DO YOU HAVE TROLLS IN YOUR GROUP?

What can be done about them?

The actions taken by a person, or a group, against Trolls depends on
many factors, technical expertise, personality, equipment available
to
name but a few.


Almost all newsreaders will kill individual threads and/or posters.
Some have more complex, and wide ranging facilities.


Below are listed some possible actions with advantages (Pro) and
disadvantages (Con) given for each.


1 Ignore them and they will go away.


This is the traditional usenet method of dealing with Trolls, and is
regularly suggested.
It is similar to the method use to train dogs, and very young
children, ignore bad behaviour and reward good behaviour. Thus it is
only likely to work if the, The Infant or Attention Seeker theory, is
true


Pro:


If you are subscribed to a Sub Target newsgroup this is quite a
reasonable method. The normal change of Sub Targets will ensure that
they do "go away", convincing you that this is an effective way of
dealing with the problem. It however leaves the Target newsgroup in
exactly the same mess as it was before.


If you are confronted with a minor attack by merely Irritating
Trolls,
or inexperienced and disorganized Trolls, this may also work.


Con:


If you are subscribed to a Target newsgroup, this is impossible, as
up
to 90% of posts may be trolls. As the Intention is to destroy the
Target Newsgroup, they will *never* go away.


On any newsgroup there are a mixture of subscribers, non of whom has
any ability to control the postings of other subscribers. Human
nature
dictates that someone will *always* reply to a good troll. Arguably
this section should be headed "If *everyone* ignores them and they
will go away." which is arguably impossible to attain.


In the case of uly after a full week of almost total ignoring of a
specific troll made him so angry that he
invited in other trolls. After that a massive and damaging attack
began.


uk.local.yorkshire contained this telling sentence. "Most people like
the countryside, but not everyone is willing to tread shin deep
through pig **** to get to a meadow."


2 Use a Killfile


There is a killfile FAQ at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile
giving information about how to use killfile facilities many
newsreaders.


Pro:


One only sees posts from each thread, or by each Troll, Sockpuppet or
morphed identity a few times to determine the true nature of the
poster.


Con:


You might miss something important, such as a libel against oneself.
However an important post will usually start a thread and you may
well
see someone else's follow ups.


It takes quite a bit of effort, and knowledge for someone subscribed
to a Target newsgroup to maintain a killfile. For someone subscribed
to a Sub Target maintaining the killfile is easy, and recommended.


Very few posters know of the existence of killfile facilities, and
some cannot handle them when pointed out. The old hands on usenet can
not understand why newbies cannot do what the old hands find so
simple.


Even very technically savvy, usenet hands are often unwilling to
subscribe to the Target newsgroup. The hard grind of keeping the
killfile working may be considered more bother than the subscription
is worth.


3 A moderated newsgroup


A Moderated newsgroup is almost impossible to troll.


misc.kids a newsgroup for parents and carers for kids, rather than
the
kids themselves, had trolling problems as recorded in
http://www.misckids.org/history.txt


The misc.kids.moderated effort began sometime in the summer of 1996, when a regular poster to misc.kids, Roger Hunt, suggested to the newsgroup, as well as others who were former regular posters, that we establish a moderated alternative to misc.kids. This time, unlike previous occasions when this type of suggestion was made, many people seized upon the idea. Misc.kids had suffered several troll invasions; many regular and trusted posters had left; and the level of discourse had declined. Colleen Porter did a straw poll on some issues related to creating a new newsgroup and got 199 responses. Those responses have been


thoughtfully considered throughout this creation process and form the
basis for much of what appears in the RFD.

Towards the end of 1997 misc.kids.moderated was created see:
http://www.misckids.org/


After the creation of misc.kids.moderated the level of destructive
trolling of misc.kids fell drastically. At
the time of writing, misc.kids.moderated is a small but thriving
newsgroup, also misc.kids is a large newsgroup, but riven by On Topic
disputes. On a superficial examination it could be concluded that the
creation of mkm was a waste of time and effort, because mk now has
only minor problems. On a deeper examination, it could be concluded
that the existence of mkm protects mk from the worst of the outright
trolling, presumably because in the case of drastic problems,
subscribers could move to mkm.


