Ship of Fools: Trolls

Thread: Trolls Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027814

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Here is an interesting article - Internet trolls face two years in jail.

" “We must send out a clear message: if you troll you risk being behind bars for two years.”

Under the current law, people who subject their victims to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months.

But the new measures will allow magistrates to pass on serious cases to the crown courts, where offenders would face a maximum of two years behind bars."

How many trolls do you think will take notice of this?

I think that we, on the Ship, knew what 'troll' meant long before the general public did!

Will this cover 'our' kind of troll too? I always thought they were unpleasant and offensive - but not particularly criminal.

What do you think?

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Under the current law, people who subject their victims to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months.

....

Will this cover 'our' kind of troll too? I always thought they were unpleasant and offensive - but not particularly criminal.

It will depend whether or not the Ship's variety of trolling is "verbally abusive or threatening" within the meaning of the Act.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Verbal abuse that puts you in fear of violence is technically common assault. But you don't have the right to never have anyone be rude to you. Otherwise the entire poppulation would be criminalised.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Under the current law, people who subject their victims to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months.

....

Will this cover 'our' kind of troll too? I always thought they were unpleasant and offensive - but not particularly criminal.

It will depend whether or not the Ship's variety of trolling is "verbally abusive or threatening" within the meaning of the Act.

In comparison to some of the examples of online abuse that have been reported in the media recently, our trolls are amateurs and basically harmless. Of course, if someone was going to get that abusive here they'd have probably already made enough of a splash that they'd get planked long before things reach that point.

We try our hardest to keep things well and truly on the legal side of the line in regard to what we allow on the Ship. We have over the years deleted a few exceptionally nasty posts (and planked people). The biggest issue we regularly (but infrequently) face is posts that could credibly damage someone's reputation, things that could be considered libellous.

[ 19. October 2014, 09:59: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

I wonder if part of the reason we don't get the type of trolls that plague comments sections or Twitter or whatever is that the Boards' culture, as enforced by the H&A, and as modelled almost all the time by the denizens is not one of having to shout louder and use BIG CAPITAL LETTERS to get noticed, but one where posts that are clever or witty are the ones that attract approval and notice from others. The lack of a "like" button also means that people have to actually respond, so they can't anonymously 'like' the rantings of a puerille numpty.

I wonder though how this new law will play out - how do you determine how serious someone's trolling is? Isn't that at least partly subjective? Not everyone's buttons are the same, so at what point is the trolling serious enough that it gets referred to a Crown Court, and what determines that? Is it the words used, the amount of posts made or the person being trolled's reaction?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Also the number of posters on the Ship compared to Twitter is minuscule. As in, not even on the same scale.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Its a long time since someone has made specific threats, but, IRRC the last guy who did was immediately banned.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also the number of posters on the Ship compared to Twitter is minuscule. As in, not even on the same scale.

There are other differences, not just scale. Twitter and Facebook are, for some people, a public announcement place. For celebrities these are places where they show their public face - musicians tweeting their upcoming tour dates, politicians trying (usually failing) to put complex political issues into a tweet or FB post, etc.

The minister of a church might maintain a Facebook group, summarise her sermons, announce the next meeting of the fabric committee, share news of the fellowship. That same minister comes here in anonymity to say the stuff that's on her mind that would be difficult to share with the whole of her congregation.

I think the more official side of Facebook and Twitter encourages more aggressive responses. A politician posting on a Facebook group for his party is inviting disagreement that would be stamped on by the hosts in Purgatory.

Which is a long winded way of saying that I don't expect the same level of trolling and nastiness here that is experienced in other places, just by the nature of our boards. We'll ban people for things they'll legitimately get away with elsewhere, not because we think we'll be in legal trouble but simply because the level of disruption from such posting styles is more than we can tolerate and still maintain the quality of discussion we want to encourage.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

which is the reason that many regular posters have wanted to continue reading on The Ship for many years.

Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :

I'm not sure I even buy that the common law definition of assault should apply on the internet, i.e. that if I *reasonably* believe the person telling me they're going to harm me really is, then they're guilty of assault (i.e. a criminal offence).

Because of the nature of the internet, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a person threatening to kill or harm you really is going to do that. I can't count how many times, especially during online games, I've been told by people they want to smash my face in, kill me, f**k me up... and at no point would I ever have been reasonable in believing that they really wanted to do that, or, even if they wanted to, actually were going to be doing that to me.

