Ban the behavior not the troll. Even those who have misbehaved elsewhere deserve another chance.

What is a troll?

G.M.

Why one or the other? Keep troll refugees on a very very short leash.

G.M.
A troll is a deliberate shit-disturber, someone who jumps in on comments conversations with insulting and hostile commentary to get people upset and derail or hog the discussions. There are lots of people who get their jollies that way. IMO, ban early, ban often. Free speech is not a Blog Commandment; owner policy rules.

George,

Monte Cook's Internet Forums Wandering Monster Table offers a limited definition, along with many other hilarious "monsters". But it's a Usenet Newsgroups definition, so let's talk about what trolls do on blogs.

Trolls are those attention loving folks whose natural habitat is a flamewar. If one isn't going on, they want to start it. Mere debate is not sufficient, nor is it the point - it's not about disagreeing for them, but being disagreeable (or feeding an obsession). Endless long rants are one flag. Only being able to talk about 1 subject, and doing so even when posts aren't about that, is a classic trait. Patterns of consistently derailed discussions - that is, veering totally off the original topic into vaguely or non-related areas that match a personal obsession, are a problem. Absolute incoherence is observed sometimes, but rare.

When trolls are allowed to stay, Gresham's Law kicks in and soon discussions tend to become wastelands. This is one reason good comments sections are so hard to find, and why large blogs either tend to have sewers for comment sections no matter now decent the blogger (Kevin "Calpundit" Drum), or simply turn comments off.

We've had a few trolls here, on both sides of the spectrum. Do a search for them on Winds and you'll get some examples now that our search engine does comments too.

• Tony Foresta (Left) is somewhat infamous, even got a Guest Blog here before being banned. Don't know where he posts now, he had already been banned from several other sites (and I knew that at the time).

• Joseph Mendiola (Right) used to post long rants about commies everywhere with MANY ALL CAPS just in case you didn't get it. His definition of commies was, uh, somewhat wider than most people's, and his posts often didn't even seem coherent - even to a commie-crusher like me. I decided enough of the NUTTINESS and he's GONE NOW.

• Chuck Pelto (???) got into a serious scrap with A.L. back on armedliberal.com, and couldn't seem to resist derailing threads here to talk about unrealted or semi-related things and continue the feud (important troll signal). A.L. banned him from commenting on his posts, he was suffocating the whole discussion zone. I had much more time for Chuck but A.L. was right about that, and in his threads it's his call anyway, and so I asked Mr. Pelto to refrain. He couldn't seem to stop himself, so I enforced the request with a ban.

Does this help some?

Folks either respect the rules of civil discourse or they don't. If they've revealed themselves as boors elsewhere, they're not going to get a sudden case of manners on your site. Pre-empt them.

Trolls are like pr0n; you know 'em when you see 'em.

The best way to deal with them, if you aren't the blog host like Joe is, is to follow what Abiola Lapite calls Hofstadter's Second Law:
Never engage in arguments with people who lack an understanding of either propositional logic or the proper role of evidence in weighing the merits of a claim about the world. You won't get anywhere with such people, and they'll only interpret their own invulnerability to reason as a weakness on your part.

I wrestled this particular alligator some time ago on my site, here is what I came up with:

Summary:

1. Its your site, not the posse-commentat. You as the host allow comments as a way to add to the discussion and to provide dialog on the subject at hand. Your intent as a blogger in providing comment-able postings is not to provide a free method of hosting a blog for someone else.

2. I personally like disagreement from people, but I do not like disagreeable people. Theres a way to disagree that does not involve name calling, if you practice it, your comments are welcome.

3. Comments are not a way to work out your long standing psycological issues. Comments are not a good substitute for talk and chemical therapy from a good psycologist. Dont rant on my site when more professional help for your deep seated problems is much more appropriate treatment for your affliction.

4. The host of the blog is under no obligation to tolerate anyone. as they used to say in restaurants " we refuse the right to serve anyone". Blogs are not a public service. Blogs are not compuserve forums. Think of them as a party at someone elses house, you are welcome to visit and talk in a civil manner to the host and guests, but if your throw a bowling ball through the aquarium, dont be surprised when you get tossed out the front door.

5. If you find the author and host of the blog so disagreeable to your own ideas that you feel the need to issue a spittle filled rant in the comments, why then, dear commentor do you visit the site? Perhaps you need to stop visting...

