Fay, there's benefit of the doubt, and then there's closing your eyes, blocking your ears, and coddling the deranged kid who is running around biting the other kids, and telling the bitten to suck it up, because Little Johnny has ADD and his dad drinks. There's leeway, and then there's the point where maybe lil Johnny needs to be moved to the special school, because this one doesn't have the resources to handle Johnny's issues.
Allyson, what is your problem with my stance? Am I *advocating* that little Johnny be allowed to run around biting the other kids in our analogy, and those kids have to suck it up?
No. I. Am. Not.
I am having a hell of a job keeping from using all caps and curses at this point, because this is infuriating me beyond measure. And it's so damned needless and fruitless to keep going over this again and again, but evidently I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Please listen to what I'm saying, rather than what you think I'm saying.
Let me try once more.
I am wholly, 100% convinced that if someone is having a negative impact upon the community, then it needs to be addressed as swiftly as possible. If you care to go back through the threads (and I'm sure that would bore you as much as it would bore me) you will not find me saying "Oh, no, we can't ban Buffistina Monkeypants. They have to stay. You all have to suck it up. Too bad." I am not saying that our imaginary little Johnny should be allowed to hurt other people.
Are we clear on this?
Before Msbelle's idea was suggested and Lightbulbs opened I suggested setting up a system where X many Buffistas expressing their discomfort would automatically lead to the problem being dealt with by a warning then and there, regardless of intent. Action being taken regardless of intent. Because it seems to me that intent and interpretation is what the hundreds of posts have been around, rather than the simple inarguable fact that people are upset. It was certainly my concern, and the reason I interjected at all. So rather than go through all the discussion of "X is being vile" "No, I don't think so" "Yeah, I totally agree, X is a bastard!" blah blah blah discussion cakes, I suggested that if RandomBuffistaPerson is upset, they just register their upsetness formally then and there by emailing a stompie. If X many people independently did this, then we'd know we had a problem and an official warning would automatically be sent out.
Apparently this suggestion translates as me being spineless and wanting someone else to be "the meanie" (yes, Burrell, if you're there, I am using the word advisedly, because it pissed me off at the time and evidently it still rankles) so the idea was comprehensively trashed. Fine. Whatever. But don't tell me I'm asking everyone to suck it up, because I wasn't and I am not.
In teaching, I don't automatically assume kids are acting like little shits because they want to piss me off, because sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. I believe in giving them the benefit of the doubt with regard to their *intentions*, and treating them positively. But you still need to address the impact right then and there and make damn sure they know where the lines are. I believe in telling them pleasantly but in no uncertain terms that their behaviour is unacceptable and had better change. If it continues, they will get a second, firmer warning and be told that this is their last chance and that continuation will lead in sanctions. And then if they continue to be little shits, they get their ass sent outside/given lines/whatever sanction seems appropriate. I do not believe in humiliating kids or degrading them. I have found that being firm but supportive and giving them the benefit of the doubt has been far more effective a means of bringing troublemakers into line than yelling at them and telling them they're useless would be. As much as possible, yes, I do want to be inclusive and find ways of adapting expectations and interactions to get everyone functioning together, but if Little Johnny is biting the other kids then Little Johnny needs to be moved away from the other kids.
Now maybe this pattern isn't transferrable to an online community of adults. But for me, the person and their behaviour are not the same thing. I have no problems with describing the person who showed up for a few posts of out and out "Josh sux you all R stoopid!" posts after Joss arrived in Firefly as a troll. Anything more ambiguous than that gets my benefit of the doubt card with regard to intent. And intent was the thing I've talked about every time. I'm not convinced that there was malice involved, and so, no, I'm not going to condemn someone. I have no problem saying that their actions or posts drive me apeshit, but this is a different thing from saying I think they're doing it on purpose.
Or, in fact, as I said before:
Agreeing that a situation surrounding/caused by any given Buffistina Monkeypants needs resolving isn't the same as saying that the BMP in question is a bastard.
Moving on to another, related point:
The trouble isn't recognizing trolls, it's doing something about it right away instead of waiting for the problem to solve itself.
See, herein may be the crux of the problem. I don't use the word troll to mean problematic-poster-who-doesn't-fit-in. I use the word troll to mean malicious-bastard-who-doesn't-want-to-fit-in. So by my lights, Buffistina Monkeypants may have to be banned for just not fitting in without actually being a malicious troll.