Your boards' policy for your staff : Dealing with Abusive Users

[Floris]

What's your policy about resolving user to user disputes, trollers and flamers, what do you tell your moderators on how to deal with this.

If you could share your insight, others might be able to use it, or you could get some suggestions for your own site again.

On my own sites I am quite strict: Behave or die trying. Meaning if you misbehave we tell you that you are, and request you (or rather tell you) to read our forum rules before posting again. If the request is ignored we ban the user. Users who are regulars however, especially long term users receive a PM explaining we would hate removing their privilege to access the forums, so to please behave (this is their leeway). Users who then personally contact us via email with an apology with a good argument, are given a second chance.

Disputes should be dealt with in private, users should not misbehave on the forum, especially if they're unreasonable.

[jmwking]

We have a moderately sized board: about 12,000 posts a month. We have a fairly comprehensive set of posting guidelines, written to give our mods a bit of leeway. We use the infractions system extensively, with infractions ranging from instant, permanent banning through to minimal infractions that expire in two weeks. We have a mod-only board where we discuss our most troublesome posters.

Spamming is an instant, permanent ban. Scalping tickets is a 1 month ban (it's a sports board). Some posters we keep on a very short leash. Some get a bit more leeway - depending on posting history.

It's the posters who contribute a lot, but frequently test the limits, that give us the most trouble. They generate conversations as well as controversy, and frequently go overboard. Some of them just want to be contrarian for the fun of it. Some just like to rant.

It generally works to keep a civilized atmosphere on most of the board.

However, we have an off-topic public policy board that gets toxic (moreso now during the election). That one has been impossible to keep civilized lately.

I'm not sure what to do with it. We've tried handing out infractions like candy, but it doesn't slow them down much - they're too passionate. We've banned a bunch of them, but new ones take their places and the tone doesn't change. That's by far my biggest challenge these days.

I've contemplated a system where reputation would ration posts per forum, such that public (and moderator) approbation or condemnation would lead to more or fewer posts allowed - community self-regulation. A poster would need to think beyond himself before posting. If such a thing exists, I haven't seen it. If it could be created, would it actually work or would posters be able to game the system to easily?

-jk

[JamesAB]

Spammers get an instant ban.

New members as well as regular users will get a polite warning from one of the moderators if they are breaking the rules. The rules are numbered and spelled out clearly, so the moderators can simply link to and/or copy-and-paste the specific rule that was broken when they are sending a PM.

If someone continues to break the rules, we either ban them or more commonly we simply move them to a usergroup with fewer priveledges so they are still allowed to view the forums but are no longer allowed to post or use the PM system. This second option, tends to work better than a complete ban, because the user is less likely to simply register a new username and start (trouble) all over again.

Thanks,
James

[Mary303]

Once upon a time ... I give this whole story in case it's helpful to forum admins who would like to tighten moderating but aren't sure what the member reaction will be.

The context is that in addition to the forum topic we have a good deal of off-topic discussion of real life. Including the recent election, personal issues, news items ... The off-topic section is the most popular and it has kept the forum addictive and vital. It's a major reason for the forum's success. But yes sometimes people get worked up over these topics. For example, recently there was a major controversy when a member posted their decision to euthanize an un-trainable, aggressive but medically sound pet. You can imagine.

My forum has evolved in our approach to the issue of member behavior. Prior to my ownership (I was a regular member) there was a lot of emphasis on allowing people to "express themselves." There were rules on no name-calling or personal attacks, but they weren't really enforced. It was hoped that grown-ups would behave like grown-ups.

In the early years most people were rational and civil and didn't need moderating, but those who were more unpleasant were poisoning the forum for the well-behaved majority. There were a few people of an age to know better who made a sport of trolling and baiting, and others who simply habitually violated the rules on cussing and posting personal info about others and complained if it was pointed out.

When I stepped in as the new owner I asked the members what they wanted from management. The members said plainly that they did not need a nanny keeping everyone polite. They wanted to hold vigorous, pointed discussions, even arguments, as long as some civility was maintained. But they wanted an end to trolling and baiting.

