I would very much like to see the flagging guide!
3 Likes
Perhaps not directly on-topic, but here’s a recent study that highlights a couple of points that, IMO, are important to consider in this discussion:
"Title: Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions
Authors: Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Jure Leskovec
(Submitted on 3 Feb 2017)
Abstract:
In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual’s mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual’s history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls."
The full paper is at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01119.pdf
or, in Ebook format, at:
https://files.clr3.com/papers/2017_anyone.pdf
Several of the many on-line reviews of the study also elucidate the problem
well, and some consider possible solutions.
The points that I find significant here are:
1: allowing any troll posting whatsoever tends to snowball into further
troll behavior;
2: in the presence of troll behavior, people who wouldn’t normally
behave so themselves are highly (I would suggest: dangerously) likely
to get sucked into similarly unskillful behavior.
5 Likes
[quote=“Aminah, post:1, topic:5204”]
We’ve been having a look at our community guidelines in effort to help us maintain this forum as a friendly space for Dhamma discussion.[/quote]
Friendly is good. 
4 Likes
Excellent work moderators and also all those who have added suggestions–beautiful, thanks!
Re: #14 new”
“One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Please spend some time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests.”
I think this is a really good point, especially since it seems there are increasing numbers of topics/discussions that are repeats, some even with the same or nearly the same discussion title. Obviously in a forum with so many discussions and topics a certain amount of overlap in discussions can’t be avoided, and it’s also not always easy to find and know whether a topic is already on the forum, and hence that one’s topic, idea, question or comment would be better placed in the earlier discussion. Or sometimes if a topic is very long, it’s better to start another one.
But I wonder what could be done to encourage and make it easier for everyone, especially new people (who aren’t familiar with past discussions) to pay attention to this guideline? It might be good to mention the search function. However I know sometimes I’ve searched for a topic but still can’t find it (even when I’m trying to find a previous discussion I’m remembering and want to go back to it). Sometimes this is because I’m not searching the exact right title or terms, or it could be that I’m remembering a topic that came up but was ‘hidden’ somewhere in another discussion, etc. One thing I’ve found helpful in discussions is when someone who recalls another discussion related to the topic posts a link to it.
Although implicitly covered in many other of the guidelines (eg #s, new version, 31, 33, 23–28, 17, 19, 59, 79, 81, 83 as well as in @Erika_ODonnell’s excellent suggestion of incorporating the ‘Advice to Rahula’ MN 61), I would like to see an explicite mention of the type of sarcasm that is really a mask for ill-will (or even subtly attacking). To me, some of what might be called sarcasm is not a problem at all, for example types falling under the category of humor (without ill-will) such as ironic or ‘real-life’ humor (which I quite enjoy) but I’ve also seen sarcasm on SC Discourse that really just seems to be a cover for an attitude of arrogance, superiority and even at times ill-will toward another person (so in that way, passive-aggresive though usually someone engaging in this does not recognize it as such…. but maybe they might be able to see they’re being sarcastic). Often this type of behavior seems to get worse as disagreements in discussions go on and on.
Also somewhat related, I recall a post by @sujato, probably in a discussion on trolling, in which he mentioned that it was unlikely in this type of forum that one could convince another of one’s view. If I find that post I’ll be more specific but I really agreed with it and thought it was helpful for people to consider when continuing to press a certain point. There’s definitely a time for ‘letting go’ (even of something that seems important)! In fact there’s a sutta (sorry, can’t recall which at the moment) about ‘right speech’ where the Buddha explicitly outlines when to make an effort ‘correcting’ (or something similar) someone and when to simply practice equanimity.
I liked the following ( #14 old guideline), and wonder if it or something similar could be kept (perhaps added to #19, new guidleline)
“Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.”
By the way, I’ve always found it helpful when the moderators explicitly mention something in a discussion such as posting a ‘warning’ or friendly reminder or other things like saying they’re moving the discussion to another category or asking people to start a new discussion, etc. I think it’s a good reminder for all of us of what to pay attention to. Speaking of this, I remember there were recently some suggestions about making these guidelines much more visible on the site (or even always accessible via a link on each page) and I’m hoping the moderators will do that.
One last thing–I remember some time ago a member posting that he didn’t use the ‘like’ button and @sujato replying that it was valuable to do so though I can’t recall all the reasons why or how ‘likes’ specifically relate to the posts–does it make discussion/comments show up in a different order or…? Can someone explain more about this? Obviously I realize it’s a nice thing to let people know you appreciate (or particularly like or are grateful for) their post but what else is is significant, in terms of how the site operates, about ‘liking’?
