Dealing with flaming - a posting protocol
Dec 28 2006 08:58
Just read the enormous threads of flaming.
What seems clear from them is that with the change in software making thread splitting harder and the obvious ineffectiveness of slap on the wrist bans the admins have all but given up. This isn't surprising they had created a vague system under which they had to do lots of work in order to even start to control flamers. What is needed is a system where that workload is greatly reduced.
Many moons ago I was involved in setting up the first 'moderated' anarchist discussion list on the net, Organise. It wasn't really moderated, what happened was those posting agreed to post under a protocol and if they broke it they were privately warned, then publically warned, temp banned, temp banned with apology requirement and then permanently banned (there were five steps in all). However good behaviour meant a warning lapsed over a period of time. From memory in the four or so years that list was very active no more than 40 warnings and maybe two bans were issued. Persistant offenders (and we had a couple as bad as those here) actually modified there own behaviour very quickly, I think the bans were actually of people who had sneaked on the list while not agreeing with its political statement.
The point is that this worked but didn't require much work from the admins, something like it might be worth adopting here.
The protocol is still online at
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/orglist/protocol.html
Most of it tried to limit the number of posts, something that is not relevent on bulletin boards, the relevent section is There is to be no flaming on Organise!, that is no personal attacks on other Organise! members. This includes suggesting that someone should not be on Organise! Where you feel this to be the case you should email anyone in the Organise Administration group outlining why you believe this to be the case. You will then be included along with the person named in an off list discussion with the OA group to resolve this issue.
The sanctions for breaking the protocol are at http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/orglist/sanctions.html
The relevent sections are
Quote:
The Organise Administration OA group shall administer sanctions against those who consistently break this protocol. Any member of Organise is encouraged to become a member of this group by emailing any of the existing members and asking to be added. In all the cases below anyone being sanctioned who feels they are being unfairly treated should immediately appeal to OA in general. [You can do this be emailing org_admin@flag.blackened.net]The OA group is considered to 'own' the Organise list as it puts in the work required to create the space in which Organise operates.
The severity of sanctions accumulate to expulsion from the list. With all warning it should be pointed out that the full text of sanctions and protocol are available on the Organise web page at http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/org_list.html
1. On the first breach of protocol the person is privately emailed and the specific problem pointed out. The OA list is CCed with a copy of this post.
2. On the second breach of protocol the person is emailed on Organise and the specific problem pointed out. It is also pointed out that they have already been warned.
3. On the third breach of protocol the person is unsubscribed from Organise. After one week they can reapply by indicating they agree with the list statement as per any new member. A post to Organise explains the specific problem. It is also pointed out that they have already been warned twice.
4. On the fourth breach of protocol the person is unsubscribed from Organise until they send an apology for their behaviour for submission to the list. A post to Organise explains the specific problem and includes this document. It is also pointed out that they have already been warned three time.
5. Any further breaches result in the person being unsubscribed permanently from Organise.
6. If the behaviour involves a breach of the Organise list statement that is obviously incompatible with anarchism then OA may immediately apply (4) above. This can only occur for very blatant breaches e.g. subjectively racists, sexist or pro-capitalist statements or for attempted sabotage (e.g. mail-bombing) of the list.
7. When this protocol is first agreed and on the 1 Jan of each year after the record of breaches 1-4 will be deleted and everyone will start with a clean slate.
Dec 28 2006 13:33
#2
Yes, would attacking someones personal activity or suppoused lack of count as personal attacks?
Dec 28 2006 13:50
#3
This system actually worked for years which is why I posted it as a suggestion. It may be better to try it then reinventing the wheel.
But on this specific question any warning could be appealed to the OA group so I'd imagine the same could be done using the LibCom moderators group. That group might well to decide to include pointing out that a poster doesn't actually do anything beyond posting here as a personal attack. To be honest if that fixed the constant trolling it would be no loss to me.
Dec 28 2006 14:05
#4
For those who'd like to include a more detailed definition of flaming, trolling etc you could probably start off with the Anarkismo guidelines. Not all are suitable of course because LibCom is a bulletin board but again these guidelines work well in maintaining reasonable discussion between very strong opposed positions.
Quote:
1. Comments with no link to the story they are posted under. The comment must be relevant to the story.2. Advertising or other inappropriate content.
3. Identical comments posted to more than one story. Post your comment only under the most relevant article not to multiple articles on the same topic.
