Troll-Busting and How to Make it Work and Get the Troll MIRTed.

to admin.

If jury votes to hide it goes to MIR team. If they vote to keep, admins get it.

BUT... ToS violation must be checked.

about sending it to the MIR Team if the jury voted to hide it. I don't think a lot of DUers understand the process. There have been a number of OPs by trolls that have remained after the troll was MIRTed, and there's no way to deal with those, since Hosts can't lock threads except when they violate the forum's SOP.

This way, the OP gets hidden, if the jury agrees, and the whole shebang goes to the MIRT for their action.

I just added that information to my comment on the alert, so the jury would know what their vote would do. They voted 4-2 to hide the OP. Then, the MIR Team removed the poster's privileges. The thread is locked and the OP hidden.

The MIR Team will not get an alert unless the Jury votes to hide the post/thread.

The MIRTeam is doing a great job. I sent in a couple of ToS alerts myself yesterday and the MIRTeam made short work of it. The trolls are not lasting very long at all.

I wasn't sure I could actually put something like 'suspected troll' in the reason for the alert, I am glad to see that I can and will use your phrasing the next time it happens so the jury will have a more accurate picture.

Again, thanks for this, it is very helpful to me.

I just served on a troll-busting jury, and had no idea that this was the mechanism for removing a poster.

It would be helpful if the alert said something about "Refer poster to MIRT" or something specific along those lines. I didn't think the post was a direct violation of the TOS, more like gently nudging the TOS, but the alert made me think it was to get rid of a troll.

I'll admit to being a bit confused about that jury.

is if the alerter checks the TOS violation box before they send it. The comments would be very helpful, IMO, as I like to see what the person was seeing when they sent the alert, but without that box checked, it dies with the jury.

That's the one some people are missing, I think.

What I meant was for the alerter to clearly state that the reason for the alert is to refer to MIRT, so that the jury isn't necessarily debating the merits of the individual post.

That's why it was a difficult jury for me, the specific post that was alerted on wasn't a TOS violation on it's face (IMO), but the comment from the alerter made me think that it was a troll bust in progress.

All I meant was that a little more specificity from the alerter would help the jury.

Once that team was up and running, I started doing that with some of the Paulites. I put something like "potential TOS violation for MIR, please review entire thread along with linked post" in it.

Good point to bring that up. I saw on another thread that, as MIRT can only address a member if one of their posts has been sent to the jury, they are using the alert system in cases with little explanation in the comment field so that it can be routed to that team for review. When I first thought about that, I thought it might confuse a jury, but it does make sense.

That's why it works.

It's hard to know that trolling is the reason for the alert.

Edited to add: Other than a low post count, how would a random jury know that the alerted poster is a suspected troll, if the specific post that's alerted on isn't itself a violation of the TOS?

Later posts by the original poster made it clear. The low post count means that the MIR Team will see it with a high probability number based on the low post count. In the future, I might add a recommendation to see the rest of the thread.

Frankly, I wouldn't ever use this particular strategy on any long-time DUer. That would be insulting. It's only really appropriate for low post count disruptors.

when run across major thread disruption by one or more people (who are keeping the tone just reigned in enough that juries on similar posts are coming back 3-3) - like the three (at least) pro/anti-Obama bicker-fest threads in GD over the weekend.

I pick the worst comment by the worst offender, and add a comment to the alert that points out the pattern in the thread of this particular poster's contributions, and suggest that one way of toning down the non-productive conversation - to which this particular poster is a major contributor - is to hide the post, which takes the poster out of this particular conversation.

I've gotten mixed results, but a few juror response have indicated they have similar feelings.

And lest anyone be concerned that I am running around alerting willy-nilly, so far I have alerted on a grand total of 6 posts, 3 of which were already alerted on by someone else prior to my alert. It is just that I am so tired of the rancor and bickering that I would like to shut down the worst of it and make this place a bit more like someplace I would (again) enjoy hanging out.

That is pointing out behavior in that thread that is not conducive to a community that you would like to help build.

You are asking the jury to judge the behavior of that poster in that thread and lock them out of continuing that behavior in that thread. That is different than asking a jury to hide a post because someone is a low post count troll.

It may be a fine line, but it's an important distinction in my mind.

MIR Team only takes care of the obvious newer posters and we defer to admin on anyone who has been here for any length of time.

So, just because it goes to MIR doesn't mean MIR will make the decision.

want to see it. I wouldn't even use this strategy on a long-time poster. I'd alert without any reference to trollery or the MIRT. I know that long-time DUers are treated differently than low post count trolls, and that's how it should be.

Serious question... I thought that it was ok (and only a problem if you advocate voting Repug our 3rd party) but if not then I should be more careful.

Which is what happened with the thread linked in this OP.

That I'd be warned if I needed to be acting differently before just bring banned outright.

so I don't think you have to worry about that.

may not even be a violation of community standards (although my take is that the call on TOS violation might be different during election season).

