Baiting

"From my point of view, I simply saw the comments as disruptive and antagonistic, which caused me to ban instead of edit when I took past history into account. Perhaps an edit alone would have worked. "

And given this circumstance, in how many instances can you say that you shouldn't have banned someone for what was not actually baiting in the end? ?

It all sounds like symptoms of the same disease which is basically the term "baiting" being used as an excuse by the moderators, an all purpose stop-gap to ban someone for not acting in a way you think is right.

This is why I think the idea of a user who feels they're being baited contacting a mod works quite well, it removes one possibility of mods overstepping their bounds and banning for something that nobody will take offense to.

 

But that also could create inconsistencies. A user could make a comment to one member, who has thicker skin, and get off without any sort of punishment. That user then starts to believe that they won't be punished for a comment like that. So, they make a similar comment to another member, who doesn't have thick skin. They report it to a mod, and the user gets banned/warned/whatever because of it.

I really don't think it's fair to give too much weight to how someone reacts to the comment. There are people who would act insulted, just to get someone else in trouble. There also are others who don't care what someone else says, and will just shrug everything off.

 

Under pretty much every single reasonable opinion of the act, baiting very clearly is a sub-set of harrassment - being an attack by one user on another user.

Regardless of whatever the intended victim does or does not do, the attack has been made. Therefore, the response by the intended victim is irrelevent to the stand-alone merits (or lack thereof) of the bait. A bait stands on its own regardless of what anyone else does, and does not require any further validation of it being harrassment.

Baiting is not an e-victimless e-crime.

 

"There are people who would act insulted, just to get someone else in trouble."

That's when the magnificent mod traits of objective ruling and "gut instinct" (as DarthSapeint put it a few pages back) come into play.

"There also are others who don't care what someone else says, and will just shrug everything off."

Well that's fine too. In fact, it'd save a whole lot more time effort, banning and problem solving if everyone adopted that policy towards "baiting".

I still don't think bait is bait until someone takes offense to it. To make an extreme example, someone could post "I don't like chickens!" and an admin can come along and pre-emptively edit the post and ban me because it may offend someone who enjoys the chicken as a species. May offend. Until it offends the chicken fans and they express their displeasure, the mod has no business moderating anything because there's no problem to solve.

"Therefore, the response by the intended victim is irrelevent to the stand-alone merits (or lack thereof) of the bait."

Not true, IMO. It then becomes a case of the moderator assuming responsibility on behalf of the intended victim and judging the intent of the post which is hard to do at the best of times and is often wrong (or biased for personal reasons). If you cut that out, there'd be much less of a problem with these bans for baiting getting so far off-course in the first place.

 

I still don't think bait is bait until someone takes offense to it.

By that same logic, a worm isn't bait until the fish bites the hook. That doesn't quite hold up.

A worm becomes bait when it is put on the hook and cast into the water, not when the fish actually bites it. In the same way, a bait is a bait when it is posted, not when someone responds to it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"..a worm isn't bait until the fish bites the hook..."

That's exactly right.

Until a fish snaps it up it's a dead invertabrae impaled on a piece of metal, hanging around doing nothing.

If bait isn't taken, the attempt to cause trouble (if that's the true intent) fails.
No problem ensues and no moderation is required.

Happy days follow for all.

 

If bait isn't taken, the attempt to cause trouble (if that's the true intent) fails.

But baiting is the attempt to cause trouble. I'd classify actually causing trouble as either trolling of flaming (depending on the type).

However, to say that baiting should not be moderated would be to say that attempted murder or attempted robbery should not be punished either, since neither was successful. It doesn't work that way.

Kimball Kinnison

 

DA...
"If you cut that out, there'd be much less of a problem with these bans for baiting getting so far off-course in the first place."

Well, I'm a big one for not bastardizing clearly-established words and meanings to suit one's own personal preferences. I wasn't commenting on non-baiting being passed off as baiting. I was commenting on baiting - actual baiting.

