Solutions: Reining in Trolls on IMCs

It seems reasonable to me that authors should have that option.

of the nyc.indymedia article rating system? It did have problems during the RNC convention, when they had to disable it due to freeper activity. Aside from that though, any opinions?

I'm not completely rejecting the idea of yours, Kristen. But, I do think that alot of critical info and discussion would be lost if this occured. I do agree that indymedia as a whole needs to talk more about this subject as it is hard to filter troll comments out with the current software. esp. if one has a job and other activities outside of the indymedia network.

I do like the idea of an anonymous and voluntary registered user feature. Such as the one nyc.indy site has. What I would like to see different though would be to have comments written by folks who are not registered would have their comments held in a queuing system, which admins would have to approve or deny the comments. Would make trolling alot easier to handle.

-jankyHellface

I just returned to Berkeley after months of being on the political frontlines. I was at the DNC, walked the 258 mile radpeace march from Boston to NYC, was at the RNC, and then went to Utah to volunteer with Shundahai Network (helping with the Great Basin Gathering Oct.8-10), and then went to Phoenix for the protest march at the "Tangle in Tempe" (i.e.presidential debate). In order to be able to participate in all of this, I posted announcements on the IMCs asking for money. And I did receive money that enabled me to keep going...money orders were sent to me by individuals whom I do not know, and friends wired money when I ran out. In the midst of being in constantly difficult circumstances for months, in order to be able to be present at critical venues representing legitimate spiritual values, peace and justice, and environmental concerns, it only added to the overall difficulty to have this local scene of pseudoanarchists disrespect me. It is their serious confusion to simultaneously post objecting comments that I'm using the IMCs to get money (which I have to do in order to participate on a scale beyond the bay area), while they rant on about their utopian fantasy of a perfect collectivized world. I would much appreciate it if I could post announcements on the IMCs and NOT have any comments added. Lastly, I publicly thank the sane adults who appreciate the fact that I went out into the larger world and was present for what a lot of us value, and because of that, sent me money to keep frontlining. I don't care what the east bay freak scene thinks of me. I don't care if they don't like the fact that I posted announcements on the IMCs to get resources. I don't care if they don't like me. I don't give a shit what anybody thinks who is such a fool as to not appreciate what myself in real world/real time solidarity with many, many others, just accomplished the past four months. I think that it is a total joke that the trolling pseudoanarchists do not appreciate me. I will continue to go where I need to go, and do what I need to do! Peace.

you don't have to censor critics who are already silenced.

Yeah, it's hard. So what? That doesn't stop SF-IMC from doing it.

Do you think we're at a dinner party!?! This is not a dinner party. This is war. Yeah, it's hard. It's ugly, too. So what? It needs to be done. We're doing it. Why aren't you?

i don't know who they are, but they've even been known to hurt people's feelings! allow me to share some more or less related, very touchy, personal antecdotes as proof.

when oh when will someone do something about them, for example by silencing everyone? or at least, everyone who doesn't have something nice to say... or at very least, something nice to say about nessie!

there should be some standards around here, double if necessary...

then why is it called "trolling" hmm?

Route all imc comments thru nessies-kingdom and the PROS will handle it. Or hire a biznessjet to ferry nessie&co. around the continent to all imcs everyday..give them redspraypainted bathrobes and helicopter caps for uniforms--travelling troll titans--, or hire a hitman to take out the trolls, or launch a classaction lawsuit against them, offer the trolls money to stayaway.

that's a beautiful image! I'll always think of nessie that way from now on!

cause it's a helluva lot more fun over here! sf.indymedia is a straight-laced nun compared to the to the luscious possibilities of indybay.

<<Yeah, it's hard. So what? That doesn't stop SF-IMC from doing it.>>

hey nessie, this discussion aint about how sf.indy has a better collective or whether or not you are doing more than another collective. I believe it was a propostition for changing the way news is presented.

Wait, are you one of those trolls?

