Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Summary:

Because this is getting ridiculous

Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

DrClef 04 Jul 2018 13:07

So I'm hearing complaints from RPC Authority that our users are heading over there to downvote their pages en masse. I did a quick check: in practice, there have been, like, a dozen instances, and all of them are throwaway sockpuppet accounts. There's no way to actually tell if any of them are our users (as opposed to trolls from reddit or 4chan) without one of our users confessing to it (One guess as to how likely that will be.)

Still, in the spirit of "Not being total dicks about this," I propose making it official that if we ever do catch one of our users fucking around over there and downvote-bombing their site, that the user should be banned or have their site membership revoked. In addition, anyone talking about doing that shit in IRC chat needs to get shut down by a mod. Thoughts?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

LilyFlower 04 Jul 2018 14:51

This comes under the already extant chat rules of no brigading; I see no problem expanding that to the site too. Doesn't just have to be RPC- this would apply to any other site, provided they use the wiki/chat as a base for it.

---

~🌸~Flower Power~🌸~

Last edited on 04 Jul 2018 16:16 by LilyFlower Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Quikngruvn 04 Jul 2018 15:15

Agreeing with Lily, especially the part where this should apply to any splinter site. This could also fall under the Malicious Downvoting/Downvoting in Bad Faith rules, since that rule doesn't specifically say it applies only to articles on our wiki.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

MayD 04 Jul 2018 15:45

I was under the impression this is how we were already doing things, and the only reason we hadn't done any disciplinary actions was because we didn't know who the person was.

Also.

In addition, anyone talking about doing that shit in IRC chat needs to get shut down by a mod. Thoughts?

I already rail on people who even suggest anything remotely like this in any of the chats I'm in. I'm all for this.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

dankaar 04 Jul 2018 16:26

I propose making it official that if we ever do catch one of our users fucking around over there and downvote-bombing their site, that the user should be banned or have their site membership revoked.

I've been keeping semi-tabs on the RPC downvote-bombing issue they've been having, and had a similar thought.

So, yeah, supporting immediate ban from our site if we ever catch someone trying to brigade another site, not just RPC. Not because it falls under existent rules¹, but because it potentially damages the reputation of our site.

Footnotes

1. Let's be fair; it's generally assumed that our rules stop at our doorstep. Trying to use the "well, it's not explicit…" for bans is effectively staff-sanctioned loophole abuse. The lesson of the Social Media fiasco should be about our PR, guys.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

RJB_R 04 Jul 2018 16:28

I think this is the way things are already being done but I’m in agreement that we should never tolerate downvote brigadiers here or elsewhere.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 04 Jul 2018 17:01

I think we should do more than that. Lately, members of our site as well as the offshoot site have been involved in frankly embarrassingly petty squabbles and ad hominem insults. Yes, from our own authors as well.

I had to call a stop order on the discussion page of a tale because two established authors found it necessary to provoke reactions from a user with a different opinion. Not one I agree with, mind you, but this was baffling to see. I usually refrain from calling out specific users, but comments like this:

Oops; sorry! I didn't realize you were this sensitive about your work.

I'll try to show more consideration for your feelings from hereon out.

or this:

Would you like it better if we added some racial slurs to it? Since that seems to be the kind of writing you produce.

Are not acceptable, especially from our own users, who should know better. So far, I've been standing on the sideline about this issue, but if we're vouching to stay neutral on issues like this, we need to show that we don't apply favoritism to our own users.

Edit: Kinch's response wasn't a random aggressive post, like it first seemed to me, that's my bad. With added context, I feel that we need to steer the discussion away from specific users, and instead focusing on making our users feel comfortable with reporting harassment to us, so that they don't feel the need to respond to harassers to begin with, as ARD put it.

Last edited on 09 Jul 2018 18:42 by Leveritas Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

DrMagnus 05 Jul 2018 11:53

Seconding Levi here. While the frustration is real, users being shitty about the entire situation isn't okay.

We're better than that. And if we're not, we should be.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Quikngruvn 05 Jul 2018 12:16

Crosslinking this other post by Lev because CFO has some legitimate grievances in here. While I don't think a "Don't talk about RPC ever" rule would be at all feasible, we can at least institute something like "Please do not even joke about downvote brigading or posting your shitty shit or otherwise negatively affecting RPC" in our various social channels. Enforcement would be up to the mods of the channel in question, and would still be distinct from actual calls to brigade them.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 05 Jul 2018 14:30

"Please do not even joke about downvote brigading or posting your shitty shit or otherwise negatively affecting RPC" in our various social channels. Enforcement would be up to the mods of the channel in question, and would still be distinct from actual calls to brigade them.

