Sorry it came off that way but I don't think anyone here is being rude. Are we being critical? Yes. But frankly you're going to need thicker skin to be a mod if this level of criticism is bothering you.
Hey, I'm not sitting here crying or anything; no need for thicker skin. But yes, I feel like those posting in the thread aren't doing themselves any favours when it comes to some of the content of their replies to me.
I stated an opinion near the beginning of the thread but being the open-minded kind of guy I am, I am willing to change my mind following robust, logically sound argument.
Having a full-time job and a four month old daughter I don't have time to follow all the threads around here. If you want help with trolls you're going to need to tell me who you think the trolls are. I provided a list of four because I'm aware that most people around here would consider them trolls. But, are there more, and does everyone agree that they are trolls?
I'd also like to hear opinions on where the line should be drawn. How to define "troll". If someone posts a critical-of-Apple-or-Jobs post which then gets reported as "trolling", what do you expect? That the poster in question is immediately banned forever?
When Teckstud first arrived on AI I personally found him very annoying at times, but certainly not a troll. He just didn't fall over backwards to kiss Apple's feet every time they released a new product. I was unhappy about the fact that he was eventually bullied out of here, but now that he's back I would say that he has got much much worse and I am inclined to ban him.
You know, asking when we're going to "put our foot down", i.e. get rid of users you don't like, and then being rude to the only moderator who's shown any sign of even being interested, is unlikely to get you very far.
Shall we try again?
Making a sarcastic response about the lack of a list 3 hours later (5am to 8am eastern time US? Hell the west coast isn't even up yet) is not an indicator of being serious about helping the situation.<--incorrect my apologies
So, exactly WHAT do you intend to do if such a list if provided?
Obviously they would not have done anything to warrant banning under the current rules (name calling).
Obviously they are less of the problem than those posters ALREADY listed and that have not been dealt with.
So other than provide the opportunity to say "Poster X on the list is not really a troll and therefore this is simply an exercise in muzzling people who you don't like as opposed to a real problem with real assholes" what does such a list do?
You already HAVE a list. Dealing with them is what the main point of this thread is about. Not some fanciful witch hunt for non-fanbois daring to disagree with the all powerful Steve. There is no need for many bannings as the number of assholes is small. A handful. A known handful. There's no real need for a concrete litmus test that specifies allowed vs disallowed behavior to the nth degree.
Ignore works reasonably well for folks you dislike and don't want to read. It doesn't work against folks trying to be disruptive.
2 of the 5 people who voted "I don't see an issue" just happened to join the forums on the exact same date!? Sherlock Holmes might say: "how convenient?"
Vinea voted multiple times as well. The software used around here is pathetic.
I'd also like to hear opinions on where the line should be drawn. How to define "troll". If someone posts a critical-of-Apple-or-Jobs post which then gets reported as "trolling", what do you expect? That the poster in question is immediately banned forever?
.
I appreciate that it can be difficult to distinguish trolling from legitimate criticism which should not be discouraged.
My other suggestion to consider would be to have the mods patrol threads more aggressively and keep threads on topic. To many threads devolve into 'OMG it doesn't do flash, it sux' which has gotten waaaay tired and often times has little to do with the original thread. (No I don't have any examples right off the top of my head)
Sorry it came off that way but I don't think anyone here is being rude. Are we being critical? Yes. But frankly you're going to need thicker skin to be a mod if this level of criticism is bothering you.
I offer this suggestions to make AI better. Trolls who 'poison the well' are diminishing the value of this site. I appreciate that being a mod is a thankless job and this problem has really only become an issue here over the last 6 months. But I think its time that you and the other mods had a talk about how to weed out trolls. They are an issue now and they may drive your loyal users to other sites. That's what it's doing to me.
I agree with the general tone here. The problem with "going to other sites" is that it seems they've ALL devolved into the same mess. It's as if there's an invisible army of trolls hell-bent on disrupting (what's left of) the (REAL) Mac "community".
You mention Ars? They USED to be great, but it seems worse there than it's become here. MacRumors has become unreadable, but was never a favorite.
