The Care and Feeding of Trolls
February 18, 2010 10:58 PM Subscribe
What makes a good moderator? How do you deal with someone who is dragging a discussion down?
A couple of days ago a friend of mine ran an evening of music, performances, and discussion. They invited different people to do different things, and unfortunately, the person running the discussion section (let's call him K) did not do a great job. It was an emotionally charged topic to begin with, and K did not help by asking confrontational questions (such as "How much money do you make?") of people who disagreed with him. He was just overall incoherent and kind of mean.
My friend and I both felt unsure of how to steer the discussion back in a productive direction without escalating the situation, so neither of us did anything. Talking afterwards, we found ourselves debating what we should have done. We didn't want to appear to be shutting down the conversation or being unfair to K, and we lacked the language to make clear what our problem with the situation was. But by doing nothing, we tacitly approved of the discussion, and I think made things worse.
I'm sure people have written and talked about these kinds of issues before. What are some resources you'd suggest for people interested in learning how to become good, fair moderators? Books, essays, articles, blog posts and discussions, personal wisdom are all appreciated. And if you have any suggestions for how to deal with K after this incident, that couldn't hurt either.
(By the way - I don't actually think K was trolling, I think he was either unaware of what an inhospitable atmosphere he was creating, or he didn't care. I think of a troll more as someone who is engaging only to get a rise out of people. But I can't think of a better title, so I'm going to leave it.)
A couple of days ago a friend of mine ran an evening of music, performances, and discussion. They invited different people to do different things, and unfortunately, the person running the discussion section (let's call him K) did not do a great job. It was an emotionally charged topic to begin with, and K did not help by asking confrontational questions (such as "How much money do you make?") of people who disagreed with him. He was just overall incoherent and kind of mean.
My friend and I both felt unsure of how to steer the discussion back in a productive direction without escalating the situation, so neither of us did anything. Talking afterwards, we found ourselves debating what we should have done. We didn't want to appear to be shutting down the conversation or being unfair to K, and we lacked the language to make clear what our problem with the situation was. But by doing nothing, we tacitly approved of the discussion, and I think made things worse.
I'm sure people have written and talked about these kinds of issues before. What are some resources you'd suggest for people interested in learning how to become good, fair moderators? Books, essays, articles, blog posts and discussions, personal wisdom are all appreciated. And if you have any suggestions for how to deal with K after this incident, that couldn't hurt either.
(By the way - I don't actually think K was trolling, I think he was either unaware of what an inhospitable atmosphere he was creating, or he didn't care. I think of a troll more as someone who is engaging only to get a rise out of people. But I can't think of a better title, so I'm going to leave it.)
Listen to the beginning of this episode of This American Life.
posted by muscat at 11:42 PM on February 18, 2010
posted by muscat at 11:42 PM on February 18, 2010
If you want a good discussion, the leader can't be pressing an agenda. He can make points, but his role is to get other people to talk. He should be asking good questions, keeping things civil, making sure no one monopolizes the discussion.
(This is mostly based on experience long ago running bible studies, of all things. By doing the above you can have a very lively discussion. Try to Make Points and everyone else will clam up.)
posted by zompist at 11:47 PM on February 18, 2010 [2 favorites]
(This is mostly based on experience long ago running bible studies, of all things. By doing the above you can have a very lively discussion. Try to Make Points and everyone else will clam up.)
posted by zompist at 11:47 PM on February 18, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: From my experience as a moderator on other forums, and from watching the moderators here, I think the most important thing a moderator needs to be able to do is:
1. succinctly call people out when they're being difficult, but do it in the least emotionally-charged and least judgmental way possible, and then
2. briefly suggest an alternative route of discussion, preferably in the same breath as the call-out if possible -- it makes the call-out less threatening to have it over and done with quickly. Generally the alternative route of discussion makes some mention of the misunderstanding at hand and how to proceed so that people aren't on edge.
