In the early years of this blog a troll was a regular commenter. He went by the nom de blog of The Catholic Anarchist. He could sometimes be witty and I occasionally enjoyed verbal fencing with him. However, his act became tiresome, with post threads often devolving into everyone against him. In the first major banning of the blog he was given his walking papers. I have described banning someone from a blog like being mouthed by an elderly, and toothless, poodle. It really doesn’t hurt, it is a bit embarrassing and it is a definite signal that it is time to remove yourself from the poodle’s turf. This blog is for seekers after truth and those who like to debate. It is not a place of flame wars for those who live for disagreement for the sake of disagreement or those with egos as large as Texas who just have to show that they are the smartest denizens of the comboxes. Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts recalls his dealing with trolls during his Babylonian Captivity at Patheos the Pathetic:
Three Amigos, Internet Trolls and the death of freedom
Huh? What? That’s the sort of headline I write that can only make sense to me. So let me ‘splain.
Well, let’s start with my blogpost title. Back during my purgatory at the Patheos site, I learned all about internet trolls. I’m sure I had seen a few in my time before that, but since at Patheos we were expected to keep watch on each others’ blogs, I had plenty identity the trolls on my site and what I should do about it. One incident leapt to mind the other day when I saw an advertisement for the old 1980s comedy The Three Amigos, and it got me thinking of a couple others and the subject at hand.One frequent troll at Patheos commented under the name Andre B. He wasn’t your typical troll. He was obviously smart, and when he wasn’t trolling he had interesting things to say. But when he trolled, he trolled. I had several readers tell me over the year that he had really nailed them. They thought he was an insightful, good faith commenter, and he ended up being a troll! One once wrote in capital letters he was so frustrated. And Andre could frustrate. It was nothing to see him gobble up hundreds of comments as people took a long time to figure out they were being trolled by him.Like all trolls, the point is to hijack debate, derail conversations, and argue ad nauseum to no ultimate point. So once I posted on something I remembered back when I was in college. It was an early example I witnessed of ‘water cooler talk’ on a news cast after a previous night’s television program. Not that I had never experienced talking about television programs. But this was different because not only did people talk about it the next day, but I actually saw it discussed on the news. This was in the 80s before news broadcasts were as much about promoting pop culture agendas and corporate interestse as talking about news.
The topic involved an episode of Johnny Carson. Carson had Chevy Chase on as he was touring about, promoting his latest movie The Three Amigos. Carson also had film critics Siskel and Ebert on. At one point Carson asked them what were the best and worst movies they had seen recently. Roger Ebert, in keeping with his somewhat abrasive personality, said the worst movie he had seen recently was The Three Amigos. The audience gasped. And then Carson did something very un-Carson. He rebuked Ebert. He said if he had known that would be the answer, he wouldn’t have asked the question.
Anyone who grew up with Carson or had spent any time watching him knew that was the equivalent of Carson standing up and smacking Ebert with a medieval mace. I can’t remember the context, but I posted about that at Patheos. Andre, ever the troll, stepped up to inform me how wrong I was. He found the clip on Youtube and, to him, it was a love fest. Nothing to see at all. Respect and love and admiration from Carson. Ebert and Carson a love story. I was obviously wrong.
I said he was nuts, that Carson was not only upset, but it was talked about the next day. They even mentioned it on the morning news! And then Andre said something he had said before. He said he couldn’t trust my memory. I was possibly lying. Or maybe mistaken. But my recollection was entirely irrelevant. I became frustrated because I remembered the talk that occurred the next day. It’s just one of those things in a person’s life that makes an impression. I had watched Carson for years. Everyone could tell he was unhappy. Carson was the king of lifting people up, but on the rarest of occasions, he would put people in their place, and this was such an occasion.
By his own admission, Andre is a millennial. At best he would have been an infant or young child around this time, if he had been born at all. How could he tell me what went on when there is no way he could have experienced any of it?