Accordingly, I think the vast majority of threats on Twitter or forums can't possibly constitute criminal offences - they're just part of the topography of the internet. We can challenge it, and try to create a kinder, better culture - but we've also got to live with it.

However, if someone messaged me on Twitter or a forum and knew my name and address, and threatened to come round and kill me - then that's definitely a criminal offence, because it would be reasonable to believe harm is about to be done to me...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:

Because of the nature of the internet, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a person threatening to kill or harm you really is going to do that. I can't count how many times, especially during online games, I've been told by people they want to smash my face in, kill me, f**k me up... and at no point would I ever have been reasonable in believing that they really wanted to do that, or, even if they wanted to, actually were going to be doing that to me.

But isn't that part of the problem?

That some trolls see their online activity in a similar way to how they might view playing a game on their X-Box or PlayStation – it’s not real life, so it’s ok.

Here is an interesting Wiki article on Online disinhibition effect.

"The online disinhibition effect can also have potentially deleterious effects on one's job-security and future employment opportunities. Sixteen-year-old Kimberley Swann was fired from her job due to negative comments she made about her occupation on her Facebook page, while another infamous case involved a woman, Heather Armstrong, being terminated after "lampooning" her colleagues on the internet. These are consequences of certain internet users believing themselves to be unchained from typical social strictures. The author of Six Causes of Online Disinhibition states that "compared with face-to-face interactions, online we feel freer to do and say what we want and, as a result, often do and say things we shouldn't."

Personally I guard against this by never posting anything I wouldn't be happy for my Mum or my boss to see!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a person threatening to kill or harm you really is going to do that. I can't count how many times, especially during online games, I've been told by people they want to smash my face in, kill me, f**k me up...

During a game is a separate environment where that kind of threat is understood to be part of the game.

In the real world, we put locks on our doors for a reason. Some people are dangerous and we can't always tell which ones; threats need to be noticed enough to at least decide if they might be serious or not.

Most of us post under not real name for good reason, yes? Especially these days when a name can be enough to get an address and map to the house. Not a name like Jim Jones but many names are unique or nearly so.

(There might also be a male/female and a young adult/elderly difference in how alarming a threat feels.)

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

luvndaisies wrote:

quote:
I wonder if part of the reason we don't get the type of trolls that plague comments sections or Twitter or whatever is that the Boards' culture, as enforced by the H&A, and as modelled almost all the time by the denizens is not one of having to shout louder and use BIG CAPITAL LETTERS to get noticed, but one where posts that are clever or witty are the ones that attract approval and notice from others. The lack of a "like" button also means that people have to actually respond, so they can't anonymously 'like' the rantings of a puerille numpty.

I think there are a couple of reasons why the Ship attracts relatively few trolls.

First off, the Hell forum. Anyone posting something truly outrageous will be told to take it to Hell, where everyone EXCPECTS to read offensive and abusive commetary. Under such conditions, trolling loses the disruptive impact that provides the troll with his entertainment.

As well, apart from a general commitment to Christianity(broadly defined), the Ship doesn't really have a "party line" that most memebers invest with emotional commitment. This makes it rather slim-pickings for the subclass of troll known as "concern trolls", who pretend to follow the line in order to exploit sentiments of group-solidarity.

As an example, someone shows up on an insular Catholic message-board, posts some mawkish devotional poetry to establish his bona fides, and then starts in with threads entitled "Why is the secular media so upset about priests molesting altar boys? What about the sin of birth control?" Then wait for some of the more misguided members to come along and post replies that, while perhaps not outright endorsing the troll's wacko opinion, fall somewhat short of the deserved condemnation("Well, Fatima1917, I'm not sure about everything you say, but your hearts in the right place, so keep up the good work!") Thus confirming the troll in his opinion that Catholics are really stupid.

On the Ship, though, people are accustomed to seeing their basic beliefs challenged and debated, so no one feels obligated to rush forward to defend every professed comrade-in-arms who shows up. Fatima1917 would likely just be roasted alive in Hell, even by the Catholic members.

[ 19. October 2014, 17:29: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I resent the way that the term 'troll' has been hijacked from Scandinavian folklore and modern day usage.