Per Skinner: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=12812

So I think you're safe on civilly pointing out shortcomings...

The distinction isn't clear to me from that thread but I think I should be fine. Thanks for helping allay my fears (i may disagree with many people here but i love the community and would hate to be banned)

when I read posts like this, I think the old moderator system just worked fine. Sorry. Which box I have to click now?

we have now, and it seems very unlikely to change much. So, we're all working on ways to make it work. This is a special case scenario that has been a topic of discussion, since there have been a few repeat disruptors who keep coming back immediately after being MIRTed. A few threads have gone unlocked, so we've been trying to come up with a way to deal with that situation. This is as close as we've come. It's all a learning process.

I'm not sure I want to be in a community where low post count members are head hunted, and that is what you seem to be advocating when that point is called out to a jury.

The accusation of being a troll is irrelevant to the jury. Juries do not enforce the TOS they enforce the Community Standard.

MIRT does not enforce the TOS excepting one narrow case: Obvious troll is obvious.

Every alert with the TOS box checked is reviewed. If the post is hidden it goes to the MIRT, otherwise it goes to the admins.

If you read the thread, you'll see that. There has been a problem with repeat offenders coming back again and again, this particular OP being one of those. The problem was that the Juries weren't hiding the OP, so the thread remained open even after the OP was banned. We've been talking about that and trying to figure out a way to deal with that situation. The problem was that alerters weren't checking the TOS box. That's why I posted this in a public forum, rather than in the hosts area. Please see the thread in question and this entire thread.

This approach I took, for the very first time, seems to have worked. I'm not looking for people to alert on at all. That's not my style. I'm a very laissez-faire person about all of this.

I understand how the juries work, thanks, and what happens to those alerts.

I mean that by making a troll accusation it encourages the jury to hide the post because it was posted by a troll instead of judging the content against the community standards. That is what I mean by head hunting, or encouraging head hunting.

Juries are not supposed to be judging TOS violations in order to hide a post.

I agree there is a problem with returning trolls. Always has been. Always will be.

Juries not hiding a post is not a problem if the post doesn't violate the Community Standards. Skinner has explicitly said this in another thread.

Checking the TOS box or not is quite a different issue. Accusing a poster of being a troll to get an otherwise ok post hidden IMHO is not cool at all. It will lead to head hunting.

How do you know that it was your alert that got the post hidden?

I'm saying what I did, and the result of that. And I'm opening the thing up for public comment. I appreciate your comment, but I'm not in the business of seeking out people to ban. As I said, that's not my style at all. I'm suggesting a solution for a problem that has emerged in DU3. I'm asking for comments on what I'm suggesting. I've been reading all of them, and I imagine so have others.

Many have posted replies to this thread, which was why I posted it.

I alert rarely, lock rarely, and am not interested in suppressing anyone's opinion on DU. That would destroy the reason it is such a good political forum. Some people misunderstand me in that regard.

I volunteered to be a host. So, that's what I'm doing, in the very best way I can. That's why this post is where it is, so people can weigh in on it.

Do you agree that by making a troll accusation you are asking the jury to do something that is not their job?

because the only way the MIRT will be alerted is if a post is hidden and a TOS violation is clicked. And the only way admin will get the alert is if the post wasn't hidden, but it would still need to be alerted for it to make it to admin.

Not sure what the fix is, but I think people should continue to alert.

For reference:

This discussion thread violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum. (See this group's Statement of Purpose.)
-- Goes to Hosts.

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)
-- Goes to Jury.

(here is where the TOS violation is clicked)
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

Does this post include a Terms of Service violation? Check the box below if: This post shows that the author is a wingnut; this post shows that the author does not vote for Democrats; this post includes bigoted hate speech, crazy talk, threats, private/personal information, shock content, pornography, commercial spam, illegal activity, malicious computer code, or similarly disruptive content. (See Terms of Service.)

This post includes a Terms of Service violation.



This post includes a copyright violation. (See Copyright Policy.)
-- Goes to Admin

This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.
-- Goes to Admin

If "Does this post include a Terms of Service violation?" is checked:
-- Goes to Malicious Intruder Removal Team and Admin if the Jury voted to hide the post.
-- Goes to Admin only if the Jury voted to leave the post alone.

The MIRT is here to remove active intruders who are actively posting crap. So first the craps gets hidden, then the MIRT can do it's job and take out the trash.

All other cases of trolls and trolling go to the admins.

There are a number of posts that have otherwise been fine which were hidden because the alerter shouted troll! That is counter to my understanding of how the system is supposed to work.

I think there should be a TOS box available to the jurors that help ensure the box gets checked if it was overlooked by the alerter.

If a 'troll' is posting things that are ok, are they a troll?