And then I got to thinking of other trolls I bumped into at my time on Patheos. Another was a fellow named Rob Lot (IIRC). Rob’s shtick was very simple. The past is irrelevant. Bring up what Democrats said in the past or that the Left had once dismissed Bill Clinton’s behavior as the irrelevant part of his personal morals, and I was constantly told it was of no value. Bring up what LGBTQ activists promised would never happen about punishing people over gay marriage, and again it’s the past. It doesn’t matter. That was almost always his response to the references about the past or history in general.
Another individual commented under the name ‘Neko.’ She was a regular on M. Shea’s blog. I believe she stopped by mine a couple times. Once she made a claim about religious people being religious because that’s what they’ve been told by mommy and daddy. I responded that not only was I quite liberal in my youth, I was also an agnostic. I became a Christian as an adult, having been seeking the Truth for quite a few years.
Not to be dismayed, she fired back that I was a boldfaced liar. I was never an agnostic, nor was I a liberal. What? I told her I had no reason to doubt she was a mother or an atheist. Why so difficult accepting my testimony? Who would call someone a liar on the internet when they’re merely posting about themselves? That would be like calling me a liar for saying I like pepperoni on my pizzas. But she stuck to it, and what’s more, when I pushed back at her, other readers got – on me, rather than her for calling me a liar.
All of this came to my mind when I saw that advertisement. And it got me to thinking, as I am wont to do. In each of these cases, we have things that I’ve discovered are quite common in modern (postmodern) discourse. Especially on the internet, but I wonder how exclusively on the internet. In each case an appeal is made to the past, and in each case in different ways, the appeal is smacked down.
In one case, I’m told by someone who wasn’t there that just because I was there is irrelevant. I am told by another that the past itself is entirely irrelevant. And when all else fails, a third just called me a liar when my own personal experience didn’t conform to her broad stereotypes.
Go here to read the rest. A healthy blog is like a growing plant and trolls are like insects that attack the plant. Toy with trolls if you wish, but remove them quickly. Let them get out of hand and your blog is quickly one with Nineveh and Tyre. My thoughts from 2012 which still govern how I approach moderation and banning:
TAC is a group blog and each contributor normally makes moderation and banning decisions in regard to their own threads. When the blog started four years ago I was initially somewhat hesitant to use either moderation or banning but that has changed over the years. Here is some explanation of my current policies regarding both.
Moderation is automatically applied to anyone who has never left a comment at the blog. This of course is a mechanism to prevent drive by trolls from launching a pure insult comment. After the initial comment is approved the commenter is taken off moderation and may post freely.
What gets someone placed on moderation?
Direct insults aimed at another commenter. I normally allow some lee-way if a commenter is directing an insult at me, at least if it is witty, although my patience tends to be limited.
Outrageous comments. (Yes, T.Shaw I am looking at you!) These include threatening to shoot anyone, a comment filled with vulgarities, etc. I have T.Shaw on permanent moderation in this category, although I suspect he rather likes it as it enhances his bad boy of the blog image. Happy to oblige T.Shaw. (T. Shaw is not on permanent moderation currently. For me moderation and banning are like death in comic books. They rarely are forever.)
Anti-Catholic bigotry. This blog was not set up to give anti-Catholics a forum.
Riding a hobby-horse too frequently. Some commenters will insist upon bringing every discussion around to their hobby-horse issue. Do that too frequently and moderation awaits.
Getting on Don’s nerves. I blog for fun, and commenters who take the fun away will find themselves in moderation.
This is not a comprehensive list, but the above are the major categories.
Banning from the site occurs in the following situations.
Drive by trolls. Normally you do not get to see the comments and I simply ban the authors as a matter of course.
Anti-Catholic bigots. Banning is for those who either do not take the hint from a stay in moderation, or who make a comment so vilely anti-Catholic that it is a waste of time keeping them around.
Anti-Semites and Anti-Blacks. I do not wish to keep them from their Klan rally.
Disturbed individuals. If a comment indicates to my untrained eye that someone is mentally disturbed they will be banned, mostly since taking verbal potshots at a deranged individual is not sporting.
Conspiracy mongers. If you are certain that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateralists, the Cattle Mutilators or (insert name of group) are behind the scenes pulling the strings, we will not keep you from sharing your insight on other sites.