Pro:


It works and is a traditional usenet method of solving the problems
of
troublesome newsgroups.


Con:


It requires a permanently on line machine. It requires a moderbot to
handle much of the work. It requires a team of moderators ideally
about six to handle posts which the moderbot does not approve. It
requires a very well written charter, with specific moderation
guidelines, otherwise the moderators will end up accepting or
rejecting posts on personal preference. The Trolls will try to become
moderators, and cause mayhem. Changing from a non moderated to a
moderated newsgroup is *extremely* difficult. A new newsgroup with
the
same name but .moderated would normally have to be created. This
would
need an RFD and vote in the uk.* hierarchy, if that is where the
newsgroup is to be situated.


5.4 A purely robomoderated newsgroup


A purely automatic moderation system which will reject all
crossposting. Also limit the number of posts which can be made by a
single poster in a day, and similar problems.


This is being discussed at the time of writing on uk.net.news.config
subject: RFD: uk.net.news.beginners


Pro:


It might work, or at least improve matters.


Con:


It requires a permanently on line machine.
It requires a very well written charter, with specific moderation
guidelines,
Changing from a non moderated to a moderated newsgroup is *extremely*
difficult.
A new newsgroup with the same name but .moderated would have to be
created.
This would need an RFD and vote in the uk.* hierarchy.
Nobody knows how well it would withstand an onslaught by determined
and well organised Trolls.


5 A Yahoo Group Listserver


If things get too rough the existing group of posters could move to
an
invitation only Yahoo Group, or a UK Yahoo group. This has been done
successfully with uk.local.yorkshire where most of the posters have
moved to Tykesground.


Pro:


The Trolls can be effectively kept out.
The group of reasonable posters is kept together.


Con:


Yahoo posts do not thread as usenet posts, on some newsreaders. The
list owner is Ghod. He/she must be trusted, and treat the group with
a
light hand. People get bored, lose Internet access, die and so on,
and
thus unsubscribe. In the longer term, new recruits must be found or
the group will wither and die.


The Trolls have effectively won, and the newsgroup will probably
wither and die.


The Trolls hate it and treat the Yahoo group as an affront to the
their ability to control the Target Newsgroup. They will fight
harder,
and *never* go away.


6 Cancel posts


Traditionally posts which exceed a Breidbart Index of 20 or any of
the
other usenet rules may be cancelled.


For unix users, there is a system NoCeM which lists posts with a BI
above 20, and prevents you from downloading them.


Pro:


It gets rid of offending posts.
The Trolls hate it.


For forgeries of oneself there is good justification for
cancellation.


Con:


Cancelling other peoples posts is not for the uninitiated.
Cancellation does not work on all newsservers. It must be done
quickly, or it is not worth doing. The posts get to the users machine
where cancellation has no effect, harm is done before the canceller
sees the post.


Most troll posts are not strictly against the usenet rules and
guidelines. In these cases, it is difficult to justify cancellation.


7 LART (report to ISP)


Where a Troll breaks the rules of usenet or their ISP an email or
"LART" to abuse@ISP,name will often persuade the ISP, newsserver
operator, or their upstream providers to cancel a users account.


Pro:
It often works. It is traditional usenet practice.


Con:
Free ISPs are ten a penny, and the Troll can easily get another
account and continue as before.


Some Trolls can have several paid for internet accounts.


Some of the worst trolls take care not to break their ISPs Terms and
Conditions, or usenet rules. ISPs are reluctant to act without
evidence of an offence.


..8 Trim the newsgroup line


With the crossposting Trolls one can follow up the posts asking only
those in the Sub Target newsgroups to trim the newsgroup line, when
following up. Remember not to ask the Troll Communications newsgroups
to trim the newsgroup line.


Pro:


It reduces the inadvertent crossposts by up to 90%


Con:


The Trolls notice that it has been done, and replace the crossposts.


Newbies, do not have a clue, and ask what on earth you are talking
about.


9 Give them a good (virtual) st*ff*ng.


This is the preferred method on uk.rec.motorcycles, a robust
newsgroup.


