Comment Rescue – Banning the Trolls? Something to Consider
This makes sense:
“Steve Newton is upset that Delaware Liberal has some strident liberal voices – well, too bad and boo hoo. Stick to the Freepers and Redstate, then. Or go hang out with the DLC.
The problem with this site is not the strident liberals, no, the problem is that it allows bobble-head repubs, racists, and ditto heads to fire bomb the threads with their unsupported and unsupportable garbage. How many racist and insulting posts does Mike the Racist have to make before he is banned forever? How many “the one” or repub talking point lie posts does somebody get to make before they are banned?
When are the DL publisher going to realize that they don’t have to be the targets of racism, ridicule, hate, and divisiveness caused by many of the garbage posters here?
The right wingnut posters aren’t here to have their minds changed; they’re here to sabotage this site, control the threads, and destroy the possibility of high-level of liberal conversation. I don’t understand why the DL publishers don’t get this or act on it, if they do get it. The rightwing has plenty of megaphones – why do you let them have this one, too?”
Embrace the anger!
I agree with you to a point. Hey, I can have a civil discussion with anyone, but if you are just going to come here with the same tired cliches I have no use for you.
I’d say 2/3 to 3/4 of the commenters here are basically repub ciphers with nothing to say. How many times do I have to hear “Obama has no substance” or “Obama will take my guns away” or “The MSM has a liberal bias” before I get to call someone a cunt-faced pigeon fucker?
I’m not weighing in on either side, but the thought occurred to me while reading this, that either you are for free speech or you are not…
I find it curious that it is our avowed Libertarian who is advocating the “not”; I’m not saying I disagree with his reasoning behind his statement…
But…
I learned long ago that Free Speech in a public forum, is the kiss of death for one who uses it to Jane Brady another…..
A hostile attack tends (wasn’t that the theme of Kubrick’s Clockwork Orange) to provoke sympathy to your victim from a third party audience…; not sympathy for your cause.
But, an effective way, and one that is perfectly moral and legal as long as the rules are posted and understood by all, is to control such vitriolic spouting, by editing the comment and say “substituting” an opposite word representing that group making the accusation, for its subject… If all local parties reading it are aware of its being done, it is not unethical, and leads to some hilarious comments, stopping the attacks after one try, and then possibly another comment questioning the tactics…
As a bonus, here is a lifted comment from DWA changed to prove a point. Some of you may remember it in its original form…
What a nightmare! Sarah Palin is going Republican! Hand me my Boone’s Farm. The world of this hunter is welcomed by all such Alaskan Wolves. including those who sleep with Todd Palin’s cabal of animal-fearing, gun-toting, brown-fur-hating, airplane flying wanna-be animal assassins.
It is my recommendation that such policies be implemented and thereby keep free speech alive….
Anonone’s last paragraph is really worth thinking about. Much of it is quite true.
I know that there isn’t a lot of love for the Scoop or Soapbox platform here, but one of its really great features is the ability for the community itself to set its troll standards by allowing posts to be rated. Posts rated 0 or 1 get hidden and the trolls either go away or rethink their approach.
Is there some unused feature of WordPress that we might invoke to do the same thing?
BTW – I just remembered that this always happens within 30 days of an election.
Good to know……
The rating system you recommend, as it is used on Kos, can be manipulated by trolls to suppress good writing thereby keeping it from being noticed .
That problem usually generates one post a day over there….
It’s your site, and it’s entirely up to you who you allow to post here. I wouldn’t tolerate inflammatory comments if it were my site.
The rating system can be manipulated, but my experience over there is that there are alot of folks committed to some fairness and will rate up posts they think are unfairly hidden. One post a day vs all of the posts currently being written over there is an astonishingly good error rate.
I have been looking into it, but have come up empty so far.
Kavips,
The interesting thing is that several of the trolls on this site have their own blogs. Posting here accomplishes several things for them:
1) It gives them an audience that they don’t have on their own (lousy) blogs.
