Online trolls are 'everyday sadists'

[SuperRoo]

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

 

 

I agree. I'm a founder of a forum that now has over 75k members. We need all the help we can get keeping things from getting out of hand. I don't want to be a mod here. I have enough to do already.

 

Please consider adding some volunteers to help keep things running smoothly.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

My professional life is CA. The site has been my full time job since 2008.

 

Thay at said I would love to delegate mod duties.

[sandyk]

My professional life is CA. The site has been my full time job since 2008.

 

Thay at said I would love to delegate mod duties.

Hi Chris

Then why not do so ?

It would result in far less friction between the various camps, and also result in far less "tit for tat" posts.

I freely admit that I am as guilty of that as are many others ,when I get my buttons pushed.

In most well moderated forums it would never be allowed to get that far. Incidentally, I echo some of the comments about how hard it is to change things in the personal details area. It would be helpful to have provision for other background details, not just which equipment is in use.Perhaps there is provision, but it's not readily findable,

 

Regards

Alex

[mayhem13]

Has anyone identified any resident Trolls here on CA?

[sandyk]

Has anyone identified any resident Trolls here on CA?

 

I honestly doubt that there are presently any resident Trolls here in C.A. No matter which side of the fence you are on, being passionate and uncompromising with your views doesn't automatically make you a Troll.

[Allan F]

I honestly doubt that there are presently any resident Trolls here in C.A. No matter which side of the fence you are on, being passionate and uncompromising with your views doesn't automatically make you a Troll.

 

While there may not be any permanent resident trolls on CA, without naming names, IMO there are certainly those who play that role at least occasionally and the forum would be better served if they did not.

[tne]

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

 

 

John

 

While I appreciate the point of view that you express here, my preferences still lean to the anarchic side. I do not see any signs that anyone has been inhibited in expressing their points of view here, and believe that we can all handle responses without having our feelings hurt. I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs challenged and do not allow myself to take it personally. Besides, its the internet, not real life ;-)

 

With that said, the situation that compelled Chris to delete a member recently went beyond the level of acceptable behaviour and his deletion needed to be done, particularly since he was warned and continued. I am sure he is off being a dick on some other forum now, so good riddance.

 

- Thomas

[crisnee]

Chris C,

 

Is there some way that we can mark posts as OT (in the title perhaps) so that they can be automatically ignored by those not interested in reading anything but responses to the OP? IOW is there an automatic function that would allow that to happen?

 

I think it would solve many problems for forum browsers and those that just want to get down to business. Of course members would have to remember to mark posts OT. But even when members forgot maybe you or a moderator could mark the obvious ones after the fact.

 

I suppose we (forum members) could do a manual version, just mark the title OT, but that wouldn't be nearly as effective.

 

Chris

 

P.S. Maybe you could add a large Post Icon for OT to the list of icons.

[Allan F]

While I appreciate the point of view that you express here, my preferences still lean to the anarchic side. I do not see any signs that anyone has been inhibited in expressing their points of view here, and believe that we can all handle responses without having our feelings hurt. I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs challenged and do not allow myself to take it personally.

 

Thomas, what you can't see directly are those who have been driven away by the nastiness and no longer participate. Sadly, because 'it's the internet, not real life', some people behave in a manner that they would never do 'in real life'.

[mwheelerk]

I don't imagine anyone objects to having their thoughts and opinions challenged but I do believe it crosses the line when declarative statements are made about what others can or cannot hear, can or cannot know and possibly includes statements that either border on or simply are personal attacks.

 

In addition when you see a string of threads started that seem, at least in my opinion, to be couched in intellectual pursuit, many times circling the same subject matter, but almost always end up with a vehement response by the OP to any dissenting opinion, then you may, may have encountered a troll.

 

Personal pet peeve, I hope I never have to read again, "your system is not resolving enough" (and yes I do believe there are system differences but how can anyone know with any certainty what another can hear, experiences and the environment within which it takes place). It's when personal opinion is stated as fact and others opinions are discounted as without value or merit that I do become disturbed.

