From the mouth of a self-described troll: "The moderators or administrators can handle the trolls. The cliques that form around online/forum bullies are harder to control. That's why the new blog/website will serve to throw some light on the behavior of online/forum bullies, like the persons that hijacked the threads today."


I think this illustrates the biggest problem with trying to be totally self-moderated and deal with inappropriate posts ourselves. There is an assumption on the part of a troll (or a new poster) that any post that is not moderated is professional and acceptable. It puts those who attempt to counsel inappropriate posters on the same level as the inappropriate posters. Rather than being viewed as logical responders, they are accused of bullying and rudeness or hijacking threads, and a dogfight ensues.

You know, AM, I read that entire post about bullies vs. trolls and I really thought it was spot on. I recognized the described behaviors right here in this forum.

Here's another thought. Do you notice how some threads are moderated very quickly? I suspect some of the mods are participating in the thread themselves, so that's why they are able to take care of the violations so quickly. However, it seems some are let go too long and I wonder if they lose their objectivity if they are an active participant. Now I know that other forums rotate moderators and when you are a mod, you're not allowed to post. That is an option, but I don't think we'd have many people willing to moderate under that condition. What if the mods, during their tenure, had names like "mod1", "mod2", etc. and could only post under that name? Think about that dynamic for a bit. How would it change the tone of threads? Would it keep the moderation at the appropriate level and unbiased?

I have wondered about that, LJ. I have been told that on most forums, mod duties are shared and that, during the period of time a forum member is serving as a mod, he/she is unable to post under his own identity. I like that. Having not served as a mod on our forum, I'm not sure if there are any restrictions here for mods but I have never heard that they are barred from posting under their own names.

I agree that many moderations here seem biased. Some threads are moderated like lightening. Other posts, even after multiple posters have reported name-calling or something, sit and sit and sit untouched. It could well be that a mod is participating in discussions, and, because the mod is an active participant, a particular thread is not viewed impartially.

I think I'm too opinionated to be a mod, so I would never volunteer. But I like your idea.

I suspect the mods don't have the free hand many assume.

Mary, you're probably right but I'm not sure since I'm not a mod. However, there was talk earlier about publishing the moderator's guidelines for all to see but that hasn't happened yet. I think it will help if it ever happens. I really feel that the guidelines should be clear and moderators should have a breaking in period when they are new. Then, let them go. Give them the power to do the job and let go of the reins. If they screw up, then "fire" them. But the administrator has to trust his moderators.

There was a suggestion that the moderator guidelines be published but that's a decision that has to come from ownership. We all have ideas but we don't have authority. Just because something is discussed here doesn't mean it's workable and it doesn't mean ownership will like the idea. Something we might see as a detriment to the forum may be viewed by ownership as a plus. It all depends on viewpoint and objective.

I stand corrected. I thought the owner had agreed to publish them.

LJ,

I thought so, too because I remember asking that same question about guidelines. And while people may be having their fun now feeding the trolls, are they stopping to think what the representatives of different MSCs who read this forum are thinking right now?

This is what I was thinking of. Part of Jacob's quote from the moderation thread:

"Right now, I'm thinking there should be a set of standard reasons for a post to be moderated. When that happens, the entire post should be replaced with one of the standard reasons. The next step would be to create the list, and to create clear guidelines for when to use them. I definitely do not like moderation, and prefer things to not be censored. But, their is definitely a need for moderation, and I do think the moderation program is due for an upgrade."

He only talked about coming up with a clear set of guidelines. He did not say anything about publishing for all to see. Although I think that would be a great idea.

Kim, they're probably thinking all shoppers are immature, unprofessional and have no self-control. I certainly wouldn't want a person like that doing work for my client.

ETA: Since we cross-posted I'll clarify that my above comment applies to the first of your last two posts, above. As to the second, thanks for finding JJ's quote on new guidelines. I guess instead of publishing them, we'd only see one at a time as a mod quotes it per violation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 10:27PM by LJ.