2) It allows them to post a link to their blog on this one.
3) It lets them destroy the conversation in the threads.
So it is not a question of free speech – they are free to post anything that they want on their own blogs (or they can start their own blog if they don’t have one).
A blog publisher has the right to edit or delete editorial content as much as any other publisher. Nobody has a free speech “right” to network air time, Op Ed space in a newspaper, or thread space on a blog.
Agreed?
“I have been looking into it, but have come up empty so far.”
That qualifies you to run for president on the Democratic ticket.
Just say “PRESENT!”
The free speech argument is a non-starter for me.
It kind of sounds like you only want people to comment if they agree with you. That would be kind of dull. Besides, think of all the hits you get because people like me have to get the last word. Hits are good, right?
Maybe we all need to relax a bit.
Dom, as much as I disagree with you I don’t think you’re a troll. Just misguided! 😉
Looking for a troll? Scroll up a few comments.
I kind of figured Dom would say that. What I think we’d aim to do is have comment threads that are vibrant with multiple points of view – but which don’t tolerate a lot of pointless bomb throwing for the sake of bomb throwing.
As a reformed troll myself (Hube’s Cube 2004-2006) I know the difference between having a different opinion and trying to poke people with sticks.
“high-level of liberal conversation”
Is that the purpose here? Seriously, are you only interested in liberal voices? That’s fine if you are, it is your blog to do as you wish. If so, let me know and I’ll not comment again. I do not wish to derail or destroy anything. I merely come here as the “loyal opposition” to (hopefully) exchange ideas. Either that or masochism.
(And, no, I’m not here to drive traffic to my crappy blog. If that were the case I’d have given up long ago. Any post on here generates more comments in a given day than hits I get in a given week.)
kavips
I’m not weighing in on either side, but the thought occurred to me while reading this, that either you are for free speech or you are not…
I find it curious that it is our avowed Libertarian who is advocating the “not”; I’m not saying I disagree with his reasoning behind his statement…
I don’t think I advocated doing away with free speech; I expressed an opinion on the quality of that speech and its affect on me. Obviously many others do not share it; but clearly being for free speech doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with or condemn the speech as long as you don’t try to stifle it….
That said, I agree with jason that this is not a free speech issue in any traditional sense (much as it pains both of us to be in agreement). A blog is a private entity, and the owners have the right to put in place any mechanism they choose to either limit or direct speech in any manner they want.
The rating system bit has never really seemed to work, for me, because occasionally you’re trying to follow an argument and bits and pieces go missing.
But doing it on a post by post basis assumes some kind of full-time editorship that most blogs including this one I would think don’t have the time for….
Yet I do agree with a point that a lot of DL folks are making: up until about three months ago there was plenty of disagreement here and profanity and everything to go around, and yet there was sort of an accepted code. I can’t quite quantify it, but even when dv and dd plus others were going at it with me over Catholicism there was something different about the discussion than what we see now.
That’s also where you picked up a bunch of new posters who, aside from being very conservative, seemed not to get the whole drift of things.
In some sense maybe I should have said that in my original post (if I’d thought about it), that what’s endangered here is a legitimate sense of community, by which I don’t just mean liberals.
Don’t know if any of that makes sense, but that’s never stopped me before.
I think banning trolls is a good idea because they can make entire threads unreadable. I think one has to be careful about how one defines a troll. A troll is someone who just wants to cause trouble or disrupt a thread. I think it really disrupts a post if it comes down to fighting about guns, abortion or whether Obama is “the one.”
Let’s all stop drawing lines in the sand! I believe DL wants debate, dare I say craves it. I think it makes us better.
As far as trolls… can we please stop pretending we don’t know who they are and what they do? Duffy, you are not a troll, but – come on – you know that.
I do not believe in censorship period. If I find out that you are censoring anyone, I will not visit this site and will never comment.