Agreed. We need to show that we're the bigger 'person', if you will. It's an issue when another party is calling you out, and they don't have to lie. While I don't think the screenshots in the other post are actually calls for downvotes, it's still a shitty attitude.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

SoullessSingularity 07 Jul 2018 06:39

I strongly disagree. Firstly, our priority should not, and never should be how polite we are to the people that threaten our most vulnerable community members. That we more highly regard how polite people are, when people are being driven off the site due to harassment they're dealing with with no capacity to respond because that'd be "impolite" is unacceptable. Kinch in particular here is responding to the very co-admin active contributor of the site that has sent harassment and a downvote brigade her way, and this post is more concerned about whether or not she responds appropriately politely to the very people that have been treating her like garbage.

It is important that, while her response is imperfect, kinch is merely responding to already existing harassment. She is the victim here, and her responses should be considered in context of that. By refusing to apply context to her behavior, we are in essentially condescending her responses and dictating how she can respond to her own harassment, while not punishing the harassers.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 07 Jul 2018 17:31 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

thedeadlymoose 07 Jul 2018 06:41

Co-signed.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

RJB_R 07 Jul 2018 06:43

Fully agreeing with Soulless. People victimized by systematic harassment aren't beholden to a code of conduct and we should cut everyone affected by RPC more than a little slack.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Taffeta 08 Jul 2018 03:42

Measuring the conduct of systematic harassment and its victims by the same yardstick is frankly insulting. 'They go low, we go high' is a nice-sounding but valueless platitude in a situation like this, and Soulless' statement sums up a lot of my immediate reservations about this statement. Consider this another co-signing.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

SoullessSingularity 08 Jul 2018 08:33

I should probably amend that if it was out of nowhere, ie. It was a member that isn’t kinch or someone else who was dealing with this, that behavior would be completely unacceptable. So that it’d seem unacceptable on its face is very reasonable a position to take. I wouldn’t lay too hard on people here for doing so.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

DrClef 08 Jul 2018 17:49

Context matters in both cases.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Dexanote 09 Jul 2018 01:17

Co-Signed.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 09 Jul 2018 10:58

I sympathise with Kinch, but where does that end? Say that someone in our community harassed someone off-site, and that person would turn around and leave biting remarks on anyone of the SCP wiki's comments because they come from the same place?

It is important that, while her response is imperfect, kinch is merely responding to already existing harassment.

If we're not disciplining someone (which I can get behind, given the context), we can at least try to reel them in somewhat, because they are actively starting arguments that go absolutely nowhere.

By refusing to apply context to her behavior, we are in essentially condescending her responses and dictating how she can respond to her own harassment, while not punishing the harassers.

I don't feel comfortable just standing on the sideline either, to be honest. I don't want to do nothing, because being a member of the offshoot wiki doesn't automatically make you a monster that deserves what they get. Operator and some other users absolutely deserve disciplinary action though.

The way I see it, an action like this is like a parent pulling two fighting kids apart. We can let them fight it out because the bully hit first, but will that really solve anything?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

MayD 09 Jul 2018 11:26

I find myself agreeing with Leve's sentiment here.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

SoullessSingularity 09 Jul 2018 14:15

I’m not saying to just let them fight it out and that kinch is 100% fine. I’m saying it’s a poor example of “our members are lashing out” and “this is completely unacceptable” because there’s a lot more context here that’s being ignored to show one specific behavior without the context of the behavior. In short it’s completely misrepresenting the situation and making he assumption that it doesn’t matter if there are extenuating circumstances, a victim must always take more care in responding to abusive people while the abusive people can continue to be as such without any repercussions because they’re more polite about abusing people.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 09 Jul 2018 14:46

I’m not saying to just let them fight it out and that kinch is 100% fine.

Has she been approached by staff in order to sort things out?

I’m saying it’s a poor example of “our members are lashing out” and “this is completely unacceptable” because there’s a lot more context here that’s being ignored to show one specific behavior without the context of the behavior.

I'm not aware of the context in detail, and we should take context into account, of course. My issue is that the arguments that Kinch and some other users are starting is understandable, but also not something we should turn a blind eye to.