Being a persistent pest. Longtime readers may recall the Catholic Anarchist who was banned after a year’s attempt at turning every thread into a fight between him and all and sundry. That got old fast and it was a violation of the first commandment of blogging: Thou Shalt Not Bore!
Violating the rules against acting crazy on the internet. Go here to read this fine post by Paul Zummo to read the rules.
Not a comprehensive list of the factors I take into consideration when banning someone, but most of them. I hope that no one I ban takes it personally or to heart. Banning from a blog to my mind is equivalent to being gummed by an elderly toothless poodle who is attempting to tell you that your presence is no longer desired on her turf. It doesn’t really hurt, but it is time to move on!
Banning and moderation help me prune the comboxes to make them more entertaining to our readers. To me, the comboxes are just as important as my posts, and I pay close attention to the comments as a result.
We have a great stable of regular commenters at TAC. I usually find your comments insightful, frequently witty and sometimes challenging. You have helped make this blog the success it is, and I thank you from the bottom of my cold lawyer’s heart!
I like it, Donald, that you consider comments an essential part of your blog. Comments let us know about the company we keep, help us form our thoughts and act as a safety valve on our emotions. Please keep up your great work here—and elsewhere.
Thank you Michael. By nature I like dialogues rather than monologues.
Don, looking at your list of no-no’s, I can think of comments I could write that might get me banned…and might not be far from what I think… Shall i try it??? hmmm…. but, by and large, the list is admirable.
Co-bloggers are immune from moderation and banning Bob, which has probably worked to my advantage on occasion!
I miss quite a few people who’ve given up providing content or commentary here over the years. Was ‘Catholic Anarchist’ the Vox Nova guy from Morgantown, or someone else?
Vox Nova had quite a mess of posters, most of them with some sort of connection to the Catholic academy (graduate students or quondam graduate students). Last I checked, they’d all departed and passed the brand on to a collection of four people at Patheticos.
I’ve had a suspicion for some time that some commenters are subscribers to sorosphere listservs and organized into teams to monitor and harass particular bloggers. Jonathan Turley has had several such characters over the years; now and again his moderator will ban one. Ditto Ann Althouse. Crisis used to get inundated whenever the topic of homosexuality came up; handles you’d never seen before and would never see again.
I’ve been banned from a half-dozen venues over the years subsequent to touching some third rail. The ‘third rail’ is commonly sticking a stiletto into the moderator’s pet. The pet may be a regular commenter or some other personage. (Rod Dreher, to take one example, had two – Damon Linker was one and a commenter who signed himself ‘Siaralys Jenkins’ was another). I was banned from a liberal blog for not subscribing to the inane loyalty oath they abruptly insisted everyone sign. I was banned from another blog for telling the moderator – a prosecutor in Los Angeles – that if he wanted to study economics, watching videos by Thos. Woods was not the way to do it. Got banned from another blog for telling the crank anti-semites in the comment boxes that they were crank anti-semites (since the publication in question is not an anti-semitic publication, I was quite dumbfounded that they’d extended this blanket of protection to one loon babbling about ‘Red Shield’ and another who kept insisting that Chinese economic development was consequent to a conspiracy of western politicians and financiers).
‘Catholic Anarchist’ the Vox Nova guy
The same.
Thanks, Mac
Your comments section is excellent. Others I see often are “crazy town.”
When I read (past tense) newspapers, the letters were always a big part of it.
If I can’t act crazy on the net . . .
I think I’ve been a good boy for some time, now. It ain’t easy being me – a 70 year old going on 17.
You are one of the blog’s treasures T. Shaw!
Keeping the trolls on a tight leash is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the comments section will turn into a cesspool of profanity, a fruitless free-for-all or the reign of He Who Can Argue for Seven Hours About Something Nobody Cares About. When I started my blog, ten or twelve years ago, I tried to answer every comment. It seemed the polite thing to do. Over the years I learnt that a) some people are not quite all right in the head, b) some people (sometimes the same people) are simply obnoxious, and c) not banning some trolls required me to spend hours a day answering them, even though I knew they wouldn’t read the answer, but only skim it to find something more to rage about. No more. Let them troll to their heart’s content somewhere else.