6. I have no problem IP banning people who cannot abide by normal rules of discourse. It makes my job as a blog host sooo much easier. Ive also secured some very good tracing software for those who insist on sending hate mail to me. I have enjoyed several conversations with local police departments in several parts of the country in regard to what to do with people who insist on threatening me personally. I was very happy to find out that a death threat issued in an email is just as legally actionable as it would be if they sent it to me via the US Mail. I was also happy to find the number of District Attorneys who are interested in getting some coverage by prosecuting the new world of cyber crime.

You know, The really good part about email and comments is the headers tell me sooooo much more about you than does snail-mail. The internet is the gift that just keeps on giving, dontcha think so?

7. I review comments prior to their posting on my site. If the comments are direct and add to the discussion, they get published. if the insult the author or other posters, they get deleted. if the commentor starts to make it a habit they get IP banned.

Whats been the impact of this policy? The site is easier to manage, and the dialog with the readers is much better. I get discourse from my readers and not disagreeable rants.

I found that the troublemakers were few in number but persistent enough in trying to hijack the blog that it needed to be controlled.

The long version of this I wrote here:

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/discourse.php

It seems obvious that as readership increases, at some point a comments section becomes more trouble than it's worth. Though it may be tempting to preemptively ban trolls based on recomendations of others that you trust, it should be handled with some care. Do you really want posts showing up in the blogosphere with people complaining that they were banned from WoC having NEVER posted there? That's probably not the reputation to cultivate, IMO.

If you are going to ban people based on a trust network, there must be an archive of the offending behavior that people can reference and see for themselves why a particular troll was banned.

This would need to be coordinated with others in your trust network. The software to automate this doesn't exist, and the archive would have to be hosted somewhere; but I'm afraid that without something like this, it will be difficult to fend off charges of arbitrariness.

I would encourage banning someone only after an offence here at WoC; but then again, I'm not the one whose time is being wasted.

I think the idea of a trust circle is excellent. In order to foster bidirectional trust, the membership of this circle should be public. (I can think of one centrist off hand who I’d trust as an arbiter of trollhood: Michael Totten).

In fact a trust circle of Centrist blogs would be a step toward creating a definite Centrist political identity. The comments policy of each blog could be harmonized to some degree to cite the common policy and blacklist. Links, logo, automation (MT, Blogger, Scoop) support could follow. In addition to banning trolls, this structure could encourage the migration and cross pollination of thoughtful comment posters.

With respect to the idea that trolls could complain about banning from a given venue (e.g. Winds) in the absence of offence at that venue, it's imperative to create an identity for the trust ring itself independent of the member blogs. It's not any given blog banning the troll, but the ring itself.

Of course, this kind of ring will possibly inspire analog rings on the left and right. These will likely be more vulnerable to charges of banning based on the opinions of the posters, and not actual distruptive behavior. (Particularly clueless rings will affermatively embrace banning policies based on ideology). Therefore the Centrist ring may end up the most respected. For the radical Centrist, what's not to like?

With respect to the banning policy itself, I’m not sympathetic with those who demand it be “arbitrarily fair” as opposed to “fairly arbitrary”. Life is short.

Seems to me that a troll bridge would be in order. That's the solution proposed by my friend B.G. Gruff, who had experience guading one.

One way would be to require communicants to include a real email address. unlike Praktike, whose clicker is no@spam.org. That way each of us would be responsible for the quality of our arguments.

charley horse

Why should I have to include an email address? So I can get more spam? If people want to email me, I'll give it to them. People who need to know, have it. Otherwise, no dice. If people want to have a discussion they can reach me here or on my blogs, which I don't really promote, but are currently http://cheznadezhda.blogharbor.com and http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/

My 2 bits:

While I may have an opinion on the matter, it's your server, your bandwith, and your time cleaning up the messes- not mine.

Do as you see fit.

With that said, I see nothing inherently objectionable about sharing a ban list with other sites- online game servers often do the same thing, for the same basic reason (i.e., troublemakers causing trouble). So long as what gets you banned is how you express your views, and not what those views are, I do not think there will be a 'chilling effect' on expression, if that's what you are concerned about.

If the trolls want to troll, they can start their own blog to do it in- you are under no obligation to let them crap all over yours.

Someone: “Why one or the other? Keep troll refugees on a very very short leash.”

I agree.

Lurker: “If you are going to ban people based on a trust network, there must be an archive of the offending behavior that people can reference and see for themselves why a particular troll was banned.”

Seems like a good idea. There might also be a policy for being taken off the Troll List. Perhaps six months of good behavior.

