The Limits of Discussion - Chronic "Slow-Burn" Toxic Behavior

Two straight days of rain, so no riding yet this week. The weather will soon be clearing. Hopefully that means a return to the road...

 I decided recently to reflect on the state of internet discussion today. Old bikes are one subject, but perhaps this can apply to any subject today where we have privately-managed online discussion. 

There is a great deal in the media about increasing toxicity online. I can't say that I disagree, though perhaps some level of toxicity has always been there. What has increased is the frequency and proliferation of toxic behavior. I highlight today "slow burn toxicity" or "chronic toxic behavior". 

This kind of behavior isn't nasty enough to get the user banned outright - at least right away - but it works a constant drip-drip of poison, eventually driving other people out of the discussion or out of the discussion forum entirely. Usually this takes the form of snide remarks, chronic sarcasm, back-handed compliments, or low-level but constant antagonism. This is the kind of behavior where the discussion will go a number of pages and finally a moderator or website owner steps in and says "That's enough!". 

Were the toxicity very strong: a nasty, direct insult, for example, then the offender would be banned straight off. 

The problem with this slow-burn toxic behavior is that eventually good contributors and regular people say, "this isn't worth it...", and leave the discussion or the website entirely. New users are taken aback by a low-level, toxic reception or snarky greetings. They also leave. The slow-burn offender might be chastised or even suspended, but he or she eventually comes back and reverts to his or her old ways. Even worse, the offender may resort to some justification or excuse for the behavior. If this kind of slow-burn toxicity becomes endemic, eventually only the toxic people are left. The moderators and owners of the website then wonder why the better contributors have left. 

The solution, I think, is to ban repeat offenders after the behavior reaches a tipping point. If a moderator or site owner finds the person is "one of the usual suspects", then it is time to reconsider whether this person is helping the discussion or whether they are harming the entire endeavor. One would not ban a one-off offense or someone "having a bad day", which is understandable. But when the same half-dozen people are allowed to gradually drive out others, then the ban is the way to go. If the person tries to come back under an alias to restart his or her toxic behavior, then that is an instant ban for trying to circumvent the rules.

I don't take this opinion lightly, and I don't like the idea of banning people or squelching discussion. But sometimes when you see the locked thread or locked discussion icon on the screen, you just know who the usual suspects are. Your discussion board, website, area, etc. is yours to maintain and it is a privilege - not a right - to participate in it. When you have "usual suspects", you have a problem that needs to be addressed. That has been my experience of 28+ years consistently being involved in internet discussions.