BARBELITH underground
 

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


The Psychology Of Trolling

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
 
Spaniel
15:54 / 14.01.06
I dunno, Haus, I respect your opinion, but I disagree; IMO, Hawksmoor was a childish wind-up merchant, but, more crucially, I think our opinions on the matter may be beside the point. In cases where we can't be sure the person displaying anti-social behaviour is a troll, but their behaviour is such that it is disrupting the the board to a significant extent - flying in the face of board policy, refusing to engage in anything like rational debate, being highly offensive - it seems to me that the wisest course of action is to treat them like a troll. Okay, so Hawkmoor *might* not get off on attention, but surely we have to err to the side of caution and not take the risk?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:06 / 14.01.06
Personally, I don't think he was a troll. I think he was a cock. To an extent, I think the two can be treated the same (questioning, smackdown, if necessary, banning) but as to the "attention" thing... hmm, let me think a while longer.
 
 
Ganesh
16:14 / 14.01.06
I don't think there's necessarily always a clear distinction between 'seeking approval' and 'seeking attention' but I take Haus's point that individuals considered trolls (or, at least, archetypal trolls) make less of a distinction between positive (approving) and negative (hostile) feedback. Of course, the 'objective' divination of motivation/intent isn't especially straightforward, particularly in individuals who haven't been around on the board very long...
 
 
Spaniel
21:58 / 14.01.06
I know my thinking is probably coming across as a little simplistic, but I can't help but thinking that not pandering to the trollistic (intentionally or not) poster should include not giving them any undue attention.
 
 
Ganesh
22:01 / 14.01.06
Good luck with your cat-herding, then, Boboss.
 
 
Spaniel
22:34 / 14.01.06
I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Am I being thick, or are you being drunk, or are we somewhere inbetween?

I'm a little pissed, if that helps.
 
 
Smoothly
22:41 / 14.01.06
I'm quite drunk too, but I think Ganesh is referring to the difficulty of orchestrating that particular (non)response.
 
 
Ganesh
22:51 / 14.01.06
What I mean, Boboss, is, we've had this discussion many times on Barbelith and your suggestion is not a new one. Pretty much every time there's an outbreak of seriously offensive posting, we have

a) several threads involving that poster wherein other posters respond with varying degrees of patience/snarkiness/pisstaking,

b) at least one Policy discussion of whether the poster's behaviour constitutes trolling (plus discussion of what makes trolling trolling),

c) one or more posters expressing 'you're as bad as him', 'I'm ashamed of us', 'are you pleased with yourselves for driving another newbie away' or 'censoring bigots = censorship/bigotry'

and

d) at least one poster suggesting that the whole thing could've been avoided if only 5000-odd members (yes, I know, the number of active posters is considerably lower) had somehow formulated, communicated and agreed upon a unified way of addressing the problem without drawing undue attention to the disruptive poster.

The last point underpinning my "cat-herding" comment. Even assuming we all agree on what is and isn't an 'unnecessary' part of dealing with trolling/disruptive behaviour, how might such a large number of individual posters - with individual opinions - be so coordinated?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:55 / 14.01.06
Everywhere online is prone to trolling and I suspect that the motivation is as individual as the response. Certainly I'd hazard a guess that a fair number of people here have trolled, some probably without even realising it, thinking that their own views were reasonable without taking into account that the community they were visiting disapproved of their views very strongly. As such I think that motivation is not something that can be widely understood, neither can a community on encountering a troll really stop a response that has been building up over a number of days. I would argue that the sussing out stage never really concludes because the personal drive of a troll can't really be defined in such a short period of time. The only solution if you wish to stop a communal reaction to someone who you believe to be a troll is to get rid of them.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:54 / 15.01.06
My initial post wasn't intended to be a hand-wringer, if indeed anyone interpreted it as one. Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with Hawksmoor getting roundly mobbed for the rubbish he was spouting. I was just a little annoyed that I personally felt I had to stick my oar in the water when there were plenty of people already seeing to the problem.
 
 
Spaniel
11:49 / 15.01.06
I'm just talking about exercising a little self restraint, which could be easily encouraged by moderators once it seems likely that we are dealing with a highly disruptive poster or troll (and let's face it, in this case that was established pretty early on). I would have thought that most of us would agree that engaging with posters like Hawksmoor beyond that point is never a particularly good idea in that, humour value aside, it's like talking to a brick wall, and more often than not simply encourages them*.

Maybe I'm a hopeless utopian. Anyway, that's my two cents thoroughly spent.


*Regardless of what any given disruptive individual is after, I think we can be pretty sure they're unlikely to get it in a vacuum.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:51 / 15.01.06
In cases where we can't be sure the person displaying anti-social behaviour is a troll, but their behaviour is such that it is disrupting the the board to a significant extent - flying in the face of board policy, refusing to engage in anything like rational debate, being highly offensive - it seems to me that the wisest course of action is to treat them like a troll. Okay, so Hawkmoor *might* not get off on attention, but surely we have to err to the side of caution and not take the risk?