 

Unfortunately I have allowed myself to engage in such negative banter in the past and I am doing a better job at moving on and staying away from the "fray" as of late.

[sandyk]

Personal pet peeve, I hope I never have to read again, "your system is not resolving enough"

 

mwheelerk

It could be instructive to do an advanced Google search using the words you quoted.

This is one that came up from C.A. "Don't feel bad Mayhem13, you suffered a triple whammy on this one.

Clearly your system is not resolving enough. Then again that would result from non-audiophile levels of hearing acuity. That precluded your ability to put together a system with the required resolution. Then feeling badly, you obviously over consumed the wine. You really had no chance.

As an audiophile you must consider yourself a failure. I would suggest finding the nearest AA and starting the 12 step program. Just look in the phonebook for Audiophiliacs Anomynous. They'll put you on the road to recovery and a normal life in no time."

 

 

Another one :

Quote Originally Posted by chg View Post

 

Pretty typical: Guys with low-fi, budget gear hear no differences and everything sounds the same. Shocker!

 

More shocking news: Teenagers say lossy sounds the same as lossless listening through iPod and $20 earbuds!

Yawn. Now we've come to the point where we play the your-system-is-not-resolving-enough game. Come on, I was expecting better from you, chg

"

[Paul R]

Allow if you will, me to point out a few small issues:

 

1. If Chris were to choose to moderate the site heavily, this conversation not only would not be happening, it would not be allowed to happen. Note carefully the last five words.

 

2. If anyone were to be hired as a moderator, then participation here becomes a job, paid or not. That means one would no longer be allowed to participate in any contentious conversations, beyond perhaps occasionally a well identified personal opinion worded in the most non-argumentive way. That would apply to almost the entire site, since conversations here are utterly organic.

 

3. Some threads would need strict moderation, such as threads providing commentary on published (i.e. official) reviews and articles. In all probability, wild outbreaks of mad scientists or cable cowboys would not be allowed.

 

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Lastly, be aware that the "hot topics" here are not very "hot" at all, in an objective sense. The single and sole problem, IMNSHO, is that a few agendas are not limited to a few appropriate topics. More segregation in the forum of topics would be beneficial, but probably not until the posting base is significantly larger, or the publication rate of articles is much more frequent. YMMV.

 

Paul

[mayhem13]

Allow if you will, me to point out a few small issues:

 

1. If Chris were to choose to moderate the site heavily, this conversation not only would not be happening, it would not be allowed to happen. Note carefully the last five words.

 

2. If anyone were to be hired as a moderator, then participation here becomes a job, paid or not. That means one would no longer be allowed to participate in any contentious conversations, beyond perhaps occasionally a well identified personal opinion worded in the most non-argumentive way. That would apply to almost the entire site, since conversations here are utterly organic.

 

3. Some threads would need strict moderation, such as threads providing commentary on published (i.e. official) reviews and articles. In all probability, wild outbreaks of mad scientists or cable cowboys would not be allowed.

 

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Lastly, be aware that the "hot topics" here are not very "hot" at all, in an objective sense. The single and sole problem, IMNSHO, is that a few agendas are not limited to a few appropriate topics. More segregation in the forum of topics would be beneficial, but probably not until the posting base is significantly larger, or the publication rate of articles is much more frequent. YMMV.

 

Paul

 

Agreed Paul. At the current level of posting i think Chris is doing an excellent job of moderation.

[Booster MPS]

 

In addition when you see a string of threads started that seem, at least in my opinion, to be couched in intellectual pursuit, many times circling the same subject matter, but almost always end up with a vehement response by the OP to any dissenting opinion, then you may, may have encountered a troll.

 

mwheelerk this is spot on. These topics occur way too often and often evolve into discussions about anything but music. Additionally there is often an inability to simply walk away and agree to disagree. An exchange that i recently read went something like -

 

You don't understand.

