Overview #
This guide provides moderators with a breakdown of behaviours commonly associated with performative bad faith – a form of trolling where users manipulate language, guidelines, and community values to provoke, destabilise, or discredit a space while presenting themselves as misunderstood or censored.
It is based on a real incident within IFTAS Connect, and is designed to help moderators:
- Recognise manipulative rhetorical patterns
- Understand the psychological tactics at play
- Justify interventions with confidence and clarity
- Preserve the safety and integrity of the space
Behavioural Profile: Performative Bad Faith #
Performative bad faith is defined by a contradiction between stated intent and observable impact. It is often accompanied by language that mimics civil discourse but serves a destabilising purpose.
✅ Claims to: #
- Be “just expressing views”
- Value diversity or dialogue
- Quote community guidelines
❌ But actually: #
- Uses dehumanising or mocking language
- Dismisses others as irrational or lesser
- Frames community standards as censorship
- Challenges moderation as a form of control or hypocrisy
Psychological & Strategic Tactics to Recognise #
| Behaviour | Example Quote | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Tactical Victimhood | “Many will never know I exist… not for any choice of their own.” | Claims suppression to shift blame for consequences of their own conduct. |
| Gaslighting/Distortion | “All I did was present my views, with care.” | Downplays inflammatory statements by appealing to self-perceived reasonableness. |
| Mocking the Guidelines | “‘Help new perspectives be heard and listen actively’ – suck it up buttercup, you didn’t.” | Weaponises values of inclusion to ridicule or provoke. |
| Contempt Disguised as Wit | “Try to phrase a question… if it’s word salad, I’ll wait for a steak.” | Dismisses others’ contributions while pretending to welcome dialogue. |
| Adversarial Framing | “I am behind enemy lines… but I will march forward as I believe is right.” | Indicates the user sees the community as a battlefield, not a collaborative conversation space. |
| Manipulating Consequences | [Behaviour] → [Moderation] → “You’re persecuting me.” | Deliberately provokes to trigger moderation action, then claims unjust treatment. |
Red Flags in User Engagement #
- Sudden entry into a space with a highly politicised or ideological post
- Self-referential martyrdom e.g., claiming to be a target of “the system”
- Quoting guidelines out of context to challenge moderation decisions
- Refusal to engage in dialogue beyond their initial position
- Blaming others for perceived silencing or exclusion without reflection
Moderation Principles to Apply #
1. Moderate on behaviour, not ideology.
The issue is how something is said – not what is said. Derision, dehumanisation, and provocation violate norms regardless of content.
2. Do not be baited into a debate.
Engagement can be used as performance fodder. Don’t feed the trolls. Keep responses neutral, factual, and procedural.
3. Preserve the tone and boundaries of the space.
Moderation isn’t censorship; it’s stewardship. Allowing destabilising behaviour undermines trust, especially for minoritised members.
4. Document and cite violations clearly.
When intervening, quote specific examples and reference the relevant guidelines. This reduces the room for misinterpretation or reversal.
5. Protect the emotional labour of the community.
Trolls often aim to exhaust others. Be proactive in shielding members from unnecessary exposure to harm.
Example Account Note for Moderators #
“This account appears to be engaging in performative bad faith, using the appearance of civil discussion to provoke, destabilise, and discredit moderation, rather than contribute constructively.”
Mod Team Classification Checklist #
✔ Quotes guidelines but uses them to mock
✔ Frames community as oppressive or biased
✔ Uses contemptuous language with plausible deniability
✔ Claims exclusion while demonstrating non-collaborative intent
✔ Response to moderation is escalation, not reflection
Optional Debrief Questions for Mod Teams #
- Was the team unified in recognising the bad faith pattern?
- Did we respond with enough clarity and consistency?
- Did our intervention support community safety, particularly for vulnerable groups?
- What could we document or template for future incidents?
