Stronger mod action against trolling

[mjr]

to be honest, i'm just worried i'm this 'one person in particular' everybody is going on about.

I'm pretty sure you're not and this is not only about one person, unless they're posting from 3 or 4 different usernames, although one is doing it much more often than the others lately.

[ChrisOntLancs]

i hope you're not talking about each other at least

but thanks for clarifying

sooner or later i'm sure i'll see one of these threads and feel silly, that always happens when i make these points.

[landsurfer]

The whole post is just a Troll Event !!!

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Are you also a liberal who shuts down dissent?

Are you? Is that what you are asking for?

No and no. I've no problem with honest dissent, but I think the mods should stop people posting lies about the views of others in order to provoke argument.

Are they really provoking argument or is it simply someone's difference of opinion which might be moulded by family / association / or the way they have been treated by certain groups.
If simply lies then most moderate mature people will see right through it, and point it out, then it gets rather grey in counter discussion.
My opinion of course.

Its a bit like feuding rival clubs, who is right, who is best, who fought the hardest against all odds.

Some clubs / associations are exclusive for sure.

Individuals discussion here in not.

I feel you might be asking for an exclusive filter based on one's views?

[thirdcrank]

If there is a troll, at this very moment they are rolling about gleefully under their bridge, listening to all the trip trapping, deciding when to pop out and frighten everybody with their ugliness.

Ban them and they consider it a victory: martyrdom without dying.

Pay heed to Graham's advice, not least because he's the only one with a counting vote.

[Tangled Metal]

to be honest, i'm just worried i'm this 'one person in particular' everybody is going on about.

I'm pretty sure you're not and this is not only about one person, unless they're posting from 3 or 4 different usernames, although one is doing it much more often than the others lately.

This worry Chris has is something i get at times. It's a form of internet paranoia.

The last example of this I've felt was a sudden worry I've been put on most regular poster's ignore lists. I know i ramble on a bit (like many on here) but for a while i posted on a long running thread without a comment about what I'd been posting. Paranoia crept in and i went silent.

After re-reading the posts I worked out that the reason was a long series of arguments between 2 people with a huge quote trail in each reply. Basically it was a long argument between 2 people with everyone else moving the thread discussion on around them.

To me the feeling about some threads not that it's trolling. It's all about a very small handful taking over [political threads] and arguing a point without allowing other views to exist without trying to destroy them. These threads get a bit tedious but in and around the small group of argumentatives there's still a pretty decent discussion going on.

Just limit quote links to the last post or two. Don't keep quoting the lasy reply in it's entirety including all quotes contained therein. IMHO the mods should delete all threads containing the whole argument trail completely. I'm certain the Brexit thread could be condensed by at least a third by deleting these sorts of posts.

PS I'm not a troll just expressing my opinions.

[Graham]

[ IMHO the mods should delete all threads containing the whole argument trail completely. I'm certain the Brexit thread could be condensed by at least a third by deleting these sorts of posts.

Alas, I've insufficient life-force left to undertake such a mighty challenge.

. . . but I do occasionally delete superfluous quoting when it appears to be an annoying waste of space.
Pretty much random though and only on the posts that I read ( . .. a bit of a clue there ! )

[Tangled Metal]

I appreciate your efforts. I think I've seen abridged quotes after mod action before.

Can i suggest you lose a few days of your life editing Brexit for superfluous quoting? I think I've got a medal for you if you do! [Nicked from my 4 year old son who is likely to be entering secondary school by the time you'd finish deleting all superfluous quoting].

BTW can't you put superfluous quoting into the rules as something you should not do? That way you could warn and cajole repeat offenders into line with the threat of suspension/ban or whatever sanction is allowed. Draconian I'm sure, but viewing a forum on a screen, phone or tablet smaller than 10" is not good for members og a forum to do for long. I'm sure some are doing it to deplete a thread of reasonable posters!

[Graham]

No . . . .. mercy . . .
Nobody reads the rules.
Forum users are quite effective at encouraging such changes.
In extremis, you could report "superfluous quoting", but not for historic stuff please.

[thirdcrank]

Two extremes here: whole post quoting, which can mushroom; selective quoting, which can annoy people if they think something is taken out of context to change its meaning.

I tend to go for the latter, with the intention of concentrating on the point I'm trying to make. I would never try to distort another poster's meaning by selective quoting, and their protection is that the original is still there higher up for reference.

One problem with editing nested quotes is that something can end up wrongly attributed just by the wrong bits in square brackets being deleted.

I presume, without really knowing, the posters who invariably quote a whole post do so to protect themselves against a subsequent edit of the original. I can't believe it's laziness or a lack of keyboard skills.

