3 ms·

I always find the most difficult is to deal with users who are not actively breaking any rules but are toxic and hurting the conversation. Given your experience

I always find the most difficult is to deal with users who are not actively breaking any rules but are toxic and hurting the conversation. Given your experience, what's your take on handling this?

BoredPositron 6mo ago
In my experience it's okay to have some troll or odd users. If they do targeted campaigns against single users or small groups we ban them.
armchairhacker 6mo ago
Ban them. I also recommend making it explicit: your last rule should be “moderators have final discretion”. The hard part is figuring out when to apply rules leniently or strictly. For example, I think users should always be warned, then given shorter bans, before a long or perma ban (unless they break an obvious egregious rule, or they’re a suspected alt of a banned user). At the same time, you do need to kick out persistent rules lawyerers or they’ll drive away good users. Moderators shape their community. Hacker News is decent (compared to what it could be) because of dang and tomhow. Many communities (especially on Reddit) have become echo chambers, mainly because the mods are too happy to ban people for unspoken and/or vague rules.
- joe_mamba 6mo ago
  >Ban them. I also recommend making it explicit: your last rule should be “moderators have final discretion”.[...] >[...] Many communities (especially on Reddit) have become echo chambers mainly because the mods are too happy to ban people for unspoken and/or vague rules To me, it seems you're contradicting yourself here. In the first paragraph you suggest the solution to vague rules (mods having full authority), but then in the second paragraph you admit how that turns the platform into an echo chamber.
  - armchairhacker 6mo ago
    The point is to have discretion but use it rarely. Reddit echo chambers use it way too often. It’s not contradictory but unfortunately impossible to fully explain, otherwise it would be explicit rules. When someone acts borderline, you must intuit when they’re acting in good or bad faith. Hence I think a first warning, then short ban, is necessary for anyone not obviously breaking a rule; because the former will be careful, but the latter will keep acting borderline again and again, avoiding exactly what you warned about while still causing malice.
    - joe_mamba 6mo ago
      >The point is to have discretion but use it rarely. "Let's give the president dictatorial powers, but it's OK, he'll only use it rarely." Famous last words. Please. Humans in positions of power are incredibly bad at exercising restraint. Humans are humans and make human mistakes, even judges in court give harsher sentences if they're hungry or ill or just having a bad day. Now imagine mods on a forum. That discretion always leads to selective enforcement 100% of the time, like saying "X are below Y", that's just freedom of speech, but saying "Y are below X", that's hate speech, BAN, and other such double standards stuff like that, which turns the platform/board into an echo chamber mirroring the mod's political and emotional views. >will keep acting borderline again and again If someone managed to spot a pattern that can be repeat borderline, then your rules suck and you need to update them according to that pattern. He did you a favor for exposing a flaw in your rules.
      - armchairhacker 6mo ago
        I was wrong to imply that moderators should warn then ban users who haven’t broken a specific rule in a way that couldn’t be argued. To be clear, “borderline” means in one interpretation the user is already breaking a rule, but in a different interpretation they’re not breaking the rule. Rules aren’t formally defined, so there’s almost always a way to explain why the same thing both is and isn’t breaking a rule. To clarify and responding to specific points: > Humans in positions of power are incredibly bad at exercising restraint Moderators (at least the admin) already have arbitrary control. You can make the site open or federated, but even then, you moderate your instance. > Humans are humans and make human mistakes, even judges in court give harsher sentences if they're hungry or ill or just having a bad day. Now imagine mods on a forum. Yes, but there’s no oracle that won’t make mistakes. The rules themselves aren’t formally defined, and the enforcers are humans (or AI automods trained to mimic or programmed by humans, who are generally less effective). > That discretion always leads to selective enforcement 100% of the time, like saying "X are below Y", that's just freedom of speech, but saying "Y are below X", that's hate speech, BAN, and other such double standards stuff like that, which turns the platform/board into an echo chamber mirroring the mod's political and emotional views. I believe free speech is important, but also free association. Not all forums should have free speech (excluding spam), because some people will leave if others are present. Also, everyone has subconscious unintentional bias and double standards. A moderator will selectively apply the rules, because being human, they make mistakes. But that’s OK, because even among users who believe in “no double standards”, different users will subconsciously perceive the same treatment as fair or unfair. The key to a good forum that’s not a moderator’s views echo chamber, but also keeps interesting people (not devolving into a troll and/or toxic-personality echo chamber), is to enforce double standards that most people agree with. e.g. often insulting a public figure is fine, insulting a specific