It must get lonely up there on such a high horse.
-jankyHellface

"one of those trolls"?

the term is meant to limit acceptable discursive possibilities through the use of peer pressure, utilizing monster imagery to do so. it is an example, perhaps, of an anarchist "alternative" to leadership-control, i.e. the "leader" is replaced by the weight of public opinion.

problem one: label creep, if you will. the label becomes a tool to contest opinions, individuals, and the right of the latter to exercise the former, especially when it's a minority opinion. any not-sufficiently-anticar person becomes a freeper troll, in effect.

probelm two: the "disappearing act," if you will, has not solved the oppression problems that elimination of formal leadership is supposed to solve!! rather, control issues are swept under a rug, and leak out its edges anytime someone walks over it.

what this has done is shifted the accountability amorphously, leaving de facto leaders to either make decisions in a vacuum [whether liberally as here or in a more draconian manner, such as over at the other "leading" brand], or for those de facto leaders to be mercilessly goaded by that same body of peer opinion that implicitly rules, or by individuals asserting themselves as same on both sides of any given question [i.e. by both "trolling" campaigns as well as the moral indignation of the righteous regarding same, i.e. the occasional call to "do something about it."].

all this, when the universal ideal of most people committed to the IMC proposition is the freedom of expression for a) the masses and b) pro-liberation activists, the validity of "subjectively" experienced and expressed news, and the ability of communities to harness the resulting energy for collective-liberational goals. that's a point most worthy of bearing in mind, in this "troll"s opinion anyways.

minority rights or majority rule? classic setup. beware the censorship solution!!!!!

there is a specific definition to what a troll is or the behavior that this person engages in that defines them as a troll. often times it's mislabeled, but in the case of what kirsten points out this is definately a troll.

Contarary to what you define as a term used as a "tool to contest opinions", generally speaking, trolls do not state opinions and rather hide behind statements which will insight conflict or is demeaning to another person in the conversation.

to that extent, indymedia should do everything possible to allow the possibilty for folks to create discussion, rather than allow a few "trolls" to disrupt discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

particularly in the IMC context:

"...but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord."

I mean, in a radical crowd? Geez, do we hafta put up with all that, then?

intresting points

since this seems to suggest that this troll attack as it where may not be what it seems on the surface. why is this happening here and not in nessie's sight?

"i.e. the "leader" is replaced by the weight of public opinion."

tendancy to conformity of thought (disguised with lifestyle diversity).

At this point, I feel safer on San Fran IMC than on any other IMC due to their courage to DELETE trolls.

It is manipulative to say that allowing writers to CHOOSE to close a comment area means ALL comments are closed. That is NOT what I said. I said authors can CHOOSE. MOST authors would NOT choose that option, is my guess. To say ALL would do that when I am saying a small few would, is devisive.

At this point, I think other IMCs need to take the leads of San Fran and Victoria IMCs.

I only APPLAUD the San Fran IMC for its aggressive and PUBLICLY STATED anti-troll stance and the balls (or vulva) to stick by their word. As I said, I feel that the San Fran IMC is probably the safest IMC for me to publish on right now as they do not play the stupid "hiding" game, they just DELETE the trash. In my opinion, more IMCs need to take that brave stand. This shit where IMCs cower to trolls is ridiculous. I am not interested in writing in those forums. I think San Fran is leading the way, honestly.

Preemptive silencing of criticism is merely preemptive censorship. Calling it a choice is just spin. Is censorship (even the passive censorship of preemptive silencing) better for being decentralized? I'm sure fundamentalist christians on school boards across the midwest and south agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.

It is further manipulative to do so to protect people's personal feelings in the face of criticism. Government leaders have feeling too, ya know, as do bankers and cops.

IMC is about dissent, not about privileging personal feelings over public discourse.

a fight allover imc can mean fights you have visited frequently, at a guess.
Counter dissenting is NOT allowed in nessie-world!!?
Does this explain a lot?
i think so, and thanks for explaining your shortsited plans(as if they were not apparent on first pass), and i won't be disengaging my encephalobattery as you apparently wish on other unsuspecting travellers, you fucking suck man, eat shit!!!

but you fail to see the implications and long term decline of "limiting dissent" philosophy(sic) of one, nessie, and apparently yourself?
besides picking out an emotional outburst, what do you envision as a natural course for imc?

