Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Deleting/replacing trollsome posts

09:57 / 16.10.03

When we were talking about posts and threads seeming to disappear for no reason, someone (might have been me, can't remember) suggested replacing deleted posts with a 'Moderated by:' or 'Moderation reason:' line.

That's what I - along with whoever agreed the action - have done here. Can people please let me know if they think it's suitable, or if the post would be better off being destroyed altogether? I'm half and half on the idea - it's effective in that it shows just what a concerted imbecile he is and at least leaves some semblance of structure in threads where people have responded to him, not realising who the suit belongs to, but it does feel a little like the voice of God.

(There's huge potential for this thread to go wildly off-topic, so could I ask anyone responding to please stick to the direct issues on this one, not the rights/wrongs of letting moderators delete posts or whatever.Cheers.)

Tryphena Absent

10:06 / 16.10.03

I think this is a good idea. I agreed the action and specifically in this way because at least people can read a thread through when they know something's been deleted.

10:55 / 16.10.03

Moderator note: this post deleted as the suit belongs to a known troll.

Tryphena Absent

11:01 / 16.10.03

If that isn't the Knowledge I'm liquifying my socks in a blender and drinking them.

11:07 / 16.10.03

And why it was deleted. In this case his "character" was, I think, working up to "play the race card" so I think it was very important to make it clear things weren't what they seemed for anybody who was not entirely unconvinced by his piss-poor attempt at disguise.

I don't think it sounds like the voice of god, I think it sounds like good threadkeeping.

What time is it in California, Nowthink?

11:09 / 16.10.03

And are you using a P800? It's just your line lengths are a bit weird for someone on a VDU.

Matthew Fluxington

12:21 / 16.10.03

Look, I went along with deleting his stuff in the music forum just now, but I do think it's a little unfair to delete posts which actually have valid on-topic points, as it was with one of his posts in the Jay-Z thread. Why don't we just delete the ones where he's being an asshole and only keep the ones where he's not, to encourage better behavior? Deleting everything seems like troll feeding to me.

12:32 / 16.10.03

Flux, I know you're not really all that interested in Policy threads, but I'd urge you to read a few of the ones devoted to this particular subject. I don't particularly want to go over this ground *again*, but simply put he's been banned numerous times, and therefore does not get to have his voice heard on the board, regardless of what it is he's saying (and that's ignoring the fact that he's still threatening certain members with nebulous legal action). In one of those older threads it was agreed that his posts would get deleted as a matter of course, as a matter of Barbelith Policy. I've seen nothing in the last 48 hours that's made me change my mind on that.

Like I asked above, can we try and keep this thread about replacement vs. deletion, *not* discussing Andrew yet again?

12:34 / 16.10.03

I think the Moderators consciously tried that for a while, Flux - and, of course, it's what we end up doing by default (I'm pretty sure there exist comparitively 'reasonable' suits, threads and posts of Andrew's which go undeleted). Didn't seem to "encourage better behavior", particularly, and he slowly but systematically upped the ante until he pissed off so many that the current 'slash & burn' policy was adopted.

'Course, I'm not a Moderator anymore, so I've no idea whether things have changed...

12:36 / 16.10.03

Apologies, E Randy, for slipping into discussion again. It's difficult not to, sometimes.

Yes, I think it's a good idea to leave a Moderator Note rather than deleting the post outright. Less sinister.

12:47 / 16.10.03

I think this is quite a bad idea, to be honest. Particularly bad is stating explicitly that it's andrew when we don't have the evidence (because there is no actual evidence this time other than our intuition). I'd rather we only made statements like that when we're SURE and have some kind of evidence. In the meantime, I have no problem with posts being deleted outright.

13:03 / 16.10.03

It's always gonna be something of a judgment call. I still think it's good practice to at least leave some acknowledgment that a post has been deleted.

Matthew Fluxington

13:21 / 16.10.03

Randy, I'm familiar with this situation, and it just seems like the "ban Andrew" plan is a total failure every time, and he always just comes back. We should just accept the fact that he always comes back. We can't get rid of him. Let's just admit that. Since we have him here, maybe it is a better idea to integrate him and slap him around until he behaves. Very little of what he's been posting has been entirely disruptive, if it was someone new, we'd shout the person down and move on. There are a number of people posting here now who were total twats when they arrived, and we slapped them into shape rather than treat them like an other. You're just playing a game with Andrew. Why not just stop? There's enough idiots here and everywhere else who just get ignored, and life goes on. Just leave the moron alone, and let him run out of steam.

It only makes us look dumb if we can't admit that all of our previous attempts to deal with Andrew have been failures. Either ignore him, or verbally abuse him. Trying to kick him out won't work.

13:28 / 16.10.03

*steps a-waay from computer*

13:40 / 16.10.03

For reference, the thread in which the topic of post/thread deletion was last discussed is here.