Jut thought of one other suggestion, that is to say something along the lines of being a good example to others in how and what you post. This would certainly be in line with what the Buddha taught! I thought of this in reading @cjmacie’s post which pointed to how behavior can degenerate. And thanks to our moderators and so many others who are excellent examples!
9 Likes
Thanks for your reflections Deeele, but I’d just like to note that very clear parameters were set for this thread:
Please articulate any suggestions you have for the guidelines within these terms, or find a more appropriate place to explore your views.
2 Likes
Thank you Aminah
I think the guidelines are worthy. However, I would suggest to define the following terms:
- Name-calling.
- Ad hominem attacks.
- Knee-jerk contradiction.
- Passive-aggressive tactics.
These terms are rather secular or worldly in nature therefore I imagine more orthodox or older Buddhists who are not familiar with such contemporary secular jargon might need clarification.
As for the community in general, as long as the administrators & moderators act within the guidelines of the Buddha in DN 31, namely, to not act with agati (prejudice & bias) due to like (chandāgatiṃ), dislike (dosāgatiṃ), delusion (mohāgatiṃ) or fear (bhayāgatiṃ), i.e., treat all members the same & equally, I think the community will prosper.
Best wishes for your community aspirations 
3 Likes
Here’s a summary of what likes do:
3 Likes
@Aminah, when in the grip of a defilement, what stops someone from performing an unwholesome act is morally wholesome shame and fear (hiri, ottappa). What gives rise to wholesome behaviour is right view, right mindfulness and right effort. It is said that behaviour in a given society is governed by (loka pala) moral shame and fear. In societies where that which is not moral is considered moral (wrong view) or there is no reason to think twice before doing the wrong thing (ie- no consequences of breaking the rules) defilements will be given free reign. No one starts with right view or free of defilements, a degree of effective rules are needed. This is up to the moderators as well as the forum users.
A dysfunctional society turns a blind eye. A society that develops, is happy to receive suggestions and help others grow. We intentionally accept governance and rules as it makes this a better place for ourselves and others. At a more subtle level gaming, one-upmanship, projecting blame on to others, misdirection and pretence spoil it for others and the person as well. No forum guidelines can manage such subtle defilements (kilesa). I guess that is what the practice is for.
I’m saying we all have role in this, ‘internally and externally’.
with metta
7 Likes
I couldn’t agree more emphtatically.
Yep. Here, the guidelines give us some kind of framework for negotiating exchange in this particular context and they become all the more effective when there is broad agreement amongst the community that they are worth upholding and, indeed, the community participates in upholding them. This is at least in part of the point of this thread, and seeking the input. So again, is there anything in your reflection you’d translate into an addition, or amendment to the proposed guidelines?
With metta.
1 Like
Just a matter of emphasis:
Please consider inserting a definition of Right speech, after the ‘Improve the discussion’ paragraph and before the ‘Be agreeable…’ paragraph. Most people remember what they read first and last!
with metta
3 Likes
Very nice, thanks Mat!
Just to note though, it was the Buddha wot said that, not me - I didn’t even quote him in this particular case. Still, if I’m going to be misquoted, this is the absolutely best possible way. 
1 Like
Oh sorry! I keep making that mistake… 
2 Likes
A general point, if I may: The energy and attitudes in this endeavor are, IMO, to be commended, and should encourage effort to support them. Somewhere back in some thread I earlier commented on a (perceived) “infection” of unskillful behavior creeping into some discussions here, as is already a problem in many, yes, even Buddhist forums; and added a note of hope or confidence, looking to SuttaCentral to be able to handle this better than other forums.
0: A minor point: “space” is interestingly more apropos in cyber-space (internet) than “place” – the latter connotes a delimited locus, as in a physical place/location, where the former includes expansiveness, boundarylessness (to borrow a term from Steven Levine) of the mind, especially the awakened mind.
1: Peter_Durham 2017-05-08 19:58:55 UTC #13
“Accept admonition gracefully”
A subtle but crucial point – recognizing, and deepening with equanimity, the limits of one’s own viewpointedness, and the willingness to restrain, or better, relinquish it. People might offer testimonials of instances where they’ve learned by this.
c.f. Also below (4) on correction procedures being carried-out off-line
2: Peter_Durham 2017-05-08 19:58:55 UTC #13
“I also think there should be an explicit statement regarding racist, sexist, homophobic speech etc. …”
That list of hot-topic areas (racist, sexist,…) has become sort of standard, in many countries, conditioned by law. Practically speaking and on the basis of experience here (and in other “Buddhist” forums), I believe it may be worthwhile to extend it (perhaps as it may relate to “racist”) to include speech that may be offensive or inflammatory with regard to nationality, social, cultural or political systems. Especially the politics, with its flaming hot-button issues around the globe. In “international” forums culture-bound beliefs can collide and trigger unskillful re-activity. Though serious Dhamma practice should mitigate this, many of us are not that highly developed, and conditioned latent-tendencies (anuseti) still powerful.