Is a logical fallacy usedfor censorship by dishonest people to delude and confuse those people stupid enough to fall for it.

if you stant for your principals you are labeled troll @ s/f

I like the idea of an anonymous and voluntary registered user feature. - so does homeland security, they love the idea.

The nastiest posts on this site are by people who dont use fake names. Nessie gets in flamewars on almost every topic and while he uses a few other names he is probably the most troll like when he posts as himself. JA posts in all caps and posts a lot of rants but he posts as himself. Gehrig and CT likewise posts as themselves. Some of the worst flamewars involve attacks on poeple BECAUSE peopel know who they are. Gehrig uses mysogynist slurs against Wendy because he knows who Wnedy is. Nessie posts attacks on the site because of personal differences with people who run the site etc... If posting required names things could get real nasty since the arguments would then move off the topic to political style mudslinging with peopel trying to smear each others character by posting past statements and personal info.

appreciate what you are trying to do. It can't be easy with people like nessie who's monovision gets in the way of other viewpoints and subject matter on article after article. It's a challenging job, keep up the good work!

I don't think: "Gehrig uses mysogynist slurs against Wendy"

I most certainly do not. I attack her antisemitism, which is blatant and central to her worldview, but I do not attack her gender.

Find a single post in which I attack Wendy for being a woman, and I'll write a $50 check to SF-IMC.

@%<

Get ready to write that check to Indybay, gehrig, you misogynist Al-Nakba-denier. You are forever calling me a "Jew-hating wretch" among other things, which is certainly not true. Perhaps I should check with my Jewish attorney friend who I had dinner with last night about what I should do about your slurs and slanders against me.

Kirsten, you are entirely right about how authors should have the right to choose whether or not people can post comments to their articles. I get so tired of having to babysit my articles because of the ZioNazis who use my name and my style to write inflammatory posts that I would never write. On top of that, I'm sure most of us here have heard quite enough of their Zionist lies and propanganda and slurs against others who don't agree with them.

There IS a way Indybay can prevent people from using any other name than one they sign up for like they do on Free Republic's website, which I am permanently banned from since I am an anti-Zionist. Why don't you guys look into it??????????

It takes too much time to hassle with the trolls like gehrig and his coherts/ aliases like Critical Thinker, GENUINE anti-racist (who is a GENUINE psychopath who belongs in jail), Sefarad and others.

There IS be a way to prevent them from harassing those who present opinions they disagree with. I challlenge you to find it for the sake of all.

That completely gender-free label is what I now use to refer to Wendy rather than the "c" word I employed in the past (and for which I was REBUKED by Gehrig, who has indeed never employed any sexist terminology). The term "Wretch" by the way has no gendered implications nor does "Jew-hating" - both of which aptly describe hideous and revolting creatures of Wendy's ilk. And Wendy dearest we still have civil liberties in this country despite the attempts of you and your National Alliance pals to kill or at the least imprison people who have views that differ from yours. It will not be ME who lands in a prison cell!

There is a difference between arguing and engaging in flame wars. Using names to attack people (inclucing calling people Nazis, ZionNazis, Jew Haters or whatever) just isnt a productive way to argue even if you believe in what you are saying. The more likely response is an angry response attacking you and then one has a "flamewar" which usually means a series of comments or posts that mainly contain personal attacks with little actual content.

The problem with open post websites is that flamewars sometimes take over all content and there is never any real debate or discussion. Even if you hate someone's point of view if you cant argue well with them you will have a hard time convincing people online or in person to adopt your point of view. Engaging in negative posting (which is sortof a personalized version of negative campaign ads) may make you feel like you have won and even make people ignore your opponent but it rarely wins people over to your point of view.

Many sites moderate content to keep discussion civil an moderation can be clearly distint from censorship, but sites that can do this sort of thing are usually either sites with rules and memberships or sites that have paid people who can babysit the posts.