Baiting is harrassment. And I don't think harrassment of users is something desirable to have. That's one of the reasons why this site is moderated, so users are not harrassed.

If people are passing off something completely different from baiting as baiting in much the same way that "spam" somehow became a catch-all term to cover valid "fluff" topics, then that's obviosuly a problem. But, I don't quite think that this ummm... bait-and-switch... phenomenon has substantially infected the definition of what baiting is. Nor do I believe it's remotely at the level that the spam/fluff debacle got to.

I think for the most part, the moderators and ex-moderators taking part in this discussion knows what baiting actually is.

 

"However, to say that baiting should not be moderated would be to say that attempted murder or attempted robbery should not be punished either, since neither was successful."

Yeah...see I'm not suggesting baiting go unmoderated at all kimball.

I'm saying that baiting should be moderated when it presents a problem. When a user takes offense at something they perceive to be a bait, they report it to a mod. The mod uses their powers of objectivity to examine the situation and makes a ruling.

This system ensures that only real baiting is punished, any other ambiguous/biased moderation is promptly eliminated. I practised it just a few hours ago with Knightwriter, he knows how well this system works.

No more judging the intent of posts within moments of them being made! No more all-purpose excuse to ban someone becuase it is conceivable that someone may take offence to a misinterpreted remark!

Sounds dreamy to me

 

I haven't moderated anything of DA's in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I have watched this one develop through the week over about 4 threads here.
From DA getting bounced for baiting apparently, then opening up a new thread to ask it's current definition, then that being locked, and now this thread being resurrected to redefine the issue.

I remember the original transaction between you two and that's the genesis of my above comment.


I see what everyone is saying, but let me ask another question.
Isn't it a little silly for mods or admins to "feel" baited in a forum where we are encouraged to debate policy to the fullest? If this debate does become passionate between two parties, one part of the administration, the other no longer part of the administration, does it not seem odd that a baiting charge would surface in this debate?
Once again I am seeing this from the outside, but that is simply how it looks to me, just trying to add perspective, nothing more.

 

Yeah...see I'm not suggesting baiting go unmoderated at all kimball.

But you are. Baiting is simply the act of putting something enticing out to elicit a certain response. However, by your suggestion, we would not moderate baiting at all, but would instead be moderating trolling and flaming only (the results of successful baiting).

To bait is the act of putting it out there. If I bait a mousetrap, I'm putting the peanut butter on it (since mice don't eat cheese). I've baited the trap regardless of whether I actually catch a mouse with it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Isn't it a little silly for mods or admins to "feel" baited in a forum where we are encouraged to debate policy to the fullest? If this debate does become passionate between two parties, one part of the administration, the other no longer part of the administration, does it not seem odd that a baiting charge would surface in this debate?

I think much of the trouble lies in the fact that to me, the baits have little or nothing to do with the issues being debated, or only serve to detract from the discussion (or just plain derail it). When PiaS made his point about not wanting to waste any more of his time in this thread while people were engaged in personal disputes, that's along the lines of what I mean.

It's possible to debate the issues (and only the issues) without resorting to any veiled or plain baits at people.

 

Bane420...
"I have watched this one develop through the week over about 4 threads here... then opening up a new thread to ask it's current definition, then that being locked, and now this thread being resurrected to redefine the issue."

I was the one who locked DA's "baiting" thread and redirected him to this already existing one. That was done because this thread was still open, and already contains a significant amount of discussion on precisely this point. We don't need a gazillion threads all on the same topic spamming a forum. This is common forum practice, and shouldn't be taken as anything against DA or his desire to discuss the issue.

"I see what everyone is saying, but let me ask another question.
Isn't it a little silly for mods or admins to "feel" baited in a forum where we are encouraged to debate policy to the fullest?"

Bingo. IMO, this is a valid point. But, the contrary is also true. At the very least no regular user should be subjected to any harrassment whatsoever in a site administration forum. Having a desire to discuss an "important" site policy in no way should open up a user to be slagged on by people.