To help support a change in policy to actually enforcing the rules, I ran an all-member poll with the following choices: (these may not be exact)
(1) No moderating at all
(2) Only the most egregious cussing and bigotry moderated through requests not to do it again
(3) All rules violations get a mod note - repeated violations can lead to banning - but otherwise arguments and pointed discussions allowed to run their course
(4) Big Brother / Big Mother keeps everyone nice and on point

The membership voted I think it was 75+% for (3.) There were only a few votes each for (1) and (4.)

The few that wanted to retain their freedom to troll, bait and harrass took very badly to hearing from moderators. Several left after posting that the board was going to hell. (I'm happy to say many members replied their disagreement and gave a wave goodby.) A couple of hangers-on dedicated themselves to testing the management. Abusive behavior toward management was added to their list of violations, moving them closer to banishment. A very few finally got a short board owner note "The next time we get a rules violation or a complaint you are out." Some survived and some did not. At least one survivor has completely changed her communications and is now one of our most interesting members.

(One moderator had a one sentence reply to all swearing in replies to mod notes: "Do not swear at me." End of note. It actually works.)

I must add one more step in this chain of events. Before enacting the policy change and going to the mat with the trolls I asked each mod if they were comfortable doing so. Several opted out of behavior management, and they are dedicated to other things like thread-moves. I brought in 3 new mods who showed they supported the rules, had spine to disagree with others, and were unfailingly civil in all circumstances. People who were secure and could not be rattled into temper. All mods were encouraged to discuss any actions with the other mods beforehand if they felt they needed wisdom and support. See the end of this post for setting member expectations of slow but inevitable mod responses.

The vast majority of the members took a little time to gain confidence in the moderators such that they did not take matters into their own hands any longer. But now they have learned that confidence is merited they are a happy and dedicated membership. Several members that had quit in disgust with all the trolling have since returned. New members are more likely to stick with the forum.


The board now rarely has the thread blow-ups that used to be a weekly event. We respond to all complaints about other members. Sometimes there is a moderating action, sometimes there is an explanation to the complainer why it isn't moderate-able, but often with a sympathetic "I know it's annoying, however ... "

It's very important that complaining members feel the moderators listen to and respect what they have to say to keep them copacetic with whatever the outcome is.

We have a Problem Children sub-forum in Management for records of repeat offenders. We do use Infractions. We would rather rehabilitate than ban a member, but we definitely ban those who don't reform. Flat refusal to respond to mod direction can result in banning after one or two warnings. Attacking other members is banned forthwith. Anyone who is currently posting 'out of control' can be immediately suspended without warning until the management team decides next steps. Any mod can suspend, including those who don't moderate behavior. We do mentor a few temperamental characters who we believe are trying with a good heart, but not forever. Because serious behavior is rare and each case is unique, we decide case by case, and reference previous actions on other members.

We have the option for limiting privileges and temporary suspensions. We almost never use them, people usually shape up without the necessity. We are not about punishment, we are about a forum running well.

The following caveat is repeated and posted in the FAQ and remarks and everywhere to set member expectations:
- Mods are not online at all times. We do not have nor should we need a moderator swat team for immediate interventions.
- Mods do not read every thread and post and will not see all issues. Member reports are an important part of rules enforcement.
- Mods will act on rules violations when they see them.
- Members should report any post they think is a problem and refrain from any further action of their own.
- Moderators will act in time, and will respond to the reporter with general info on the action. Reported posts are reviewed and the more serious the issue the more likely action is to be delayed to get the wisdom of multiple moderators as they are available. (This has been invaluable.)
- Rarely a serious ongoing issue will result in an immediate suspension while mods review next steps.

We almost never have spammers - manual final step to member approval screens spambots. If a "real person" member is caught pm'ing spam they loose their pm privileges. Has rarely come up.

[bigwater]

We rarely have issues with abusive members, although it's not a big board (2,000 active members, 11,000 threads, 150,000 posts), but we have a means of dealing with member disputes in the form of a "mosh pit" which is a free for all forum we throw argumentative threads in and just let the members fight it out. Amazingly enough many people who would have been sworn enemies initially come out of the mosh pit as forged friends.