Anyway, it seems a bit much to expect the forum staff to do the spadework on this, it's a job of Forth Bridge scale (Augean Stables to avoid the mixed metaphor.) Perhaps we could advertise for volunteer "quote busters" a bit on the model of the much-appreciated but largely unsung spambusters who really have protected us all from some dross. The first essential attribute for candidates would be recognising this as a problem.
========================================
I see Graham got in before me, largely because his post was more succinct than mine.

[meic]

The forum software already restricts the number of nestled quotes that are allowed.
If it could be extended to the number of quotes then people would have to do their own editing.

I have no idea if this is an easy or possible tweak to the system or way beyond reasonable software expectations.

[Tangled Metal]

I know it's impossible to fully moderate an active forum to ensure an ideal member experience (if there is such a thing). It would be nice to reduce the size of nested quotes though. That's really one for members to encourage not moderators to enforce.

Reporting such an annoying but trivial matter could also prevent the mods spotting or dealing with real abuse.

The only real issue is when there's 2 posters having their own discussion with nested quotes. I think other forums are worse than this one for nested quotes. I think I've seen one where there's been about 20 quotes in one post. Later on those posts got moderated with a snip or two.

Private conversations that take over threads. Are they a form of trolling? They can suppress debate i think

[thirdcrank]

... Private conversations that take over threads. Are they a form of trolling? They can suppress debate i think

If I may selectively quote I've not many on my foe list but occasionally I see a whole page of a thread where there's just two "ignorees" slugging it out toe-to-toe

[mjr]

The forum software already restricts the number of nestled quotes that are allowed.
If it could be extended to the number of quotes then people would have to do their own editing.

I have no idea if this is an easy or possible tweak to the system or way beyond reasonable software expectations.

I think the forum software already discards nested quotes more than three deep when you press the quote link to reply. Could/should that be configured to discard all quotes from what you're quoting? Would greater automatic trimming of quotes be worth the occasional loss of context from the nested quote?

I'm not 100% sure if that's a simple "remove quotes more than N deep" setting - I think I've seen other forums where it is, but I don't remember if they use the same phpbb software as this one.

[Psamathe]

Is it trolling to say without proof that a group holds certain dislikeable views?

Should unsubstantiated accusations that a group of people hold certain obviously-dislikeable views be explicitly included in the forum terms as an example of trolling? I feel it only occurs when someone is trying to misrepresent the views of others in order to start or prolong an argument and they cannot or will not argue on the basis of words people have actually written.

The forum terms already forbid defamation and trolling, but it seems that the mods don't regard this tactic as either, based on some examples which have survived being reported. If you have a better idea of how to tackle this, please reply with it.

I have a couple of concerns. The use of the term "proof" could be difficult. I have noticed one poster who sometimes provides links to fairly politically extreme blog sites suggesting the opinions expressed "prove" the point they are making. Even e.g. the Guardian can publish some commentary articles that are totally daft and are "only the opinions of the author and in no way represent ...". So in cases of news you have to start distinguishing between factual news reporting and opinion pieces (even in mainstream media) ... even the New York Times (that purveyor of "Fake News" - maybe because of the nationality of their biggest single shareholder (a Mexican)?).

I think it fair for people to express opinion not based on fact. I regularly do e.g. I consider that the type of motor vehicle relates to the probability of a close pass, the lower the petrol consumption the higher the probability you'll get a close pass - I don't have any fact to support that opinion, not even collected any of my own data but I feel it a valid opinion to express without proof (maybe prompting others to agree/disagree based on their experience). Maybe the important thing is for people posting to be clear if they are posting personal unsupported opinion or posting established fact. But then trying to prove a point you believe some posters seem so strong minded that they wont "weaken" their case by pointing out the limitations of their supporting evidence.

I do find some posts rather irritating in that they supposedly (and repeatedly) raise "fact" with pitiful supporting information (e.g. a link to some alt-right blog ...). But then am I being irritated by the lack of credible supporting information, irritated by the opinions or irritated by use of the "repeat rubbish often enough and some will start to believe it".

So to start acting when it comes down to an opinion judgement call that is easily biased by personal opinions is not a call I'd want to make.

So I feel that if a post addresses the subject being discussed (rather than being directed the individuals posting to the thread) follows the rules of being polite, on topic (variable depending on thread), etc. then maybe people who keep posting some ludicrous thought only supported by some alt-right blogger are saying more about themselves than about the issue being discussed. I do get angry when I see people responding to a post they disagree with by attacking the poster and trying to damage their credibility rather than responding to the points they raised (and I do tend to report such posts).

Ian