This is the last bastion of free speech. Its interesting that the public are invited to comment on your blog, but when you don’t like what they say it becomes private. hypocrisy at its best.
If you can design it, someone can outwit it. I find it’s best just to ignore trolls.
Though I understand the desire to ban them here when they start making sense and winning points
Bad for Kool-Aid sales. 😉
anon
I don’t like censorship, either, but….
(here I go, again, kavips)
I’d censor spam–would you?
I’d censor attempts to “out” people who have chosen to be anon because revealing their IDs might get them into real world trouble–would you?
I’d censor real threats–would you?
Now the trickier question: I wouldn’t censor trolls if they didn’t fall into that category above (and I think Mike Matthews agrees with me), but then I don’t get enough trolls on my blog to know.
It comes down to a question of intent on a private blog. If people come in to make comments who obviously don’t have any respect for the community that runs the blog, and are obviously just commenting to derail conversations, then I think their behavior deserves at least censure, if not censorship.
I think of it this way in my classes: there is genuine disagreement in discussions, but there is also sometimes a genuine intent to subvert the ability of anyone else to have a discussion.
How do you suggest, anon, that responsible blog owners deal with that?
anon 20,
Go soak your head.
So…at what point shall we draw parallels to Burris’ closing comments a long while back? Some of y’all crushed him mercilessly for it. Kinda funny.
That said, it is your blog and you run it as you see fit. I agree about you shouldn’t stifle free speech, but it’s a blog, for crying out loud. You’re not a pay-to-use service and you certainly aren’t public people (although you do expose yourself to public opinion). Free speech doesn’t constrict your freedom to run your own blog.
Do it, don’t do it, whatever; just don’t bog yourself down getting public opinion if you’ve already made up your mind.
P.S.: all the people threatening to leave you if you censor stuff (“Where are we, Russia?” – Burger King commercial), well..guess what…if they leave, would you care (and would you know)? That’s what you need to ask yourself. Consider the real circumstances you’re willing to endure by your actions, not the threats of something that hasn’t yet (and may not) happened.
I’ll save you some time and give you fair warning that whatever obstacles you put up, I will find a way around. If you want to spend all of your free time doing that, fine. I’ll raise you my free time and a streak of determined asswipery.
On the other hand, I do find myself being drawn to more exchange and less DV pokery. Your best bet is to win over trollish behavior with engagement. I’ll still call it like I see it most times, and if DV’s nuts are left hanging out in the open, I will kick them, but I am not completely beyond potential redemption.
Right now, I see the complete and utter destruction of the two party system and personally humiliating devastation of those who support it as the only viable path of progress in this country.
Just sayin’.
HAVE A NICE DAY. 😉
You have the capability of outing any anonymous troll that crosses the line. Maybe you should use that power. If you want to talk shit, make vile comments, everyone will know the commenter.
Pandora,
If the function of this thread is to engage in liberal conversation only then I am probably not helping even if I’m not a troll.
I’d be curious to see what the contributors of this blog see as it’s function. I’d be surprised if they agree.
I don’t think that the goal of this blog is liberal-only discussion.
I think that the goal is discussion, period.
But there is no doubt that we have had an infestation of folks who are definitely not interested in discussion — just in dive bombing threads or in pretending to some discussion while actively dive bombing threads.
It is true that there was (is) something of a code, but that code depends on most of us knowing each other at least on line. We are getting folks who aren’t part of this community (which I include the Delaware blogosphere and our commenters and lurkers in its entirety) and who aren’t interested in that community — just in tagging it.
“That said, I agree with jason that this is not a free speech issue in any traditional sense (much as it pains both of us to be in agreement). A blog is a private entity, and the owners have the right to put in place any mechanism they choose to either limit or direct speech in any manner they want.”
Indeed, Newton, it’s kind of like shouting something inflammatory, or ill-informed, in a crowded room, and then covering your ears, or burying your head in the sand so you won’t hear any criticisms. While I do agree that an owner has the right to filter responses and comments, let’s just call it what it really is… cowardice.