A good moderator will take everyone in good faith until explicitly proven otherwise. Even if someone is being a jerkwad there will be some people on that person's side for a while. It's important for a moderator to give jerkwads multiple chances as it keeps as many people as possible comfortable. Moderators have an easier job of it the fewer people think they're fascist assholes, so it's better to err on the side of being a bit too nice so long as they have definite limits.
The worst moderators I've come across are those that are unwilling to call people out on their behavior, either because they think it'll make things worse, or they don't have the courage to do so; they're not really moderators at all and they tend to make things worse because no one wants to have to step in and usurp their position, if such a thing is even possible.
The second-worst moderators, imo, are those that call people out but in an inflammatory, dramatic way. It will shut a lot of people up, which is in some ways better than nothing, but sometimes it's misguided and undeserved -- think in this case with K not realizing he was making things uncomfortable -- or else if someone is either a real troll or has a basic level of self-respect, it can goad them on. If it's within the moderator's ability to outright ban someone from the discussion it can work for a while -- there's a flare up of drama and then it's generally over when the ban hits (unless other people continue to fight for the banned person) -- but it's pretty unpleasant and wears on people after a while.
The third-worst moderators are those that have a "one strike and you're out" kind of policy; people think they're fascist and don't feel comfortable talking, lest they make some mistake. These moderators tend to come across as immature as well, for lack of patience over small things.
posted by Nattie at 1:01 AM on February 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
1. succinctly call people out when they're being difficult, but do it in the least emotionally-charged and least judgmental way possible, and then
2. briefly suggest an alternative route of discussion, preferably in the same breath as the call-out if possible -- it makes the call-out less threatening to have it over and done with quickly. Generally the alternative route of discussion makes some mention of the misunderstanding at hand and how to proceed so that people aren't on edge.
A good moderator will take everyone in good faith until explicitly proven otherwise. Even if someone is being a jerkwad there will be some people on that person's side for a while. It's important for a moderator to give jerkwads multiple chances as it keeps as many people as possible comfortable. Moderators have an easier job of it the fewer people think they're fascist assholes, so it's better to err on the side of being a bit too nice so long as they have definite limits.
The worst moderators I've come across are those that are unwilling to call people out on their behavior, either because they think it'll make things worse, or they don't have the courage to do so; they're not really moderators at all and they tend to make things worse because no one wants to have to step in and usurp their position, if such a thing is even possible.
The second-worst moderators, imo, are those that call people out but in an inflammatory, dramatic way. It will shut a lot of people up, which is in some ways better than nothing, but sometimes it's misguided and undeserved -- think in this case with K not realizing he was making things uncomfortable -- or else if someone is either a real troll or has a basic level of self-respect, it can goad them on. If it's within the moderator's ability to outright ban someone from the discussion it can work for a while -- there's a flare up of drama and then it's generally over when the ban hits (unless other people continue to fight for the banned person) -- but it's pretty unpleasant and wears on people after a while.
The third-worst moderators are those that have a "one strike and you're out" kind of policy; people think they're fascist and don't feel comfortable talking, lest they make some mistake. These moderators tend to come across as immature as well, for lack of patience over small things.
posted by Nattie at 1:01 AM on February 19, 2010 [1 favorite]
The best way to learn this is to watch others who are good at it, honestly, but I also got a lot out of the book Crucial Conversations.
I actually think you were in a really tough spot, and that it was very difficult for you to try to control the situation as a participant. You couldn't really call him out. You would've had to have spoken up with your own "participant" opinion. To try to get away from conflict, you could expand the conversation to a level of abstraction where you could hold a space open for the opposing viewpoints. One way would be to look for what implicit goals everyone does agree on.