I've been coming here for quite some time and have always appreciated the level of discussion, even the deep techie-level discussion that left my head spinning.
I have a suggestion.
Encourage people to use their real names. (I do.) It's easy to hide behind a handle (or several), spew venom and spread chaos.
I signed up here with my name, because at the time, this was a pretty hard-core Mac techie site and I saw no reason to use the handles I use elsewhere, like on MacDaily-right-wing-News. Also, I'm much less likely to launch in a nasty retort... Jesus F. Christ I WANT to sometimes!
Maybe this is simply the downside of Apple's success. The iPad seems to be making "those people" apoplectic.
I appreciate that it can be difficult to distinguish trolling from legitimate criticism which should not be discouraged.
My other suggestion to consider would be to have the mods patrol threads more aggressively and keep threads on topic. To many threads devolve into 'OMG it doesn't do flash, it sux' which has gotten waaaay tired and often times has little to do with the original thread. (No I don't have any examples right off the top of my head)
Or geez, if you get ignored by more than 50 people you get a ban. Or at least seriously considered for one.
Vinea, you need to rewind and read the thread again. I was the first person to actually name any potentially problematic posters. Like I said, I'm busy and don't follow all the threads, I wanted to know who exactly people were referring to.
And yes, having a list and seeing if everyone agrees that they're trolls would form part of a healthy debate on what constitutes a troll and what action should be taken.
If people think that all they have to do is start a poll and posters they don't like will be banned as a result, they are sorely mistaken. I want to see some proper discussion on this issue before action is taken.
You mention Ars? They USED to be great, but it seems worse there than it's become here. .
Contention gets moved to the Battlefront. Threads in the Ach stay on topic. Mods are pretty aggressive about enforcing that.
Ars certainly isn't perfect but at least in the Ach you can have reasonably productive discussion. The BF is a waste of time so I generally stay out of there.
The more I think about it I think more aggressive moderation would probably improve the quality of the threads. Maybe we just need more mods (no I'm not trying to get that position for myself).
honestly sometimes i go crazy about a topic and rant here about it, but that's "sometimes" I've used appleinsider to learn and stay up to date with apple news and that's how it should be with everybody else in here. there are the elite such as ireland or melgross that I'm always looking to read their posts or responses because you've made your own reputation in here with good and sound reviews, responses or simply by giving your opinion.
ban or warn them? i say neither, just post new rules adapted to this new issue.
honestly sometimes i go crazy about a topic and rant here about it, but that's "sometimes" I've used appleinsider to learn and stay up to date with apple news and that's how it should be with everybody else in here. there are the elite such as ireland or melgross that I'm always looking to read their posts or responses because you've made your own reputation in here with good and sound reviews, responses or simply by giving your opinion.
ban or warn them? i say neither, just post new rules adapted to this new issue.
p.s. i'm very exited about the iPad.
Agreed, there can be some great threads here. I go off occasionally, too, but I prefer joking to name calling and tossing virtual molotov cocktails.
Just delete obviously incendiary posts. But there IS a fine line.
I hate censorship, but something's got to be done.
(I'd BETTER be against it, my GF works for an anti-censorship organization!)
Normally I express any concerns I have directly to a mod, but since this subject is being discussed publicly... I think it would help tremendously if the mods made more appearances in threads, at least in threads where posts are being reported for rules violations. A little bit of post editing or deletion goes a long way towards getting the message across, especially if the moderator posts the reasons why he's edited or deleted posts. I don't think it's too difficult to spot threads that have devolved into the trading of insults, or posters who's personal mission it is to antagonize other posters until the threads devolve into the trading of insults.
Personally, I have reported any number of pure insult posts -- none of which have ever been deleted or edited. As far as I can tell, none of these posters has ever been sanctioned, either, since they not only are not banned, they keep at it. If the rules are to mean anything at all, then I think this sends entirely the wrong message.
Vinea, you need to rewind and read the thread again. I was the first person to actually name any potentially problematic posters. Like I said, I'm busy and don't follow all the threads, I wanted to know who exactly people were referring to.