The solution which Command Post came up with was to require use of the TypeKey registration system for commentors, which at least limited the use of drive-by trolls using multiple fake email addresses. One of the moderators here may want to get in touch with Alan or Michele over at CP and see what their level of satisfaction with TK has been.

I'll be OK with whatever the moderators decide, regardless. Being a mod is a mostly thankless task, but traditionally one of the powers has been that you get to write the rules.

If it were me, I would wait until someone did something wrong here before banning them. However, if they were known troublemakers then I'd be a lot quicker on the trigger than usual. As "someone" said, just give them a shorter leash than normal posters. There's sort of an informal "karma" system for online communities anyway; people who are typically very valued posters are allowed to get away with the occaisional bit of spammy sillyness or snark, but those who offer nothing but that are generally banned. I see no problem with this system.

The problem with pre-emptive banning is that everybody has different criteria for what constitutes trolling. If TalkLeft announces a ban, do you listen to them? What about LGF? Kevin Drum? Etc. This is why it's generally better to wait and see how someone behaves on your own blog before you make that call.

I understand about each blog having their own policy and I won't touch that subject. But on the subject of trolls, who decides who is a troll? Is a troll anyone who disagrees with me? Is a person a troll if he or she is being sarcastic or mean? How about a person who is critical of me, my thinking or my posts?

If that's the case then I'm a troll too in sites whose ideas I don't agree with. But I don't think of myself as a troll, I think I have my own ideas and beliefs. So do other people.

I think many interesting conversations can take place with different viewpoints. I don't feel the need to refute each argument or shoot down any opposing idea. On the contrary, I want people to have their say whether I agree with it or not.

I think people's posts reflect their thinking, their personality, they speak volumes. So I think letting people have their say doesn't bring down the atmosphere of the site. Rather the opposite. It enriches it and expands it.

Some of the best, most heartfelt posts I've read have been responses to trolls. Trolls keep us sharp, on our toes, it's jolting to have to defend our opinion but it's also good for us.

I'm also sensitive on the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I realise that in the U.S. people have never experienced thought-policing and this attitude of "you're in my house, you follow my rules" I see it as an American attitude (I'm probably wrong on this, but that's what it feels like.) Perhaps the experience of lacking those freedoms has coloured my perception on this. But I wouldn't feel good banning people because I don't like what they say. Whether they're in my house or not.

And bloody hell, this is my green! evariste, you naughty thief!

Er... on my above comment to evariste...

I found my green, I just had misplaced it, is all. I'll buy you a sandwich since this time I accused you unfairly. (But you owe me a sandwich from last time when I accused you fairly, so maybe we're even?)

Please preempt trolls. One troll like Joseph Mendiola can to great harm to the quality of a discussion space.

Even after a troll like that is banned, discussion may not return to what it should have been. Good people who left during the time of the trolls don't necessarily return. This is why I don't believe in giving trolls another chance: doing so is too costly.

What would change my mind on this? Well, if people who were banned preemptively here as trolls were posting elsewhere, and not trolling.

If you guys wound up with a list of pre-emptively banned trolls who were posting elsewhere, calmly discussing topics political and non-political, and generally not acting like trolls, I would say - I was wrong, pre-emption misfired.

However I have never seen a case where a troll addicted to stylistic oddities like ALL CAPS, madeupsloganwords or single huge paragraphs reformed.

Also, I have never seen someone addicted to a rhetorical tactic like fierce race-baiting stop using it.

-

Trust circles and archives of offending behaviour are reasonable ideas, but you can manufacture offending behaviour (TalkLeft style) easily. Personally, I trust or I don't - a technology of delegitimisation like a troll behaviour archive won't change that.

My posting "email" is
David_Blue_Phoney@yahoo.com.au.
You will not get me there. I have on a couple of occasions "let my conscience be my guide" and used my real email, and the consequence on each occasion was a large, permanent increase in my spam. I'm not going to play that game again. In other words: what praktike said.

zorkie and I have a very laissez-faire policy toward trolls at Discarded Lies and we've found that the trolls tend to enhance the conversation, not detract from it. This is also borne out by our experience as frequent Little Green Footballs commenters. The most fascinating, impassioned, lengthy, insightful posts seem to come about because a troll spurred them on, infuriated someone enough to arouse their passion. That's not to say that one should welcome trolls in order to inflame one's own comments community and goad them into responding. But it is to say that trolls shouldn't be banned pre-emptively; they should be given a lot of lassitude and rope to hang themselves with, and if they prove to be entirely disruptive with no redeeming value, sure, dump them. But let them in the sandbox and let them show themselves to be unworthy of being permitted in it, don't prejudge anyone.
I think banning and deletion should be the very last refuge.
The greatest penalty a government can impose is the death penalty. The greatest penalty that community leaders like Joe and Armed Liberal can impose online is permanent exile. In both cases, I think the penalty should exist, but be used very, very sparingly, for only the most egregious offenders against the community, and not as punishment for the offender, but as affirmation that the community cannot be pushed beyond certain limits.

