Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If You Post on Ricochet, Do the Job Right
I put up an OP a couple of days ago, and it was so delightful that I didn’t want it to end. But of course, all good things must come to an end (so they say).
What made the post especially fun was that we had a controversial topic with people sharing honestly, forthrightly and fairly. There were a few dustups, but they were pretty mild, and the discussions of differences were genuine and tactful. In other words, it was just about a perfect post, IMHO.
I commented on the nature of the discussions, and one person commented that it went so well because the usual trolls hadn’t shown up. I don’t know who the current trolls are, quite honestly, but I think the commenter was at least partly correct. There could be a number of reasons for their not participating: (1) they don’t like me, (2) they don’t like my views, (3) they didn’t like the topic, (4) or you can fill in the blank. Then the light bulb came on. I wondered if the managing or moderating of my own posts makes a difference.
From the first time I posted on Ricochet, I tried to be courteous to people: after all, I was honored that they were commenting, and I still feel that way. Only rarely did I get caught up in a nasty argument, and I tried to make sure I apologized afterward. More than that, when people started to argue vehemently with each other, I stepped in. At first I would be polite. Then I gave them a piece of my mind: get off my post! Surprisingly, most people did. (You can always flag a post as a last resort.) It usually took a certain level of nastiness for me to intervene (usually the result of personal attacks), but people seemed to take me seriously. Sometimes people who were known for trolling on other posts were courteous on mine, even when they disagreed with me, and I always recognized them for being gracious.
So when we write posts, you might think our only job is to write an intriguing, beautiful, newsworthy, or funny post. And it should be well-written, too. And we should participate with comments.
But perhaps just as important as all of those responsibilities is managing our own posts.
Now I realize that task might bother some of you posters: you want to get in there and duke it out. Or you don’t want to get into the middle of a fist fight and take a right jab. Or you think you’ll make things worse because you’re not especially tactful. Or you might have trouble determining if the “discussion” has crossed the CoC line; sometimes it’s really hard to tell where that point is.
Those might all be true, but they aren’t responsible conclusions to draw.
So I’m appealing to all writers of posts to keep an eye on your posts. Step in in the comments with at least a cautionary tone if things start to go south. And tell people to leave when it gets seriously ugly. You don’t have to be ugly to do that.
For some of you, it might seem difficult. But some of you out there do a great job of managing your own posts when people behave badly—what do you say to stop it?
And I’d like to hear from moderators whether this whole idea of posters moderating their own posts is bogus: is it only the moderators’ job to moderate posts?
For you people who like to troll, stay off my posts. Please.
Published in General
The few times I did it, I tried very hard to make it as un confrontational and as calm spirited as I could.
And was met with angry responses that made it appear they took it as a personal attack. Which is why I brought it up today… A moderator has authority, the OP has ownership, but a third party butting in is seldom taken kindly.
There is also one other possibility. When we call people out (and they realize they’re out of control), they can be embarrassed. I find embarrassment to be a devastating emotion–many of us behave badly and hit back when we feel that way. So you may have actually taken the appropriate action and they proceeded to validate your reasoning. Oh well.
I absolutely agree, and I strive to accomplish that with my posts. Not being a natural wordsmith, it does take significant time, so I don’t post as much.
I’ve said before that members promoted to contributor status deserve that promotion. Your posts are typically the correct length, i.e., less than 2 typewritten pages.
And you are not lazy!
There was a post of mine early last year, where someone came into the comments in an attempt to hijack the conversation for what they wanted to talk about instead. I and everyone else politely asked them to leave, they doubled down, then went into personal attacks when we refused to shift gears. I had to moderate that post in both sense of the term – for my own sake, and eventually as a site mod. Thread-jacking a post and attempting to force it onto your own hobby-horse is definitely trolling.
At other times, as a Moderator, I’ve had to deal with those who attempt to drive others out of a conversation (usually not even their own post). A case would be where the post author argued some point in their OP, one member comes on to politely contest the point, and a 3rd party then, offended that this point would even be arguable, starts to personally rail against the contester and bully them off.
