Minor rule change on Trolling:

Following News, I made a change to the "no trolling" rule in Politics and World (rule 4 for Politics, 5 for World)

"Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off."

40 comments

People do this to draw out subtle trolls into more egregious behavior that might draw actual action from mods. You're saying, then, that you genuinely intend to actually enforce rule 4? Because looking through the modlog, there is virtually zero enforcement of it, despite trolling existing in this community.
Tons of rule 3 enforcement, some rule 1, 2 and 6. Very little rule 4. Now, could we say that low effort and trolling comments are not made on here? I think that's pretty obviously not the case. So ... what's the deal with having the rule then?
You ban for mod criticism and parody accounts more than you ban for low effort or trolling. What's the deal? Is there question about what constitutes trolling? Is it the libertarian lean of a portion of the mod team? Is it just a catch-all rule to allow you to ban people you want to ban but that haven't broken another rule? The ruleset and modding of this community is on the inconsistent side in this regard, and I do think we would benefit from a little more transparency into your thinking and methodology overall.
Ultimately, trolling should be policed, due to the corrosive effect it has on the overall quality of community engagement. When one person is fucking around, other people become less likely to take the activity seriously, this is very natural. Anyone who went to school is probably familiar with the phenomenon. There was even a post in technology the other day about some researchers that got some hard data on the effects of positive and negative feelings of chat room participants towards user behavior, and it matched what I imagine is most people's anecdotal understanding. So, why is anti-trolling enforcement here so lax?
edit: Thread on the research, in case anyone missed it:
https://feddit.org/post/4067200
edit2: Has anyone on the mod team ever been a troll? Ever intentionally engaged in trolling in an online community with a goal of creating negative feelings in its users? If not, that could explain why you have difficulty recognizing the signs.
- People do this to draw out subtle trolls into more egregious behavior
  What if the person 'drawing out subtle trolls' actually ends up looking like they are, themselves, doing the trolling? After all, they're trying to escalate a situation into being rude, and this tends to occur by being - at the very least - heavily obnoxious.
  
  More than looking like. It very much is trolling a troll.
- Trolling is a hard one to prove, internet slapfights are self evident.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
  
  That just benefits trolls who play along the line of plausible deniability. Or "I'm not touching you" as you called it. Without stricter enforcement of the rule, then no one has any incentive to report and move on. People will need to press the people into going full-troll in order for mods to step in, at which point it seems like it will wind up being treated like how schools punish everyone involved in a fight, even though one person clearly is bullying.
  
  Courts get around difficult to prove things all the time. That's just life, sometimes things are hard to prove. This does not mean we give up and stop trying. Since you're hunan beings that will inevitably err, is it necessary to err on the side of allowance in all these cases? If so, this will prohibit you from enforcing the rule, in which case it should be removed to avoid the creation of false expectations and getting your community pissed off at you for misrepresentation of your intentions.
  If you want to try, how about the usage of logical fallacies? It is virtually impossible to effectively troll without utilizing especially strawman arguments, UM did that all the time. Since they are rooted in logic they are reliably identifiable.
  I'll also note that part of rule 4 is low-effort comments, that's another reasonable, if subjective, metric. Though I genuinely would simply remove that as a rule, since I'm getting the sense you intended it more as a guideline, as rule 5 seems to be. Perhaps the sidebar could have a "rules" section and a "guidelines" section?
  What I'm really curious about now is your guys' vision and goals for this community. Is it a free-wheeling, largely free speech zone where we should have a good time? It is a serious space for serious discussions of serious topics? You understand it cannot be both, each type of content drives the people that like the other one away. It'd be like a restaurant trying to be a posh, upscale place but only selling cheap hotdogs. It won't work well, in any competitive environment that would fail, it has to pick one goal.
  Whichever it is, I would recommend you reassess how the rules are structured. The way things are right now, you are creating expectations and they are not being met. This creates a sense of disappointment in the user base, and it can be easily remedied by simply managing customer expectations better. Reformat the rules to represent what you are both capable of and willing to do, and then stick to them. This way people can understand what they are getting when they come here.

Now for queue flooding 15+ articles a day from accounts with superhuman contribution rates…
- A lot of people are complaining about Dot, but their total time online is only about 33 minutes a day.
  To put it in perspective, that's 4 minutes more than me... So not exactly super human. ;)
  
  That means about two minutes per post?
  Is it possible to have a rate limiter on posts? So it's not just a flood from one person all at once? 2-5 minutes feels about right, but I mostly just lurk. (This might not be possible, or even desired by the mod team, I'm trying to think of ways to make your job easier)
  
  Sorry to jump in on an unrelated thread; that last reply you made to me (about your tally) is under a post that has now been deleted. You mentioned you're gonna make a final tally and a mega thread on election day; will those be in politics@lemmy.world?
  Just confirming here, since I don't wanna touch the ghost reply in my inbox, since lemmy doesn't seem to like that situation very much

So all you need to get a temp ban on someone you disagree with is to make a burner account and provoke them into a slapfight?
- Unless they follow the rules and do not engage.
  
  So one piece of well-placed libel that isn't enough by itself to incur moderation.
  Ignoring it lets the libel stand. Ignoring it enough turns the libel into accepted wisdom. Reporting it does nothing because it's not enough by itself. Engaging with it results in repetition of the libel. Few cycles of that, slapfight ban.

So if I see someone that was just blocked posting again under another name. Is it OK to make a comment that points this out?
- Report them, let the mods handle it. Ban evasion = an instance ban which needs the admins.

So the new rule is to let trolls do what they want, invisibly to the people who care most about that -- because the rule is literally to have to block them? This is fucked up.
- Here is a gem of a DM from the troll who led to this even-more-hands-off approach, bragging about how they will get away with their influence/troll campaign scot-free.
  
  Notice the use of the word "we", a tacit admission that they are working in coordination with other trolls. Pretty fucking great, eh?
  
  DMs are outside the purvey of community mods, if you get a problematic DM, there's a report feature that goes direct to the admins of their instance and your instance.
  In Boost, the lemmy client I use, it's a long-press on the DM to get to the reporting menu.
  The official stance with trolls is "report, don't engage".
- Nope, reported comments will be addressed as usual.
  
  With all due respect, that did not happen with UM for months and far longer with linkerbaan.

Too often looking at reports be like:
https://youtu.be/BgXDYiHhp5Y#t=3s

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

40 comments