Indymedia seem to do ok with flamewars since the comments just are not that important a part of the sites. On many sites they are not even visible on the main page for posts and most groups that update their events post new announcements rather than comments. If comments could be disallowed how would that even work? Would that mean posts by Wendy, JA, gehrig and CT all with no allowed comments? If people felt like a post had misinformation they would have no way to tell people.

People should try to be civil and not confuse posting comments for having a social life (as those who post comments all day seem to have done), but comments can be useful and civil and allow people to learn what those they disagre with believe. If you issolate yourself from all those you disgaree with you will never be able to effectively argue for what you believe in. Trolling should somehow be discouraged but it occurs on all sides and even by editors so the most effective way to control it is to ignore deliberate provocation and just talk to those who want to argue with your views rather than those who sink to attacking your person.

To "well" above,

The problem is, there ARE "Jew haters" that have infiltrated the progressive left, and it's a major problem... Jews who don't like ariel sharon are still going to side with sharon over the likes of people who want to emulate adolf hitler. It just pushes people to the extreme sides, so nothing gets done in the middle. These manics still push the idea that israel shoudln't even exist and should somehow magically fold itself up or something are not "peace" activists, but maniacs just looking to destroy what jews have, while not destroying what anyone else has...

The war against jews still exists, only now it's focused on israel, and on any jewish people who have any corporate control, even if those corporate people aren't doing anything that anyone else with corporate control is doing

Fuck wendy campbell, fuck marwen media, and fuck all other antisemitic and racist pieces of shit.

Go to hell, wendy. And take JA and "joe webb" and your other piece of shit, evil friends with you

Werhmacht Wendy: "Get ready to write that check to Indybay, gehrig, you misogynist Al-Nakba-denier. You are forever calling me a "Jew-hating wretch" among other things, which is certainly not true."

So calling you a Jew-hating wretch, which you are, makes me a "misogynist"? Nope. I don't insult you because you're a woman; I insult you because you're a Jew-hating wretch. "Misogyny" is just another one of those gerrymandered definitions that nessie threw at me, hoping to intimidate me into silence. It didn't work. What _did_ happen is that people as lazy as you, Wehrmacht Wendy, took nessie's word instead of checking it out themselves.

Wehrmacht Wendy: "yammity yammity perhaps I should check with my Jewish attorney friend who I had dinner with last night about what I should do about your slurs and slanders against me yammity yammity."

Ah, so some of your best friends are Jews. Have you told him about how you submit articles to neo-Nazi websites, Wehrmacht Wendy? Wouldn't that be terrific publicity for you if that came out in court? Wanna be a headline, Wehrmacht Wendy? It didn't work out too well for your friend David Irving.

@%<

There is being polite, but then there is the truth. And the truth is, Ms. Campbell by her own admission is a correspondent for the National Alliance and Stormfront websites.

Equivocation for the sake of "politeness" on this kind of thing is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Why are you not outraged that people in our midst admit freely to "bridge building" activities with the likes of the NA and Stormfront?

Which side are you on? Or do you believe there is an acceptable "non-side" way when it comes to fascists, and if so, please, do explain to those of us who just don't get it.

with Wendy. Plenty of other articles where you can discuss your problem with her. Just look around.

is a fine example of exactly what is being discussed here.

please explain the need you assert for "polite" discourse with self-admitted bridge-builders to white-supremacist organizations at this discussion board.

also, is that the type of thing that would be enforced under any proposed, new "nice rules"???

that, it seems, is quite germane to the question at hand.

on either side would have nothing to do with "nice rules" anyway.

really bother you that much, does it?

I find it hard to believe that anybody asscociated with indymedia would support the idea that a person who posts their own take on something should be able to prevent others from responding to it and criticizing it.

This site does need more aggressive editing, including deletion of comments that are just basically put-downs (or praise!) without analytic or informational content, even when they are done from a "good" perspective.

Another type of comment that should be deleted is one where an anonymous or pseudonymous poster vouches for the truth of some assertion based on personal knowledge, when the assertion inherently cannot be independently validated. In other words, no anonymous witnesses allowed. (This is not the ICTFY!)

(BTW, Kirsten has her own web site -- she provided the URL above -- where she is totally "safe" from unfriendly comments!)