Frank, your hilarious summary really enhances your your brilliant, must-read post on discourse. Strongly consider adding it on your site, and I think Michael Totten at least may want to steal a few bits.

For the record, I understand why some folks don't include real emails. Better to leave an URL through which I can find a non-machine readable email address.

So far...

Pre-emptive banning: 9
Leashed pre-emptive: 2
Winds-Only response: 4

Comments seem to be tending toward toward a general agreement zone, but let's double-check. A pre-emptive policy would have to:

[1] Publish a Roll-Call Of The Damned (name, IP, etc.) for public access.

[2] Made it clear whose recommendations had gotten each person added to the roll call.

[3] Restricted the trust list to a tight ring of trusted centrists and perhaps the lefties/righties that even many on the other side saw as indisputably sane, so bans by polarized sites like Atrios, Talkleft, LGF wouldn't trigger action.

[4] Individual weblogs could then subscribe to either a short leash policy or pre-emptive bans.

And if so, this would be OK with many of you? If you opposed pre-emptive action before, does this approach change your mind or not?

Let me know... and for Winds itself, keep expressing your opinions re: here only, short leash approach, or pre-emptive bans. Interesting discussion.

Perhaps a marker on posts, indicating "this person has been banned as a troll on sites I trust." This will help new readers on your site not to take the bait and argue unnecessarily. When I am new to a site it is hard to tell who is being taken seriously in the comments. Regular readers will know to just skip by, no one is paying attention.

A scarlet "T" perhaps. If someone starts sporting a string of red "T's," he'll likely move on.

AVI, this is an interesting idea. Might be a neat thing to build into TypeKey, though I prefer a system of green, yellow, then red "cards"/lights coupled with the abilty to have delegated moderation.

Without that, however, we'll just have to use cruder methods.

Well, now I know what a troll is. I'm new at this but have experienced the posts you describe.

I think the integrity of a blog is at risk if trolls are allowed to cheapen the dialogue.I have seen a troll dry up a wonderful discussion with one post.

If a blogger doesn't maintain integrity by protecting valid dialogue it will be a lonely blog. If a blogger over edits it will be a lonely blog. Almost like CBS.

G. M.

The reason I like bloggers is their independence. I think the blog site should maintain its own standards and let other sites do the same. Cronyism in deciding who gets tagged is almost anti-blogger isn't it?

Just delete the troll posts. People can tell when a site is biased in its editing; we know when MSM does it don't we?

G.M.

My take is that I wouldn't preemptively ban. Trolling can sometimes be contextual. Also, I sometimes (not that often, but sometimes) see someone who is behaving like a troll, but seems to have the possibility of becoming a non-troll. In these cases, guidance is a good idea.

However, I have no problem with having a very short fuse for commenters who have caused trouble on other sites. Trolls are a menace to conversation and if one does start acting up here, the faster he or she is gotten rid of, the less damage is done.

zorkie and i thought about this quite a lot and expanded our thoughts from what we'd said in the comments section, follow this link to read more (also a trackback ping to this post).

Y'all are some of the most patient and tolerant folks on the web, and your discussions are top-notch. Keep it that way: take your friends' advice and ban pre-emptively.

Evariste, as of this (late) hour it appears that your post linked above is not yet actually posted at your site (i.e. not linked from the main page) which is (I believe) preventing me from posting a comment there. When it is posted, I've got a comment for you.

[This is the error I get:]

An error occurred:

No such entry '1808'.

Use of uninitialized value in substitution (s///) at plugins/Blacklist/lib/Blacklist/App.pm line 44.

I'm more or less with Evariste. I personally don't really notice a major problems with trolls on WoC - certainly not enough to make me consider for a moment going elsewhere. I think the less people you ban, the better. Any bans, really, should be restricted to personal attacks, and certainly not to any kind of political opinion, no matter how extreme.