"I want to go back to what Shannon said. Regardless of her income, her comment is worth our thoughtful attention. Many people out there do believe that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And I think we all agree that ideally, we would empower people to solve their own problems. At the same time, I know some of the people in this room work very hard at social service agencies trying to help families do just that, and so they know that attempts to get out of extreme poverty almost never actually succeed, despite all of the families' hard work. So, how do we as a group either remove some of these barriers so that it is possible for people to do what Shannon was talking about, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or how do we educate the public about these barriers so that they will understand why so many people will probably continue to need some level of public assistance?"
posted by salvia at 1:12 AM on February 19, 2010
I actually think you were in a really tough spot, and that it was very difficult for you to try to control the situation as a participant. You couldn't really call him out. You would've had to have spoken up with your own "participant" opinion. To try to get away from conflict, you could expand the conversation to a level of abstraction where you could hold a space open for the opposing viewpoints. One way would be to look for what implicit goals everyone does agree on.
"I want to go back to what Shannon said. Regardless of her income, her comment is worth our thoughtful attention. Many people out there do believe that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And I think we all agree that ideally, we would empower people to solve their own problems. At the same time, I know some of the people in this room work very hard at social service agencies trying to help families do just that, and so they know that attempts to get out of extreme poverty almost never actually succeed, despite all of the families' hard work. So, how do we as a group either remove some of these barriers so that it is possible for people to do what Shannon was talking about, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or how do we educate the public about these barriers so that they will understand why so many people will probably continue to need some level of public assistance?"
posted by salvia at 1:12 AM on February 19, 2010
I publish a sometimes-contentious community blog. For a while, a comments went live immediately. I moved to holding everything for moderation, very little of which does not actually get let through. The delay of an hour or 3 slowed things down enough to take most of the most bitter edge out.
For real assholes or negative derailers I will just hold their comments a few hours longer than other folks so that they don't really have the opportunity to hijack the conversation.
posted by john m at 4:00 AM on February 19, 2010
For real assholes or negative derailers I will just hold their comments a few hours longer than other folks so that they don't really have the opportunity to hijack the conversation.
posted by john m at 4:00 AM on February 19, 2010
In meetings at work, we used to appoint a few people to specific jobs ( I don't remember the names we gave them):
A timekeeper, who would interrupt anyone who was going over the limit that we had set
A behavior judge, who would interrupt anyone who was out of line with regard to behavior - yelling, name calling, antagonizing, etc.
A topic monitor, who would interrupt if the discussion was going off-topic for the meeting. We would make a note of that topic and "table" it until another meeting, then get back on track with the agenda items.
A personal break monitor, who would interrupt the whole thing and ask if anyone needed a "bio break" - glass of water, go to the restroom, whatever to take care of your biological needs.
Everyone knew in advance who had these jobs, so there were no hard feelings if the timekeeper interrupted you and asked you to let others talk.
posted by CathyG at 7:36 AM on February 19, 2010
A timekeeper, who would interrupt anyone who was going over the limit that we had set
A behavior judge, who would interrupt anyone who was out of line with regard to behavior - yelling, name calling, antagonizing, etc.
A topic monitor, who would interrupt if the discussion was going off-topic for the meeting. We would make a note of that topic and "table" it until another meeting, then get back on track with the agenda items.
A personal break monitor, who would interrupt the whole thing and ask if anyone needed a "bio break" - glass of water, go to the restroom, whatever to take care of your biological needs.
Everyone knew in advance who had these jobs, so there were no hard feelings if the timekeeper interrupted you and asked you to let others talk.
posted by CathyG at 7:36 AM on February 19, 2010
There are different sorts of moderators for different venues. They can be there to ensure a discussion goed smoothly, keeping quiet until needed to redirect the conversation. Then there are forums that need an active mod to structure things, moving from topic to topic in an orderly and timely fashion. In either case, better mods stay out until needed to move things along. Maybe if one viewpoint has been well covered, ask for another view, either to the group at large, or involve a quiet member.