While I do use the "regular user" descriptor, moderators and others in the administration all signed on to accept to some degree, a certain level of criticism. The extent of that criticism is outlined in the rules for use of this site and this forum.

Certainly, while no user (both regular users and the administration alike) should be subjected to flaming, trolling, harrassment, etc., there is an expectation that moderators have to be able to handle dissatisfied users without breaking down and whining like a Skywalker.

That said, as a moderator, I'm expected to be a target to some degree. But, also said, non-moderators do not have such an expectation and don't need to remotely put up with it.

 

Technically, isn't everything a bait?

When I make a statement, I want to see people rebut it, and God knows I want them to make an ass of themselves. I want them to say something horrible to make them look like the raving lunatics I think they are.

I have stated my post in a good way, but I still want to elicit that response from them.

Is that baiting?

Even right now, I want a mod to overreact and yell at me, to make them look bad. I'm not posting anything disrespectful, but I'm still hoping to elicit a negative response.

Am I baiting?




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Even right now, I want a mod to overreact and yell at me, to make them look bad. I'm not posting anything disrespectful, but I'm still hoping to elicit a negative response.

That honestly does not compute with me. Why do you wish to see such negativity?

Why has respectful, civil discussion become almost an afterthought, or something to be seemingly avoided?

 

Am I baiting?

Yes, you are to a certain extent.

You are also misunderstanding the nature of these forums. These are not formalized debating forums. You don't win some big golden star for beating someone else in an argument. No one is going to bow down and worship you because you made someone else look like a fool.

The forums are here for us to discuss various issues (mostly Star Wars related). Not everything needs to be so confrontational (even in the Senate). What is so wrong with simply stating your point of view and asking others to clarify their's? Why do you have to try to make others react in a negative fashion?

You aren't going to convince anyone else that your position is right that way. All you will do is use the pseudo-anonymity of the internet to redirect personal frustrations at other people. In the end, what have you really gained by such behavior? Absolutely nothing.

We're all here to enjoy ourselves and discuss topics we enjoy. Why try to ruin it for anyone else?

Kimball Kinnison

 

And again, you just hit the nail on the head.

Part of the problem with baiting isn't how it is enforced by the administration, but how it is portrayed by the regular users.

Many know the line that exisits, with regards to the TOS, and will post everything they can to circumvent that.

That is the beauty of baiting, and everyone who engages in it knows this...

That's why I personally support the "attempted murder" analogy of it. A bait is still a bait if it is on the hook..

It is rather simple to glean an intent from a post.


surely it is obvious to see the difference between:

" I have a question on why a mod banned me?"
and
"Why do only mods who like to speculate about epIII make bad banning decisions?"

which one is the bait?

 

" I have a question on why a mod banned me?"
and
"Why do only mods who like to speculate about epIII make bad banning decisions?"


Good point. The first one is a simple question, and invites a clear answer.

The second one inevitably puts a moderator on the defensive from the start and accomplishes little.

 

Alright, here's the point I was trying to make.

Deep down, I want people I argue against to do something stupid so that I can more easily rebut what they have to say, and so that I can hold the upper moral ground. I don't mind admitting that, everyone wants that to happen.

However, I wanted to show why baiting is a stupid thing to ban for, because baiting is in everything. Anything I post can get someone's back up, so anything I say is baiting.

That is why banning for baiting is bad, because you can ban me at anytime, use baiting as an excuse, and that scares me.




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

However, I wanted to show why baiting is a stupid thing to ban for, because baiting is in everything. Anything I post can get someone's back up, so anything I say is baiting.


Have you considered simply asking respectful questions (like this)?

If people are going to make fools out of themselves, they'll do it with or without your help. If they do it without your pushing (as in you being cynical, antagonistic or obviously baiting), you'll look much better by contrast than if you're seen as mean-spiritedly pushing someone into responding rudely (lowering you to their level and possibly making the other person or people be viewed sympathetically by others).