forum user is not, or if a forum user is a famous public figure, mildly insulting them is fine outside of discussions they participate in. The problem with most subreddits is that they’re too quick to dismiss users as bad faith, speech as hate speech and trolling, etc. Some speech that offends certain groups should be OK, because certain groups are too easily offended. But even the leftists I know say things that would get them banned on many left-leaning subreddits. If you want a forum that allows hate speech, I think that’s fine, although your users will only be people who tolerate hate speech. Otherwise, I recommend banning hate speech but being more lenient than most subreddits, but also watching for trolls who abuse this lenience to make clear their hatred anyways. Either way, you’ll want to ban some users: at least spammers, probably those who harass specific other users, probably also those who are overly cynical and hurt the “vibe”. > If someone managed to spot a pattern that can be repeat borderline, then your rules suck and you need to update them according to that pattern. He did you a favor for exposing a flaw in your rules. Again: I concede that if the user hasn’t actually broken a rule in a way that can be clearly explained, the rules should be updated and they should be given a pass. But there’s no way to update the rules so that a troll can’t “borderline” break them, except with a rule like “moderators have final discretion”. e.g. a rule like “don’t insult various groups” can have the user vaguely allude to a characterization of a group that could be derogatory, but maybe you misunderstand and it wasn’t an insult, or maybe they weren’t referring to the entire group but a subset - until they do it again and again (in different ways), even after warnings.
lukan 6mo ago
It really depends on the community and the exact guidelines, but if someone is clearly toxic, I start with a direct message, then mute, then kick and ban. You can spend endless time with internet weirdos, the trick is acting early and also being open to reverse a decision (also saying sorry if a moderation misstake was made, it can be easy attribute something to malice that was in reality really a newb misstake - and then you say sorry, explain that you are not paid and have also the real world to deal with at times and then all is good and with those who are really bad, well, one should not be light skinned and be able to tolerate some vague and concrete threats).
chao- 6mo ago
Depends a lot on the community's topic, purpose, and size. However, a sign that someone needs to be removed is if you find that the community writ-large treats them as a Missing Stair [0]. If they have refused direct requests from community moderators/leaders to address their behavior, or regressed after a short period of improvement, and if most of the community is required to do work to actively manage their toxicity, that is not sustainable. It is a mistake I once made in managing a community. There was a person who was able to present as "pleasant enough" when the situation called for it, but who was often toxic when something didn't go perfectly (especially in a 1-on-1 setting). I allowed them to stay for too long, and the community as a whole suffered from the ambient sense of tension and hostility. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair
- miladyincontrol 6mo ago
  By large I absolutely agree with te premise, but find too that sometimes you find someone akin to a hammer looking for nails, starts to label anyone a missing stair over the slightest incompatibility. Oft combines with a formation of a faultless in-group and a perpetual need for new villains. Its a rare thing, I dont mean to suggest its common. But it is always awkward to see when some people learn such language just to turn it into a cudgel.
  - chao- 6mo ago
    >sometimes you find someone akin to a hammer looking for nails, starts to label anyone a missing stair over the slightest incompatibility. I 100% agree. This is why it is important for leaders not to rely on the judgement of a single person, but on the behavior of perception of the community as a whole (which I tried to mention as a caveat in my comment). On the other hand, if you have an overeager moderator with too much discretionary power... well that's a different community problem, and it is going to go wrong in multiple ways, not just this one :(
RankingMember 6mo ago
Hackernews' approach is hellbans. FWIW that seems to work pretty well here at least.
- mrkstu 6mo ago
  The combo of quick bans and incrementally earned rights seems to be a pretty effective combo.
  - mh- 6mo ago
    I think user-driven flagging is starting to show its cracks here, though. I'm starting to see stuff flagged to dead status, from otherwise reputable posters, because they went against the current in a thread. I really think HN should consider giving out limited mod points, like Slashdot did (does? haven't used it in 25 years.) This would probably be the ideal* system for somewhere like Reddit, too. * Defining "ideal" as what drives high quality discourse, not what drives engagement.
donpark 6mo ago
Let users flag toxic users. Use the resulting toxicity score to filter out messages based on each reader’s toxicity tolerance level. Both the toxicity score and the tolerance level are driven by user flagging, with score decay over time to account for improved behavior.
kazinator 6mo ago
You identify what it is that they are doing that is hurting the conversation and articulate it into a written guideline. Why, examples of how to do this can be found in the guidelines for this very HackerNews site!