No, YOU don't understand.

NO, you REALLY have no idea NOR understand.

 

There is nothing productive about that.

[InfernoSTi]

John

 

While I appreciate the point of view that you express here, my preferences still lean to the anarchic side. I do not see any signs that anyone has been inhibited in expressing their points of view here, and believe that we can all handle responses without having our feelings hurt. I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs challenged and do not allow myself to take it personally. Besides, its the internet, not real life ;-)

 

With that said, the situation that compelled Chris to delete a member recently went beyond the level of acceptable behaviour and his deletion needed to be done, particularly since he was warned and continued. I am sure he is off being a dick on some other forum now, so good riddance.

 

- Thomas

 

Thomas,

 

I, too, appreciate your perspective and understand that it has real value. In fact, I see the reasons why it is important (thanks to your posts, as well as those of others such as Paul R who are quite reasonable).

 

What I am primarily concerned with and which could be easily controlled without impact on heated debates is the practice we have all seen by some who "go after" those with different views on every post they make.

 

The example here would be if one were to post "anit-anarchy" posts or ridicule you with anarchy references every subsequent post you make no matter what the topic. What happens then is you would get so angry you would either leave or retaliate, posting "anti-moderator" posts on every post that person made regardless of topic. Then those on either side would flame the thread, defend the position, and the feud would escalate and perpetuate.

 

This is exactly what is happening over and over and over and over and over and over on CA. The solution seems simple and wouldn't quash the heated discussion whatsoever.

 

In fact, there could be a part of the forum devoted to flame wars and all a moderator would have to do is move any such post to that section where the few parties could prove their keyboard jousting prowess while the original topic was discussed, however heated. Nothing lost, and I bet the "good" folks would be a bit more careful knowing they would be relegated to the stupid section if they simply post unrelated old feud posts in a new thread. Those who just like to flame would be free to do so in their private section.

 

Heck, call it "The Inferno" and it will have some cachet to it, to some anyway. This was my attempt a humor, by the way…a form of irony.

 

A light touch could be applied. Say a private warning first, a single public warning second, and a moved post gets a link so those who want to follow that get to follow it elsewhere.

 

Perhaps there are better ideas but this one seems to satisfy both sides fairly well and not lose the anarchic nature of the internet to any real degree.

 

Best,

John

[PopPop]

We tried the "inferno" concept on one of the motorcycle.com forums that I participate in, it didn't work and only made thing worse. The bad feelings that were created in the un-moderated sub-forum colored the tone of every other thread on the site. The owner used a few strong willed moderators who don't take any BS and the whole environment has settled down and become more useable. Yes, there were a few that left because they thought their right to speak was being violated, or didn't believe that the moderators were completely unbiased, or they thought the forum looked like a police state. I enjoy it a lot more than I did in the past.

[mav52]

Allow if you will, me to point out a few small issues:

 

1. If Chris were to choose to moderate the site heavily, this conversation not only would not be happening, it would not be allowed to happen. Note carefully the last five words.

 

2. If anyone were to be hired as a moderator, then participation here becomes a job, paid or not. That means one would no longer be allowed to participate in any contentious conversations, beyond perhaps occasionally a well identified personal opinion worded in the most non-argumentive way. That would apply to almost the entire site, since conversations here are utterly organic.

 

3. Some threads would need strict moderation, such as threads providing commentary on published (i.e. official) reviews and articles. In all probability, wild outbreaks of mad scientists or cable cowboys would not be allowed.

 

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Lastly, be aware that the "hot topics" here are not very "hot" at all, in an objective sense. The single and sole problem, IMNSHO, is that a few agendas are not limited to a few appropriate topics. More segregation in the forum of topics would be beneficial, but probably not until the posting base is significantly larger, or the publication rate of articles is much more frequent. YMMV.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul I agree with everything you noted. Well done and to the point and you pointed out these key items;

 

"those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation"

 

"be careful of what you wish for"

[InfernoSTi]

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Paul

 

If they (perhaps me) need to be moderated, that is fair. If the forum is better for it, so much the better.

