Flag the troll March 7, 2005 6:01 AM Subscribe
Could we get a "troll" option for flagging?
That's a good idea, norm. And easy to implement. Something that would make that feature ten times more useful is if every troll flag got counted (visibly or just for the admins) so that frequent trollers could get quantified, identified, and penalized--at Matt's discretion, not automatically.
posted by squirrel at 6:07 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by squirrel at 6:07 AM on March 7, 2005
The little [!] isn't good enough by itself?
posted by caution live frogs at 6:11 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by caution live frogs at 6:11 AM on March 7, 2005
I don't think this is a good idea. It's namecalling, be it justified or not.
posted by ashbury at 6:14 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by ashbury at 6:14 AM on March 7, 2005
This isn't slashdot.
posted by NickDouglas at 6:19 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by NickDouglas at 6:19 AM on March 7, 2005
Wasn't there one first, and then it was changed because "troll" isn't as good of a label as it first may seem?
posted by dabitch at 6:20 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by dabitch at 6:20 AM on March 7, 2005
I don't think this is a good idea. It's namecalling, be it justified or not.
How would you point out that someone is trolling without calling them a troll? I'm sure norm doesn't care so much about the semantics, and if you can come up with a viable alternative, then let's hear it. I tend to think "purposefully incendiary post" and other similar verbiage is silly. Everyone knows what trolling means; no one's saying that someone lives under a bridge and turns to stone in the sunlight.
posted by anapestic at 6:38 AM on March 7, 2005
How would you point out that someone is trolling without calling them a troll? I'm sure norm doesn't care so much about the semantics, and if you can come up with a viable alternative, then let's hear it. I tend to think "purposefully incendiary post" and other similar verbiage is silly. Everyone knows what trolling means; no one's saying that someone lives under a bridge and turns to stone in the sunlight.
posted by anapestic at 6:38 AM on March 7, 2005
Almost every comment I've seen on metafilter that was classified as a troll wasn't a troll. You've only got to disagree with someone these days to be accused of trolling. As far as I'm concerned this'd just be another way for the Liberal MeFi Elite to enforce the fluffy white groupthink they think is the only type of discourse that should be allowed on MetaFilter.
Bad idea.
// awaits annoyingly squeaky calls of "troll" from usual idiots.
posted by seanyboy at 6:43 AM on March 7, 2005
Bad idea.
// awaits annoyingly squeaky calls of "troll" from usual idiots.
posted by seanyboy at 6:43 AM on March 7, 2005
I agree. The only time I've flagged a post was for trollery par tedium.
posted by i_cola at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by i_cola at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2005
Like seanyboy said, people tend to throw "troll" around to mean a comment they hate, for whatever reason. This could work if there was accountability for the troll-caller - e.g. three "troll" calls that turn out unfounded shuts down your ability to flag - but of course that would be a lot more work to implement.
posted by soyjoy at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2005
Like seanyboy said, people tend to throw "troll" around to mean a comment they hate, for whatever reason.
I have seen that too, but my idea was that if a particular user was consistently flagged as trollish, then he or she could be identified and have it be addressed.
posted by norm at 7:04 AM on March 7, 2005
I have seen that too, but my idea was that if a particular user was consistently flagged as trollish, then he or she could be identified and have it be addressed.
posted by norm at 7:04 AM on March 7, 2005
God damn your hide, no! Some of the trolls here are so exquisitely wrought that they glitter like innumerable snarly-toothed glow-in-the-dark bejeweled deep-sea creatures looming magnificently in the darkness awaiting their pupaescent prey!
They are fascinating creatures that we should capture and study in strangely equipped laboratories with much cackling and great gusto.
posted by loquacious at 7:18 AM on March 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
They are fascinating creatures that we should capture and study in strangely equipped laboratories with much cackling and great gusto.
posted by loquacious at 7:18 AM on March 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
Burn the trolls.
Really, the only issue here seems to be peoples' discomfort with flagging users not comments.
Somewhere between "noise," "derail" and "offensvie content," any single comment should get the label it deserves.
I'm also a little wary of flagging users. To really evalutate someone as a troll, you have to make a judgment call about their intentions, not just observe what they say. I know, I know, some folks think it's OBVIOUS that so-and-so is a troll, but really, what's the difference between a troll and someone articulate who disagrees with you?
It's not always so easy to nail down, and I think Matt should be the only one making that leap to character judgment.
posted by scarabic at 7:25 AM on March 7, 2005
Really, the only issue here seems to be peoples' discomfort with flagging users not comments.
Somewhere between "noise," "derail" and "offensvie content," any single comment should get the label it deserves.
I'm also a little wary of flagging users. To really evalutate someone as a troll, you have to make a judgment call about their intentions, not just observe what they say. I know, I know, some folks think it's OBVIOUS that so-and-so is a troll, but really, what's the difference between a troll and someone articulate who disagrees with you?