I'll take an example from earlier this year, when I got involved in quite heated comments thread about whether suicide bombing was ever acceptable. I picked the most extreme position I could think of - that suicide bombing was morally justifiable as a form of warfare and that therefore blowing up grandma on the street could be acceptable. (Hey - I told you it was extreme!) I argued the point deeply with a number of other commentators over several days.

(At this point, I should say that I picked my position purely to provoke an argument - to try and force myself and others to think about some of the issues. I do NOT actually condone suicide bombing).

Find the discussion here. My contribution begins at comment #21.

I'm guessing that Joe and AL weren't all that keen on me putting that position forward - AL accused me of an "amiable detachment from logic, fact-based analysis, and judgement". And straight talking Joe just came straight out with it and called me an Idoitarian.

I'd like to apologise to Joe and AL for putting forward a position I knew not to be true - I perhaps should have been more up front that I was trying to provoke a debate by playing devils advocate.

But I'm so glad they let the argument take place. They let several of us really get our teeth into an issue and explore what we thought about the subject. And somtimes you can't really discover exactly what you think about something unless you get really fired up about it.

If WoC decides on a harsher policy towards trolls, I worry that some of the really provocative stuff that gets us fired up and makes us assess and re-assess our own positions might not get through. And we will all be the poorer for that.

Andy, I understand what you were trying to accomplish in the comment you linked above.

However, there's a point beyond which deliberately provocative language shuts down thought. I've deleted a few comments where the person deliberately persisted in using offensive language -- after being asked to rephrase his argument. I haven't done it often but I don't apologize for doing so in those cases.

The question for WOC is: what is the best balance to strike? How do we preserve and enhance this site as a place for thoughtful, serious dialogue (and sometimes light hearted fun)? There's a place for sites like Little Green Footballs and Rantburg, but neither of those sites foster dialogue.

As you were kind enough to ask, I prefer option 1.

Option 1 can be implemented with a 1 strike and you're out rule, if you wish. If someone comes in with a reputation, they have to deal with it. But until they've done you wrong, should you do them ill? After all, we're not talking about WMD here.

Pre-emptive bans rule out the ability to learn and change.

Having been accused of trolling here by another commenter, I may have a different perspective. There is a lot of value in having an active, vigorous debate within the bounds of civility. I have never quite understood why energetic disagreement is considered to be trolling by some. Excessive qualification of commenters can lead to an echo chamber.

...I picked the most extreme position I could think of ...I picked my position purely to provoke an argument...

Andy, You and Ross entered this debate in ignorance of the motivations of Islamist suicide bombers. And we are no closer to any kind of agreement partly because you write as though amoral posturing and continued willful ignorance are virtues.

Sorry, Lewy14, it's posted now.

It has been found that psychopaths have impaired activation and motivational stimulation of the frontal lobes, which makes ordinary life and interaction dull, grey, and painfully boring. They act to create loud effects, provoke others into St. Vitus' Dances, and have to live on the edge in general. The specifics of what they do and say and who they torment are unimportant to them, it's only the action they crave and need.

Ban 'em.

The discussions with Andy are a good spotlight for troll policy generally.

Andy's position was extreme, and I don't back off a single thing I said about it (and him) based on his position. But he constructed coherent arguments, advanced them into the debate, and responded to others' arguments. He didn't resort to behaviours like incessant posting on the topic in other threads, streams of wild-eyed conspiracy theories, endless repetition of the same talking points over an extended time without engaging his opponents, etc.

I thought the content of his arguments was despicable. But you'll notice that Andy is still here and commenting... and his post today is the first time we've heard that his positions in that long-ago thread were just an exercise.

Using your definition of troll(Wandering Monster Table) I'd edit out those who run off topic and/or flame by acknowledging their name as troll. I've seen apologiies here so it's clear to me most commenters are accountable and want to stay that way.

Joe, I've replied at length to your comments on my thread. Lewy14, thanks for commenting, I have to reply to some other comments and then I'll come back and reply to you as well. I agree totally about it being an NP-hard problem. It is, like a lot of things that have to do with human beings and their behaviors.

This is my first comment on WoC, though I have been a reader/lurker/fan for a long time.

I'm not sure someone who is a troll on one site necessarily is going to exhibit similar behavior on another site. Blogs tend to attract "communities" of people, and certain persons might react to one community in a different way than they react to another. I realize there is substantial overlap (I would guess a lot of Winds readers also read Michael Totten, Roger Simon, Kevin Drum and that type), but everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. I wouldn't object to a "short leash," but not one that is public - no sense in shaming someone who might be perfectly ok but just had a problem in some other blog. If Joe and Marc and the others know that a certain visitor has had trouble elsewhere, their antennae naturally should be up, but that's all it should be. Each person's behavior should dictate how s/he is treated.