The hard ones to deal with are the ones where an author writes an OP (usually an angry one) but then won’t let the conversation flow. Others, in good faith, bring up counter arguments or related points, and the author themselves attempts to drive them out, usually by accusing them of thread-jacking.
And why did you accept the job, @skipsul?? I honor you and the other moderators and the hard job you’ve taken on. And I’m sure a few of us appreciate your elaboration as ways to determine if an OP has gone off track. Did I say thank you? ;-)
Two qualities I think add alot to posts are comments that show kindness and a willingness to learn. I really appreciate comments that share knowledge/wisdom, and leave the door open to know what others think. No matter how educated we are, how much we know, how good we are at what we do, there is always someone who knows more and is better. Recognizing that and learning from others shows some real smarts IMO.
Some of us have unique senses of humor. Mine’s sometimes kinda dry, and I’ll read back a previous comment I made sometimes and think, “that could be taken completely different than what I meant”. Knowing that about myself, I try to look beneath others’ words/actions to the motive and intent and cut them an extra dose of slack for sincerity.
It’s a kindness to give people the benefit of the doubt. Could say it’s also a kindness to yourself and others that, when someone has shown you several times who they are, you believe them…and politely in your own way ask them to modify abrasive behavior ;-)
And any argument to the contrary will not be tolerated.
I always think of center-right folks as *self-moderating*, by nature. The official moderators have the fire hose/extinguisher handy in case the bucket brigade isn’t quite enough.
I would be pretty bad at this so it’s probably good that I initiate very few posts. I understand the need for moderators at the margin, but am generally of the opinion that, if someone wants to make themselves into the rear end of a horse, go for it and let others notice and evaluate. It’s your funeral. I have no problem with the concept of policing one’s posts, but everyone has their own version of the impermissible.
It seems strange for a contributor on a site that takes pride in civility to talk about “the usual trolls” in a main feed post.
Why is that, Mark? Would you like the public to think that we never have nasty people frequenting our site? They are certainly a tiny part of our population, but they are here. Jon may not have originally planned to promote this OP, but I asked him to do it.
I’d suggest that my using the term as a fairly well-respected person on Ricochet gives some credibility to using the term “usual trolls,” and I can see why some people might take offense. But everyone who sees the term has a pretty good idea of what it means–it refers to people who relish trying to create havoc on a post, intentionally or unintentionally. In fact, one of the commenters made a point of distinguishing these troublemakers from traditional trolls. The point is that life offers up challenges: we can be civil, polite, thoughtful, curious, even passionate. But at Ricochet, we criticize people who go out of their way to be difficult and hurtful, and we’ll hold them accountable for attacking people and their ideas. Those people aren’t welcome.
I’ll add that I think there was a judgment in your comment. Would you like to pursue that thought?
@markwilson, I would also add that it would have been less than civil if names of those seen as trolls had been mentioned. They weren’t.
I must admit, I have been soooo curious who those people are – and if I made the list! (not asking, just saying!)
You make my point: they are few in number, but damaging. And I can’t imagine you would be one, @phenry!
I’m pretty sure I’m on the list.
I don’t think there’s a list, @spin. You do make wisecracks (which I’m finally understanding) but I’ve never seen you behave badly. But maybe I don’t want to go there . . ;-)
Whatevs…
I think my discomfort was the implication in the term “the usual trolls” that there is such a list, at least in the mind of the writer, and/or the Ricochet editorial staff — even if it’s not written down. I have always thought of “troll” as one of the worst insults you could use in the context of internet conversation, because it implies insincerity, cynicism, and malice. And therefore, via the word “usual”, the staff has labelled certain members as habitual offenders (trolling is definitely against the CoC) and decided to tolerate them contra the site’s mission statement, or the term is being used casually in a way that is much less severe than I interpret.