As for K in your example, fydfyd said it well. Keep the discussion on topic, not about individuals.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:23 AM on February 19, 2010
As for K in your example, fydfyd said it well. Keep the discussion on topic, not about individuals.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:23 AM on February 19, 2010
If you want a good discussion, the leader can't be pressing an agenda.
This. It is extraordinarily difficult to lead an inclusive discussion if you have a dog in the fight. Your attention needs to be solely focused on the group process.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:45 AM on February 19, 2010
This. It is extraordinarily difficult to lead an inclusive discussion if you have a dog in the fight. Your attention needs to be solely focused on the group process.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:45 AM on February 19, 2010
For the discussion of performance work, specifically, groups I've been involved with have found Liz Lerman's Critical Response Method to be an excellent structured format for discussion, which helps set expectations and manage critiques to be most useful to the work.
posted by judith at 10:04 AM on February 19, 2010
posted by judith at 10:04 AM on February 19, 2010
Response by poster: Judith - that link doesn't work for me, but I googled it (this was the top result, if anyone reading this thread is interested).
but do it in the least emotionally-charged and least judgmental way possible
What are some strategies for keeping things non-judgmental? Are there ways of phrasing things that are less likely to escalate the situation?
I was hoping for some recommendations of stuff to read about good practices in moderating, ways to talk about problems and power dynamics, etc. Still open to suggestions.
posted by shaun uh at 11:31 AM on February 19, 2010
but do it in the least emotionally-charged and least judgmental way possible
What are some strategies for keeping things non-judgmental? Are there ways of phrasing things that are less likely to escalate the situation?
I was hoping for some recommendations of stuff to read about good practices in moderating, ways to talk about problems and power dynamics, etc. Still open to suggestions.
posted by shaun uh at 11:31 AM on February 19, 2010
Best answer: Moderator is the term traditionally used for panel discussions (and moderating online is yet another thing) but you will have better luck finding information if you look for facilitation skills. Facilitation is often tied in with consensus decision making and it is all about the kind of non-judgmental approach you are looking for. There are a ton of resources about facilitation out there (I learned through example and by doing, so I don't have many specific recommendations you can find some free resources here).
The specific situation you described was a difficult one. In the past I've dealt with similar situations by basically taking over. It's not an easy thing to do though, it requires a lot of tact and only really works when the other person doesn't realize what you are doing, at least initially (otherwise you end up with confrontation) .
A crucial skill in this situation, and in facilitation in general is Reframing -- that's to say taking a question/discussion and rewording it to enable discussion -- often this is done by bringing to light the underlying issues behind it in a way that avoids a more confrontational approach.
To take your specific example "How much money do you make?" I would be looking to figure out what underlies this, I'm guessing some skepticism about the economic viability of artists, perhaps. Then if I have any sort of opportunity I will try to jump in. The choice of words will be crucial might start by saying "So what you are saying is..." or "This raises an interesting question..." summarize the underlying issues, as I see them, and then address an open ended question to someone else. When they had finished replying I might ten get a response to someone else.
There are several things going on here so I will try and break them down:
I'm starting by appearing to come form the side of the hostile questioner, or at least be including them. You need to make them feel you are helping them not confronting them so they will let you do this . Hence so what you are saying etc.
When I do the reframing I've hopefully picked up on the correct underlying issues -- this a particular skill facilitators need to develop, it's what makes for good ones -- but most crucially I've got the discussion going again. If I succeed its unlikely the original monitor will want to lose face by immediately stopping it again. More importantly once the other person has started the original person is likely to be trying to think of their responses to what the other person is saying, particularly if they have strong opinions, so they have switched roles to be a participant in the discussion, meanwhile by directing the conversation I've stepped in to the facilitators role, likely without people being conscious of this. Hopefully the conversation is flowing again so people will be on my side and from there I can decide what to do next since I now have at least some degree of control over the process.
