Today I was informed of an inappropriate comment. After a quick review I discovered we had a fairly new “troll” on IPR.
Personally I detest trolls. My gut feel is that they detract from the site. My inclination is to take substantial steps to reduce the troll problem. I did, just now, make a minor change in the site settings – comments from totally new “users” now require moderation before they will appear. The recent trolling I’ve noticed involves the same person commenting under different names and/or e-mail addresses. The setting change should stop that. I also “unapproved” several of the troll’s comments (which might make the conversation seem disjointed).
However, I view this website as a community and I don’t mean to overrule the community’s wishes. Please post comments to let me know what you think about trolls, and what IPR should do about them.
If the consensus opposes the moderation requirement for new users, I will undo that setting.
For more on trolls and WordPress, see: How To Starve a Troll.
Oh … and for the trolls, your comments are welcome on this post.
Mr. Kress,
After reading you post @ 94, I returned to #74 to double check what was there. there is NO reference to a “Sam Schmitz” and it was NOT
abundantly clear that what Mr. Stern was referring to had anything to do with any previous posts by anyone at all, let alone this nebulous ghost “Sam Schmitz”
You are grasping at straws to justify your bigotry!
It is ironic that, although you OWN this site, you evidently don’t read much of it.
Did you NOT see the examples of those Jewish anti-Zionist authors, many of which LIVE in Israel and are gainfully employed there, which I posted several days ago. OR have you already decided that they MUST be “self-hating Jews”, whatever THAT is supposed to mean.
Are you unaware that the United States has thousands of American troops engaged in, pardon the expression,” Peace Keeping” in the middle-east. WHY are they there? To protect our citizens?
Do you consider Richard Silverstein, who reports almost daily the excesses and intrigues of the political class in Israel, an anti-Semite?
You may CLAIM not to be a Zionist, but it is clear that you have bought into most of agitprop that has been produced by those whose interests are NOT in the best interest of THIS nation in particular, OR Jews in general.
As further proof that Dave Terry is a waste of time, as if any more was needed, he seems to think that @ 74 is a reference to some case where there was ambiguity between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, although it’s abundantly clear from context that the reference was to the removed comments from “Sam Schmitz” AKA various other pseudonyms, which was openly anti-semitic, not covertly anti-semitic behind the mask of anti-zionist, and certainly not to be confused with legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.
Mr. Redlich ‘
I do think it’s proper to associate criticism of the U.S with anti-americanism.
While the U.S. is far from perfect, there are plenty of countries in the world with far worse records on human rights and other issues. On most human rights issues the U.S. is better than most countries, including the Israel
Those who criticize America rarely offer such criticisms of other countries that are far worse. The focus on the U.S.l is difficult to explain away other than a hatred of Americans and the freedoms we enjoy.
“If so, do YOU think it is proper to associate criticism of Israel or Zionism with anti-Semitism?”
I’ll take this one, if no one objects.
I do think it’s proper to associate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
While Israel is far from perfect, there are plenty of countries in the world with far worse records on human rights and other issues. On most human rights issues Israel is better than most countries, including the US.
Those who criticize Israel rarely offer such criticisms of other countries that are far worse. The focus on Israel is difficult to explain away other than a hatred of Jews.
But I’m open to hearing a sound explanation.
By the way I am Jewish but not a Zionist, and I oppose all foreign aid as well as US adventurism in the Middle East (and elsewhere).
Sam @ 86;
Are you sure you are attacking the right guy?
the quote you referenced was posted by Mr Stern,
not me.
If so, do YOU think it is proper to associate criticism of Israel or Zionism with anti-Semitism?
You may well be right.
I think we’re well past the point of a meaningful discussion and I’d like to suggest we all move on.
@87 Case in point. Waste your time on Dave Terry if you wish, but don’t say you haven’t been warned.
SK @ 86;
So Sam, WHICH monkey are you? See no evil or hear no evil? It’s tooooooooo bad you only have two hands. If you had four, you could be BOTH.
” but racial and ethnic slurs serve no legitimate purpose.”
…………And neither does the troll Dave Terry, nor having a conversation with him.
JM @ 80; “langa and Be Rational are right on the money.”