And for the record, miscreant, yours are the kinds of posts that are made just to tag this place. You come come here to say something incendiary or to insult people and now you are here claiming we don’t listen to your critiques. There’s no cowardice in ignoring the folks show simply won’t get in the conversation at hand. The only real cowardice is by the people who won’t seriously engage with the topic at hand. And no, talking points don’t count. If you can’t defend what you say then be counted as a troll.
You are, of course, lying about what you do here and no one listens to your critiques because you don’t make any. Have something to say besides the usual inane insults and perhaps you’d have a case.
In all fairness, Cassandra, have you ever seen Jason & DV’s comments on my posts at DWA? They seldom, if ever, add to the conversation. It’s usually just a personal attack. You know, “you’re bitter, you’re a racist, blah, blah, blah”. In fact, that’s generally the response most dissenters get on this site from many of the Obama supporters who comment, even if we are posting legitimate arguments. I didn’t notice any of you calling any of those people out for inane insults. Mike W. is a perfect example. While he was initially gun-obsessed, he has since contributed several valid, well-articulated points and been greeted with nothing but dismissive, sometimes childish, disrespect.
Perhaps you guys should rename the site potkettle.net.
If we ban trolls, who is going to tell donviti? 😉
BTW, I’m fine with Jason & DV contributing little more than personal attacks. Sure, it annoys me, but I think it does them more harm than it does me. I’m just saying it’s a bit hypocritical to suggest that the discourse from those who don’t agree with you should be any more respectful than what your own contributors and supporters offer.
“There’s no cowardice in ignoring the folks show simply won’t get in the conversation at hand. The only real cowardice is by the people who won’t seriously engage with the topic at hand. And no, talking points don’t count.”
That was a very accurate characterization… of yourself. Nearly everything you post is talking points, any you censor some of those who disagree. Thanks for making my point.
“You are, of course, lying about what you do here …”
I don’t believe I even made any indication of what I do here. No doubt, it’s more comfortable for you to label and dismiss it. To me, this is little more that a failed social experiment, to be poked and prodded. It’s simply for my entertainment, at your expense. Nothing more, nothing less.
To me, this is little more that a failed social experiment, to be poked and prodded. It’s simply for my entertainment, at your expense. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the definition of a troll.
“Thanks for the definition of a troll.”
Indeed, if that’s your label. Unlike you, I don’t pretend otherwise.
Rule #1: Contributors commenting on their own blog are not trolls.
Rule #2: Comments that do not further the discussion – but are clever and funny – are not trolling.
Rule #3: Comments that do not further the discussion, are not clever or funny, and are posted simply to derail a thread’s theme or focus the “attention” on the poster are trolling.
Pretending not to know what a troll is… priceless.
pandora
(not a snark)
I get the sense that the definition of a troll has subtly changed. Nearly a year ago I got into it with Dana Garrett over something (I don’t even remember what, and I doubt he does either) and I laughed at someone’s characterization of him as a “KGB Troll.” Dana was hideously insulted, because–as he quickly pointed out–one of the essentials of being a troll is anonymity.
Not complete anonymity in the sense of avoiding the use of your real name, which many folks do, but in the sense of not having established a consistent on-line persona (e.g., pandora, nemski, miscreant) which makes you at least somewhat accountable for your statements.
I thought this was an essential aspect of trolldom.
For example, when a lot of people were accusing Mike Protack of using alternate IDs to cover his posts, those were dismissed as trolling, while those over his real name were–if not respected–considered legitimate comments.
“Furthering the discussion” is a pretty subjective term, as is the term “talking points.” A lot of what I see here by posters and commenters who are liberals I would consider talking points, but because they are liberal talking points they get accepted as gospel, and even real attempts to deal with them critically are often completely dismissed.
That’s your prerogative. But given Number One in your definition, when you make it OK for people who are posters or certain commenters (I’m thinking dv and jason in particular here, but anonone also comes to mind) to call other people names, but not for them to respond, then there is something less than a free exchange going on.
