I see that some posters are members, while others are moderators. Some show up as banned (after the fact of course.)
How about a new classification? Troll. Or a Scarlet letter or, other warning sign attached to a poster’s post.
If somebody shows repeatedly disruptive behavior, unnaceptable to the board, but not yet strong enough to warrant banning, why not put a label on them?
It seems to me that most trolls have a schtick of some sort which they use again and again. When people give up on them and no longer respond, they go to find new victims who are not aware of the schtick.
Give them a label, put them on probation for a month. If they desist take the label off. If they continue, ban them.
When someone gets banned, they often just create a new account, so they can whine about how unfairly they’ve been treated. Than you have to go to the trouble to uncover the new identity and ban that.
This way you give them the chance to whine, say goodbye, or clean up their act. Perhaps it saves the moderator’s some trouble too, as a common act of trolls seems to be to switch forums once their reputation becomes known. Participants in the new forum, as well as moderators would no right off the bat what the Straight Dope with the guy was.
Sheesh, not one lousy moderator or administrator can even bother to tell me “your idea stinks.”
I just sit here ignored by those high and mighty types in their ivory towers, who apparently cannot be bothered to stoop to such plebeian levels as to even address a lowly member such as myself.
I count too you know!
I WONT JUST BE IGNORED!!
(or maybe i will)
I have almost 1000 posts and I demand the consideration and respect that is due me.
Screw it, I’ll just ask for my money back.
(The possibility exists that there is a high degree of facetiousness in the above.)
Disclaimer: I am not an administrator, only a moderator (on probation) so my opinions are in no way official or representative of the ideas of the SDMB management.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, here’s my opinion:
So far, we have the following “status” options that I’ve seen on the board (excluding job titles such as Administrator)
Member - active posters
Guest - people who have asked that their posting privileges be revoked, for whatever reason. (one example off the top of my head, with no intent of singling out this poster for any reason: Notthemama. Posts by Notthemama shows the status as “Guest”.)
BANNED - people whose posting privileges were revoked by SDMB management.
IMHO, that is clear enough.
If a poster is disruptive to the board, then we should either ban them or else temporarily revoke their Member status (e.g. change to Guest), send them a warning, wait a while, give them a second chance, and then ban them if the behaviour continues.
I don’t like the “scarlet letter” idea. That would only reinforce the bad behaviour, because people might be tempted to mock the poster with that designation, which would encourage the poster to be even more obnoxious.
IMHO.
There’s a troublesome problem underlying your proposal, Scylla. How is a troll defined? Who gets to make the definition? I’m sure you’ve seen numerous threads asking for the definition of a troll. To the best of my knowledge, troll has never been conclusively defined, even though the mighty Cecil devoted a column to it.
Another thing to consider might be what prompts a poster to act trollishly. Attention is the reason most often put forward. If that’s true, then that troll label might become a badge of honor to some individuals. As such, it’s possible the label might actually encourage trolling even without the goad Arnold has suggested.
As always, the best bet is to just ignore the little sons-of-bitches.