We were brought up to believe that trolls, although mischievious, were not frightening and some troll-like creatures - tomtenisse, for example - were positively good. My children were brought up with this picture of trolls too: but now all we hear is about sociopaths on the web.

Bring back traditional trolls!

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

I agree.

Trolls are inherently bad, but fairies are usually good?

How does this world make sense?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... Bring back traditional trolls!

As a child, the only troll I'd ever heard of was the one that lived under the rickety-rackety bridge in the Three Billy Goats Gruff.

As Shipmates will recall, he definitely wasn't deeply misunderstood and really a nice cuddly fellow underneath. He also got his come-uppance.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Trolls used to fun. If they became a complete pain in the butt and disruptive they had the plug pulled by site administrators, so it all seemed pretty much self-regulating.

I felt there was something of a sea-change in posting style, (certainly in mine anyway), when a student was locked up for a FB drunken racist rant against a professional footballer who'd been in the news after suffering a heart-attack on the pitch.
The Ship then had the saville thread coupled with the BBC's infamous wrong naming of a prominent person in connection to abuse claims. It was then the penny dropped with most thinking people, namely that legally a person can be taken to task over anything they write on the Net because it is "publishing".

Whilst I accept the *something has to be done* argument, more law enforcement will further stifle the feeling of spontaneity and freedom that used to come from posting on the Net. Jerks will no doubt continue to go about their business, in one form or another, as is usually the case.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

On other boards I have the feeling that when trolls do become annoying, it's because they manage to set the regular posters against eachother. This is unlikely to work here, because more often than not we're at eachother's throats already [Biased]

Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I resent the way that the term 'troll' has been hijacked from Scandinavian folklore and modern day usage.

We were brought up to believe that trolls, although mischievious, were not frightening and some troll-like creatures - tomtenisse, for example - were positively good. My children were brought up with this picture of trolls too: but now all we hear is about sociopaths on the web.

Bring back traditional trolls!

Actually, this looks like an etymological mistake. To troll as in to mess up a thread by baiting most likely stems from trolling as in "to fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat". This is a different original word from the Scandinavian and is according to my dictionary closer to Stroll than to the Scandinavian wild beings.

The hijacking of the perfectly good word trolling for someone baiting provocatively into someone writing hatefully, effectively bullying or harassing other people, is unfortunate, as there is a major difference as pointed out in the OP. It's quite sad that legislators and journalists either cannot see this difference or are trying to legislate about it without having experienced it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's an interesting point about trolling as baiting, as in fishing. I wonder if the two words have become fused, as people undoubtedly relate the noun 'troll' to an ugly little being; I know that on some forums, where it's not allowed to call someone a troll, people use euphemisms, e.g. which bridge have you crawled out of? I suppose this refers to Three Billy Goats Gruff.

Wiki records a military usage for the verb, as in 'trolling for MiGs' in wartime, which = baiting.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Verbal abuse that puts you in fear of violence is technically common assault. But you don't have the right to never have anyone be rude to you. Otherwise the entire poppulation would be criminalised.

You've been plenty rude in your time.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Verbal abuse that puts you in fear of violence is technically common assault. But you don't have the right to never have anyone be rude to you. Otherwise the entire poppulation would be criminalised.
You've been plenty rude in your time.

That is a personal comment, and personal comments don't belong in Purgatory. If you have some beef with Doublethink, work it out in Hell, if you like, but not here.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think we have all been rude in our time hence criminalising rudeness, would be to criminalise everybody. Which is unlikely to be of general benefit to society.

But rudeness and/or poor taste, are not the same things as making credible threats of violence.

If you threaten to run me over with a combine harvester, I am unlikely to believe you or fear you. If you publish my address and say you are going to come round my house with a hammer - I am going to be a lot more worried by your threat.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think there are various categories of abuse that can cause worry to people online. One is the credible threat - I was a mod on a forum, where a troll kept saying he would visit someone with a few of the fellas, and take him for a long walk. The police were notified about this.

But then death threats or rape threats are pretty horrible, even if not actually credible and will cause some people real upset and concern. I'm not sure how the police treat this, but presumably, sometimes they take action, esp. if they are repeated.

There is also the type of troll who enjoys making fun of people who are bereaved, or in some other way, having a difficult time. The police do sometimes arrest these people.

The standard troll on forums is a baiter or wind up, who wants to cause emotional disturbance in others. I suppose these are the commonest, and are dealt with internally usually.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0