 

I disagree with the "Bait isn't bait until it's taken" philosophy.

"No baiting" essentially means (to further extend the 'fishing' metaphor) "No fishing".

If there's a pond with a sign that says "No fishing", and you're sitting there with a rod and reel, with a worm on a hook in the water, I don't think you could say "I'm not fishing, because I haven't caught anything. Right now I'm just a guy with a stick, some line, and a worm on a hook".

Fishing does not require actually catching something.

Nor should baiting.

Consider:

If I go into a thread in the JCC and say something along the lines of "Man, the EU is such total garbage", I'm just expressing my opinion. But if I waltz into an EU forum, where people are professing their love for EU, and I say the same thing, am I baiting? I'm just asking for trouble with that one. Some boards call this "trolling" (again, akin to "trolling" while fishing... not "Being a troll"... but rather cruising through a thread/ocean, dropping 'bait' to try and 'catch' something).

Anyway, I've lost my sense of direction now.

I still maintain that Raincloud's case sets a dangerous precedent, and I'd urge the Administration to consider whether they're truly banning people for deliberately trying to pick a fight (baiting/trolling) or banning people for saying something which may or may not eventually lead to someone getting miffed.

There is a difference, and I sincerely hope that the Administration will take strides to avoid confusing the two, because one is a legitimate concern, the other is over-moderating, IMO.

Vertical

 

I still maintain that Raincloud's case sets a dangerous precedent, and I'd urge the Administration to consider whether they're truly banning people for deliberately trying to pick a fight (baiting/trolling) or banning people for saying something which may or may not eventually lead to someone getting miffed.


Good points, and something we need to consider closely.

If I had to handle that situation over again, I think I still would have banned, but my justification might have been different. If I had simply edited, I would have asked both parties to cease bickering and get started with the discussion (since it hadn't started yet).

 

JFT...
Regardless of whether one is a cynical jackass who chooses to be rude to everyone or the most oversensitive doormat who whines like a Skywalker at every little perceived attack, everyone understands that a positive forum environment is more desirable than a negative forum environment.

The intent of this entire site is to have a positive environment to discuss whatever it is people discuss here. The intent of rules is to foster a more positive site than a less positive one. The intent of the moderators is to ensure that a more positive site exists than a less positive one.

That said, the key to baiting is that while you certainly have the freedom to choose to be a jerk or jackass to other users, you will not be allowed to harrass them.

 

Vert, Now take that example one step further and apply it to a situation involving regular users:

If a brand new user posted a question in Lit:

"I just started reading the EU, and want to know more about Mara Jade?"

Now, instead of just helping out, if a regular user posted:

"I don't like Mara Jade."

I would say that, alone, that post might be considered rude, but not baiting because it still is on topic, and while, not helpful, is not attacking.. Maybe an edit?

If the same regular instead posted:

"Man, why do dumb Noobs continually ask about Mara Jade?"

That would be considered to be more than rude, and into baiting beacuse 1) it implies that the newbie is dumb. 2) It disrupts the topic and shifts the focus from a fictional character to the real live poster. Bannable?

In the first example, the newbie can still reply with "really, why?" and the discussion could continue.

In the second example, the newbie is only left with an option to be defensive, and protect himself..

That is why a reply along the lines of "who cares" could be considered baiting, depending on context. It is impling that the individual is somehow not important, and leaves him little to do but respond defensively...

 

True, true.

As I conceded previously, I know it's a hazy issue, and there can't be an absolutely clear definition or standard. I'm just posting here to stress to the Administrators the importance of not getting trigger happy when it comes to labelling things "baiting".

As has been pointed out, practically anything could cause defensiveness. Disagreement of any kind, even if respectful has the potential to spark defensive behavior.

I just want the Admins to know that it's an important issue that they should give some thought to when considering action, and that I personally would try to err on the side of caution and warnings and edits and PM's for this type of thing.

Vertical