Is that the Three Dollar Bill?
RS @ 74; ” but racial and ethnic slurs serve no legitimate purpose.
Agreed, but neither do baseless accusations of ethnic slurs, ie; anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism.
BR @77
David Terry is one of the plaintiffs in the LPO lawsuit.
@marzak – I run the site. While you might be correct in principle, I view the site as a community. If I disregard the will of the community, then people leave. If the community leaves then I have nothing.
One thing forgotten is that the people that run this site don’t really owe anything to anyone, and being free citizens, can do what they want.
langa and Be Rational are right on the money.
I would not insist that you come out of the closet. BUT unless and until YOU have enough respect for your own words and thoughts, You really can NOT expect OTHERS to respect your
opinion.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit whether you “respect” my opinion.
Besides, who takes people that type in all caps seriously, anyway?
First one has to “respect” the perceptions” of those “others”. Clearly, I am not intimidated by those who are less than forthright, less than rational and less than self-confident.
Since I don’t know the troll posting under the moniker “Dave Terry,” to me his name is no more that of a real person than “From Der Sidelines,” “Concerned Citizen” or “Catholic Trotskyist.” However, real name or not, of the four, Dave Terry is the only troll.
If you actually are a real person using his real name, you should have enough sense to realize how others perceive you and run quickly into the closet.
@75; To put it bluntly, what my real name is and who I choose to share it with is nobody’s fucking business but mine. Period.
I would not insist that you come out of the closet. BUT unless and until YOU have enough respect for your own words and thoughts, You really can NOT expect OTHERS to respect your
opinion.
WHO takes graffiti seriously!
Personally, I’m not a big fan of any type of censorship, nor do I like to waste time debating exactly who is or isn’t a troll, since that’s largely a matter of one’s point of view.
Rather, whenever I encounter someone I disagree with (“troll” or not), instead of calling them names or demanding that they be silenced, I either refute their arguments or simply ignore them. Which of those tactics I employ in any given situation depends on a number of factors. In this case, the comments in question were so absurd that they did not deserve to be dignified with a response, so I simply ignored them.
Also, I agree with Rod Stern and the others regarding the value of anonymity, not only for the reasons that they gave, but also simply for the sake of privacy. To put it bluntly, what my real name is and who I choose to share it with is nobody’s fucking business but mine. Period.
I like having very little moderation, but racial and ethnic slurs serve no legitimate purpose. The only valid argument to allow them is that keeping them out leads to a slippery slope. In and of themselves the comments that got removed have no redeeming value.
@72
I think there is a benefit to omitting some comments. Not all people may have the save belief as I. If the unapproved comments and discussions that never were are useful enough I am sure that they can find a home elsewhere.
TE @ 71; ” I wish IPR well in finding an effective and reasonably objective system by which we can have all the comments that are fit to read.
“Fit to read” Hmmm, if I want something that is always “fit” to read, I’ll get a cook book. On second thought, even cook books may be too “spicy” for SOME of the readers on this list. :>)
I find value in not having to read troll comments. I like Disqus but also appreciate pages that load quickly. As far as having a clear, understandable and objective policy, I would think that the amount of objectiveness available would be in direct relation to the volunteer editors and the owner being willing to put in time, energy and effort to make due process to available to accused trolls.
If I miss a comment that may not be considered 100% trollish by a 4/5 IPR editors I am not worried about the loss. I wish IPR well in finding an effective and reasonably objective system by which we can have all the comments that are fit to read.
One thing you have to know about trolls is that they enjoy stirring the pot and then witnessing the results. If you react, they continue to stir the pot. If you ignore them, they go away.
Fillmore you are not blocked. Probably just a caching delay. Lighten up people.
Trolls can be annoying, but I notice that we add new readers when we introduce new topics and people “discover” IPR. For example, we have several people from the LP PA who regularly visit us that never did until we start discussing their state. Those new people are sometimes anxious to make their comments known right away.
I try to remove blatantly racist comments when I see them, but some of the less obvious ones stay. Removing them after the fact has been working, although it seems that we’ve had a lot more trolls lately. I take that to mean we’re getting somewhere.