I think I see where the issue is. Essentially, I would see trolling and doing what Hawksmoor was doing as two different things. Both of these things are unacceptable, and both of these things need to be dealt with, but they are not the same thing. If Hawksmoor had been rude, graceless and unpleasant to people who commented on his writing, but restricted that behaviour to the Creation, he eventually either would have been mocked out of Barbelith or have given up on posting his work, or everyone else would have given up on commenting on his work - see Ten's photography thread elsewhere.

His offence, specifically, was his use of homophobic abuse, both within the thread and in his PMs. It was explained to him repeatedly that this was not acceptable, but he chose to continue to use it. Therefore, he was banned. This was unrelated to trolling as defined in this discussion, I think. He was not attacking an Internet community from inside, he was attacking people within the community with the only tools he had available to him - homophobic abuse and a kind of racial judo - because he needed those specific members to stop undermining his shaky self-worth and had a limited number of approaches to take to try to achieve that.

My point is that there are things that get you banned that are not trolling, and for that matter that trolling does not necessarily get you banned. Part of the reason for this is intent - if you are depending on analysis of intent to make your decisions, then those decisions may be forestalled pretty much permanently. Hawksmoor's intention may have been trollish - I don't believe it was, others do. His actions, however - making sustained efforts to make Barbelith less friendly for general (gay) and specific (those PMed with abuse) people - are, whether identified as trollish or identified as a comment feature of much trolling, unwanted.
 
 
Ganesh
14:18 / 15.01.06
I think I agree, Haus. Thing is, in each individual case of possibly-trolling, we invariably (need to) go through some sort of analysis of intent on the open board. That in itself can be viewed as 'fuelling via attention', particularly if there's a lot of to-and-fro discussion and/or the 'he's done nothing wrong, Barbelith = elitist mob' stalwarts are out in force. If we don't have these discussions on the open board, however, the moderators are left open to charges of lacking transparency and leaving interested parties out of the loop, etc.

Then there's the banish-with-laughter/Morrissey/cheese jokes response, which actually does work in many cases.

The moderators are not a single monolithic hive-mind but a collection of individuals with differing approaches and opinions on how to manage disruptive behaviour. Given this, and the difficulty of agreeing upon a 'common line' to take (even when the specific troll is identified, he's rarely identified to the satisfaction of all moderators, as the recent Tits Win/Hawksmoor thing illustrates), coordinating a board-wide response is not a simple matter at all.

Boboss, why don't you try being a moderator? That's not snarkiness but a genuine suggestion. It tends to help one gain an appreciation of the difficulties involved in maybe-trolling situation.
 
 
Spaniel
14:43 / 15.01.06
I am a moderator. I mod Comics and the Gathering.
 
 
Spaniel
14:54 / 15.01.06
I shall attempt to lead by example (as soon as I the fora I mod degenerate into shitstorms).
 
 
Ganesh
15:00 / 15.01.06
I am a moderator. I mod Comics and the Gathering.

Oh. Okay.

One of the reasons I hadn't noticed you were a moderator is that I hadn't imagined that someone who'd been at the sharp end of this stuff would suggest "exercising a little self restraint, which could be easily encouraged by moderators".

If it's so easy, Boboss, then why didn't you and your fellow moderators successfully encourage self-restraint to the extent that a "vacuum" could be created around Hawksmoor's posts? Could it be because the moderators weren't agreed that he was a troll ie. an individual motivated by attention, whether good or bad? Or because it isn't in fact that easy to get everyone on a board to follow a party line?
 
 
Spaniel
16:25 / 15.01.06
I'm having real difficulty here, because I agree with you, we aren't just going to get everyone to agree and tow the party line, Christ, I wouldn't want everyone to agree and tow the party line. I just don't think that engaging with extremely obnoxious, policy shirking posters (troll or not) for longer than is necessary is ever a good idea, and that's blinded me to the realities of moderating the board.

Looking back, I think I should have stepped in with my two pennorth. Not that everyone would have suddenly stopped, checked themselves, bowed down and done my bidding, just that a few people might have pulled back and had a think. Flicking through the thread I notice that Jack Fear had a go at getting people to disengage about halfway through. Perhaps I should have been paying more attention and added my voice.

The Tits Win and Hawksmoor debarcles are the first troll debates I've been exposed to since I became a moderator. For a number of reasons I was slow and reluctant to react (yet more fuel for your fire, Ganesh), and it's taken me up until now to get my thinking straight.
 
