do not understand I heartily subscribe to the 'a light hand heads off problems' approach, of course, but it needs authorized people to implement !

 

This is not rocket science ! Solutions exist. There are 'best practices' for forum and community management out there. So why are we a little backwater of a forum (in quality, not numbers) in this day and age ?

Hi Daudio - Thanks for the feedback.

 

As you know its impossible to please everyone all the time.

 

I've tested adding more identifying information to user profiles but received a lot of loud backlash. No matter what fields I provide trolls will be trolls and honest people will be honest. Some readers elect to use their real names as CA usernames while others would never contribute without some anonymity.

 

I switched switched forum software a couple years ago from Drupal to vBulletin. I selected vBulletin for its features, many requested by users, and the facts it is used by so many websites. When seeking balance between simple and complicated this software was the best choice. I can't afford to heavily customize the package to my liking and CA isn't quite big enough to join the Huddler Network like Head-Fi.

 

I moderate CA how I would like the sites that I visit to be moderated. Moderate only when necessary. We are all adults and can opt out of a conversation that isn't for us. In addition people can always send me a message to check out a thread they think has unfairly been taken over by sophomoric comments. I take audio seriously but also realize nobody's life is in danger. A few people around here, not you, should relax a bit and enjoy the music a little more. Getting worked up over our wonderful hobby isn't how it's supposed to be.

 

Rules / ToS are only meant to keep honest people honest. No matter what rules are in place people will seek loopholes and bend them until warned or banned. That's just life. With all due respect, if people need a code of conduct to act like a respectful adult, I doubt the CA rules will help those individuals.

 

Please accept my response in the spirit in which it's intended. I value your feedback and honesty. If you didn't care, at least a little, I doubt you would have taken the time to comment. Thanks again for the feedback.

[mwheelerk]

They are not sadists they are narcissists. They can only see one perspective, have no empathy or concern for the thoughts of others and are simply confrontational in their nature. They feed off of it.

[Allan F]

They are not sadists they are narcissists. They can only see one perspective, have no empathy or concern for the thoughts of others and are simply confrontational in their nature. They feed off of it.

 

There is a degree of overlap between the two in that both focus on satisfying the self, don't you think? So why can't they be both?

[mwheelerk]

There is a degree of overlap between the two in that both focus on satisfying the self, don't you think? So why can't they be both?

 

Well of course. Nothing is that black and white but I definitely see more of a dominate narcissistic trait in the behavior. I am not any kind of doctor or analyst but just a person who has done a lot of reading and experienced the behavior and I have simply thought of these traits when I have read this type of posts.

[Allan F]

Well of course. Nothing is that black and white but I definitely see more of a dominate narcissistic trait in the behavior. I am not any kind of doctor or analyst but just a person who has done a lot of reading and experienced the behavior and I have simply thought of these traits when I have read this type of posts.

 

A point of view on the topic:The Sadistic Narcissist | The Narcissistic Life

[mwheelerk]

A point of view on the topic:The Sadistic Narcissist | The Narcissistic Life

 

Thanks. No time at the moment. Getting ready to leave for the evening but I will take a read on this.

[sandyk]

Chris C

The problem remains that you are only one man, and you have a professional life outside your forum. You can't be across every post and thread. You are frequently away on personal business, or like recently, away with the family on a well deserved break.

Surely you could consider delegating those duties to a member that you trust, at least when you are unable to closely monitor your forum ? .

 

Regards

Alex