I had to change my email and name and website to post here. I am not a troll and don’t understand why I was blocked. -cc
Eh, trolls don’t bother me. I just skip their comments.
Steve–
Pls send me an email offlist.
[email protected]
@16: Go look up “trolling” in the dictionary. Then go fishing. Maybe you’ll get it while figuring out an upgrade to the system to allow such things as editing one’s own posts and the technical issue that Phillies mentioned.
Apparently you lost your sense of humor in the spam filter.
And I’ve already been persuaded to walk back on the prior restraint of new user comments. They will now appear without moderation. This appears to be the consensus opinion.
On the one hand, there’s nothing wrong with having and enforcing a comment policy, as long as that policy is clear and understandable.
On the other hand, that has not always been the case at IPR. People turn into “trolls” and find themselves banned or otherwise moderated based on “this or that editor does not like and/or is tired of them.” Not an objective policy at all.
“Could you make both comment systems available at the same time?”
I don’t think that’s possible. But I’m still not sure we’ll go to Disqus. I’m pretty sure it would be unpopular with the community and I don’t want to go against that.
That sounds promising.
Also, next month we are going to start looking at redoing this site for the new WordPress 3.6 (currently in beta) and the new theme Twenty Thirteen.
The current theme is hopelessly out of date. And I attended a seminar put on by the chief architect of WP 3.6 at WordCamp Miami. Very impressive.
Could you make both comment systems available at the same time?
“I can see why this approach is appealing. But there are times when no admin is monitoring the site for extended periods, and the troll comments would persist indefinitely.”
The same then would be true with comments hanging in limbo waiting to be approved. I’d say that is worse than having a few troll comments on the site for a while.
@Rod – Disqus can either bring in existing comments within Disqus or leave them as they were before.
The advantage of Disqus is that it helps promote the site on other Disqus blogs, fb, G+, etc. It also reduces the concern about new users because many of them would have existing accounts on Disqus.
On the other hand, based on our own experience Disqus is s …. l …. o …. wwwwwwww.
“Better to remove troll droppings after the fact rather than screen out legitimate comments before the fact.”
I can see why this approach is appealing. But there are times when no admin is monitoring the site for extended periods, and the troll comments would persist indefinitely.
I’m actually surprised at how little response there has been on this post. Only a few people seem motivated one way or another.
I’m going to go quiet on this and see what other comments appear. And I’m going to leave it set that new users must get approval on their first comment. But only for a few days and we can see how that goes.
What would happen to previous comments if you switch to disqus?
BTW I have used disqus and I like this better.
“Not having comments appear where others can see them. This can also throw off comment number references if the comments are approved later and other comments are posted in the meantime.”
That doesn’t sound like “punish” is the correct word.
We may switch the site to Disqus at some point, and that might resolve the number problem. But I can only imagine the outrage if we actually did that. 🙂
“@39 – Where you were described as a troll?”
I believe this is the one who says Libertarians should nominate Newt Gingrich, etc.
“I’m a little fuzzy on where you get that someone is being “punished.” Please explain.”
Not having comments appear where others can see them. This can also throw off comment number references if the comments are approved later and other comments are posted in the meantime.
Agree with Chuck and Rod
it would be far funner to search for key words and randomly replace them with other words.
@Rod:
“Since people are asking, maybe you should make the file available on request then?”
Not sure what you mean by “file.” If you mean the unapproved comments, just send me an e-mail and I’ll be happy to send them to you.
Warren
@6 Flagging keywords is harder to work around if you do not tell anyone you are doing it. The point of the flag — if the software can do it — is simply to call the message to your attention, saving you some work.
Needless to say, I did not specify the keywords here.
@39 – Where you were described as a troll?
“Moving forward, it is my suggestion that we not punish people before they commit crime.”
I’m a little fuzzy on where you get that someone is being “punished.” Please explain.
@37 Would you please explain what bothers you about this?
wredlich,
Since people are asking, maybe you should make the file available on request then?
Why, MISTER Terry, there’s enough of you trolls without me, so your misfortune isn’t so great at all.
@35 and @36, I did not delete comments. I “unapproved” them.