Hmm,

Neutralization,
Dogpiling,
Ashamed of the forum,

All valid points. I especially like the term dogpiling as it quite accurately describes what can happen when a post is criticized by multiple members.

But I'll start with the later. I agree with the comment that some of our comments are mean-spirited and do result in an intimidating atmosphere for newcomers. However, I am not at all ashamed of this forum. Why? Because it is unquestionably the best place for those in this lonely profession to talk, learn, vent, etc., about it. Content is slowly improving with the threads and the MSM. Also because the dogpiles are much less than they used to be.

I ask you to remember, or read the posts before the time Jacob encouraged us to be more welcoming to newbies. Then, new members that posted introductions were often unacknowledged. Now, every new member that posts an introduction is quickly welcomed. Just today, Tanyab13, JGirl44, Aida, and Kente11 are new members that were welcomed by at least one of the veterans. Thanks are to mrcomputer101, AustinMom, Walesmaven, LisaSTL and others that unfortunately slip my mind at the moment. Sorry about that.

In addition, Jacob encouraged us to be more understanding of newbie questions that includes the recurring question of who shops what clients and the frequent ICA violations. Go back and look at the dogpiles that occurred in the past. I think you will be pleasantly surprised that the frequency and size are greatly reduced. Also, many veterans are answering those questions in a reasonable, productive manner. But you are correct in stating we still have dogpiles. What to do?

Being nice ourselves is one obvious thing. Don't add to the dogpile. We can also reach out to those new members to answer their questions or correct their ICA violations in a nicer, more personal way. Apologize for the dogpile and invite them to continue to use the forum for the benefits. Neutralization is a good term for this. I have done this at times in PMs as to not add to the dogpile. It seems to work well, although not in every instance. Another thing we can do is to call out the dogpilers themselves. This is not something I have yet done beyond a general manner such as this. But be aware, I recently reactivated a long dormant account at a MSP for another look, I might change my mind about that as well. If any dogpiler wants to rant on me in PM, then the rest of the forum is spared that venom and maybe they do it less in the future. I'll be proud to count that as the price of membership here.

What about if we had a boilerplate text that explains/warns newbies about most common issues newbies present? Those being why we can't tell them who shops which client and the ICA violation of naming the MSP and client together. This would be level headed and fully explain those issues without being confrontational. Instead of starting a dogpile, veterans could then paste and click the language to answer the question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 11:37PM by vlade5394.

Yep. I agree. I don't care how long they've been shopping.

@LJ wrote:

Kim, they're probably thinking all shoppers are immature, unprofessional and have no self-control. I certainly wouldn't want a person like that doing work for my client.

To assume MSC reps would take away anything and apply it to all shoppers is doing the reps a disservice. Those that visit regularly have seen all sides and the more infrequent visitors are likely to see the 99% of the posts in which people are welcoming and helpful. I would rather assume they are intelligent enough to distinguish between the positive threads and the positively appalling threads.

Good points, Vlade. Thanks for all the time you put in to that post and for reminding us of the positives. We (I) needed that.

The only thing I have to slightly disagree on is the last part. I don't think we need a boiler plate answer to the post that violate ICAs, everyone has been pretty decent about explaining that nicely. At least they have lately that I've seen. I think the problem is when a new person comes in all torqued up about a real or perceived slight from a company, scheduler, etc. Each of those is different. Sometimes the just want to vent and get ticked off at other posters offering advice because they feel they weren't heard and we missed the point. Other times, they are there for advice, but are just not ready to hear that they may be wrong. These angry people aren't necessarily "trolls". They didn't come here to stir up controversy and laugh at us for duking it out as they slyly slither out the back the door. They just came here because they thought they would find like-minded people to whom they could rant. If they are first acknowledged for their feelings and allowed to calm down a little bit before offering advice, we might be able to turn it around and redirect their thread and MSing career..

@LisaSTL wrote:

To assume MSC reps would take away anything and apply it to all shoppers is doing the reps a disservice.