First, let me state unequivocally that I don't know most of the mechanics of DU3. It seems to me and my limited understanding that in order to remove a troll (and for the sake of this post we'll consider the obvious, unmistakable troll) a jury action is the first step, followed by removal by the MIRT. But, I was on a jury today that removed a troll. However, the jury only has one post to vote on. IMO, the post I voted on was not a TOS violation; however, I voted to hide it based on the comment of the alerter, which indicated that it was a troll's posting.

It did occur to me while considering my jury vote that maybe the poster was guilty of nothing more than being new to the site and having bad judgment on one post. I exercised my share of bad judgement when I was new, without a doubt. That consideration made this the hardest jury I've been on.

If jury/MIRT is the mechanism DU3 uses to get rid of trolls (rather than, say, referring all of the potential trolls to an admin, which would be a massive nightmare for them), then the potential for abuse/misuse is obvious. But, in the absence of another mechanism, then part of the jury's job from time to time will be to pass judgment on potential trolls, for good or for ill.

I voted to hide it based on the comment of the alerter, which indicated that it was a troll's posting.

I'll ask you the same question I asked maddezmom: If a 'troll' is posting things that are ok, are they a troll?

If we continue this behavior (shouting troll) in alerts IMHO it will lead to bad things.

I based my vote on my knowledge of the alerter (I feel very confident that I know the identity of the alerter in this particular case) and the comment made in the alert, rightly or wrongly. Like I said, the post itself was not a direct TOS violation, in my opinion. However, my understanding of the mechanics behind troll-removal lead me to vote to hide the post.

That's what made it such a hard decision. I did not want to hide a post that could have been nothing more than a poor choice of words made by a new member. And based on the one post I had to vote on, I couldn't really be sure that this was nothing more than poor word choice, except for the comment made by the alerter.

The issue seems to be that juries only consider the alerted post in isolation. A troll can certainly have a single post that's not in any way a violation of the TOS. Should that post be alerted on, in order to catch trolls early? Where's the balance between giving legitimate new members some slack in "getting the hang of it" versus allowing trolls to disrupt for longer than they should?

It's a messy solution, to be sure, but it seems to be the solution we have to work with. I agree that shouting troll can lead to bad things. I don't know what the alternative is, though, with the current setup of DU3.

First, I think you do know the answer to that question

Second jurors are not here to judge TOS violations. They are to judge a community standards violation. You say that the decision was hard because of the troll accusation.

It's not completely true about judging a post by itself, you have the context of the thread as well. In my understanding you are judging the behavior of the poster in that thread against what you think is fair. I think it's perfectly valid for an alerter to say this post isn't really bad, but the poster is being an asshole in this thread. If you hide this post it will stop it. I think it's within the bounds of a jury to hide a post for that reason, because it is enforcing the community standards.

Many trolls move from thread to thread and group to group. The jury system is set up so that the scattered crap will rise to the top and get shut down by the MIRT. But if they are well behaved, (for DU anyway ) what's the harm?

The alternative is to let the system be the system. If it's not working it will become obvious what the problems are faster without cries of troll subverting the system than it would be with them.

troll in my book.

I do agree we need to be careful with the assumption of low post count alerted newbies = trolls. It could be bad wording or a lack of awareness on community standards. Maybe a first alert should redirect the poster to the DU ToS / Group-Forum SoP for reading and acknowledgement before continuing to post?

I'd also like to have quick access to the alerted poster's history - # alerts and % of hides...I'd probably factor that in my decision on hiding or leaving it alone when evaluating the comment on a ToS check-off. A low post count with a lot of alerts but low/no % hides, might want me to make sure that the MIR/administrators take a look at this poster by voting to hide it.

The MIRT only looks at one specific kind of TOS violation: people who are posting crap repeatedly.

All others are reviewed by the admins.

Sorry about that.

I believe I was on that jury but the poster was already gone airc by that time. Don't remember every detail of every jury decision though, but airc it was hidden by the jury. Would have to check to be certain.

Seems that one person CANNOT be responsible for such a decision, thankfully. And thank you for the explanation. This OP left me wondering too about going after people with low post counts.

I fear if we continue down this path we will have an unfriendly community that is hard to join unless you echo a popular view.

That is not a community I wish to see created.

I served on a jury for a suspected troll (newbie, low post count, etc). However, it was difficult to do some research to find their other posts. I could only use Google, which was no help.

A jury is not supposed to judge a post by the TOS. Being a troll is a TOS violation. Trolls often post things that are perfectly acceptable.

as long as the TOS violation option is checked. That seems to be the critical factor.

If a 'troll' is posting things that are ok, are they a troll?

Or maybe they're just ignorant.

I'm not talking about the obvious troll is obvious here.

on what we're dealing with.

"See all posts by this user" and "See all threads started by this user."

DU2. Sometimes I spend a lot of time clicking on names to see post counts. Not that I have anything against new DUers, but often I look at the post count to see if it's possibly a troll and/or if what they posted was sincere or a potential disrupter.

I'd bookmark if we had the option.