It is unfortunate that the same can’t be said of you,
MISTER Stern.
No, you are actually a troll, although a pretty harmless one as far as I can tell.
I come on here trying to bring people together to save America through third parties and I too am called a “troll.”
One man’s troll is another man’s genius.
If there IS to be any moderation, and sure, I can think of a few examples that would qualify, such as trolls making terroristic threats, for example…
However, there does need to be transparency with regard to how the moderation would be used.
something like:
“This post was moderated due to horrifyingly bad judgement exhibited by the poster”
Moving forward, it is my suggestion that we not punish people before they commit crime. I understand the reasons for actions taken, but coming from a state party that just fought a battle against the abridgement of free speech, curtailing free speech, in any way, never creates a happy ending.
Generally agreed.
This is bullshit.
@35 I’m not sure if anyone saved it, but I think it was racial slurs and bigoted remarks, primarily anti-semitic.
Chuck, Manuel, and Krzystof have all expressed excellent points.
To summarize, and this is not going to be verbatim, but how I read them.
Trolls are what they are. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with them, but it is simply a cost of doing business in a free market. If there IS to be any moderation, and sure, I can think of a few examples that would qualify, such as trolls making terroristic threats, for example…
However, there does need to be transparency with regard to how the moderation would be used.
something like:
“This post was moderated due to horrifyingly bad judgement exhibited by the poster”
Moving forward, it is my suggestion that we not punish people before they commit crime. I understand the reasons for actions taken, but coming from a state party that just fought a battle against the abridgement of free speech, curtailing free speech, in any way, never creates a happy ending.
BTW, I am now really curious to see what was deleted!
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
“The obvious word has perhaps never been used by anyone else, and the obvious phrase is not the most common.”
You’re being too cryptic. What are they?
I personally don’t like this new change. Comments should be freely allowed to be posted without moderation unless they are spam, of course. I don’t care for trolls, but they’ve been on IPR as long as the site has existed, and we are punishing new users who are legitimate commentators for the transgressions of a few.
To a point, yes.
There’s a lot of nastiness and fighting in the Losertarian Party. For that reason, I think some stupidity and comic relief is not only acceptable, it is a Wining Prescription. IPR needs more clowns, not less.
“Category B is for people who are never going to become a part of the community but are just stopping in to drop an opinion and then they leave.
Category C is the new users who might be interested in becoming a part of the community.”
People in category B can become people in Category C or not depending on what happens with their comment.
If it appears right away they may come back. If it doesn’t, they may not come back to see that it appeared later.
ED/WP @27 yep, and @25 yep;
SM @23 If your comments were ever marked as spam because you ignored requests to confine certain topics to certain threads or whatever else, akismet tends to mark your next comment as spam (this doesn’t always work, but it usually does). If your comment is then manually fished out of spam, your next comment tends to not go into spam (again, this works most of the time, but not always). At least that’s how it works on other wordpress sites, anyway.
I’m fine with what others prefer.
I think occasional posts by the Winner Party are fine, but if it attempted to hijack every thread, and if it wasn’t funny enough, then it would probably be OK to censor–but I’d hope the editor would issue a warning or two before banning Winner Party completely.
“But couldn’t we at least expect that the anonymous would stick with one anonymous identity instead of several?”
It depends on how anonymous they want to be. If you post with one name all the time, eventually more and more people will figure out who you are if they know you – or, if no one knows you, ad hominem grudges may build from one discussion to the next, preventing the clean discussion of ideas outside the context of personality conflicts.
Another legitimate use of anonymity (IMO) is to test out arguments that the real person behind the internet personality does not actually believe and see how they perform in the marketplace of ideas. That wouldn’t be possible with single screen name requirements.
In short, I don’t think the system was broke, and I don’t think it needs to be fixed.
A small number of troll comments can be removed after the fact, and you have other writers here to help you keep track of them at different times of the day and night.
If you want to preserve comment numbers, you can delete the body of the comment and insert something like “spam comment removed” in its place.
I’m comfortable with some limits on the most trollific abusers, but mostly if it’s constant badgering or racially offensive stuff.