Other than that, our rules are simple. Respect each other in the open board. There's no censoring of posts, and surprisingly little need for it. People just sort of understand that if they get out of hand they'll end up in the mosh pit where they'll be torn to bits by somebody a little bit wittier than they are.

For the occasional troll we use the Miserable User mod to just make the entire forum experience painful on them. We generally don't use the infraction system at all for anything other than banning the rare spammer that slips through the registration system.

[Mary303]

We rarely have issues with abusive members, although it's not a big board (2,000 active members, 11,000 threads, 150,000 posts), but we have a means of dealing with member disputes in the form of a "mosh pit" which is a free for all forum we throw argumentative threads in and just let the members fight it out. Amazingly enough many people who would have been sworn enemies initially come out of the mosh pit as forged friends.

Other than that, our rules are simple. Respect each other in the open board. There's no censoring of posts, and surprisingly little need for it. People just sort of understand that if they get out of hand they'll end up in the mosh pit where they'll be torn to bits by somebody a little bit wittier than they are.

For the occasional troll we use the Miserable User mod to just make the entire forum experience painful on them. We generally don't use the infraction system at all for anything other than banning the rare spammer that slips through the registration system.Great ideas! I hope you don't mind, I'm going to run all this by my own management team. I rather think some of our members would love the 'mosh pit' concept. And anyone who doesn't want to tear or be torn could just opt out of 'mosh pit' threads. If a user does wade in, don't come crying to us, as it were. I assume that's how it is working in your forum?

I would like to hear more about your Miserable User mod - specifically what do they do, to who, and when.

My management team has rather decided that truly miserable users are too much of a drag on the forum, mods and membership, and should get an ultimatum. We have done Mentoring for a few problem children. It's been successful in some cases, those are now interesting users with their differently flavored opinions. But in about half the cases we just learned that we couldn't fix on an internet forum the core reasons they got themselves in such difficulties in the first place.

[RHarbison]

The boards I run tend to be less controversial topics, like gardening, but it's amazing what folks can find to get worked up about.

We've got an "Off-topic topic" I think they're essential. The rules there are copied from many a bartender, no religion and no politics. Period... By eliminating those topics, we eliminate 95% of the friction.

Spammers are nuked of course, and the occasional troll is warned and then banned if nneded.

[bigwater]

Great ideas! I hope you don't mind, I'm going to run all this by my own management team. I rather think some of our members would love the 'mosh pit' concept. And anyone who doesn't want to tear or be torn could just opt out of 'mosh pit' threads. If a user does wade in, don't come crying to us, as it were. I assume that's how it is working in your forum?

Why would I mind? We're all here to help each other make the best, right?

Yeah, it's basically an open forum that is visible to registered members only, not to guests or bots, where we toss posts that get out of hand. The particular forum I'm referencing here is an artists site, and a lot of these folks are temperamental and just a little bit, shall I say, uppity. The general rules say that if you want to get pi$$y with another member, take it to the mosh pit, or it will be taken there for you. It works out great.

We also have a private, hidden forum that is opt-in, by request only... pm an administrator to ask for access for nude and erotic content. There are a lot of artists who specialize in painting nudes, and a lot of people who are offended by nudes, so to keep a balance we have a forum where you have to specifically request to be there, and then you aren't allowed to complain about the content (or you end up in the mosh pit :) ).


I would like to hear more about your Miserable User mod - specifically what do they do, to who, and when.
Do a search on miserable user over at vbulletin.org. It's basically a script that when applied to a user introduces lags on searches and posting. So the user hits "new posts", and it may take 2 minutes for a result set to be returned, or they go to post a new thread, and three minutes later they're still looking at a "your message is being posted" screen. It just makes navigation of the board intollerable. It's better than banning a user, because they just think the board is crappy slow, so they end up abandoning the board instead of re-registering as a new user and continuing their crap. It's sort of a surrepticious way to get users to ban themselves.



