[Imc-web] Trolls Worth Watching

[Mike Lehman]

Paul,
While I'm tempted to go for the death penalty, I really didn't make 
clear what I was wanting to do. My plan was to simply start taking a 
pretty hardline approach to his posting behavior by hiding the crap that 
would fall under a generous (or, perhaps, ungenerous from his point of 
view) reading of the current policy. I also wanted to be consistent by 
dealing the same way with his "buddies"/alter egos (primarily "True 
American" and "bfd") when they do the same (which is most of the time 
with them), so I probably also focused a bit too much on him.

I think we would be within the existing policy to do so. The last time 
he got out of hand, he whined but he did back off, for awhile. And it 
would provide more ammo for Steering if we went about it in that way, 
because I think the third time is definitely an out, in this case.

And I agree with the posting of a note to him, as a comment to replace 
the displaced ones, which he will surely miss, stating that he's had his 
second warning (and anyone "else" involved in the same silliness, their 
first.)

However, I would not be adverse to going straight for a public hanging, 
either, as his presence as a whole has clearly been, from the start, 
disruption. But I did want to clarify that what I think we should do now 
is a more selective cull, adding in your suggestion that we make it 
clear that he's on permanent thin ice at this point.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:
> I agree that his posts are starting to push it for the same reason you
> cite -- they're numerous and more consistently off-topic, and clearly
> intended only to provoke, to the point that he may be chasing people
> away.
> 
> However, I do think at the moment I would be most comfortable with
> taking this to the main IMC list and/or steering. This is because "Jack"
> both purports to be local and because he walks that line between posting
> on-topic, but obviously trolling for flames, and simply posting shit to
> get people riled up. 
> 
> "Jack" is probably our most difficult case thus far, since he doesn't
> spam the newswire like DAN or Bobby Meade -- he only comments -- and he
> seems to know when to back off.
> 
> With both Meade and Larrabee we went through steering, and since Web and
> Tech aren't really constituted, I see this as the only fair option,
> since it's still a judgment call (Unlike DAN).  
> 
> My suggestion for action is: respond to him telling him to cool it or be
> banned. Tell him that he is welcome to come to IMC steering to hash it
> out with us in person if he feels our actions are unfair or in error. 
> 
> I'm sure he'll cry censorship and all that, but the answer is clear:
> "come and work it out with us and we can find a compromise together.
> Otherwise, it's our server."
> 
> Essentially, call it, then call his bluff.  Again, it's similar to how
> we handled previous trolls/spammers and is consistent with our consensus
> philosophy.
> 
> Then if he continues, we hide his ass. If he chills out (even for a
> while), we win.
> 
> But, I do think that steering is the only venue for the decision right
> now.
> 
> --Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imc-web-admin at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> [mailto:imc-web-admin at lists.cu.groogroo.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lehman
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:47 PM
> To: UCIMC website work
> Subject: [Imc-web] Trolls Worth Watching
> 
> I am starting to get pretty uncomforatble with the persistent trolling 
> of Jack Ryan and his small court of admirers (who may simply be 
> variations on his self-admiratory theme.) This thread in particular seem
> 
> indicative of this trend in trolling:
> http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/15359/index.php
> 
> I see nothing here except something that might be covered under this 
> part of our policy:
> 
> Off-Topic Posts - this is perhaps the most difficult category of
> inappropriate posts to judge, since the IMC Newswire intends to be a
> forum
> that is open to a broad range of topics and ideas. Nonetheless there are
> posts that are baldly and clearly inappropriate, whose purpose seems
> clearly
> to be other than informing, educating or adding to a public discourse.
> In
> the worst cases their appearance on the IMC Newswire may indeed
> discourage
> other visitors from using the site. Isolated posts are typically not 
> problematic,
> and so the problem of off-topic posts is usually related to flooding or
> spamming. Therefore the frequency of off-topic posts of a particular
> type
> should be considered when deciding whether to hide them.
> 
> Given both the frequency of Jack's desire to "mark" what he regards as 
> his territory by posting this inane stuff, often with limited or no 
> relevance to the original article, I'm thinking it's time to take a more
> 
> aggressive enforcement line on this phenomena. I wanted to ask how 
> others felt, since this is in enough of a grey area to be a judgement 
> call. In my judgement, these comments, and some other similar ones in 
> other threads, are in violation and the frequency of their appearance 
> throws they issue over the line for me.
> 
> I know we all know the old saw about ignoring trolls and they'll go 
> away, but that seems to be a failing strategy. People have taken to 
> mostly ignoring it, but this seems to have only increased the 
> attention-seeking behavior in this case. Plus, I've noticed a general 
> drop-off in the commenting by others, which leads me to conclude that 
> Jack and his buddy's comments, ignored, are creating an uninviting 
> atmopshere for other users.
> 
> What are people's thoughts on this?
> Mike Lehman