Often times you only need to make a simple intervention and step back. Reframing questions, and introducing open ended ones can be really powerful by itself. You can always step back in if you need too. Other times you can carry on, it the discussion is going badly the person moderating is losing face and they will happily cede control if things go better and you don't draw attention to this. This similarly if people have strong opinions since they can now concentrate on being heard (and if you can facilitate well you can let them without having them dominate) rather than doing two things badly. Even if they want to take the facilitating role back, if you have successfully intervened and the discussion is flowing to a certain extent they will feel forced to keep it that way (by adopting your style).
(I don't K was necessarily unaware or uncaring BTW, he might well have not had any other ideas but felt trapped making him worse. )
This is not an easy thing to do however, in part I have the confidence to step in because I have a lot of experience of facilitating (25 years) but there is plenty that can be done as a participant to get things back on track with out necessarily trying to take over, for instance saying I'm not quite sure what you are asking about, are you saying... etc.
posted by tallus at 3:50 PM on February 19, 2010
The specific situation you described was a difficult one. In the past I've dealt with similar situations by basically taking over. It's not an easy thing to do though, it requires a lot of tact and only really works when the other person doesn't realize what you are doing, at least initially (otherwise you end up with confrontation) .
A crucial skill in this situation, and in facilitation in general is Reframing -- that's to say taking a question/discussion and rewording it to enable discussion -- often this is done by bringing to light the underlying issues behind it in a way that avoids a more confrontational approach.
To take your specific example "How much money do you make?" I would be looking to figure out what underlies this, I'm guessing some skepticism about the economic viability of artists, perhaps. Then if I have any sort of opportunity I will try to jump in. The choice of words will be crucial might start by saying "So what you are saying is..." or "This raises an interesting question..." summarize the underlying issues, as I see them, and then address an open ended question to someone else. When they had finished replying I might ten get a response to someone else.
There are several things going on here so I will try and break them down:
I'm starting by appearing to come form the side of the hostile questioner, or at least be including them. You need to make them feel you are helping them not confronting them so they will let you do this . Hence so what you are saying etc.
When I do the reframing I've hopefully picked up on the correct underlying issues -- this a particular skill facilitators need to develop, it's what makes for good ones -- but most crucially I've got the discussion going again. If I succeed its unlikely the original monitor will want to lose face by immediately stopping it again. More importantly once the other person has started the original person is likely to be trying to think of their responses to what the other person is saying, particularly if they have strong opinions, so they have switched roles to be a participant in the discussion, meanwhile by directing the conversation I've stepped in to the facilitators role, likely without people being conscious of this. Hopefully the conversation is flowing again so people will be on my side and from there I can decide what to do next since I now have at least some degree of control over the process.
Often times you only need to make a simple intervention and step back. Reframing questions, and introducing open ended ones can be really powerful by itself. You can always step back in if you need too. Other times you can carry on, it the discussion is going badly the person moderating is losing face and they will happily cede control if things go better and you don't draw attention to this. This similarly if people have strong opinions since they can now concentrate on being heard (and if you can facilitate well you can let them without having them dominate) rather than doing two things badly. Even if they want to take the facilitating role back, if you have successfully intervened and the discussion is flowing to a certain extent they will feel forced to keep it that way (by adopting your style).
(I don't K was necessarily unaware or uncaring BTW, he might well have not had any other ideas but felt trapped making him worse. )
This is not an easy thing to do however, in part I have the confidence to step in because I have a lot of experience of facilitating (25 years) but there is plenty that can be done as a participant to get things back on track with out necessarily trying to take over, for instance saying I'm not quite sure what you are asking about, are you saying... etc.
posted by tallus at 3:50 PM on February 19, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Saying that to K will first by you K's denial. The second time it gets addressed to the group and now you've got peer pressure working for you. If K was in an incorrigible snit, substituting yourself in the role is really the only fast fix. Expect that K may become belligerent at that point and perhaps the discussion is done for that session.
(most everything I've learned about moderation I learned from metafilter)
posted by fydfyd at 11:38 PM on February 18, 2010