My management team has rather decided that truly miserable users are too much of a drag on the forum, mods and membership, and should get an ultimatum. We have done Mentoring for a few problem children. It's been successful in some cases, those are now interesting users with their differently flavored opinions. But in about half the cases we just learned that we couldn't fix on an internet forum the core reasons they got themselves in such difficulties in the first place.

Yeah, well the philosophies run from the liberal to the conservative, and I run boards at both end of the spectrum... but my belief is that you keep your users within the confines of what you are willing to tolerate, and you use the tools at your disposal to do that. Miserable User, the Mosh Pit, opt in forums for questionable content, all add to the "satisfaction" for me as an administrator in one form or another on all the forums I run... and I must add, help keep the rest of staff sane as well. I can't honestly say that I came up with these ideas by myself. Staff had a lot of input on these ideas... but that's a whole 'nuther concept... picking quality staff. The one thing that I won't do on any of my sites is openly censor people. It drives people away in droves. I'll toss them in the mosh pit, or I'll slap the miserable user hack on them, but I'm not going to censor what they have to say.


The boards I run tend to be less controversial topics, like gardening, but it's amazing what folks can find to get worked up about.

LOL. Anybody can get worked up about anything. A UPS delivery being late by an hour can set a user off on a tirade. This is the internet. People feel like they own it, and they can take out their irrational feelings out on everybody else, because *they can*.


We've got an "Off-topic topic" I think they're essential. The rules there are copied from many a bartender, no religion and no politics. Period... By eliminating those topics, we eliminate 95% of the friction.
Well I sort of disagree in this, in that I think that people should be able to talk about whatever they want to talk about without fear of censorship, however the restrictions that I put in place make the places self censoring. You don't want to get into a battle? You keep yourself out of the mosh pit. You don't want to see controversial material? You don't opt in to the controversal forums. It's sort of self governing, and you'd be amazed at how well it works to keep the boards on topic.


Spammers are nuked of course, and the occasional troll is warned and then banned if nneded. Yes, spammers are permanently banned without prejudice, but trolls are handled with the previously mentioned miserable user hack. I've found that trolls are relentless if you start warning them or giving them infractions. Just make their forum experience so painful that they don't want to stick around, and they'll be gone on their own in short order.

[RHarbison]

Well I sort of disagree in this, in that I think that people should be able to talk about whatever they want to talk about without fear of censorship, however the restrictions that I put in place make the places self censoring. You don't want to get into a battle? You keep yourself out of the mosh pit. You don't want to see controversial material? You don't opt in to the controversal forums. It's sort of self governing, and you'd be amazed at how well it works to keep the boards on topic.

What?!? You disagree with me... WHY YOU... ;)

Obviously there are plenty of ways to handle it. However, here's my feeling on the matter. Religion and politics are two subjects that A) tend to divide folks into factions and B) rarely if ever will one person manage to convince another to change their beliefs.

Since I strongly believe that a sense of community is very important, by choosing to avoid the topics that frequently divide the members, it helps keep things harmonious.

You've got a different approach, and it works, so that's all that matters.

[Mary303]

We also have a private, hidden forum that is opt-in, by request only... pm an administrator to ask for access for nude and erotic content.
We have an opt-in forum that is basically for cussing - it's the only forum where language is not moderated. Profanity, like nudes, is something some people view as benign and others as anathema. Our standard outside the opt-in forum is that we do not moderate "light swearing" (you can say "****" in a general forum post) but you can't use the "f" word and a few other expressions. Except in the one forum. The opt-in forum is very popular with some people, others don't use it at all.


The one thing that I won't do on any of my sites is openly censor people. It drives people away in droves.
On my site our position is that we do not sensor opinions, just behavior. They can and do discuss religion and politics, vigorously. The other potentially explosive topic seems to be animals, wild and pets. The rules are no name-calling or personal attacks (the term character assassination probably applies to that.) It is not a rule but we strongly coach not expecting other people to change their mind. If one can't be tolerant and respectful of others with different views, we strongly adviise changing the channel before they find themselves in difficulties with management.