And yes, having a list and seeing if everyone agrees that they're trolls would form part of a healthy debate on what constitutes a troll and what action should be taken.
If people think that all they have to do is start a poll and posters they don't like will be banned as a result, they are sorely mistaken. I want to see some proper discussion on this issue before action is taken.
I don't see why enforcement of a ban is at all controversial. These folks aren't random folks we're talking about but people already on permaban for whatever other reason.
Yes, you need to err on the side of caution to insure you aren't banning someone innocent but TEKSTUD as an alias? Please. Why on earth is there any debate on that at all? Ban. Push the button. Done.
Applerulez? Come on. When the MO is the exact same as that of a known iGenius alias identified by IP addr (we really shouldn't have clued that idiot in), created right after that alias was banned it's not hard to determine that this is the same jackass that is already banned and ban them again.
If they get subtle to avoid a ban, who cares? They're a non-problem and it's no fun for them anymore. They're so over the top because nothing gets done and they love to see people get irate.
So at most a warning that they sound too much like some banned jerk and if they don't cut it out quickly that they will be assumed to be an alias and banned.
There are many "mods" posting here all the time. If you don't have the time, then they do and just enforcing previous bans solves 80% of the problem.
No need for philopsophical discussions in what is and isn't trolling. Ultimately it is the decision of the forum owners what is and isn't trolling and what is and isn't appropriate behavior. It's not a democracy, this isn't censorship, this is a medium intended to provide value to the AppleInsider site and encourage page hits and ad revenue as well as promote a healthy AI community.
Personally, I have reported any number of pure insult posts -- none of which have ever been deleted or edited. As far as I can tell, none of these posters has ever been sanctioned, either, since they not only are not banned, they keep at it. If the rules are to mean anything at all, then I think this sends entirely the wrong message.
If someone reports an insult post I will always give the user involved an infraction, and usually edit the post in question as well. Not all insults warrant an instant ban (of any duration), so sometimes you won't be able to tell a user has been sanctioned (are normal users able to see other user's infraction lists on the other's info page?).
Sometimes people (not necessarily you) report posts as insulting and I do not agree. In those cases I take no action and other moderators may or may not take action.
I agree that sometimes a thread can do with a bit of mod intervention and I have on a few occasions done one or more of the following:
split out off-topic bickering to other threads
deleted off-topic posts
told people to stop arguing about something if it's a matter of fact rather than opinion and the facts have been established beyond doubt
Folk need to remember that mods can't read all the threads so threads that have been, or look like they are in the process of being, derailed should be reported as such (with a comment along the lines of - "this thread is being derailed, please split out the off-topic comments", providing a numbered list of the off-topic comments (post numbers are in the top-right of posts))
I don't see why enforcement of a ban is at all controversial.
Well, you make a very good point there.
However, as I said, I remain the only person to have actually named any names as it were and I wanted to know if there were any other individuals people were getting annoyed about.
Agreed, there can be some great threads here. I go off occasionally, too, but I prefer joking to name calling and tossing virtual molotov cocktails.
Just delete obviously incendiary posts. But there IS a fine line.
I hate censorship, but something's got to be done.
(I'd BETTER be against it, my GF works for an anti-censorship organization!)
I've got just a small part to say about censorship. Censorship is wrong if it is done by the government, where the Constitution makes it illegal. However, there is nothing either illegal or particularly untasteful in censoring private blogs, magazines, newspapers, or comments. No privately-held publisher would disagree with the right for them to publish what they wish where they wish. It is _their_ newspaper/blog/magazine/etc. Censoring your own speech, likewise, is just self-control and good taste. While I don't advocate the removal of a forum for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, responses that are not in good taste I believe should be removed. It should be made clear that they were not removed because their opinions were disagreed with--but rather that the delivery of those opinions must be respectful and in good taste. The decision of what is in good taste and what is not should be enacted by the moderators, who should probably initially provide a 1 hour advanced warning before deletion for the first two weeks, and then immediate removal afterwards. They can still comment, just in a respectful tone. This seems to me to be one of the few truly useful ways of dealing with this issue and improving the quality of the general discussion altogether.