Fair point.
Couple of thoughts: Contributors are not “staff” in the same sense that mods and eds are. They aren’t on the Rico back channel communications, they are not privy to the editorial decisions, or to the comment flags, moderator decisions, etc.
However: us mods do try to maintain a record of notable disciplinary actions. These are not the occasional redactions and whatnot, but records of serious dust ups, suspensions, and so forth. There are also members who flat out do not get along with certain other members, and if they cross paths in a given post are very likely to start slagging each other – if we start to notice patterns like that, then we take note there too. If names come up too often, then we do have to deal with it.
Regarding the word “troll” – you are right that this is a serious accusation to make. Quite often we have members convinced that other members are unwelcome, and will start calling them trolls. But we have had issues here where certain members would take to insulting certain other members, no matter the context.
For the life of me, I do not understand yet what the term “trolling” means. I’ve read a million definitions of it, but those definitions don’t make sense to me.
Does it mean people who are stating an opinion they do not actually hold or believe? They are stating it just to get under someone else’s skin, so to speak? And if so, how would anyone else know that the person stating the opinion didn’t actually believe it but was stating it only to bother someone else? If we don’t know for sure what the person actually believed versus what the person said, how would anyone ever know if someone was actually trolling? Why would anyone even suspect someone was trolling others?
I must be missing something. I’m sure I am.
Thanks so much for elaborating @markwilson. I think @skipsul does a fine job of elaborating on the use of the word. Although some people might throw it around to attack a person whose comments they don’t like (possibly trolling them!) I take the term very seriously. In spite of our desire to keep this site civil, people do get out of control.
Also, I’m a proud member of Ricochet and was invited to be a contributor–which can really complicate things! ;-) I understand your reservations about our using the term. Maybe we should look for a substitute, although I would regret falling into a PC trap. Anyway, thank you!
@marcin, yours is a fair point. If a person habitually/frequently behaves as a troll, I personally assume a couple of possibilities: either the person lacks self-restraint, or is determined to torture the other person intentionally; I know for a fact that a person was doing that because he told me that he was. He’s not on Ricochet anymore. So from my viewpoint, I can’t know the real intentions of a troll (sometimes I suspect they don’t know themselves) but if the behavior continues, either on the same post or on another, after being warned over and over, I assume bad faith. I hope that’s clarifying.
There is nothing insincere about my malice.
So essentially the word has taken on a broader connotation to mean someone who is just being what we used to call “argumentative.” Someone who argues just for argument’s sake. I’ve known people (a lot of teenagers!) like that. :)
Okay. I get it. Thank you. :)
I hope it is more than that,that it is someone who is incendiary on purpose. It’s not just that they want to argue, but that they want to inflame and to insult. They don’t argue to make a point, they argue to make waves. And most importantly, when someone, like a mod, tells them ‘enough!’ they don’t stop, or they just move to the next post and start over again.
@marcin, I’d say that @phenry‘s description is more accurate. It’s worse than just arguing. Again, we don’t know precisely why they do it, but if they persist, they’re intending to make things ugly. It’s not always clear when that point has been reached, but people can always flag and let the moderators decide.
Exactly.
In the long ago and far away, SQ, flags flew like it was flag football season around here. Folks “deployed” them – if you get my drift. Let’s not encourage a redux, please/thanks? :-)
Despite trolling now being a more general concept, the ‘your only purpose here is to drive other people to spittle-flecked rage’ definition is the one people will hear when the word is used against them. People will rightly bridle at being accused of not being committed to their beliefs.
If I am arguing with someone and his arguments go down in flames, ideally he will admit some measure of defeat and we will part friends. If he instead self-combusts, who is at fault?
‘Thread-jacking’ is a nice, specific term. So are ‘inflammatory’ and ‘incendiary’.
I think it is worth pointing out that calling someone a troll is among the worst accusations to a party to an internet discussion . It should be used specifically and in consideration of its weight.