The non-troll commenters (I hope I am in that category) appreciate the moderation and the effort needed to moderate.
Re-reading my comment I am worried I gave the wrong impression. I was not talking about Mr. Shaw, of course. I was referring to commenters that do nothing but hijack the comments section and contribute nothing of value to the discussion. Mr. Shaw is certainly not one of them.
relieved Joke comment: whoo, in under the line!
Non-joke comment, I was afraid that I was going to have to do the “no, not all sins that annoy you were birthed post 1980, I’ve got an uncle and a cousin who were both trained in them to be activists in college.” Boomer and X, of course.
Recognizing the connection to post-modernism is a good catch; I don’t know of the philosophy was originally that way, but currently it functions as a sort of logic version of tribalism. All things are judged by their utility to The Tribe. So folks can say things like “multi-racial whiteness” and not even blush.
Bruno-
if banning isn’t an option, you can deal with trolls by strictly sticking to the original topic, quoting their shifting arguments back at them, and when they lie or try to red herring so obviously that you are sure no neutral observer would be misled, tell them so and ignore them.
What they WANT, generally, is the ability to say what they wish without being refuted. It really, really pisses them off when you don’t then act like they’re dangerous, they’re just an obnoxious twit who has to be reminded that no, that claim was refuted, and here’s the link to the last time you couldn’t defend it.
Oh, I’ve been banned, that I can remember, once.
It was actually quite innocent– someone used a mangled quote out of context, and I was curious, so I tracked down the original.
And shared it, since they’d given the author’s name, and a basic source, and I think it was on Guttenberg or a similar, reputable, free source.
And there was something about the whole quote that completely inverted their interpretation of the quote, which was in fairness a minor point in the over-all argument…. but that was Evil.
Don, in my view you and your co-bloggers are first class all the way, as are the regular commenters. I come here first every day when it’s blog time and look forward to the posts and the comments. Thanks to all. I have a feeling we’re going to need each other a bit more in the near future.
Foxfier, that is a good strategy for commenters, but, in my opinion, not a good strategy for moderators/blog owners. Usually, commenters don’t realize it, but trolls are often very persistent and malicious. If you don’t answer them, they will create other identities and have discussions with themselves under the guise of those other identities. They often pretend they are Catholic when they are not or say false things intentionally and then they pretend they did not know they were falsehoods. They complain loudly about imaginary offenses, trying to lure clueless commenters into sympathizing with them. If you ban them, they will return under another name. If you ban their IP, they will change it. If you delete their comments, they will send emails complaining (and if you make the mistake of answering one of them, they will send you hundreds more). If you simply delete everything from them, they will thrash you in other blogs and accuse you of everything under the sun.
I’m inventing nothing. These are all things I’ve seen and suffered. And mine is a blog on Catholic matters. I shudder to think how things must be like in political blogs, for example.
The Internet is a great invention, but it does tend to attract a fair amount of people that are either a little crazy or extremely obnoxious or both. Persistent moderation work is needed to preserve the good and ban the craziness, rudeness, unpleasantness, etc. (or at least reduce them to bearable levels).
Ah, the Catholic Anarchist. He marinated in jerk sauce too much for his own good, but he was genuine. Way better than a couple of the puffed-up would-be intellectuals who held court there.
Quite right Dale. I actually had some, well concealed I admit, fondness for him, but he was becoming too much of a distraction on the blog.
sympathizes with Bruno
Have seen it.
Am pretty sure it’s legitimately a diagnosable personality disorder, for the most extreme– but that doesn’t undo the harm they do.
I’ve been worried that I’ve been sowing too much discontent around here since I returned. I’ve been thankful for Don not using his whip hand. If I can make it another half-hour without getting banned, I’ll be able to fit right in on the “what do we think of our president” conversations, so that part will be a relief.
I enjoy this blog and the variety of topics that are posted. Read it daily. The posts and comments with links force me to look up historical, religious, scientific and biographical references. Blogmeister Don often scoops the news before it’s aired/printed elsewhere.