I would suggest that the fact that you even think this is a question is part of the problem.
I have my own opinion but you must remember that not that long ago, I was just a normal member like you. With great power comes great responsibility and all that...
Comments
Sorry it came off that way but I don't think anyone here is being rude. Are we being critical? Yes. But frankly you're going to need thicker skin to be a mod if this level of criticism is bothering you.
Hey, I'm not sitting here crying or anything; no need for thicker skin. But yes, I feel like those posting in the thread aren't doing themselves any favours when it comes to some of the content of their replies to me.
I stated an opinion near the beginning of the thread but being the open-minded kind of guy I am, I am willing to change my mind following robust, logically sound argument.
Having a full-time job and a four month old daughter I don't have time to follow all the threads around here. If you want help with trolls you're going to need to tell me who you think the trolls are. I provided a list of four because I'm aware that most people around here would consider them trolls. But, are there more, and does everyone agree that they are trolls?
I'd also like to hear opinions on where the line should be drawn. How to define "troll". If someone posts a critical-of-Apple-or-Jobs post which then gets reported as "trolling", what do you expect? That the poster in question is immediately banned forever?
When Teckstud first arrived on AI I personally found him very annoying at times, but certainly not a troll. He just didn't fall over backwards to kiss Apple's feet every time they released a new product. I was unhappy about the fact that he was eventually bullied out of here, but now that he's back I would say that he has got much much worse and I am inclined to ban him.
You know, asking when we're going to "put our foot down", i.e. get rid of users you don't like, and then being rude to the only moderator who's shown any sign of even being interested, is unlikely to get you very far.
Shall we try again?
Making a sarcastic response about the lack of a list 3 hours later (5am to 8am eastern time US? Hell the west coast isn't even up yet) is not an indicator of being serious about helping the situation.<--incorrect my apologies
So, exactly WHAT do you intend to do if such a list if provided?
Obviously they would not have done anything to warrant banning under the current rules (name calling).
Obviously they are less of the problem than those posters ALREADY listed and that have not been dealt with.
So other than provide the opportunity to say "Poster X on the list is not really a troll and therefore this is simply an exercise in muzzling people who you don't like as opposed to a real problem with real assholes" what does such a list do?
You already HAVE a list. Dealing with them is what the main point of this thread is about. Not some fanciful witch hunt for non-fanbois daring to disagree with the all powerful Steve. There is no need for many bannings as the number of assholes is small. A handful. A known handful. There's no real need for a concrete litmus test that specifies allowed vs disallowed behavior to the nth degree.
Ignore works reasonably well for folks you dislike and don't want to read. It doesn't work against folks trying to be disruptive.
2 of the 5 people who voted "I don't see an issue" just happened to join the forums on the exact same date!? Sherlock Holmes might say: "how convenient?"
Vinea voted multiple times as well. The software used around here is pathetic.
I'd also like to hear opinions on where the line should be drawn. How to define "troll". If someone posts a critical-of-Apple-or-Jobs post which then gets reported as "trolling", what do you expect? That the poster in question is immediately banned forever?
.
I appreciate that it can be difficult to distinguish trolling from legitimate criticism which should not be discouraged.
My other suggestion to consider would be to have the mods patrol threads more aggressively and keep threads on topic. To many threads devolve into 'OMG it doesn't do flash, it sux' which has gotten waaaay tired and often times has little to do with the original thread. (No I don't have any examples right off the top of my head)
Sorry it came off that way but I don't think anyone here is being rude. Are we being critical? Yes. But frankly you're going to need thicker skin to be a mod if this level of criticism is bothering you.
I offer this suggestions to make AI better. Trolls who 'poison the well' are diminishing the value of this site. I appreciate that being a mod is a thankless job and this problem has really only become an issue here over the last 6 months. But I think its time that you and the other mods had a talk about how to weed out trolls. They are an issue now and they may drive your loyal users to other sites. That's what it's doing to me.