One thing we explicitly state is not against the rules is rudeness. We also explicitly state that people should expect to be offended at times, we don't moderate those complaints (but do explain why not so the complainer won't bother in future.)

We have one rule that is rarely an issue but when it is it can be a management challenge. No bigotry. But when is it bigotry and when is it one's opinion? Basically any blanket statement about a an entire group of people gets a strong warning not to do that again.

Mine is a hobby forum with mostly lifetime hobbyists. We have a rule about no discussing any other hobbyists, board member or not. There are certain narrowly-constructed rules-defined exceptions, in those cases the other hobbyist must be contacted and invited to state their side of things (but if they don't that doesn't stop the conversation.) But members can (and do) say anything they like about non-hobbyists, celebrities, politicians, etc.

One thing I really like about the mosh pit idea is that it's very annoying to people who are on topic in a thread when two or four members start sniping each other, no longer on the thread topic, without breaking any rules. Since I have not yet thought of a way to post a mirror in a thread where this is happening, taking their discussion elsewhere would be a relief to all. And as you say it might get people to THINK before hitting the post button if what they want to argue about might be done in a new thread.

Oh a last rule ... an idea from the previous management that has been a stroke of genius. We rarely ever delete a post, even if it's a rules violation. Mods edit in a mod note explaining why it's a rules violation - and leave it on display till the end of time. We do edit out language and personal info about other people, leave the rest. People have begged us to delete after they've had second thoughts about what they did. But our policy is "think first and then post, because it's going to be on public view for a long time." We've found that if a rules violation is deleted some people just barge on with the attitude that the mods will clean up their messes. When their mess is left on display they rarely do it again.


I'll toss them in the mosh pit, or I'll slap the miserable user hack on them, but I'm not going to censor what they have to say.
My one concern with affecting forum performance just for them is the potential for bad rep for forum performance in the hobby generally. The miserable users sometimes have stature and friends in the hobby (because they don't behave as miserably in person as they will from behind a screen) and they all enjoy gossiping about hobby forums.



It's better than banning a user, because they just think the board is crappy slow, so they end up abandoning the board instead of re-registering as a new user and continuing their crap. It's sort of a surrepticious way to get users to ban themselves.
Re-registering has been a difficulty, as has talking a member in good standing into letting them use that id. We have caught several sneaking back in. Basically there is no lifetime ban unless they are caught sneaking in. Otherwise there is a good possibility for redemption after they take a long break (length depending on the crime) to work on attitude adjustment. (And most do change their attitude.) Most would rather post under their own name.

Naturally we don't catch them all ... but it is interesting how other members as well as mods suss sneakers out, not just on technical identification but on writing style. (We have very few banned people.)



Yeah, well the philosophies run from the liberal to the conservative, and I run boards at both end of the spectrum... but my belief is that you keep your users within the confines of what you are willing to tolerate, and you use the tools at your disposal to do that. Miserable User, the Mosh Pit, opt in forums for questionable content, all add to the "satisfaction" for me as an administrator in one form or another on all the forums I run... and I must add, help keep the rest of staff sane as well.
I agree. The members find our rules easy to follow, most never have to think about them at all. Holding the line on the few has greatly reduced the constant disruption and angst from an earlier period when rules were unevenly enforced and even viewed as voluntary. There are a very few people who will always sink to the lowest tolerated level of behavior. They regulate themselves when they know they'll be called out.



LOL. Anybody can get worked up about anything. A UPS delivery being late by an hour can set a user off on a tirade. This is the internet. People feel like they own it, and they can take out their irrational feelings out on everybody else, because *they can*.We repeatedly people that if they choose to post any personal information they must be prepared for responses that are not supportive. For controversy they didn't count on. The forum is not their own den, it's an auditorium.



