This blog has been getting a lot more traffic lately. The downside is that we’ve had a lot more trolls here lately as well.
Because of this, and because of a shitty situation in one of the comment threads earlier tonight involving an abusive troll who I wish I had banned sooner, I want to open up a discussion to everyone here (that is, everyone here who is not a troll or an MRA).
The question is: Do I need to crack down harder on trolls?
Generally my approach has been to let trolls post unless and until they’re abusive. I know a lot of people here like engaging with trolls and taking them down.
The problem, of course, is that these trolls can quickly become abusive. And this can trigger people.
Should I be quicker to ban people — banning trolls at the first sign that they might become abusive rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt (which, unfortunately a lot of them don’t deserve)? Should I be stricter about who I let post in the first place?
There are actually a lot of people I don’t let post here at all; if their first comment is too aggressive or hostile or (obviously) contains a slur I don’t let their comments through. I’m especially strict when it comes to people posting in threads about women who’ve been harassed.
But I could be stricter, and I could ban more quickly if that’s what you think I should do.
Frankly, I gave up a long time ago on the idea that it’s possible to have any kind of “open debate” with these people. Too many of them are abusive assholes for that to work.
So my priority here is the regular feminist and feminist-friendly commenters on this blog, and coming up with a comment policy and procedures that work better for you all. There are people who enjoy and in many cases feel empowered by being able to confront the trolls here. But I don’t want, and I don’t think any of us want, more situations like the one that happened tonight.
To be honest, I do think I need to crack down harder. I just want to hear what you all think on the issue, and to hear your suggestions as to how to do this most effectively.
The other aspect of this: I think I need to put up more no troll, no MRA open threads. And so I will be doing that.
Thoughts?
(I may not be able to get back to this thread for a little while, but I’ll definitely be back later in the evening.)
Curses – I left out an “although” before “Mike”. Obviously.
It’s okay, no need to apologize. I should have stayed away from the thread, anyway.
Bigmomma,
Poppy is adorable! I love calicos. My Dracarys has the same coloring. She’s on my lap right now <3
1) When people start calling for a ban, and no one objects, I think you should ban. Brz is a perfect example of someone we all wanted gone, yet who inexplicably remained unbanned for months.
2) Moderators are a fantastic idea. Expect an email from me shortly [Katniss “I volunteer!” gif goes here].
Kittehs, I’m immensely jealous of Aussies because I’m an enormous fan of cockatoos, and you guys get to see them all the time. I’m especially jealous that you got to see wild galahs!
Mikey, what the fuck, dude?
Well, thanks for the illustration of why we could use mods when David’s not around, I guess.
Indeed, they seem to view it as a challenge.
I only skimmed it, but he did use “brainwashed”.
It’s like the old joke about TV – 5 blogs and nothing worth reading on any of them.
I’ve been reading for a while, but I don’t think I’ve commented before (or if I did it was a one-off for a joke or something). I think safe spaces are important. I also think safe spaces tend to be a bit boring. I am privileged to not need a safe space, and thus among feminist blogs I’m drawn to the ones that are vigorously snarky and feature large doses of ignorant trolls showing up and getting wtfpwned. I like a rough and tumble discussion environment, and I value the one that has developed here.
Designating threads as safe spaces strikes me as a good idea. Getting quicker on the trigger to ban trolls, maybe not so much. I’ve seen several good blogs (Tiger Beatdown is the one that comes to mind) decline because increasing the aggression of the troll-smiting policy eventually led to banning anyone who challenged the groupthink.
I apologize for the “be nice” approach I tried with regard to a couple of recent commenters. Part of the reason I’ve tried that was that I would like to give people who may have inadvertently started off on the wrong foot a second chance. Obviously
I think a better approach is for me to put them on moderation — a sort of probation and cooling off period — and to make it clearer to these folks — possibly with emails, definitely with something about this in the comment policy — what the expectations are for good-faith, non-troll commenters here. If they’re not willing to respect the norms here w/ regard to, say, ableist language *without arguing about it*, then they will stay on moderation and/or get banned.
If they honestly said what they said without malice and without realizing it would hurt people, and are willing to apologize and pledge to respect the way things are done here, I’m inclined to give them a second chance. Intent isn’t magic but if they recognize what they did wrong and actually do change their behavior then I can think about taking them off moderation.
For people who really did just get off on the wrong foot that would work fine, but can we not do that with the ones who’ve gone straight from disagreement to misogynistic slurs, and who pretty much all the female commenters are getting angry sexist hatemonkey vibes from?
A note to a certain new commenter who has tried to comment in this thread several times:
1) The issue is not whether someone has “dissenting opinions.” I am happy to have people with dissenting opinions commenting here. The issue is how to prevent ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, such as personal attacks on rape survivors.
2) This thread is not for you. If you show up out of the blue, write several long and hostile comments that show you haven’t actually read or at least haven’t understood.the OP, I’m not going to let you post in a thread in which I try to hash out better policies on how to deal with ABUSIVE commenters. Your attempts to post in this topic are a red flag in an of themselves. I have let through one of your comments in another thread, but you’re on moderation and unlikely to get taken off it any time soon. If you continue on as you have you’ll get banned. Not for dissenting opinions but an inability to respect boundaries.
Cassandra, absolutely. I’m trying to avoid making that misake again.