@23 Because sometimes one IP is actually used by different people, such as roommates, couples, coworkers, users of the same AOL node, users of the same IP anonymizing service, and so on.
@21 possibly but recent events here with my posting makes me think otherwise.
@22 now my software engineering brain kicks in …. why not have the software append an aka to the name if one ip address is generating several names?
@19 But couldn’t we at least expect that the anonymous would stick with one anonymous identity instead of several?
@17 that was probably just a caching issue.
@19 Completely disagreed. People may want to remain anonymous for many reasons, such as their jobs, jobs they want to apply for, staying out of ad hominem arguments and so on. It is very important that we keep the right to post anonymously.
Personally, I don’t object so much as to WHAT is said, but why some people insist on anonymity, using pseudonyms. I’ve expressed this view before.
If a person cannot “OWN” his own words, how important or valuable can they be?
” I like the ability of new users to jump right into discussion without intervention. That’s particularly important when there is some controversy and someone involved comes to IPR to weigh in who has never participated before.”
I agree. Better to remove troll droppings after the fact rather than screen out legitimate comments before the fact.
@15 time delayed from when it was entered until it appeared.
@sidelines – I don’t think you know (or care) what a troll is. I’m not an anonymous person jumping in a comment thread to provoke those already in the conversation.
I’m the site owner and I wrote the post that started the conversation. And I’m not complaining. I’m actually responding to a complaint from someone else.
My goal is to make the community (including you) happy. I’d like to hear from as many people as possible before making a decision.
@Steve M – I don’t see that your comment was moderated.
“There is a technical issue: If a comment is deleted, it at least used to be the case that the comment numbers higher up shift down, making comments harder to read. Is there a way around this?”
Not in any version of wordpress I’ve ever seen.
I would recommend not solely relying on comment numbers to reference prior comments, as those are liable to change, although I’ve been guilty of it myself.
I don’t comment often, but I appreciate the efforts of those moderating. Even if there are disagreements, which there are sometimes, I feel like most of the commenters keep it respectful.
I, like some above, also pass over trolling comments.
Chuck
I’m not 100% sure but I think it was some anti-semitic comments.
my comment was moderated
*complaining
One of the ways that one bes a troll is by going over all comments (trolling!) and flagging and/or deleting them.
IOW, while compliaing about trolls, Mr. Redlich was being a troll himself.
Mr. Moulton is correct: Leave ’em be and ignore them.
I am curious if I am welcome on this thread?
Please engage in conspicuous moderation of offending posts, if you must.
In other words, at the very least insert a ‘post moderated by staff’ or the like into the body of the moderated content. On community-driven websites, there’s nothing worse than surreptitious censorship, legitimate or not.
I agree with Chuck about passing over trolls. I favor my own instincts and judgement over any other; concerning content, that is. I also like to see some of the trolls content unabated, it allows some of us to fingerprint the malicious commenters, many of whom jump from site to site harassing public figures and activists.
Flagging keywords is already used for other reasons, but I don’t think it’s very effective for trolls. They work around such techniques.
Sounds reasonable to me.
There is a technical issue: If a comment is deleted, it at least used to be the case that the comment numbers higher up shift down, making comments harder to read. Is there a way around this?
For at least one recent apparent troll, flagging a few key words — this facility may not exist — may be less painful than moderating all new posts. The obvious word has perhaps never been used by anyone else, and the obvious phrase is not the most common.
@3 (Chuck) – That is a good point about new users. However, the comments on IPR tend to be disproportionately existing users. For “new” users, I’d say they break down into three groups:
A. Trolls
B. Fly-By-Night
C. Genuine Newbies
Category B is for people who are never going to become a part of the community but are just stopping in to drop an opinion and then they leave.
Category C is the new users who might be interested in becoming a part of the community.
I’d guess (and it’s only a wild guess) that Category C is well under 10% of the new users.
Would love to hear other opinions on this, as well as other thoughts.
I didn’t see the troll’s comments.
In general though I like the ability of new users to jump right into discussion without intervention. That’s particularly important when there is some controversy and someone involved comes to IPR to weigh in who has never participated before.
When I see a troll, I just skip over his comment and read the next one.
I agree, thank you.
Thank you.