|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Who are all "we"? I certainly have learned to ignore trolls. But
1. It's really tough to have everyone ignore trolls.
Well there is me, you and Pete so we'r off to a good start there 
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: 2. There's no excuse to have trolls run mad in the forums. They need to be kicked out
Yeah but some are to persistent and keep coming back, besides the one- votes get countered pretty quickly so that's not really a problem.
There might be the need for some high ranking members (so not me, I'm just low level peasant around here  ) to have delete rights in the normal forums as well since some if not all of these messages are aimed to cause a flame war.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't count you as a low level peasant, Tom!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well according to our rep points I am.
You got more than 8 times the points I got.
And for any sort of system to be implemented to make this automated there has to be a value assigned and that would be the rep point system.
Unless Chris hand picks the moderators of course
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Apart from being a complete dimwit, the creature is posting numerous messages that are offensive in nature, and sometimes that result in a flamewa
Perhaps if people paid attention to my posting yesterday they'd stop trying to engage with the troll. As it stands, they are playing his game and this is pure entertainment for him. If people ignore him then the problem will eventually go away by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete, I respect your opinion and in fact I do share that very sentiment with you. However, do you think that it's entirely possible to have everyone ignore trolls? If people were going to do that, we'd have CSS gone away by now.
While ignoring those lowly creatures may be an excellent solution, it's hard to have everyone do it; and, we need to clean up this chaos as and when needed. Many of them just don't return after a ban anyways. With persistent trolls though, it's a different story.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
The real problem is that people like to look good, and baiting a troll is a way to gain kudos in the forums. It's easy to play for laughs and to pander to the crowd. It's also precisely the wrong reaction to take - if Chris bans the user then they can generally come back in another guise. Banning, in this case, has absolutely no effect other than to make the troll think he has won.
|
|
|
|
|
So just because it's hard to ignore a troll means we should give up and have me play whack-a-mole with them?
Personally I prefer to let people either
a) Use their heads and just walk away. I mean, really: how hard is that. Really.
b) use the "vote to remove message" button.
You can lead a horse to water, I guess...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You can lead a horse to water
but a pencil must be lead.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Use their heads and just walk away
That's what I've been trying to get across.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to somehow allow high-rep users to mark someone as a troll, which would then cause the site to
0) Disallow responses to that person's posts
1) Still allow votes on their posts
2) Disallow that person from voting
In effect, this would be a suspension of sorts that would last for x-number of days No notifications need to be sent out to anyone, except maybe site admins, and business continues unabated with nobody being the wiser.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Even better, they could make it appear to the troll that the votes are applying, but only the troll sees their own votes and they have no effects on reputation. And the troll never knows they're a troll (unless they log out and see all the posts they univoted aren't actually univoted).
|
|
|
|
|
IMO...A lot of the one votes are from moderate to senior level members and not from trolls. I think having a moderator that is very active in the forums is a bad idea only because it would become personal.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete, I shall put a link to a Troll List.
As soon as anyone notifies me of Trollish Activities, there shall be a entry made!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: I shall put a link to a Troll List.
Like CCC Link in your signature?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I ignored. Also I remember the quote in your signature(Which I have added in my CP collection quotes).
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh,
Dealing with trolls is particularly hard. They don't operate on normal psychology, most want attention and do everything the do for their own amusement. By banning them, they get the attention and know they are getting to someone, just what they want. Counter logically they see this as power because they have manipulated someone into a reaction. The persistent ones will leave it a while, and set up a new account so just letting their "amusement stream" (read replies) to die is the most effective way of dealing with them.
See http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/[^] for a description of the troll mind, the best article I have read, with some decent links IIRC.
It looks like the account has been suspended: not because of the trolling I assume, but because he broke the T&Cs of the lounge in his final post there. The only thing you can do with these people is be patient.
|
|
|
|
|
I missed his last post. A doozie, was it?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes. It was all written in textspeak, started with an exhortation that we should all go and have sex with ourselves (misspelled *uk rather than *uck) and he let us all know that we are a bunch of unhappy nerds. Like nerd is an insult round here.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Anyway, I'm not a nerd, I'm a geek.
|
|
|
|
|
With this thread, I've made it look like I'm the one who's interested in what should be done with the troll. Seriously though, I've never been responding to, or entertaining the troll in anyways.
I created this thread because I was simply concerned that too many people are responding to the troll, and that created unwanted chaos in the forum. If the site administrators are to always leave what's to be done with the trolls to the public, that should be fine with me. I'm not responding to any of the trolls anyway.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
You misunderstand the purpose of my reply. I'm sure you've never responded to trolling, but dealing with them is horrifically complicated. Any kind of response just "feeds" them and the get the kick out of [what they see as] controlling people by getting them to respond.
If you ban them they register a new account, and start again, this would leave the admins banning accounts time and time again (Hence Chris's reference to whack-a-mole). We've a couple of very persistent ones. I really suggest you read the article in my last post, it explains why inaction is the correct course of action for trolls. They don'y think like normal people, so normal methods won't work.
We'd all like to see these people somehow permanently banned, but it can't work, they'll just come back and they'll want to as they are getting the reaction they want.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to add a search by Date to the search page as one of the search criteria? Now and again I'd like to be able to see the search return the result sorted only by date so that I can see what the latest article is against my search.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
There is an order by "Relevancy / date" option in the advanced search... does that work for you? Also, it allows you to restrict search results to within a specified date range.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope: still doesn't sort by date first which is what I'd like: I want to quickly see which is the newest article in the list.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