I agree with the general tone here. The problem with "going to other sites" is that it seems they've ALL devolved into the same mess. It's as if there's an invisible army of trolls hell-bent on disrupting (what's left of) the (REAL) Mac "community".
You mention Ars? They USED to be great, but it seems worse there than it's become here. MacRumors has become unreadable, but was never a favorite.
I've been coming here for quite some time and have always appreciated the level of discussion, even the deep techie-level discussion that left my head spinning.
I have a suggestion.
Encourage people to use their real names. (I do.) It's easy to hide behind a handle (or several), spew venom and spread chaos.
I signed up here with my name, because at the time, this was a pretty hard-core Mac techie site and I saw no reason to use the handles I use elsewhere, like on MacDaily-right-wing-News.
Maybe this is simply the downside of Apple's success. The iPad seems to be making "those people" apoplectic.
Vinea voted multiple times as well. The software used around here is pathetic.
It's a multiple choice poll.
I appreciate that it can be difficult to distinguish trolling from legitimate criticism which should not be discouraged.
My other suggestion to consider would be to have the mods patrol threads more aggressively and keep threads on topic. To many threads devolve into 'OMG it doesn't do flash, it sux' which has gotten waaaay tired and often times has little to do with the original thread. (No I don't have any examples right off the top of my head)
Or geez, if you get ignored by more than 50 people you get a ban. Or at least seriously considered for one.
And yes, having a list and seeing if everyone agrees that they're trolls would form part of a healthy debate on what constitutes a troll and what action should be taken.
If people think that all they have to do is start a poll and posters they don't like will be banned as a result, they are sorely mistaken. I want to see some proper discussion on this issue before action is taken.
You mention Ars? They USED to be great, but it seems worse there than it's become here. .
Contention gets moved to the Battlefront. Threads in the Ach stay on topic. Mods are pretty aggressive about enforcing that.
Ars certainly isn't perfect but at least in the Ach you can have reasonably productive discussion. The BF is a waste of time so I generally stay out of there.
The more I think about it I think more aggressive moderation would probably improve the quality of the threads. Maybe we just need more mods (no I'm not trying to get that position for myself).
The more I think about it I think more aggressive moderation would probably improve the quality of the threads.
Unfortunately, that's probably about the only way to seize control back from the trolls.
And the trolls DO take over.
ban or warn them? i say neither, just post new rules adapted to this new issue.
p.s. i'm very exited about the iPad.
honestly sometimes i go crazy about a topic and rant here about it, but that's "sometimes" I've used appleinsider to learn and stay up to date with apple news and that's how it should be with everybody else in here. there are the elite such as ireland or melgross that I'm always looking to read their posts or responses because you've made your own reputation in here with good and sound reviews, responses or simply by giving your opinion.
ban or warn them? i say neither, just post new rules adapted to this new issue.
p.s. i'm very exited about the iPad.
Agreed, there can be some great threads here. I go off occasionally, too, but I prefer joking to name calling and tossing virtual molotov cocktails.
Just delete obviously incendiary posts. But there IS a fine line.
I hate censorship, but something's got to be done.
(I'd BETTER be against it, my GF works for an anti-censorship organization!)
Personally, I have reported any number of pure insult posts -- none of which have ever been deleted or edited. As far as I can tell, none of these posters has ever been sanctioned, either, since they not only are not banned, they keep at it. If the rules are to mean anything at all, then I think this sends entirely the wrong message.
Vinea, you need to rewind and read the thread again. I was the first person to actually name any potentially problematic posters. Like I said, I'm busy and don't follow all the threads, I wanted to know who exactly people were referring to.
And yes, having a list and seeing if everyone agrees that they're trolls would form part of a healthy debate on what constitutes a troll and what action should be taken.
If people think that all they have to do is start a poll and posters they don't like will be banned as a result, they are sorely mistaken. I want to see some proper discussion on this issue before action is taken.
I don't see why enforcement of a ban is at all controversial. These folks aren't random folks we're talking about but people already on permaban for whatever other reason.
Yes, you need to err on the side of caution to insure you aren't banning someone innocent but TEKSTUD as an alias? Please. Why on earth is there any debate on that at all? Ban. Push the button. Done.