Perhaps, but it's human nature for people to generalize. So as not to generalize MSC reps, I guess we'd have to say some would and some wouldn't, right?

LJ, you asked my definition of "abusive". It includes threatening, namecalling, belittling or flagrantly insulting verbiage. I realize this is subjective, and definition may vary widely among us.

I have appreciated reading everyone's thoughts on how to tackle this problem, and realize there are different schools of thought. Thumbs up to neutralizing violations. Thumbs down to dogpiling. Both require effort and self-control, by all.

Thinking outside the box... and having some background in a self-help forum that often experienced nastiness and conflicts between "civilized" and "nasty" groups of posters over on eBay's Answer Center ... let me just toss out a couple ideas to be considered, discussed, dismissed, whatever, but that might serve to moderate things without the need for censorship....

One, in the eBay Answer Center, people needing help posted their problem, question, concern, or rant. There was a limit of ten responses and then the thread locked. Usually the first person to get to the thread would request additional information if the first post was not adequate to provide a definitive answer. Others would come on and provide help or suggestions as OP explained further, and nearly always, within the ten posts, the question would be answered with correct information based on eBay rules. Sometimes there were differences in posting style, and occasionally newbies who didn't know what they were talking about tried to answer with their best guess and would be promptly corrected by more experienced responders. It was also possible to send a message to the poster directly if the thread locked with questions unanswered.

Two, maybe instead of just "Mystery shopping discussion" and "mystery shopping company discussion" an additional rant-free forum called "Mystery Shop Forum Help Center" could be added -- and subject just that forum to a ten response limit rule. (Maybe 15, it just needs to be for the purpose of giving OP advice and help, not discussing what happened for three weeks.) Again, if someone wanted to say something after the thread locked, they could PM the OP. Rants posted there would be moved to.....:

Three, maybe a "Pardon my rant" forum could be added where the "Don't shop for this company" rants could be posted with only the MSC name and the date of the original post in the title, not the insults, character assassination, libelous comments that we see now. Each rant thread to have maybe two days to run, then lock it down.

the current "discussion" forums could remain to discuss methods, instructions, how to contact schedulers, discussing MSC quirks and policies -- not really solving specific problems, just places to gain greater understanding of the mystery shopping world.


As entertaining as our multiple personality troll has been lately, it is disrupting the operations and purpose of the forum because new members don't know that we're beating up a troll, they just think we're beating up a clueless newbie and they don't want that to happen to them. So I personally would like to see this particular troll's multiple IDs all deactivated and all their IP addresses blocked. But I know I can just toggle them if others want to play with them some more.

I would even support requiring some token payment to post -- if anyone were free to read here but had to pay a few bucks to activate an ID for posting privileges ... at least Jacob would gain something toward the upkeep of the forum if a troll wanted to create 10 IDs and pay $5 each to be able to post. After they paid for a few only to see them deactivated without refund they might just take their ball and go torment the V site instead.

Anyway, just some random ideas that may or may not fit in here. But I thought I'd bring them up. I don't even know if it's possible to do these things but it might be something to look into.

Some good ideas there, d. We need help for sure.

Reminds me of a post about a year ago who a poster was blamed to me a troll and a fake.
Come to find out it was a real person whose spouse the shopper had died. But so many even after the death still said the man was a troll.
To each his own for troll or not troll description.

@CANADAMOMMY wrote:

Reminds me of a post about a year ago who a poster was blamed to me a troll and a fake.
Come to find out it was a real person whose spouse the shopper had died. But so many even after the death still said the man was a troll.
To each his own for troll or not troll description.

Yes, Tony received a number of very rude posts. It might be different today now that Jacob has made his request, [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Jacob has now requested that if anyone believes a troll is at work, he or she should not engage with that poster but instead use the Report function. It would have eliminated the rude comments if everyone who believed Tony was a troll had reported it rather than posted. It would have left responses only from those who actually made suggestions in response to Tony's question.