The only drawback to this is that it does impose some extra work on the people running the site. I know you do this gratis, and I appreciate the stimulation, so I do hesitate to put more of a burden on you. Still, you asked my opinion, so there it is.

Based on feedback from evariste, Stuart (above) and others, I'm leaning now more toward supporting the "short(er) leash" policy than the "proactive ban" policy.

The trust circle idea still makes sense to me, but in an advisory capacity. Different blogs may adjust the length of the leash according to their own patience.

As a side effect, the trust circle might thus work to effect the rehabilitation of problem cases - good behavior on other blogs may result in reinstatement in the venue which was the original scene of the offending behavior pattern, if the proprietor of that venue is posessed of sufficient forbearance.

Stuart brings up an interesting point, and uncovers a dilemma: trust is promoted by transparency, and therefore it is desirable that the deliberations and decisions of the trust circle be public. OTOH this may arguably viewed as a “public shaming” of the alleged trolls. This area deserves some thought.

What about posters who only occasionally engage in troll-like behavior (in the case of silly posts that are just begging for it) but otherwise make ernest attempts at constructive discourse?

B-b-b-but, praktike!! Abiola was banned from gnxp for foul language and threatening other posters with libel suits!! I've read the posts and hardly think he's an exemplar, since he certainly does not practice what he's preaching....does this mean that absolutely anyone can be a troll given the right circumstances? Is a troll someone who's behavior-consistant across all blogs? Can someone be a troll on one blog and not on another?

Of course, Jinn, those who own a certain site define who is a troll. Having said that, I believe anyone who does not take the time to spell properly, use some grammatical effort, research rather than spew forth "beliefs", or uses vulgar language or attitude "you all are complete morons and I hope you die!!!", well, doesn't really belong sharing with others. I actually enjoy debate, not a bunch who just pat each other on the back, but good debates are few and far between. Passion has a place, but it is best kept offline. I have seen sites that allow only their own very narrow viewpoints or perspectives, and they are quite boring, especially the comments. I presume most bloggers who write extensively have little time to read all the comments, one such as myself can take the time. One final comment, I would/will never email anyone personally that did not request it. My opinion is only that, at times what I type is misunderstood, as only my mind is actively thinking about what I am typing. Personal emails should be kept to those that know and care for each other. I wish Steven the best, and understand.

Rik

SAO,

Everyone has bad days. We're OK with that. The designation "troll" describes a pattern, not an incident.

The process here involves participation in the comments section to try to nudge things back on the right path, then back-channel warnings, then bans (either in a single author's posts or site-wide).

It's labour-intensive and time consuming.

This approach has snapped a couple of commenters into productive status, but none of those people had a history of troll behaviour on other sites we respect highly. Our record with those that do fit this profile has been poor. Actually, I must admit that it has been 100% failure as far as I'm aware.

For the record I really enjoy the reading here, not adding my $.02 would be a shame-- so I'll keep it on the up & up.

Time consuming was exactly my point, Joe. It takes time to really look at the whole picture, and those that will or can not "see", often wish to "blind" everyone else. "Hell shared must beat a lonely death, or life" ? Facts are simple, though so is propoganda, and lies. I like insights, pensive thinking, and debates. I have never won a debate, but I still like the process.

Rik

I wouldn't pre-emptively ban unless things got bad, then I would.

How to determine if things got "bad"?

1. Too much time taken up.
2. Complaints - even 1 or 2 - from other users about quality slipping.
3. You've stopped enjoying it.

Basically, you define what value "bad" has, and feel free to adjust it up or down as time goes by. No need to be consistent, circumstances alter cases.

This is a very pragmatic view, but as I don't think there's any great ethical or moral conundrum, I wouldn't sweat it too much.

As a personal preference, I'd allow those who sincerely repent of their Trollish ways to be re-validated, maybe after 12 months. Except in exceptional circumstances.
But then, I'm against Capital Punishment, except in exceptional circumstances too. It's a personal preference, I'm not recommending others do the same, they should come to their own decision.

I would argue against Pre-emption. It is really easy to misunderstand people over the internet, so I would give a little slack. The key is a pattern. Once someone starts to act trollish over several posts, its time to ban.