Applerulez? Come on. When the MO is the exact same as that of a known iGenius alias identified by IP addr (we really shouldn't have clued that idiot in), created right after that alias was banned it's not hard to determine that this is the same jackass that is already banned and ban them again.
If they get subtle to avoid a ban, who cares? They're a non-problem and it's no fun for them anymore. They're so over the top because nothing gets done and they love to see people get irate.
So at most a warning that they sound too much like some banned jerk and if they don't cut it out quickly that they will be assumed to be an alias and banned.
There are many "mods" posting here all the time. If you don't have the time, then they do and just enforcing previous bans solves 80% of the problem.
No need for philopsophical discussions in what is and isn't trolling. Ultimately it is the decision of the forum owners what is and isn't trolling and what is and isn't appropriate behavior. It's not a democracy, this isn't censorship, this is a medium intended to provide value to the AppleInsider site and encourage page hits and ad revenue as well as promote a healthy AI community.
Personally, I have reported any number of pure insult posts -- none of which have ever been deleted or edited. As far as I can tell, none of these posters has ever been sanctioned, either, since they not only are not banned, they keep at it. If the rules are to mean anything at all, then I think this sends entirely the wrong message.
If someone reports an insult post I will always give the user involved an infraction, and usually edit the post in question as well. Not all insults warrant an instant ban (of any duration), so sometimes you won't be able to tell a user has been sanctioned (are normal users able to see other user's infraction lists on the other's info page?).
Sometimes people (not necessarily you) report posts as insulting and I do not agree. In those cases I take no action and other moderators may or may not take action.
I agree that sometimes a thread can do with a bit of mod intervention and I have on a few occasions done one or more of the following:
- split out off-topic bickering to other threads
- deleted off-topic posts
- told people to stop arguing about something if it's a matter of fact rather than opinion and the facts have been established beyond doubt
Folk need to remember that mods can't read all the threads so threads that have been, or look like they are in the process of being, derailed should be reported as such (with a comment along the lines of - "this thread is being derailed, please split out the off-topic comments", providing a numbered list of the off-topic comments (post numbers are in the top-right of posts))I don't see why enforcement of a ban is at all controversial.
Well, you make a very good point there.
However, as I said, I remain the only person to have actually named any names as it were and I wanted to know if there were any other individuals people were getting annoyed about.
Agreed, there can be some great threads here. I go off occasionally, too, but I prefer joking to name calling and tossing virtual molotov cocktails.
Just delete obviously incendiary posts. But there IS a fine line.
I hate censorship, but something's got to be done.
(I'd BETTER be against it, my GF works for an anti-censorship organization!)
I've got just a small part to say about censorship. Censorship is wrong if it is done by the government, where the Constitution makes it illegal. However, there is nothing either illegal or particularly untasteful in censoring private blogs, magazines, newspapers, or comments. No privately-held publisher would disagree with the right for them to publish what they wish where they wish. It is _their_ newspaper/blog/magazine/etc. Censoring your own speech, likewise, is just self-control and good taste. While I don't advocate the removal of a forum for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, responses that are not in good taste I believe should be removed. It should be made clear that they were not removed because their opinions were disagreed with--but rather that the delivery of those opinions must be respectful and in good taste. The decision of what is in good taste and what is not should be enacted by the moderators, who should probably initially provide a 1 hour advanced warning before deletion for the first two weeks, and then immediate removal afterwards. They can still comment, just in a respectful tone. This seems to me to be one of the few truly useful ways of dealing with this issue and improving the quality of the general discussion altogether.
Not sure about iGenius and AppleRulez as they seem to be unique posters. Are they trolls? Discuss.
OK. Mrkoolaid and TEKSTUD are out of here because they are the same person who has been permanently banned before (techstud).
Not sure about iGenius and AppleRulez as they seem to be unique posters. Are they trolls? Discuss.
I would suggest that the fact that you even think this is a question is part of the problem.
I would suggest that the fact that you even think this is a question is part of the problem.