I like Jacob's request.

Reporting rather than responding is an excellent idea. We've already found out that responding doesn't work.

I think we need to define "troll". I always thought a troll was someone who had no real interest in the forum or topic at hand and only drops in to stir up arguments and then departs. IMO real trolls are rarely shoppers and they found their way here from some unrelated Google search. They do this as a form of entertainment all over the Internet.

Then there are just ticked off shoppers who have been accused of being trolls when I think they DO have an interest in the forum or topic, they just don't know how to express themselves in an appropriate way. They came here because they're already ticked off about something and looking for support. I believe that those people deserve to be heard, their complaint acknowledged in a respectful manner (even if they were not respectful themselves), and the correct behavior modeled for them. If they don't get the hint, then that's what moderators are for when appropriate.

Unfortunately, too many veteran posters enjoy the "fun factor" of engaging them in a verbal brawl that eventually grows into an all out melee - all for the sake of entertainment. Is that what we want here? :shrug:

I consider any real mystery shopper to be a non-troll no matter how contentious or objectionable. I consider any duplicate persona to be a troll. I consider any non-shopper messing around with the forum to be a troll. I consider any poster, troll or not, who attacks another forum member with an unprovoked personal assault to be fair game. Nevertheless, in accordance with Jacob's request I am backing off because I respect Jacob.

I do enjoy the entertainment factor immensely and it is part of what I want, but the non-entertainment factor is more important. The integrity of the forum and the way we present ourselves to the overall community is more important than whether I have a good time. In the absence of any apparent (to me) effort to check the trolls, I considered them fair game in open season. Now that there is a plan in place to deal with the trolls I will cooperate with and support that plan 100%.

As AustinMom so wisely pointed out, you only have to BELIEVE it's a troll and report it as Jacob requested. That way (either it is or isn't) if you don't respond to it then it won't be the Tony thing all over again.

I really respect and appreciate that you said all of that above, Mary. I agree with your definition of troll with one exception. I'm not sure I'm convinced that everyone who creates a new screen name is a troll. I'm not saying they're not - it's just I guess I'd base it on the reason they created another persona. If someone felt she went to far or made a fool of herself and sort of wants to reinvent herself and start over, I wouldn't call that a troll - especially if she just changed her screen name and was not posting under both. Maybe if someone had two screen names because they wanted to be able to rant anonymously without the MSCs knowing who they are and only rant under one name and post helpful information under their usual name, I guess I wouldn't call that a troll either. A little weak and creepy, but not a troll. Now, if someone only creates screen names to try to skirt rules, and like his/her own status and stir the pot but is still a shopper and does have some things to offer? Mmm.. getting closer, but still I'd just call that being a jerk who needs a moderator or admin to knock his arse down a few pegs. Multiple screen names used just to harass and never offer anything positive? THOSE are trolls.

Don't forget the @#$%& (feets?). The ones who want information handed to them on a silver platter. In general the responses they get tend to make them just go away.

There are a few types of trolls. Some like stir it up and bit and move while one or two like to create user name after user name to get some attention. For those seeking attention we should just ignore them. No reporting, no deleting of posts. In other words nothing to acknowledge them either positive or negative. And while nobody is mentioning any specific user names, no doubt the primary subject being discussed is downright giddy for all the attention and discussion.

Have we reached the point where spending so much time on this is counter productive? Trolls tend to come and go. There have been rather long stretches with absolutely no issues. Do we want the occasional problem to turn into a forum so heavily moderated it is as dry and boring as the other one. If we reach that point what will attract anyone to come here rather than there?

Err on the side of caution. I would liken the definition of a troll to the Supreme Court's definition of porn. I know it when I see it.

Now I'm trying to figure out why p-rincess s-tompy foot was censored.

OMG, haven't thought about PSF in ages. And why would those two words be on the censor list?

It made me chuckle and I was questioning if feets would be proper plural, LOL! Once I put the hyphens in princess and stompy it worked.