I always find the most difficult is to deal with users who are not actively breaking any rules but are toxic and hurting the conversation. Given your experience, what's your take on handling this?

BoredPositron 6mo ago

In my experience it's okay to have some troll or odd users. If they do targeted campaigns against single users or small groups we ban them.

armchairhacker 6mo ago

Ban them. I also recommend making it explicit: your last rule should be “moderators have final discretion”. The hard part is figuring out when to apply rules leniently or strictly. For example, I think users should always be warned, then given shorter bans, before a long or perma ban (unless they break an obvious egregious rule, or they’re a suspected alt of a banned user). At the same time, you do need to kick out persistent rules lawyerers or they’ll drive away good users. Moderators shape their community. Hacker News is decent (compared to what it could be) because of dang and tomhow. Many communities (especially on Reddit) have become echo chambers, mainly because the mods are too happy to ban people for unspoken and/or vague rules.

joe_mamba 6mo ago
>Ban them. I also recommend making it explicit: your last rule should be “moderators have final discretion”.[...] >[...] Many communities (especially on Reddit) have become echo chambers mainly because the mods are too happy to ban people for unspoken and/or vague rules To me, it seems you're contradicting yourself here. In the first paragraph you suggest the solution to vague rules (mods having full authority), but then in the second paragraph you admit how that turns the platform into an echo chamber.
- armchairhacker 6mo ago
  The point is to have discretion but use it rarely. Reddit echo chambers use it way too often. It’s not contradictory but unfortunately impossible to fully explain, otherwise it would be explicit rules. When someone acts borderline, you must intuit when they’re acting in good or bad faith. Hence I think a first warning, then short ban, is necessary for anyone not obviously breaking a rule; because the former will be careful, but the latter will keep acting borderline again and again, avoiding exactly what you warned about while still causing malice.
  - joe_mamba 6mo ago
    >The point is to have discretion but use it rarely. "Let's give the president dictatorial powers, but it's OK, he'll only use it rarely." Famous last words. Please. Humans in positions of power are incredibly bad at exercising restraint. Humans are humans and make human mistakes, even judges in court give harsher sentences if they're hungry or ill or just having a bad day. Now imagine mods on a forum. That discretion always leads to selective enforcement 100% of the time, like saying "X are below Y", that's just freedom of speech, but saying "Y are below X", that's hate speech, BAN, and other such double standards stuff like that, which turns the platform/board into an echo chamber mirroring the mod's political and emotional views. >will keep acting borderline again and again If someone managed to spot a pattern that can be repeat borderline, then your rules suck and you need to update them according to that pattern. He did you a favor for exposing a flaw in your rules.
    - armchairhacker 6mo ago
      I was wrong to imply that moderators should warn then ban users who haven’t broken a specific rule in a way that couldn’t be argued. To be clear, “borderline” means in one interpretation the user is already breaking a rule, but in a different interpretation they’re not breaking the rule. Rules aren’t formally defined, so there’s almost always a way to explain why the same thing both is and isn’t breaking a rule. To clarify and responding to specific points: > Humans in positions of power are incredibly bad at exercising restraint Moderators (at least the admin) already have arbitrary control. You can make the site open or federated, but even then, you moderate your instance. > Humans are humans and make human mistakes, even judges in court give harsher sentences if they're hungry or ill or just having a bad day. Now imagine mods on a forum. Yes, but there’s no oracle that won’t make mistakes. The rules themselves aren’t formally defined, and the enforcers are humans (or AI automods trained to mimic or programmed by humans, who are generally less effective). > That discretion always leads to selective enforcement 100% of the time, like saying "X are below Y", that's just freedom of speech, but saying "Y are below X", that's hate speech, BAN, and other such double standards stuff like that, which turns the platform/board into an echo chamber mirroring the mod's political and emotional views. I believe free speech is important, but also free association. Not all forums should have free speech (excluding spam), because some people will leave if others are present. Also, everyone has subconscious unintentional bias and double standards. A moderator will selectively apply the rules, because being human, they make mistakes. But that’s OK, because even among users who believe in “no double standards”, different users will subconsciously perceive the same treatment as fair or unfair. The key to a good forum that’s not a moderator’s views echo chamber, but also keeps interesting people (not devolving into a troll and/or toxic-personality echo chamber), is to enforce double standards that most people agree with. e.g. often insulting a public figure is fine, insulting a specific forum user is not, or if a forum user is a famous public figure, mildly insulting them is fine outside of discussions they participate in. The problem with most subreddits is that they’re too quick to dismiss users as bad faith, speech as hate speech and trolling, etc. Some speech that offends certain groups should be OK, because certain groups are too easily offended. But even the leftists I know say things that would get them banned on many left-leaning subreddits. If you want a forum that allows hate speech, I think that’s fine, although your users will only be people who tolerate hate speech. Otherwise, I recommend banning hate speech but being more lenient than most subreddits, but also watching for trolls who abuse this lenience to make clear their hatred anyways. Either way, you’ll want to ban some users: at least spammers, probably those who harass specific other users, probably also those who are overly cynical and hurt the “vibe”. > If someone managed to spot a pattern that can be repeat borderline, then your rules suck and you need to update them according to that pattern. He did you a favor for exposing a flaw in your rules. Again: I concede that if the user hasn’t actually broken a rule in a way that can be clearly explained, the rules should be updated and they should be given a pass. But there’s no way to update the rules so that a troll can’t “borderline” break them, except with a rule like “moderators have final discretion”. e.g. a rule like “don’t insult various groups” can have the user vaguely allude to a characterization of a group that could be derogatory, but maybe you misunderstand and it wasn’t an insult, or maybe they weren’t referring to the entire group but a subset - until they do it again and again (in different ways), even after warnings.