4. Continuing debates across multiple articles. Anarkismo.net is not a bulletin board. All comments should directly relate to the article or preceding comments. Users should refrain from constantly bringing up points from previous threads, unless they have a close relevance to the new article. Users should also note that repetitive demands of another user to answer a particular question or point is a reason for deletion especially when it occurs across multiple threads.
5. Cut and pastes. Do not post as comments articles or comments that have been posted on other sites or elsewhere on Anarkismo. If you think material elsewhere is relevant post a summary and a URL for it not the entire piece.
6. Infactual or obviously false posts. The onus is on the author to check and confirm facts - if a clear factual error is brought to our attention it will be removed.
7. Trolling. Comments which contain abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article. So for example, a comment which simply says: "the Popular Front of Judea are wankers" will be deleted, while a comment that says: "The fact that the PFJ have refused this offer of an alliance shows them to be hypocritical in the light of what they have said before", might remain
8. Libelous or slanderous posts. Choose your language carefully. Do not make allegations against named individuals unless you can substantiate them.
9. Personal abuse. Any comment containing personal abuse or unsubstantiated allegations about named individuals, particularly if those individuals are not public figures.
10. Revealing posters real identities or personal information about them. It is up to a poster to decide whether to use all or some of their real name, if they choose not to do not reveal additional information about them.
11. Impersonation. Comments which impersonate other Anarkismo.net users by adoption of their names or regular pseudonyms
12. Discriminatory or hateful posts. Posts that contain explicitly racist, sexist or homophobic views will be removed
13. Fascists. All content expressing fascist views or written by active fascists, or expressing revisionist / holocaust denial positions, or linking to a fascist site. We will not provide a platform for fascist recruitment
14. One liners. Comments that consist of witty or otherwise one liners will be removed. If you have an argument to make develop it into at least a paragraph.
15. Persistent Abuse. Users who persistently refuse to abide by Anarkismo policy are liable to have any and all of their contributions removed. In extreme cases we may seek to prevent them posting to the site in the future.
16. Comments on editorial policy. Users can make suggestions by contacting the editors using the 'Contact Us' link at the top of the front page. Editorial actions are decided on our editorial list. Commentary on Anarkismo editorial policy on the newswire will be removed except for one thread we have created for such comments at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1700
17. Comments that refer to Deleted Posts. Comments referring to something that a user can't see as it has been deleted will also be removed.
Dec 28 2006 14:16
#5
Quote:
Comments which contain abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article. So for example, a comment which simply says: "the Popular Front of Judea are wankers" will be deleted, while a comment that says: "The fact that the PFJ have refused this offer of an alliance shows them to be hypocritical in the light of what they have said before", might remain
This seems like a fairly reasonable definition of unnaceptable abuse, with the proviso that it's up to the admin to use their discretion as to whether something meets this definition.
Something about excessive, superfluous insults might be useful as well.
Jan 2 2007 18:43
#6
I'm sort of surprised the suggestions here have attracted so little discussion in relation to the two monster threads. I do think something quite workable could be implemented based on the above that would greatly improve the board.
Jan 2 2007 23:12
#7
Hi Joe, sorry I haven't look at these properly yet, and other admins haven't got proper net access yet either. I might be able to on Thursday, but it looks interesting, as well as similar guideline suggestions from ret marut and serge forward.
Jan 2 2007 23:51
#8
Looks interesting to me as well. Maybe a bit too detailed though... but then again, maybe not! (How's that for indecision?) Perhaps the admins could use this for a basis for a Libcom protocol?
Jan 3 2007 15:41
#9
Serge Forward wrote:
Maybe a bit too detailed though... but then again, maybe not! (How's that for indecision?)
Probably a quite a lot of the detail can be eliminate right off by excluding the clauses that are designed to eliminate bulletin board like behaviour (this being a bulletin board and all).
The detail is useful in making such a system as transperent and equally applied as possible.
Jan 3 2007 16:01
#10
I think any protocol at all would be a massive step forwards. The above seems fine enough for now, if only applied to the main forums and not to libcommunity, and the rule about no advertisements not applied to advertisement forums.
This sort of simplistic, black and white statement is not entirely helpful, IMO.
How do you define "personal attacks"? What if somebody is not employing personal attacks, but phrasing their arguments in a way which they know will goad the other person into flaming? The internet is full of trolls, and a lot of them are very good at using rigid, codified forum rules to get around the spirit of those rules.