 

If someone (perhaps me) is not an asset but a detractor from the site, then it is best to be moderated than to be allowed to continue to be a burden to others. That wouldn't preclude using the forum as a resource, just limit the bothersome posts (perhaps mine)….

 

Best,

John

[InfernoSTi]

We tried the "inferno" concept on one of the motorcycle.com forums that I participate in, it didn't work and only made thing worse. The bad feelings that were created in the un-moderated sub-forum colored the tone of every other thread on the site. The owner used a few strong willed moderators who don't take any BS and the whole environment has settled down and become more useable. Yes, there were a few that left because they thought their right to speak was being violated, or didn't believe that the moderators were completely unbiased, or they thought the forum looked like a police state. I enjoy it a lot more than I did in the past.

 

I could see that being the case…thanks for sharing your experience and final solution.

 

Best,

John

[Daudio]

1. If Chris were to choose to moderate the site heavily, this conversation not only would not be happening, it would not be allowed to happen. Note carefully the last five words.

 

2. If anyone were to be hired as a moderator, then participation here becomes a job, paid or not. That means one would no longer be allowed to participate in any contentious conversations, beyond perhaps occasionally a well identified personal opinion worded in the most non-argumentive way. That would apply to almost the entire site, since conversations here are utterly organic.

 

3. Some threads would need strict moderation, such as threads providing commentary on published (i.e. official) reviews and articles. In all probability, wild outbreaks of mad scientists or cable cowboys would not be allowed.

 

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Lastly, be aware that the "hot topics" here are not very "hot" at all, in an objective sense. The single and sole problem, IMNSHO, is that a few agendas are not limited to a few appropriate topics. More segregation in the forum of topics would be beneficial, but probably not until the posting base is significantly larger, or the publication rate of articles is much more frequent. YMMV.

 

Paul,

 

What ? Can't you conceive of something between anarchy and a police state ???

 

I think you have a very wrong impression of forum moderation in your mind... And nothing has been done about it yet anyway...

 

The earlier posts here were talking about a 'light touch'; PM's, explanations, warnings, splitting threads, and such. Not immediate bannings, and hired thugs ! The point is to better the user experience, not muzzle it.

 

I don't know where you came up with the idea of moderators being hired ? Most forums/boards are way too small to afford salaries for something like that, including this one. Most moderators are board users, volunteers, level headed people, trusted by the community, and managed by the board owner, who are interested in the quality of their board, and their friends on it.

 

Why, maybe you could be a CA moderator ? Or, maybe not

 

 

I hope you have not been watching too much of a certain 'news' channel, to get so paranoid

[wgscott]

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.

 

I was watching a debate last night between Daniel Ellsberg and Former NSA Counsel Stewart Baker about Snowden. Baker Denounced Snowden as a "narcissist." Ellsberg replied that the same term was used against him when he released the Pentagon Papers.

 

I haven't paid close attention, but I was not familiar with the use of this word as a term of demonization and dismissal. (I always pictured it applied to people like the Kardashians.)

 

It does make me worry about humanity's general propensity to cry out for more authoritarianism. I guess I come down more on the side of TRE and anarchy (in the proper sense of the term) on this one.

 

Diogenes followed me here when I got run out on a rail at hydrogenaudio, and without the constraints of authoritarian moderation, he self-destructed in a way that left him with zero credibility, which, if you think about it, is much better than (in this case well-deserved) banning.

[Jud]

I don't know where you came up with the idea of moderators being hired ? Most forums/boards are way too small to afford salaries for something like that, including this one.