 
Ganesh
17:56 / 15.01.06
The difficulty is that everyone has a two pennorth - and so the 'column inches' devoted to the disruptive poster stack up and, if that's what floats his boat, then I daresay he has a gay old time.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:13 / 15.01.06
Actually though I wonder what the problem is with him having a nice time? I don't really think that he was that disruptive... annoying sure, a troll certainly and definitely potentially disruptive but it never quite got there. The board had a jolly old fight, now he's gone, if he ever makes it back (unlikely at the moment- eminently spottable I suspect) then he will be banned again for being potentially disruptive and a big ruder and that will be that.

What I don't understand is the need for disengagement unless someone really is threatening. Hawksmoor was mostly offensive. Can you explain beyond we might be giving him what he wants? I'm not sure that's enough...
 
 
Char Aina
00:22 / 16.01.06
we are dealing with a highly disruptive poster or troll (and let's face it, in this case that was established pretty early on).

were we?
was he really that disruptive?

i mean, he shat all over the creation i terms of pushing more level headed threads down the list, but in what way did he disrupt the board?

abusive PMs?
while an overall negative experience to most of those who recieved them(i'm guessing...i found them hilarious in their ridiculousness), i dont know that it can be called highly disruptive.
tom having to ban him?
while it is a pain in the ass for tom, is it really highly disruptive?
various posters taking shots of various cheapness?
while it does alter the flow of communication, whose day was really ruined by throwing their virtual faeces at the tourist?

i understand the principle, that we give him the power to affect us by letting him do so, but i would argue that the effect he had on the board was minimal.
 
 
Spaniel
06:45 / 16.01.06
What I don't understand is the need for disengagement unless someone really is threatening.

Well, to an extent this is a personal thing. I don't like posters like Hawksmoor stinking up the board, even if that stink is kept to a single forum, so I wish people had disengaged. I also think tens of posts in response to the Hawksmoors of this world *could* set a bad example to other potentially more threatening types lurking out there.
However, that's (almost) a moot point in the light of the board's decision to ghost the threads in question - although I assume that's part of the thinking behind the move.

whose day was really ruined by throwing their virtual faeces at the tourist?

I have to say, I really don't like that argument because, IMO, it runs dangerously close to "Who cares, it's only a message board? I mean, get a life ROTFL! I have a real girlfriend... etc
The Hawksmoors (read: nasty homophobes) of this world *can* upset people, and they *can* disrupt communities like ours.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:27 / 16.01.06
Do we want to play compare and contrast on Hawksmoor on gays and women, PsionicNurse on Gypsies and whoever it was on Jews in Switchboard? None of which went crazyapebonkers all over the board but stayed within their threads, all of which had people treating their views with clear disdain, ridicule and argument. If we kick people off for anti-Semitism then we have to do the same for homophobia no?
 
 
Char Aina
07:46 / 16.01.06
i think you're fighting an enemy you want to rather than one you have, boboss. i place a lot of value in barbelith and feel it is a community.

barbelith is my gang, nmy country, my friends, whatever.

my point was not 'its only online'.

i had a fight on friday with a dude who, on leaving mungo's hifi and walking past me, decided to scream at someone for being a 'michael moore poof' for not liking george bush. he lashed out with homophobic insults much like hawksmoor, and that's when i stepped in with my own verbals.
he proceeded to threaten and shout, called me all sorts of fruity euphemisms for homosexual, cowardly and ugly; he even followed us to our taxi and tried to get in with us.

at no point did he do anything that ruined our night, and in fact he made me laugh my ass off.

he wasnt highly disruptive, whether he wanted to be or not.
he also wasnt online.

yeh get meh?
 
 
Char Aina
07:47 / 16.01.06
If we kick people off for anti-Semitism then we have to do the same for homophobia no?

has anyone suggested we dont?
(i'm not taking the piss, i am wondering if i missed it)
 
 
Spaniel
09:16 / 16.01.06
So am I

my point was not 'its only online'

Yes, I realised that after I posted.
If I understand your intent correctly your point was in this instance, on this message board, it wasn't a problem

Well, I take issue with that because, as I think you've just pointed out, there's an element of subjectivity involved here. You didn't find him disruptive or disturbing or threatening, others - quite understandably - might have. That's one of the many reasons many of us don't want homophobes hanging around.

Glad you took the wanker on, by the way.
 
 
Spaniel
09:19 / 16.01.06
i'm not taking the piss, i am wondering if i missed it

Ah, thinking about it there has been an ongoing debate about what constitutes a bannable offense. Not sure why Lady thought to bring that up now, however.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:07 / 16.01.06
A very valuable precedent has been set here, which is that, without spamming the board or indulging in behaviour traditionally defined as trolling, you can still get banned for vitriolic and sustained homophobic abuse. That works for me, in that it broadens our understanding of how harrassment is defined.