It's not always so easy to nail down, and I think Matt should be the only one making that leap to character judgment.
posted by scarabic at 7:25 AM on March 7, 2005
I'm with the 'bad idea/term too subjective' faction.
FWIW my own definition of a troll is any comment that, were it to elicit a response, could only elicit a response that would not add to the thread. Sometimes a troll doesn't have bad intentions, just self-indulgent ones.
posted by liam at 7:31 AM on March 7, 2005
FWIW my own definition of a troll is any comment that, were it to elicit a response, could only elicit a response that would not add to the thread. Sometimes a troll doesn't have bad intentions, just self-indulgent ones.
posted by liam at 7:31 AM on March 7, 2005
S@L: not a troll, just wrong
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:37 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:37 AM on March 7, 2005
I think the way implementation has been proposed rules out the "too subjective" argument. It's just a flag--something for Matt to use to make a judgement. "Troll" is a reasonable descriptor, and one that isn't really covered by anything already on the list. It's still the comment you're marking as trolling. It would take several of these from several different users to really mark a person as a troll.
Phrase it in some PC fashion if you like, but this is good information that could be useful for moderation.
posted by frykitty at 7:51 AM on March 7, 2005
Phrase it in some PC fashion if you like, but this is good information that could be useful for moderation.
posted by frykitty at 7:51 AM on March 7, 2005
When members' comments are tagged, is there a way the tagged member knows about it?
posted by thomcatspike at 8:02 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by thomcatspike at 8:02 AM on March 7, 2005
God damn your hide, no! Some of the trolls here are so exquisitely wrought that they glitter like innumerable snarly-toothed glow-in-the-dark bejeweled deep-sea creatures looming magnificently in the darkness awaiting their pupaescent prey!
They are fascinating creatures that we should capture and study in strangely equipped laboratories with much cackling and great gusto.
posted by loquacious at 7:18 AM PST on March 7 [!]
I need no longer post here. loquacious is doing my work for me, and doing it better than I did. I mean, he said pupaescent, fer Gosh sake!
But beware, loquacious: with such great power comes great responsibility.
posted by Shane at 8:17 AM on March 7, 2005
They are fascinating creatures that we should capture and study in strangely equipped laboratories with much cackling and great gusto.
posted by loquacious at 7:18 AM PST on March 7 [!]
I need no longer post here. loquacious is doing my work for me, and doing it better than I did. I mean, he said pupaescent, fer Gosh sake!
But beware, loquacious: with such great power comes great responsibility.
posted by Shane at 8:17 AM on March 7, 2005
Does the "other" option confuse and frighten you?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:26 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:26 AM on March 7, 2005
Does the "other" option confuse and frighten you?
Its vague nature gives me the Fear.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:36 AM on March 7, 2005
Its vague nature gives me the Fear.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:36 AM on March 7, 2005
Wait! The [!] isn't a "this is good" marker?
Sorry, everybody.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:45 AM on March 7, 2005
Sorry, everybody.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:45 AM on March 7, 2005
Actually, sod this for a game of soldiers. In these days of power via Ethernet I want to be able to eletrocute the next fucker that pisses me off.
Sort it Haughey.
posted by i_cola at 8:46 AM on March 7, 2005
Sort it Haughey.
posted by i_cola at 8:46 AM on March 7, 2005
When I had "troll" as an option, people used it to report those they disagree with. So lots of folks reporting every comment made by someone with a different political view, and always in political threads. In other words, totally useless to me and I purposely removed it to curb reports from folks misinterpretting what "troll" really means.
derail, noise, and offensive content do cover all the ground needed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:51 AM on March 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
derail, noise, and offensive content do cover all the ground needed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:51 AM on March 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: sod this for a game of soldiers
matt, the problem is you can't pick more than one of those--a troll usually hits the trifecta. If someone derails by adding offensive noise, there's no way to indicate that.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2005
matt, the problem is you can't pick more than one of those--a troll usually hits the trifecta. If someone derails by adding offensive noise, there's no way to indicate that.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 AM on March 7, 2005
The category isn't important. I imagine Matt can tell what a troll post looks like, even if it's reported as "derail."
posted by grouse at 9:22 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by grouse at 9:22 AM on March 7, 2005
In which case amberglow just pick one. If it really is all those things Matt can probably see it for himself. In your example just select derail. When flagging a derail does it really matter what kind of derail your dealing with?
posted by Mitheral at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by Mitheral at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2005
When I had "troll" as an option, people used it to report those they disagree with.
Exactly. There's no objective definition, so it's useless.
posted by scarabic at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2005
Exactly. There's no objective definition, so it's useless.
posted by scarabic at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by norm at 6:03 AM on March 7, 2005