jespah wrote:That's our intention, to treat everyone the same, and not give a particular member the kind of power over us that he or she makes us change our policies.
As for the statements about (sorry, I don't have the direct quote here) a troll eventually getting tired of the gotcha game and no longer making new accounts, the last time we did that, I followed someone around for a couple of years. Yes,
years. I do not wish to do that again. And that's not me being an old stick in the mud and uncooperative to the desires of the membership. That's me being practical -- because the gotcha game doesn't work and is merely an enormous exercise in time-wasting.
Also, the determining of who is who is not always accurate on the membership's side. I have already seen someone accused of being this member, who isn't. I have no doubt that I will see that again. In members' overzealousness to get the bad guy, they can, at times, sweep other people under that same rug. Everyone who is disliked seems to be painted with the same broad brush -- and I'm not willing to moderate that way. What I am willing to do is moderate the way we have been, which is to treat individuals like individuals. Our intention is not to let people cause disruption. Our intention is to treat our members fairly -- even our members who aren't beloved by the rest of the membership. Prior restraint against these members starts us down a slippery slope that I don't wish to go down.
Anyway, this is shading into discussion of a specific member, rather than our general policies. We do not discuss disciplinary situations with members who are not directly involved -- see
this announcement for further details.
That said, our general policies are designed to allow our volunteer team to effectively run a large website. Thomas points out some of the difficulties in suspending a
person as opposed to an account; there are many more besides. We have detailed internal policies and procedures to deal with these difficulties. Laying out all of them would give more ammunition to violators of the Terms of Service than we are willing to provide. Suffice it to say, members who violate the Terms of Service repeatedly will have their accounts suspended. As, again, a team of volunteers we are not always able to act immediately, for a variety of reasons including how busy we are and whether there is an element of the situation that needs to be discussed before moderator action is taken. Your confidential reports help us keep on top of the situation and deal with it in as timely a manner as possible.
Thank you.
I think it doesn't really need a change of the TOS to somehow remediate the troll problem. For the overwhelming majority of members on A2K, the TOS are working fine, and the same goes for the work of the moderators. I like this site very much - quite often just reading what other people have to say on specific topics than posting myself.
But that's exactly why troll infestations are such an annoyance for everyone involved. It's not only ruining the member's "A2K experience", it's also an act of destruction of the A2K staff's work. There have been threads where I had not only to scroll by some single posts, but drop some pages because A Troll Was Talking.
I can see how most of the disciplinary measures proposed (tempting as they may seem) fall short of a solution to the problem. Banning a regular member may work - banning a troll is a tempory solution at best. I see how this approach becomes impossible when the staff would actually have to "hunt down" the troll.
Another issue is of course the Right Of Free Speech. On the other hand, in real life I also have the Right Not To Listen To Such Nonsense. I feel that this situation is a bit different when I have to scroll past numerous post (often enough page-long copy/pastes) or even skip entire pages to avoid annoying posts on my favourite thread. Somehow, an internet troll seems to have the Right To Make Me Listen - unless I stop reading troll-infested threads. Which would be giving in.
Now, if the rumours about an "ignore"-button are true, that would somehow reestablish my Right Not To Listen. And that's not censorship, IMHO. It's just an individual's right to ignore something. The troll can still talk, but I won't hear him. Just like Michael Moore can shoot documentaries, but I can still go to the cinema without having to see them. Or Fox News Channel can broadcast, but I still can watch TV without having to see The O'Reilly Factor.
(So, are the rumours true? Do I have to use the Help Desk to ask this question..?)
Another idea, based on what I've seen in other internet communities, could be something like a rating. You know, like on E-Bay, for example. Have it next to your avatar and the number of your posts. Base it on, idontknow, the number of reports/disciplinary measures taken/whatever of that member.
Yeah. That would probably be a lot of work, though. But wouldn't it be nice...?