@ David
How do you want people to let you know when ragemonkey implosion is clearly impending? If there are going to be mods presumably we should let them know too so whoever is around at the time can take care of it.
So, late to the party. I actually read this yesterday, but didn’t get a chance to comment. I skimmed the thread, so hand me my hat if this has been addressed already, but I didn’t notice it.
For me, the most important part about letting a certain number of trolls through and having regulars dismantle their arguments is not the fun, though it can be, it’s the training.
I learn things all the time – turns of phrase or important facts – that then **I** get to use off-line. If there weren’t such a huge number of knowledgeable people providing so many examples of how to take down the MRAs, then I wouldn’t have nearly the number of ideas about how to do it that I do. I wouldn’t know as many strategies. I couldn’t pick and choose from different takedown techniques so that there’s always one appropriate to the situation at hand (co-worker, extended-family dinner, etc.).
What hits the comments as the benefits of letting the trolls through tends to, for obvious reasons, be the **commenters’** perspective of commenting. But the lurkers’ perspectives will inevitably get short shrift. Yet there are many more lurkers, and even regular commenters take threads off because it’s not an area in which that commenter feels knowledgeable, etc.
So I don’t want it forgotten that this is a training ground. Change the rules as necessary to curtail individualized abuse, but I’m for letting through idiocy and even some degree of aggression against groups so that we can all learn from each other how to shut those things down.
I’m a little behind, but I wanted to add a quick comment about putting permabans in place on IP addresses (which I think Argenti suggested yesterday?): they’re not super effective. I’m physically in Washington State and normally comment here from my real IP address, but (as David can verify if necessary) I’m posting this comment from a London, England IP address. I could switch to one in Romania or a wide variety of other locales in a matter of seconds, if need be*, and determined trolls will know how to do that, too. It’s always better (imo) to have a real human with a dynamic banhammer watching the threads rather than relying upon auto-bans.
*This is possible via VPN technology, which I highly recommend for anyone here who is afraid of being harassed by the kinds of angry MRA’s, PUA’s, and trolls who want to push back against this community, if you post in other comment threads elsewhere. There are free VPN services out there.
MrFancyPants is right – it’s so easy to change your IP address if you want to avoid detection that I’m surprised some trolls have been unmasked so easily.
I’ve never done it myself (as I suspect David can probably confirm), but I don’t have any reason to.
I don’t really have much to say on the banning or not-banning of trolls, but I WOULD love to see a return to some of those hilarious moderation filters David had for a while. Remember when we’d only let NWO speak if he posted pictures of happy kittens? Or when we’d only let Brandon speak if it WASN’T about himself? I loved that shit. It gave us our trolls, but also took some of the fangs out of them.
I would’ve LOVED to see a version with Mike where he’d only be allowed to talk without once linking or mentioning any of his blogs.
RE: Shaun Day
Oh! Dave! Is there a way to make it appear to the troll that their comments are posted but no one else has to see them?
And let them think we’re humoring their bullshit? Hell no!
RE: lensman
Ban normal, obvious, drive-by trolls who just spout non-sense and are here to mostly stir things up.
Hell no! Explore Nature was HILARIOUS in his nonsensicality! And never forget that epic spambot David let through, the one with love spells and magical caves and such.
If it’s not too much work for David/mods I think troll-specific challenges are a fantastic idea.
OMG, please tell me he actually complied. That would be hilarious!
(Did he get banned, or just bored?)
There was also Tom Martin being told he could only post if he didn’t use the “W” word, and having difficulty complying.
Thread: can we ban trolls for being boring? I wouldn’t miss GNL…
Honestly, Dave, I think you have it down pretty well the way you’ve been doing it,
But that being said, Ive always had thick skin, so Im hardly qualified to talk for people who have many triggers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, Id say.
LBT, but Dave could post the final “Y U NO VALIDAIT MIY FEALZ”, and all of the rage boner at being ignored leading up to it. Plus when they brag to their friend ati know that’s still one too many), they will have delicious arguments in MRA land about who has been deleted and who has not, and the man tears will flow, fueling our gender specific doomsday devices.
Ally: more hugs if they’re wanted.
RE: emilygoddess
OMG, please tell me he actually complied. That would be hilarious!
HE DID. (Although David did have to amend the challenge because apparently he tried to post distressed kitten pics first.) Owly would post these pictures of adorable kittens with phrases like, “Put your money where your mouth is, feminists!” “Bet you’re just going to censor me because arghlebarghleTitleIX!” It was GLORIOUS.
RE: marinaliteyears
Just so you know, it’s possible to be thick-skinned and have triggers. The two things are unrelated.
After reading some of the posts on the thread, I think the new policiy Dave outlined on the first page of comments is the way to go,
@LBT
Ah, thats my ignorance showing then. Without any triggers, (aside from one maybe exception) I guess I just made an incorrect assumption. My apologies.
Yeah, I’m the one who suggested IP bans, and I know they aren’t perfect. But when David says he doesn’t think X is a sock, because the IP addy doesn’t match any known ones, or we ask for an IP check and oops, it’s a sock…well, why in the hell aren’t their IPs already banned? Sure they could get around it, but it would, imho, cut down on the socks.
Also, I luv David’s ideas.
I would love a banned for being dull option. Trolls are our dancing monkeys – what’s the point of keeping them around if they’re not entertaining us?