 

I think that what Paul was saying is that even for volunteers, moderation would become a job. That not only takes away time the volunteers could use to participate via comments of their own, it might operate as a disincentive to speak completely freely, lest one be seen as a biased moderator.

 

Doesn't mean folks wouldn't do it, just that there are downsides.

 

BTW, let me once again in this thread raise the idea I mentioned over in a members-only thread: "Disemvowelment" as a warning/probation. It's been very effective in the forum where I've seen it employed, particularly in opening up offenders to ridicule, which can be far more bothersome to them than outright banning. It also needs almost no input from the moderator, as it works via a simple script that can be turned on and off.

[esldude]

I was watching a debate last night between Daniel Ellsberg and Former NSA Counsel Stewart Baker about Snowden. Baker Denounced Snowden as a "narcissist." Ellsberg replied that the same term was used against him when he released the Pentagon Papers.

 

I haven't paid close attention, but I was not familiar with the use of this word as a term of demonization and dismissal. (I always pictured it applied to people like the Kardashians.)

 

It does make me worry about humanity's general propensity to cry out for more authoritarianism. I guess I come down more on the side of TRE and anarchy (in the proper sense of the term) on this one.

 

Diogenes followed me here when I got run out on a rail at hydrogenaudio, and without the constraints of authoritarian moderation, he self-destructed in a way that left him with zero credibility, which, if you think about it, is much better than (in this case well-deserved) banning.

 

So you would be against an online version of public stoning? No authority in that beyond the mindless mob doling out its version of justice. Cross the line and don't get banned, but put only in the Stoning forum for a couple weeks. And no I am not serious. It simply sounds like what some here would like to have.

 

I saw the comment btw about Snowden being a narcissist and remembered that term applied to Elssberg. My immediate thought was the old cliche about those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it. With quite a bit of irony in this particular case.

[esldude]

I think that what Paul was saying is that even for volunteers, moderation would become a job. That not only takes away time the volunteers could use to participate via comments of their own, it might operate as a disincentive to speak completely freely, lest one be seen as a biased moderator.

 

Doesn't mean folks wouldn't do it, just that there are downsides.

 

I think you might be one of the very best people to moderate Jud. As I like you, I would never in a million years wish that upon you. I prefer reading your posts to instead having you spend time moderating.

 

In some ways people who most want to be moderator probably aren't best suited for it. Those best suited for it probably don't really want to do so. Though I imagine there are some willing to share the burden for the good of a forum they care about. I actually think Chris does a commendably good job as it is. If he wants help or thinks it needed I trust him to make the right decision on that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Allow if you will, me to point out a few small issues:

 

1. If Chris were to choose to moderate the site heavily, this conversation not only would not be happening, it would not be allowed to happen. Note carefully the last five words.

 

2. If anyone were to be hired as a moderator, then participation here becomes a job, paid or not. That means one would no longer be allowed to participate in any contentious conversations, beyond perhaps occasionally a well identified personal opinion worded in the most non-argumentive way. That would apply to almost the entire site, since conversations here are utterly organic.

 

3. Some threads would need strict moderation, such as threads providing commentary on published (i.e. official) reviews and articles. In all probability, wild outbreaks of mad scientists or cable cowboys would not be allowed.

 

Consider the above, and note that those calling the loudest for moderation, again in all probability, would upon occasion, be the targets of such moderation. There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for. It applies in this situation.

 

Lastly, be aware that the "hot topics" here are not very "hot" at all, in an objective sense. The single and sole problem, IMNSHO, is that a few agendas are not limited to a few appropriate topics. More segregation in the forum of topics would be beneficial, but probably not until the posting base is significantly larger, or the publication rate of articles is much more frequent. YMMV.

 

Paul

Hi Paul - You've touched on many of the things that go through my head when thinking about this stuff. We are pretty much on the same page (not completely but pretty much).

 

Re: Moderators - I hate using someone for my gain and not compensating them in some way. Thus, I have a hard time asking someone to moderate the CA forums without compensation.