I'm not sure I follow what toksik is arguing - presumably that in this case, as in his example, H's homophobia was not disruptive or threatening, but merely laughable. I'd take issue with that - I think it's hard to speak unilaterally about whether or not something is universally upsetting.

Essentially, we have a number of separate questions here. The first is how to react to H's trolling, on which I don't have an opinion because I don't think he was trolling. The second breaks down into two strands - his inability to accept criticism and need to denigrate those who offered it and his decision to frame that denigration in terms of sexuality. Being thin-skinned is not in itself an offence - hence my link to TeN's thread above, where a similar response does not lead to banning. It is purely the repetitive use of homophobic abuse that caused this to become an issue for moderation and ultimately for his dismissal. The response to the first of these was probably more vitriolic because of the second; the two elements are intertwined, but it's the homophobia rather than the thin skin that is key.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:22 / 16.01.06
toksik, I'm sure your sang froid does you credit but if that had happened to me my night would have been ruined. When stuff like that's happened to me in the past, I've been shit-scared, shaking, possibly crying--and later on hurt and angry to have been made shit-scared. In fact it would probably have ruined my entire week.

Maybe this makes me a bit of a twinkie, but it does sort of illustrate a certain subjectivity in terms of what might constitute disruption. Personally I find having some wankstain come on the board and talk shit like that disruptive, because it gets me all grumpy and then lots of other people pile in and they get grumpy and then there's a big kerfuffle afterwards and it's all a bit grim.
 
 
Quantum
13:31 / 16.01.06
My point is that there are things that get you banned that are not trolling Haus

Chiming in with Mordant, I wasn't personally offended by Hawkmoo, but I'm strongly against the sort of behaviour he displayed because other people *would be*. He wasn't a troll by the technical definition, so what's the internet term for an offensive bigot? Because we should ban them too. I think we have precedents for anti-semitism, and now homophobic abuse, and I don't think anyone's going to say racism or misogyny is going to be welcome. My rule of thumb is hatespeech=unacceptable, the process I'd favour is polite warning, heavy challenging and then banning (with subsequent handwringing and cyclic reiteration, moving on to 'iz Barblith dyeing?' and 'where does your screen-name come from?').

Let's just say if that sort of thing had gone down in the Temple the response may have been more Hawkish (sorry) than Dove, I for one have a low tolerance for that sort of thing. Am I a big intolerant meany for wanting to quash idiotic prejudiced hatespeech?
 
 
Char Aina
13:54 / 16.01.06
no.
no you are not.

if that had happened to me my night would have been ruined.

i doubt it, dude.
it was really the most pathetic attempt at threatening behaviour i have ever seen. i was out with some pretty weedy dudes and dudettes, and we decided it was probably some kind of experimantal standup comedy.
my point was not that it can borne(which i am a fan of, sure) but that occasionally generally fearsome ideas can be expressed in a way that doesnt cause fear.

dude was a joke, not a threat.

i do take the point on board that you three make, that my definition of both disruptive and joke are not necessarily the same as other folks'. i do wonder how we can measure disruption if not in terms of things being disrupted, though.

was stuff disrupted? highly?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:27 / 16.01.06
Again, disruption is more trolling - this is not really the issue with Hawksmoor. As Quantum says:

He wasn't a troll by the technical definition, so what's the internet term for an offensive bigot? Because we should ban them too.

And, essentially, we do. The Fetch was not banned for trolling, really, but for racism. Ditto Hawksmoor and homophobia.

Toksik's shouty man, I think, is a useful example of how this can affect an environemnt. His haranguer was not scary to him and his group of mates. MC, or somebdoy else, might have found the same situation, alone and sans mates, disturbing. I found Hawksmoor's hateful invective manly laughable and pitiful, but then I don't come up against that sort of hassle attached to the immediate threat of physical violence, for example, very often. We have to take into consideration other people's vulnerabilities here, as well as our own.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:02 / 16.01.06
I really don't have a problem with booting people for homophobia, racism or any other type of bigotry. (Sure, on my ideal board there'd be no banning ever, but that's because my ideal board would exist in my ideal world which would be notable by its complete lack of hateful shitfucks. Mind you, my ideal board's equivalent of the Switchboard would be really, really dull).

I take Nina's point about whether we should actually CARE whether Hawksmoo was having fun... damage to the community seems to have been avoided (and, in a way, the inevitable conversations like this, cyclical though they often are, can actually strengthen it- it's all very Nietzschean, isn't it?)- offence was, however, clearly caused, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

As a "conflict-avoidance"-type guy, I tend to back down when challenged, so I find it fascinating trying to figure out exactly what someone gets out of that sort of behaviour. I can't understand it at all.
 
 
Spaniel
07:36 / 17.01.06
He just wants to be loved.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:22 / 17.01.06
He is human.
 
 
Quantum
11:06 / 17.01.06
Half Human, Half Hawk, all cock.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
  
Add Your Reply