Tom - there seems to be a genuine dislike (I think unease is probably too strong a word for it) of posts disappearing into the ether. Leaving aside the whole Big Brother argument, a thread which has a number of posts removed can be impossible to follow for anyone coming to it late. It makes it extremely difficult to tell if a person is replying to a post that still exists or one that's been deleted. Using some kind of marker to acknowledge where a post has been reomved eases this a little.

I think the main problem with the way that I've deleted nowthink's posts is the form that the marker takes. There's no identification of who proposed removing the post, which is an issue. There's also a real "This is the voice of the Mysterons" feel to the use of the words "Moderator note" which I'm not happy with. An ideal solution would be to have the board itself put something in the palce of the original post - something simple like the message that is currently visible when you're ignoring someone's posts. Implementing that'd be a pain in the arse - I guess it'd mean something like an extra option on the moderate post screen ("Delete post - troll" underneath the standard "Delete post" option, maybe).

I dunno. I'm just trying to come up with a solution that pleases, well, not everybody, but the majority of people.

Flux - with all due respect, we've tried it before and it's never worked. I'm not getting involved in that discussion again.

Tryphena Absent

13:41 / 16.10.03

Flux you're an infuriating blowhard.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:55 / 16.10.03

Well, if Tom thinks we should continue to delete posts outright, then I'm going to carry on doing that unless told otherwise. Another question is when to delete posts - in general, I'd suggest asking people if they mind, listening to comments, then moving for deletion if a thread is troll-rotten.

More generally, I don't see a lot of profit in locking or deleting troll-started threads while the trollsuit is still active, since it will just lead to another pointless thread being started. What we need is a better mechanism for killing suits, which is the only way to stop the endless process of unconvincing false moustaches. Sad but true. Likewise, it seems that we're going to have to keep Barbelith locked to unrecommended newcomers for a while longer also.

21:10 / 16.10.03

Okay, I've just disagreed with a delete request of a Knodgethink post. Have discussed this with the proposee(?) via pm, my rationale being that in Rizla's My Computer is Fucked thread, he does actually offer some fairly practical advice, which it seems pointless to delete. Likewise, the stuff in the Jay-Z thread, I thought.

By all means, and I concede I was more-than-likely wrong about nowthink initially (kindly bear in mind I'm less familiar with the knodgeturd than many of you,) block the IP and all, but in these cases it seems, to me, unnecessary to delete the posts.

21:11 / 16.10.03

Naturally, if Tom wishes that all his posts be deleted, I am perfectly willing to accede to that.

21:39 / 16.10.03

Duncan - that's why I left the original post in the Jay-Z thread. The others were never referenced or direcetly replied to by the other posters active in that thread, so there was no problem there, but the link is just a link and removing it would have damaged a potentially useful (albeit probably accidentally useful) thread.

00:44 / 17.10.03

There's a whole thread still in FTVT, started by 'nowthink'. Not disruptive, really, and several users have replied to it with interest. His is the first post, but the majority of the content of the thread is other posters. Delete, modify 'nowthink's' posts with a summary, or just let it alone?

I haven't seen an action on this yet, there may have already been one and I just didn't see it, so if it's already been voted on, I apologize for the repeat.

01:00 / 17.10.03

The only thing I want to say about this thread is that this comment - Randy, I'm familiar with this situation, and it just seems like the "ban Andrew" plan is a total failure every time, and he always just comes back. We should just accept the fact that he always comes back. We can't get rid of him. Let's just admit that - is just wrong.

It's wrong because for the vast majority of the time he is not here. It's wrong because we know when he's around because the board goes to shit. It doesn't go to shit because we all over-react, it goes to shit because he's abusive, aggressive, insulting and has demonstrated TIME AND TIME AGAIN that he has no respect whatsoever for ANY of the board's mechanisms or wishes. The CONSIDERABLE amount of work that we've all put into dealing with him over the last THREE YEARS has had a massive impact and substantial success - on the whole - in keeping him off the board. I know that's the case because if it wasn't I would have shut this place down months ago. I will not let one stupid little shit force everyone else into line with his version of what this place should be like simply because we don't have the will to keep fighting the fights. The quote that goes, "We have to fight for rights all the time because rights are under attack all the time" holds true here - we either want to preserve this place and are prepared to fight for it - albeit in the background BUT PERPETUALLY - or we accept that it's going to turn to crap and let it go to seed.

Matthew Fluxington

12:17 / 17.10.03

Sometimes it seems like we have been more successful in keeping nice, normal folks off of (or away from) Barbelith rather than keeping Andrew off of it.

Since he's proved himself capable of busting through our defenses every time, it may be more realistic to suggest that when he's not here it's probably because he's busy or bored with it rather than unable to post here.

I'm being pessimistic, I suppose. Glass half empty.

Have we ever seriously attempted to integrate the guy? It's obviously not impossible for the guy to interact with the rest of us reasonably, he's shown some signs of being able to do just that this week, though he did do some obnoxious stuff as well. Aside from his insane tenacity, as far as being an annoying asshole, I honestly don't think the content of his worst posts is all that different from some other numbskulls we have around here who don't get ran out of town with pitchforks every time they post.