3: Linda 2017-05-09 04:05:03 UTC #18
I liked the following ( #14 old guideline), and wonder if it or something similar (perhaps added to #19, new guidleline)
(#14. The topics discussed here matter to us. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.)
(#19. You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it …”)
(I noted also, s/w puzzled, that deletion. ) All too often a reaction is to not only disagree, but also to “hijack” the thread. Other times there may not be disagreement, but someone may just steer the whole discussion heavy-handedly in the direction of their own take on it or s/w related pet interest. The following does appear to address that:
#106 Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a New Topic (found under the share a link icon).
Is might be perhaps also worthwhile to allow OP authors (the ones who initiate threads) some right to invoke this to defend their topic against hijacking?
(from another thread: “Sujato: “And yes, ‘off-topic and redundant to the point of drowning threads’ is clearly flag-worthy!”)
4: Linda 2017-05-09 04:05:03 UTC #18
“…helpful when the moderators explicitly mention something in a discussion such as posting a ‘warning’ or friendly reminder or other things like saying they’re moving the discussion to another category or asking people to start a new discussion, etc.”
This overlaps 3 above, but also brings up the possibility, when the moderator is challenged and multiple back-and-forth posts ensue, that such elaboration be quickly taken off-line, to a PM thread (like happens with a formal flagging). There have been times when such discussion has occurred, and it seemed like a moderator was getting sucked into “feeding” a trolling outbreak by trying to reason with someone who was a just further stimulated by the attention.
5: Not being timid about flagging.
When the issue is taken off-line (PM thread) it allows the “offender” a hearing in which to perhaps justify their actions without that discussion tempting others to pile-on (the contagion of troll behavior as in the scientific study cited above). But it also allows moderators to perhaps help the author of a somehow unworthy or misled flag to better understand and adapt to the perceived problem, without having to be dressed-down in public.
6: Working the moderators too hard? When done well, and after a period of adaptation on the part of posters as well as moderators, their workload could actually become easier over time.
4 Likes
About the flagging system: I believe members should use it just like the “report a post” option is used on DW. If you see a topic breaking a rule, then you can report it and a moderator will investigate it. If the post is not breaking any rules but you just don’t like the post or don’t like the person posting it, that is no reason to report a post.
About the like system: On DW, this has been discussed and the majority has been against a like system because if facilitates gang-behavior witch was always a problem in the past pre 2016 and continues to be a problem today. It also facilitates narcissistic behavior and conformism. People post things that the majority would vote and those posting opinions against the majority consensus are marginalized. Those who honestly want to help other buddhist in dhamma related problems don’t feel the need to get any ego-boosting likes as a reward for helping other people. Most decent forums I know do not have a liking system, but this is probably not going to change here.
All in all, it comes down to moderators and what they want from this forum. Do they want a big, diverse and tolerant buddhist forum or a progressive subreddit, highly militarized and highly intolerant towards those not respecting progressive orthodoxism ? This is why in the censorship topic I have asked for a more diverse field of moderators, such as on DW. This would not only protect non-progresive members, but it would also protect the leadership of the forum from group-thinking and the devastating effects group-thinking can have.
Again:
The section of your post highlighted above, does not fit into the given parameters of this thread. Please remove it or I will do it for you: join the thread, play by the rules. And please save any back-fighting, that would contravene the existing community guidelines.
Thank you for your comments about the flagging and like systems.
ADDED:
@Gabriel_L could you please also remove your comments about trolling.
I was just doing so, I am dyslexic, it takes me quite a while to read this stuff, so please be patient with me.
4 Likes
I have removed the 2 paragrapghs about DW comparison and levels of authoritarianism, but not the first paragraph of my post. It was a response to CJmacie and a comment on his interpretation of the article quoted by him. If that interpretation of the study will be removed, then I ask for CJmacie interpretation to be removed too.
I also ask for Glenara post to be removed since it is also offtopic. This topic is about future changes in moderation, IT IS NOT A TOPIC ABOUT TROLLING and we had 3 topics about trolling already.