Joe
Pre-emption in banning trolls is a prerogative of the owners of WoC. I think most of us here will agree that the operators / moderators of WoC are an out standing group. IMO WoC has done an exceptional job in bringing current events and issues of the day to the debate table.

So what's the beef? I find it commendable that WoC would ask the community at large how to deal with trolls. Bottom line though is WoC didn't have to bring this topic to discussion table. After all truth be known who outside of WoC would be the wiser about a non-published policy? If one is banned you certainly can't post to the WoC community at large to air a complaint (can you?).

Bottom line is this. WoC will do what WoC wants concerning trolls and pre-emption or not. What ever WoC decides is okay with me simply because it is WoC owners rights and not WoC's community at large.

I can certainly provide arguments for both cases. We can certainly get into ownership rights versus public discrimination but in the end it is a decision that weighs on the owners of WoC and not the WoC community at large.

For what it's worth I agree with Stuart although proven past behavior is an indicator it can not be the determining factor in all cases. People and circumstances change. The Pandora's box that opens up is in the hands of the keepers of the keys not in the hands of the community at large. The community at large without access to the keys is no wiser.

As for the added responsibility and work placed on WoC's moderators to keep the topic civil and on track I can certainly understand the time consuming issue. Then again if it's such an issue why not just post a comment / essay without allowing replies? The answer lies in the fact that WoC is looking for healthy debate whether it is affirmation of one's own beliefs and thoughts or dissention that challenges their thoughts. Laying one's opinions on the table is much like baring one's soul and predispositions. One has to admit this does come with some emotional cost to the poster when viewed and commented on by the public at large.

For what it's worth, I believe a person can be a troll on one site and not on another or can have troll fits. I stopped commenting on the Abu Ghraib scandal anywhere because I caught myself getting trollish on the subject. I would favor banning people here only for their behavior here.

Hmm...I read all the associated discussions, and also reread Joe's discussion of Michael Totten's wonderful post on troll fumigation. :)
Here's what I think. I agree with Stuart and Rik, that someone may be a troll on one blog and not another. So I am against preemptive banning. I think what Joe and A.L. do works very well, and I don't believe the quality of comments is going to degrade as Winds scales up. The comments here are wonderful! Thoughtful and intelligent. I've learned tons from just the comments. And where else can two such as JC and I make agreement on issues?
Example 1: I have a "valued adversary" at dKos. I like to debate with him. But he is banned at LGF, so I go there to argue with him. I have achieved trollhood on two nics so far through the comment ranking system, because everyone there disagrees with me. Sometimes my comments are deleted. But once I burn up a nic, I just make a new one. I don't think dissent should be arbitrarily stifled. Argument is like brain calisthenics.
Example 2: A terrific thing happened for me in the Winds comments. I got into an argument with Randy MacDonald when Joe posted on Randy's analysis of muslim immigration in France. I fiercely disagreed with Randy's linear models. As a result of that argument, I became a blogger at Gene Expression, became friends with Randy (we both like P.J. Harvey, the banshee prom queen), and we are now teamed on a research project. (I get to do the math models!)
I think trollhood must be determined by gaging intent, and by a pattern of behavior, like USMC, Joe, and others say. The only way that can be established is by observation, and that is time-costly. But the rest of us can help with observation, and flag potential problems.
I don't see huge problems with trolls here, or at gnxp, or at Belmont Club. I think the IQ gradient keeps them away. :)
So, Joe, A.L., I think you are doing an excellent job already, and if you can bear the depradations on your time, I wouldn't change a thing! Thank-you for having this terrific forum.

Great thread; one treat about blogging here is the very real community that's grown up here. While it is fairly wide-ranging in positions and styles, I find it is typically mutually respectful and in general, constructive. It's been kind of a virtuous circle - so far.

Joe is very concerned (as we grow, which we're happily doing) about maintaining that tone, and as it gets to be more and more work (of which he does the bulk), it will be harder and harder to maintain. Pre-emptive banning will make it easier (which is why he's for it) at some cost to our reputation (which is why I'm against it). There's no 'right' answer to this, which is why Joe was gracious enough to post it and toss it open for discussion.

But between spam and defending tone, the work has to get done somehow. One notion we've played with is the idea of 'deputizing' a few people to scrub the comments of spam and to serve as a first-line moderator.

How would people feel about something like that?

A.L.

A vote for short leash, if it's easy. I trust the blogmasters' judgement; I wouldn't bother commenting here if this were not the case.

Two points have emerged from a couple of recent WoC posts.

