You need a benevolent dictator who will remove the user pretty quickly if it's blatant disruption. Stalling undermines trust in mgt. - Jon Lebkowsky

depends on the level of disruption. - Chris Geier

They stifle engagement by veering of course w/their nonsense and getting ppls thoughts elsewhere. But as Chris said, depends on the level of disruption on how to react. - Sonny Gill

I agree with @Chris. Dpends on the type of offense, person disrupting, how often they've done that, etc. - Jeff Hurt

Whoa Jon: A benevolent dictator. Can't you see that in a job description? I have had some serious trolls and it has made me tough. - Angela

Generally, by trying to intimidate newer users ("this isn't how it works here") or spewing lots of angry rhetoric and/or filling up with lots of comments. If it's a violation of the site's guidelines it gets pulled, but often there's not much that can be done without seeming like someone is getting singled out. - Steph

Steph: Yes, it is horrifying to see new users pushed away by bullies! - Angela

Steph, I think removal is the best bet for a true troll/disrupter. Thenn possibly a private back-end conversation. I could tell a rather long story about a user to practically trashed the WELL before the community managers dealt with the problem. He was taking advantage of the WELL's commitment to free speech. (WELL = http://well.com) - Jon Lebkowsky

But where do you draw the line between disruption and disagreement? A lot of what community members consider "trolling" (and react to as such) is often simply someone with a different viewpoint. - Steph

The benevolent dictator emerged from Howard Rheingold's Electric Minds in the 90s. Realization was that a social process for dealing with a troll or blatant disruptor undermines trust and social fabric, so you have to be prepared to take unilateral action. - Jon Lebkowsky

Disruptive members are often very harmful to the community and our approach is to contact them offline and explain our concerns and refer them back to our community guidelines. We might be the exception, but this has always worked for us to correct the behavior and folks are appreciative of the feedback. - Jamie Pappas

Steph: I've never found it hard to tell someone whose goal is to disrupt from someone who is merely disagreeing or being disagreeable. - Jon Lebkowsky

Someone who's destructive can take your community down pretty quickly if you try to handle with open social process. - Jon Lebkowsky

I think it depends on the community, Jon. If heavy debate and political issues are a huge component, it can be difficult to draw the line of someone who is being disruptive to be disruptive, or who is interacting in a way that is perhaps not the best. - Steph

And not handling all community members with open process only leaves the door wide open for accusations of bias and censorship. - Steph

Steph: Are you saying that it's best to do it all out in the open? Or is there ever a situation to treat someone differently? - Angela

Steph: We do it offline so as not to embarrass the person and lose their trust in us and confidence in the community. We document everything via email, so there's a record of it. But our ultimate goal in the whole process is to educate and information and win them over, not embarrass or alienate, which I have seen happen all to often when correction's done in public. - Jamie Pappas

I don't think there is a situation to treat someone differently. Given a chance, most trolls/disruptive users will wind up violating the site's standards enough to warrant removal - Steph

Steph: I think I need a pep talk from you about being more consistent with this. - Angela

Jamie--sorry, my previous comment wasn't clear! We correct via email and private discussion, but I was referring to being open about the standards that we hold people to. There is no separate set of procedures for someone who appears to be a troll. - Steph

Ha, I wish I had one! :) It's tough, and something we're working on too. - Steph

A lot of transparency about standards seems to have been helpful; there will always be people who are of the 'free speech no matter what' persuasion, who want to cry censorship any time something is removed, but most reasonable community members will start to understand and speak up. - Steph

Hey Steph, Here is what I tell people about free speech: "Free speech is a constitutional right designed to keep the federal government from making laws to limit it. It does not mean the public has the right to say whatever it wants on a privately-owned Web site. Our goal is to create an environment for civil and productive community dialogue. We hope you will contribute to that goal and have fun along the way!" - Angela

We say something similar, but I find it doesn't always sink in! A high sense of ownership seems to translate into a lot of strong opinions on how the site should be run. I'm thrilled to see that our community cares that much, but sometimes it means a lot of back and forth on things. - Steph

Steph: Ah yes - I agree with you completely on being open and transparent on the standards people are held to! Absolutely! :-) - Jamie Pappas