lukan 6mo ago

It really depends on the community and the exact guidelines, but if someone is clearly toxic, I start with a direct message, then mute, then kick and ban. You can spend endless time with internet weirdos, the trick is acting early and also being open to reverse a decision (also saying sorry if a moderation misstake was made, it can be easy attribute something to malice that was in reality really a newb misstake - and then you say sorry, explain that you are not paid and have also the real world to deal with at times and then all is good and with those who are really bad, well, one should not be light skinned and be able to tolerate some vague and concrete threats).

chao- 6mo ago

Depends a lot on the community's topic, purpose, and size. However, a sign that someone needs to be removed is if you find that the community writ-large treats them as a Missing Stair [0]. If they have refused direct requests from community moderators/leaders to address their behavior, or regressed after a short period of improvement, and if most of the community is required to do work to actively manage their toxicity, that is not sustainable. It is a mistake I once made in managing a community. There was a person who was able to present as "pleasant enough" when the situation called for it, but who was often toxic when something didn't go perfectly (especially in a 1-on-1 setting). I allowed them to stay for too long, and the community as a whole suffered from the ambient sense of tension and hostility. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair

miladyincontrol 6mo ago
By large I absolutely agree with te premise, but find too that sometimes you find someone akin to a hammer looking for nails, starts to label anyone a missing stair over the slightest incompatibility. Oft combines with a formation of a faultless in-group and a perpetual need for new villains. Its a rare thing, I dont mean to suggest its common. But it is always awkward to see when some people learn such language just to turn it into a cudgel.
- chao- 6mo ago
  >sometimes you find someone akin to a hammer looking for nails, starts to label anyone a missing stair over the slightest incompatibility. I 100% agree. This is why it is important for leaders not to rely on the judgement of a single person, but on the behavior of perception of the community as a whole (which I tried to mention as a caveat in my comment). On the other hand, if you have an overeager moderator with too much discretionary power... well that's a different community problem, and it is going to go wrong in multiple ways, not just this one :(

RankingMember 6mo ago

Hackernews' approach is hellbans. FWIW that seems to work pretty well here at least.

mrkstu 6mo ago
The combo of quick bans and incrementally earned rights seems to be a pretty effective combo.
- mh- 6mo ago
  I think user-driven flagging is starting to show its cracks here, though. I'm starting to see stuff flagged to dead status, from otherwise reputable posters, because they went against the current in a thread. I really think HN should consider giving out limited mod points, like Slashdot did (does? haven't used it in 25 years.) This would probably be the ideal* system for somewhere like Reddit, too. * Defining "ideal" as what drives high quality discourse, not what drives engagement.

donpark 6mo ago

Let users flag toxic users. Use the resulting toxicity score to filter out messages based on each reader’s toxicity tolerance level. Both the toxicity score and the tolerance level are driven by user flagging, with score decay over time to account for improved behavior.

kazinator 6mo ago

You identify what it is that they are doing that is hurting the conversation and articulate it into a written guideline. Why, examples of how to do this can be found in the guidelines for this very HackerNews site!