T-A-C…Not PC, conservative politically, pro-life, traditional catholicism, sometimes pithy, satire, humor, music and prayer – what’s not to like? Oh and Pro America. That is not to say that I don’t enjoy comments from citizens or residents from other countries. When I don’t see commentary for awhile from frequent commenters I’m concerned for them, hoping they are okay.
I’ve been worried that I’ve been sowing too much discontent around here since I returned
Not at all Pinky. You are a commenter who stirs comments which I like.
I have an interesting (i think) sites from which i have been banned. They are Huffington Post, National Review and LifeSite News.
I do not insult. I do not use vulgar or obscene speech. I do not insult or disparage.
Of course, i no longer waste my time at these sites.
Don, in that case, let me give you a man’s opinion about how women should dress for church….
I was banned from Television Without Pity for suggesting that not every TV character is gay.
Don, in that case, let me give you a man’s opinion about how women should dress for church….
🙂
Let’s stick with a much less controversial topic Pinky like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
I was once banned from a forum for “upvoting moderator posts in a threatening manner.”
Does Mary De Voe not comment any more? I miss her.
Don, are you going to add a permanent link to this post from your home page?
BTW, why does the home page sometimes revert to July 3, 2020?
Eddie Too, the only site I was ever banned from was LifeSiteNews. I was guilty (too many posts), I took it like a man, and I have no hard feelings – in fact I would give them money if I had any. You too Don.
BTW, why does the home page sometimes revert to July 3, 2020?
We transitioned to a new server at that time. Haven’t a clue why this is still occurring.
Don, are you going to add a permanent link to this post from your home page?
I might. Let me think about it.
“BTW, why does the home page sometimes revert to July 3, 2020?
We transitioned to a new server at that time. Haven’t a clue why this is still occurring.”
I noticed that too, but thought it was some quirk of my particular computer device.
““BTW, why does the home page sometimes revert to July 3, 2020?”
It depends on whether you put the www in the address or not. The new address does not have the www, but your computer might suggest you the old one (which is the same as the new one, but with www).
Thanks Bruno, that’s the answer! Sometimes I use the links in the morning email, and it works. Sometimes I use a bookmark and it doesn’t. Fix the bookmark and it goes away.
The Catholic Teacher,
I wonder how Mary De Voe is? Thank you for mentioning it. I had not noticed.
Nice list. I am curious about how you define conspiracy mongers these days. I maintain that I never was a conspiracy theorist until the recent election year and after. But some of the events have made me think like a person I would originally thought was a kook. Have you lowered your own threshold on what you deem “conspiracy theories”?
Have you lowered your own threshold on what you deem “conspiracy theories”?
No I have not. A conspiracy theory has virtually no evidence to support it. Q, for example, is a conspiracy theory. On the other hand it is not a conspiracy theory that Biden is losing his faculties. Evidence is the way that the wheat and the chaff is sorted when it comes to what is a conspiracy theory.
Ok. Thanks. What I wonder then is where does the idea of a stolen election come in. There seems to be evidence published but no court would hear it and people say Trump didn’t have the goods. So would you put “the election was stolen” into the category of “conspiracy theory”? Why or why not?v
That not a single court went ‘this is bugnuts, and here we will demonstrate it in court,” — even in cases of video evidence of what we’ll charitably call problems, etc– would suggest that there is an unknown and very important factor.
Given that we have live-stream evidence of folks’ children being doxed as they are called “racists,” which given the last year makes them licit targets for threats, abuse, and even death, the most likely reason is that people are scare of the terrorists who have been burning down cities all summer.
So would you put “the election was stolen” into the category of “conspiracy theory”? Why or why not?v
You can reason inductively to demonstrate that there was considerable fraud. Much of it is circumstantial, but there is also direct evidence as well. Conspiracy theorists (e.g. Jim Garrison) tend to manufacture scenarios and then look for evidentiary bits to justify them. Others cite factoids of obscure origin, or actual facts which do not demonstrate what they purport to demonstrate.
Well, about the courts. I’ve been involved in a couple of election lawsuits in my time. The notion that an aggrieved candidate lacks standing is innovative.