But make no mistake - I support all of our policies against Andrew, it's not my call to make, and I think you've got a lot of valid points. I'm still basically with the party line on this matter. I just think that it is worthwhile to consider that maybe we've been dealing with this all wrong, and if our collective grudge against this guy only makes matters worse.

13:01 / 17.10.03

Personally, I'm not convinced that was "him" to be honest. If anyone can verify this for sure, perhaps PM me or post something here. I cannot be bothered to have big discussion about it, just stating an opinion, possibly I'm wrong. I mention it as I insinuated another poster was winding us up (in the "joining a monastery" thread) and to judge from his subsequent posts, he seemed sincere. My apologies if he's reading. Perhaps we're being a bit paranoid?

I'm with Flux on this one anyhow, too much concentration on "him", I'm gonna go get back to the good stuff.

Tryphena Absent

13:14 / 17.10.03

I got a PM from nowthink that was very much in Andrew's style. Attempting to maintain innocence as this character in a very stilted way... basically that confirmed his identity for me and I agreed to modify posts after that. Had that post come from someone with different hang ups (as in not so much blatant and over the top evidence of misogyny and racism) I might have accepted it as innocent but in my mind that was Knowledge. Plus there was very little evidence of upset when he was accused of being him.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:31 / 17.10.03

Surely the whole thing about K***** is that he ACTS like K***** (ie, an irritating, offensive piece of shit). If he turned up and DIDN'T act like K*****, we'd never know. Therefore it's the acting like K***** that's the point, whether or not one actually IS. I think what I'm trying to say is that being a prick and fucking with what Tom and everyone else are trying to build here is a bad thing, whoever you are.

(Sorry, that made more sense when I was composing it in my head, but I'll post it anyway in case you can make sense of it.)

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:38 / 17.10.03

Flux = An Infuriating Blowhard Sometimes it seems like we have been more successful in keeping nice, normal folks off of (or away from) Barbelith rather than keeping Andrew off of it.

Do you have any proof of that? Do you have any numbers for the people that were going to post but decided against it because of our treatment of nowthink?

17:54 / 17.10.03

OPB E Randy at start of the thread, just before the bit where he asks people to keep to the topic in hand:

When we were talking about posts and threads seeming to disappear for no reason, someone (might have been me, can't remember) suggested replacing deleted posts with a 'Moderated by:' or 'Moderation reason:' line.
That's what I - along with whoever agreed the action - have done here. Can people please let me know if they think it's suitable, or if the post would be better off being destroyed altogether?

I think it's best to have at least something acknowledging there was a post there. When I saw those posts yesterday, however, it took a short while before I realised that they weren't just a really cunning ruse by nowthink to get people's sympathy. That says something in itself, I suppose; probably both aboput me and about how those 'voice of God' style sentences appear.

In the main, I agree with this by the Chairman:

being a prick and fucking with what Tom and everyone else are trying to build here is a bad thing, whoever you are

but I can't say I agree with someone's posts being entirely wiped out, especially as Tom notes: Particularly bad is stating explicitly that it's andrew when we don't have the evidence (because there is no actual evidence this time other than our intuition). I'd rather we only made statements like that when we're SURE and have some kind of evidence.

If it's possible, I wouldn't mind seeing something indicating what had been said, perhaps summarised buy moderators, if there is something worthwhile there. I understand that that (a) is a lot of work for moderators, and (b) there is a case that trolls should have no voice whatsoever, though I have reservations about that idea, so I can see why people might disagree with me.

Anyway, put me in the 'moderator note' camp...

Matthew Fluxington

18:40 / 17.10.03

Do you have any numbers for the people that were going to post but decided against it because of our treatment of nowthink?

No, I have no numbers or anything, but you're reading me the wrong way - it's more to do with closing off new members and not allowing non-members to read the board that keeps new people away. There's enough anecdotal evidence around to suggest that there are a substantial number of people who have wanted to sign up/participate during the periods when we haven't allowed new members. I thing that what we could have gained from even just five or six really good new members is greater than what we lose by putting up with a few obnoxious trolls.

21:12 / 17.10.03

I have to agree with Flux on this. The closing down of membership to strictly a sponsored level is one I think has helped the board considerably. I recently sponsored a friend of mine to sign aboard and he's already contributing threads, et al, in a far faster and more enriching fashion that I did in all my years of lurking on here.

But the inability of non-members to read our threads bothers me on a level I can't quite put to words. Except to say that HAD this been a sustained policy over the many years I've been here, chances would have been nil that my friend would have perused this place and felt interested enough to join. And thus the new blood would have remained outside the castle gates. And the trolls would get all the stagetime.

21:52 / 17.10.03

Guys, I hate to sound like a prick but the issue of closing the board to non-members has got its own thread here. Again I ask, is there any chance we can keep this one on-track?