I've found that trolls are relentless if you start warning them or giving them infractions. Just make their forum experience so painful that they don't want to stick around, and they'll be gone on their own in short order.
Our experience has evolved such that when we identify a real troll, even those that are good at staying just inside the rules, it's important to act sooner rather than later, and decisively. Some members will start avoiding the forum if they don't want to deal with the troll. First the troll gets a very clear note that they need to make certain changes in their communications or consider if this is not the forum for them. They are free to express their opinions. But they must not attack or characterize others with different views, they must not bait/harrass others to change their minds. The second note is very specific about what behavior has led to new restrictions they will find have been imposed, what will lead to banning, and what must change to return to normal member status. The third note is sorry it didn't work out.

We almost never need the second note, people either shape up or they decide to go elsewhere (usually in a high dudgeon but who cares.) That is they do ban themselves. It's probably a work-ier path to the same result you're going for. The other rmembers appreciate knowing they can count on management intervening with trolls, this has been important to their sense of connection with the forum.


Obviously there are plenty of ways to handle it. However, here's my feeling on the matter. Religion and politics are two subjects that A) tend to divide folks into factions and B) rarely if ever will one person manage to convince another to change their beliefs.

Since I strongly believe that a sense of community is very important, by choosing to avoid the topics that frequently divide the members, it helps keep things harmonious. We have found that the freedom to go to these potentially controversial areas has made the forum more interesting and vital. And many members have put this hobby forum near the center of their lives because they can discuss in the forum what they can't or won't discuss in other parts of their lives, even in their own families (over and above the hobby.) The election really had things going in the off-topic area!

I agree it is a choice of what management is willing to deal with, and what the members themselves want a forum to be. My forum has dedicated members that post ALOT. We haven't needed mods to keep things moving for quite a long time, in and out of the off-topic areas.


Interesting discussion, all! :)

[RichM]

Unfortunately I don't have enough time to give a detailed response.

Our board generates between 20-30k posts a month. We do have the occasional issue with abusive members/trolls.

For this, we use the infraction system and an extensive list of our rules. We have an infraction that corresponds with each rule.

We find that the ban system will often make things worse. For example, offending users may just create a new account and start ranting off and causing further trouble. We want to encourage users to abide by our rules, as opposed to giving them harsh punishments for not doing so. (Obviously for extreme situations, we do issue bans)

The infraction system seems to work well, because our users know that they will be automatically banned if they persist with behaviour which violates our rules. However, users must accumulate at least 10 points in order to receive a ban, and our infractions typically issue between 2-4 points each. We essentially use the infraction system as a method of issuing warnings.

The infraction system also keeps things consistent, and in most cases, fair. For example, the infraction system automatically knows whether or not a user had been infracted before. This means that our moderators don't have to manually leave user notes. This makes it much easier to deal with repeat offenders.

We also have a restricted Moderator account named "Moderator", which all Moderators have access to. This account is only able to issue infractions, and is intended to be used in situations where the moderator would rather remain anonymous. (Previously, a lot of abuse has been directed to our staff in cases where infractions have been issued) We ask our staff to state their name in the "Administrative Notes" field. This enables us to easily identify which moderator left the infraction. (If the field is left blank, we simply reverse the infraction)

[Floris]

Great feedback everybody, keep the good stuff coming. I am confirming what I know, and learning new things, and I hope others who read this also benefit from this.

I hope to hear more :)

[jeffinj]

On our forum, we send a friendly private message first.
If the offense continues we post a warning in public
and if it still continues, we put a temp ban.

Sorry, my suggestion is just three lines. :D

[mkernel]

This is a tough balancing act -

When I started my first forum back in '02, I wanted it to be the tightest running ship for our industry. No talk about religion or politics, as they almost always led to flaming and rarely had anything to do with the topic of the board. My competitors allowed that. Quite a bit, actually, and I think my unwillingness to allow those kinds of discussions may have contributed to the other forums growing more quickly than mine. People got in hot debates and were emotionally involved in the other sites, while we stuck to high quality discussions relevant to our forum topic.

We're one of the most respected in our niche. But we're also one of the smallest.

All that being said, you can guess that spammers get an instant, permanent ban. Rude behavior gets a single pm/email warning for a newer member, older, established members get some leeway.

But of the projects I want to take on in the future, I think my next forum will be a lot more loose, so I can see where that takes the site.