Pro:


It is very satisfying.


Con:


Some would say that it makes things worse because it gives them the
attention which they crave.


At best it becomes a war of attrition. In the Target newsgroups there
is nothing to loose, so one might as well try to wear them down.


10 Follow up the offending posts.


It is always possible to follow up troll posts.


Pro:


For forgeries of posts in your name, and libelous posts, A follow up
is an effective rejoinder, because of the ineffectiveness of Cancel
posts.


For The Crosspost Troll, warning the Sub Target newsgroup(s) of the
list of crosspostings, is effective in reducing the damage.


For The Request for Assistance Troll, only the Target Newsgroup and
the Troll communications newsgroup(s) will see the followup so they
are not effective.


For combined Crosspost Troll combined with a Request for Asistance
Troll, only the Sub Target newsgroups should be warned.


Con:


In general just following up is not a good idea.


11 Digitally Sign Posts with PGP.


If forgery is a problem, one can sign posts with Pretty Good Privacy.
This is free for non commercial use and may be found at
http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html. There are USA and Non USA
versions available. Non USA users should ensure that they get the non
USA version.


This does not stop the forgeries, but does allow the reader to check
if a post comes from the person it appears to come from.


Continuous surveillance of incoming email etc. for viruses and
trojans
is essential for those using a PGP sig. If your machine becomes
infected with a backdoor trojan the digital sig may be compromised.


12 Continue posting On Topic posts to the newsgroup.


Those who find themselves subscribed to a Target Newsgroup, can agree
amongst themselves that they will not be driven away by the Trolls.
If
they just keep on posting On Topic posts, the Trolls can never
totally
win. Better, new subscribers will find something interesting to read
amongst the dross, and filth.


If someone includes the URL for the killfile FAQ http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile
in a sig, and perhaps posts the whole thing weekly, new subscribers
will learn very quickly how to use killfiles, and so not see the
trolls.


13 Unsubscribe


When a ng is troubled by trolls it is always possible to just
unsubscribe.


Pro:



From a purely selfish point of view this is by far the easiest thing


to do. You can happily transfer your subscriptions to less troubled
ngs. Problem solved!

Con:



From the point of view of usenet as a whole, it is absolutely the


worst possible course of action. Whether the
trolls are the infantile kind with a strange sense of fun, or the
evil
kind intent on destruction, the result will be
the same. No On Topic posts, lots of ridiculous troll posts, dead
newsgroup.

This is what happened to uk.local.birmingham, when a group of
reasonable posters including Iain Bowen just
unsubscribed. It has never recovered.


14 Tempt them back into the mainstream of usenet


Trolls sometimes post reasonable things, these can be followed up


Pro:


It may improve matters.


Con:


Those who believe in a strict "ignore them" policy will not use this.


15 Reclaim Troll threads


There is sometimes a small point of general interest in troll posts.
Careful snipping and follow ups can create interesting threads.


Pro:


It irritates the Trolls.


Con:


Reasonable posters may already have killed the threads


16 Retromoderation


Two forms of retromoderation already exists on usenet, namely:


Spam canceling. This function is not automatic at the
time of writing. Spam is *detected* automatically but the
canceling is done manually by volunteers.


Also binaries, except tiny ones, posted to text newsgroups
are automatically cancelled.


It would be possible to write scripts which would
automatically detect and cancel posts to any specific
newsgroup or newsgroups which contravene some parts of the
newsgroup charter.


Examples would be excessive crossposting, and perhaps
hipcrime attacks.


Pro:


It may be effective against crossposting


Con:


Most Troll activities could not be reliably detected
automatically. A human retromoderator would have great
difficulty determining exactly if a specific post was
to be cancelled.


Retromoderation is intensely disliked by usenet generally.


The Troll communications newsgroup(s) used changes rapidly
It would be impossible to list, Troll communications
newsgroup(s), in a charter because the trolls would just use
a different newsgroup.

tyi

--

JeanneDArc~~
news.etiquette

"moderated"
http://groups.google.com/group/usene...?start=10&sa=N