In short it’s completely misrepresenting the situation and making he assumption that it doesn’t matter if there are extenuating circumstances, a victim must always take more care in responding to abusive people while the abusive people can continue to be as such without any repercussions because they’re more polite about abusing people.

Abusive people should face disciplinary action according to the severity of their actions, I'm not disagreeing on that. This isn't a black and white situation, it's not a decision between ''let abusive users do what they want'' and ''ban anyone abusive and victims do what they want instead''.

What I'm saying is that we should consider at least approaching victims and say something along the lines of: ''I know what you're going through right now, but sarcastically asking someone if they would like an article better with racial slurs isn't helping the situation'' while continuing to do whatever disciplinary actions are required against abusive users.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

SoullessSingularity 09 Jul 2018 15:11

My issue is that’s not what’s worded above. What’s worded above is essentially putting kinch on public blast for an understandable response, as an example of a completely unacceptable behavior. There’s a difference between stopping a convo for being disruptive and stopping a convo for being disruptive and then grabbing the person who is responding to their bully and putting them in the public eye as the aggressor.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 09 Jul 2018 15:24

There’s a difference between stopping a convo for being disruptive and stopping a convo for being disruptive and then grabbing the person who is responding to their bully and putting them in the public eye as the aggressor.

Before their response, JerryJohn wasn't actually addressing Kinch or Hippo though. Scratch this, JerryJohn was involved in egging on harassment.

What’s worded above is essentially putting kinch on public blast for an understandable response, as an example of a completely unacceptable behavior.

I'm not sure what to say to this. Even with context, I'm not sure if sarcastically asking if someone would enjoy something more if it had racial slurs an understandable response, especially when the conversation before that wasn't hostile.

I'm not saying we should ignore context, but asking someone to avoid starting arguments isn't 'putting someone on public blast'.

This isn't letting JerryJohn off the hook either, by the way. They were involved in harassment, apparently. ARD put it best below:

The takeaway should be that we need to be more proactive and aggressive about punishing harassment and making our users feel comfortable with reporting harassment to us, so that they don't feel the need to respond to harassers to begin with.

Last edited on 09 Jul 2018 18:16 by Leveritas Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

SoullessSingularity 09 Jul 2018 17:19

To be clear, the public blast part was putting kinch on 05 as an example of an aggressor. Which was done here. Kinch is not an aggressor. It’s impossible to pretend that because jerryjohn is playing polite here, that jerryjohn isn’t also helping the continued harassment of kinch. In that context the response isn’t a random aggressive post, and shouldn’t be portrayed as such on 05.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 09 Jul 2018 17:28

Oh, didn't mean to put her specifically as an aggressor, just pointing out that both sites are stirring up arguments. That was before I knew of the circumstances though. I edited my initial post.

Last edited on 09 Jul 2018 18:43 by Leveritas Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

A Random Day 09 Jul 2018 14:47

1) Leveritas was pointing out that it was unacceptable for kinch and Hippo to go after someone who was not involved with her harassment to begin with. Was JerryJohn's opinion bad? Yes. Did it warrant Kinch's and Hippo's responses? No.
It's come to my attention that JerryJohn, while not directly involved with harassing her, has definitely helped egg such actions on. Thus, I'm more inclined to give kinch a pass. Regardless, my second point stands.

2) The takeaway shouldn't be that we need to treat both sides equally. The takeaway should be that we need to be more proactive and aggressive about punishing harassment and making our users feel comfortable with reporting harassment to us, so that they don't feel the need to respond to harassers to begin with. To extend Leveritas' analogy, we need to pull the kids apart and then ground the one who started the fight.

Last edited on 09 Jul 2018 15:04 by A Random Day Show more

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Leveritas 09 Jul 2018 15:00

Thanks ARD, that's pretty much my stance in a coherent and concise way. I should try to clarify my statements better.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

Joreth 05 Jul 2018 04:02

We already no doubt strongly condemn and will ban anyone found participating in raiding other sites. It's in the site rules.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

DrClef 05 Jul 2018 04:32

Doesn't hurt to emphasize that's the rule. Just like how my neighborhood has "REMEMBER NOT TO USE ILLEGAL FIREWORKS" signs up every July.

Re: Preventing Downvote Bombing on RPC Authority

DrEverettMann 05 Jul 2018 14:00

Wait, don't use them? Well, that would explain why the fire marshal was so cross with me last night.