1. There are a lot of insightful, literate folks who read WoC but don't generally comment. This post and an earlier one about WoC web design and fonts brought some of 'em out of lurk-mode. Maybe having posted once, a few will decide to post again. I wonder if the prospect of unpleasant exchanges deters members of this group from posting. Fewer trolls, more engaging discussions?

2. Host burn out will be a WoC issue some day. Actually, again--when Joe was running this as a single-person effort a couple of years back, he took a leave of absence out of a sense of frustration, before re-configuring WoC to the team format.

So I want Joe, Robin, A.L., et al. to spend their time doing stuff that they think is fun as well as worthwhile. If troll-hunting is a chore, WoC policy should make it as fast and painless as possible. If a troll-suspect thinks the policy is unfair, I'd suggest sending him/her a form email with the URL to the Blogspot home page. If it's worth the effort, suspects could be offered probationary status.

In any case, WoC might be teetering at the upper margin of readership that can support open comments. If it comes down to a choice between mandatory registration or posters' time spent cleansing entries of trollishness and comment-spam: go with TypeKey.

A.L. (5:30pm), if Joe wants to deputize folks to squish spam, shouldn't be a problem. One word that's come up in this discussion and others has been transparency; it seems that there are technical ways to make peoples' actions apparrent to posters and to readers, meaning that corrective actions will be possible if (or, realistically, when) they are warranted.

AMac, great stuff as always.

WRT to Winds' design, all those comments were indeed, hugely appreciated, and some implemented. What has become clear is that a professional needs to do the site fonts & colours, and probably a new banner as well. Those comments will serve as feedback for whomever we work with to consider carefully.

Now, your 2 propositions...

The answer to your question in #1 seems to be "yes". This has cost us before, and I noticed a sharp upswing in Totten's comments after he turned into "The Tottenator," and wiped out a number of them. The reaction of his general readership, and especially the loyal readers, was applause. There wasn't much doubt in anyone's mind who the problem children were, and why. For those who don't know michael, he's a centrist blog with lefties and righties in his comments section.

#2 is already happening. Note the incentives disparity in A.L.'s post above - that won't continue. Can't, in fact. Folks may have noticed that I'm posting much less lately; I will definitely be delegating a number of the functions I perform here, and probably making a few additional moves as well so my presence here ceases to be mission critical.

A.L.

"One notion we've played with is the idea of 'deputizing' a few people to scrub the comments of spam and to serve as a first-line moderator."

Given the response from people here at WoC I certainly don't have a problem with this type of solution and I doubt very many will. I would think such a solution might be rather healthy in that it gives more of the civic responsibilities to the community at large.

The hardest thing to do is rate one's own performance based on the responsibilities one has. I see a solution such as this not only good for the community at large but also as a positive for the selected individuals.

A bit off-topic: Andrea Harris does a good impersonation of a ruthless scoutmaster as she distorts troll posts as the administrator of Tim Blair's (aptly-named) Spleenville site. A bit later, she reminded commenters in that thread: 'Guys, remember, every time you respond to a troll, God kills a kitten!'

AMac nails it as usual. I fervently agree that a LOT more people read here than comment. And I want Joe to post more and not get burned out. Winds is really unique in format, design and content. I guess I would say Winds has the best comment content in the blogverse, and I'll do anything I can to help preserve it.

And Rik, I love the argument too! And I don't often win here. :)
But sometimes losing is wonderful, like all the benefits I got out of my argument with Randy, and how Cicero and Dave Schuler and Joe got me to rethink my antipathy to Bernard Lewis. The depth and breadth of knowledge that Joe's team of bloggers and commenters bring is really unmatched anywhere.

I have the greatesty respect for Joe Katzman and his attempt to define a troll. Picking an arbiter like Michael Totten is another good suggestion.

But I don't think there is or ever has been a definition of a troll that a majority (of any group) can agree on.

Making dumb comments (I'm good at that) can also be interpreted as being a troll. A typo or two can make one a troll. Oh? We should always proof read every post and run it through a spelling, syntax, and style checker? I don't think so.

Spam has a simple and straight forward definition although spammers will disagree with it. Trolls? I don't think so unless a clear and repetive pattern can exist, and how many flames or flame starters must the troll make of such before being deemed a troll? I don't have a clue.

I think this is a hopeless task and each individual contributor must make a decision whether to ignore someone they consider a troll and there's no other real way of making such a decision. There are, however, wiser people than myself and on a blog like this one I suspect they could come up with one based on good faith and perhaps not miss the mark too often. Maybe.