But yet I see the moderator picking only on me and Deelee, having no problem with Gnlaera and Cjmacie offtopic posts.
EDIT: Thank you for removing offtopic posts by Gnelaera. If a person posts something offtopic, then others will respond to that, seeing it is allowed by the mods, and then be blamed for being offtopic themselves.
Thank you for responding to my request so promptly. Please also remove the first paragraph - Cjmacie’s comments lead to the statement of two points that were pertinent to this discussion, and an amount of leeway has been for people to express themselves in their natural manner. Your comments argue with another poster - that is not what this thread is for.
No further discussion on this matter will be had.
3 Likes
BREAKING NEWS: I just had a brilliant idea about how to greatly improve the forum without changing it’s progressive leading, making it use only the good parts of it’s progressive attitude and not the bad sides, preventing all the injustices and also having support by the majority of the forum
REMOVE DISCUSSION ABOUT POLITICS OR POLITICALLY CHARGED SUBJECTS ALLTOGETHER. REMOVE THE WATTERCOOLER.
The big advantage of this forum is being an EBT focused forum, the only one of it’s kind on the internet. I have found dhamma discussions here to be very productive. If the forum would be focused only on EBTs, problems about moderation bias and feelings of injustice felt by some members would disappear.
This is not a radical measure at all. For example even on the international pigeon forum, political discussion is totally banned. It is a forum exclusevly about pigeons, and it’s working great. Almost all specialized forums have political discussion banned on them cause that’s just not their focus.
This would be a great thing to do in my opinion. But are people here capable of reducing the worldly pleasure of engaging into politics ? So far, they appear to be, since the forum already has tried to reduce political discussion and many have suggested removal of the wattercooler. Why not take it to the end ? I mean even the pigeon forum did it.
If there is a door open for discussion of politics, with moderators choosing what is allowed or not in the watercooler, that will only create more injustice and let bias have a strong word to say. But I also know moderators here really are at least partially against political discussion and understand how this does not have a positive effect on the community. Why not remove it alltogether ? I repeat, almost all specialized forums on the internet do not have political sections and this makes people be much more friendly with each other, not knowing their political opinions. Why let politics create division in such an important and unique specialized forum, focused on EBTs ?
Removing politics will definitely remove all the fun. But if we are honest about improving the atmosphere of the forum, let’s do it.
I think their equivalents can be found in the Brahmajāla and Anumāna Suttas.
Being one who exalts himself (attukkaṃsako) and disparages others (paravambhī).
Being harsh and spiteful (makkhī paḷāsī).
Being a fault-finder on account of his wrath (kodhahetu upanāhī).
Being one who, when reproved, blurts out reproof against the reprover (codito codakena codakaṃ paṭippharati).
Being one who, when reproved, disparages the reprover for the reproof (codito codakena codakaṃ apasādeti).
Being one who, when reproved, rounds on the reprover for the reproof (codito codakena codakassa paccāropeti).
“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?”
“Certainly not, Lord.”
“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: ‘For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.’
“And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: ‘For such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us.’
Being stubborn and arrogant (thaddho atimānī).
Being one who, when reproved, shelves the question by asking the reprover another, answers off the point, and evinces temper and ill-will and sulkiness (codito codakena aññenaññaṃ paṭicarati, bahiddhā kathaṃ apanāmeti, kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti).
10 Likes
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments, Linda, I’ve been turning over a number of brilliant points you made!
Just to following up on a few details:
I have to admit I get a little anxious at the prospect of outlawing sarcasm, as while I’m not proud of it, sarcasm is so deeply ingrained in me at present, that I’d probably have to boot myself out of the community. 
More seriously though, while I really understand the important point you’re making, I do wonder about potentially trickiness in moderating around that. Do have an idea about how this point might be worded that would facilitate clear assessment of a violation? Can you readily define what would constitute that specific form of attack and how it might be easily distinguished from ‘good-natured’ sarcasm?
Possibly MN103…? That one notes that it’s fine to speak even if it will be troubling to you, or the other person gets upset, but you shouldn’t speak if, after assessment, you determine the other person can’t be established in the wholesome.
I’d, personally, also like to throw in one of my favourite pieces of advice from the Buddha (setting aside the suggestion to train oneself in such a way that leads to the end of all suffering completely): if relations go really screwy, cover it over with grass (MN104)!
To my own tastes this is a fabulous idea. Again, do you know how you’d like to see it formulated more specifically?
5 Likes