Steve, while I’m not a name-caller, I don’t really have a problem with it. Some of the comments between you and Jason and DV come to mind! 🙂
I think you make a good point about knowing who you are talking to (miscreant, nemski, etc.). Also, I didn’t justify name calling in rule #1. When I said contributors, I meant those of us who write posts. Example: Steve Newton is not a troll when he writes a comment on Delaware Libertarian.
Actually, I think we have all been guilty of “trollish behavior” at some point, but you won’t be considered a troll on the basis of one post. It’s more about your body of work.
You and I have disagreed on many issues, and yet I can say that I have learned things from your posts/comments and that you’ve made me think and laugh. (and sometimes say, “WTF is he thinking?!)
And isn’t that the real difference? When I look at the recent comments and see certain names AND already know exactly what they’ve written BEFORE reading it…
Republican!
(BTW – I knew “republican” would become a pejorative term meaning “idiot, loser, low-life, crum-bumb” sooner or later, but i did not think Bush would make it such a bad word, so quickly.)
Steve,
1) Why should somebody has made incendiary racist comments and constantly degraded Obama with unsupported and unsupportable comments ever be allowed back?
2) Have you noticed how several of the trolls have said essentially, “I am not going away and you can’t make me.”? You can almost see them sticking their tongues out or fingers up. This is what DL is dealing with.
These are the types of people who show up uninvited at a party, make a mess, cause a fight, and then say “who me?” when asked to leave. And then they refuse to go.
People who bring facts to the table, who understand the actual definitions of the words that they are using, and who want to engage at a higher level are welcome.
People who are here just to start fights, fire bomb, or slander liberal Democrats with discredited talking points aren’t welcome. People who ask questions like “what is Obama’s record on xx” that are too lazy to Google or go to his website or read his books aren’t welcome. People who call him baseless names like “the one” or “the messiah” or call his supporters “worshippers” aren’t welcome. People who celebrate their own ignorance and ridicule those who actually study something are not welcome.
There are people that I have had long engagements with in threads that I disagree with strongly with but respect immensely, Tyler in particular. He comes knowing his stuff (well, except the name calling and threats to “out” people), so you can have a heated exchange and shake hands in the end. The other types I have described – not so much.
“People who are here just to start fights, fire bomb, or slander….with discredited talking points aren’t welcome.”
But where will Donviti go?
As a reformed troll myself (Hube’s Cube 2004-2006) I know the difference between having a different opinion and trying to poke people with sticks.
*
ha! got a good laugh remembering the good old days there.
one of the essentials of being a troll is anonymity.
*
I disagree. The essential thing about being a troll is the degree to which they are present to disrupt and incite and skew the topic at hand.
A person is a troll who dominates a post for this miserable, self-serving agenda no matter if they are anonymous or not.
Pandora
I think (in all seriousness) that the exchanges I have with jason and even dv or dd on occasion are different, in that the name-calling is clearly consensual.
If jason wasn’t trying to avoid dealing with issues by shouting “Republican!” (we’re now down from talking points to talking words; eventually he’ll have to think of one that’s only one syllable or his nervous system will heat up from overuse), then I would think someone had stolen his ID.
You’ll note, for example, that while cassandra and I have gone at it many times about the content of each other’s posts, I don’t think we’ve ever stooped to calling each other names (have we, cassandra?) because our level of insults is … possibly more intellectual than jason can stand.
Steve, we are in agreement. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Oh, not at my sharpest today–must have been, ah, a Republican moment (ouch) ….
Steve’s comment (50) hurts my little brain. Can someone dumb it down for me?
In all fairness, Cassandra, have you ever seen Jason & DV’s comments on my posts at DWA?
I have seen those posts. And in fairness, we are talking specifically about housekeeping at this blog. I don’t presume to police anyone else’s blog — I just leave if I don’t like it. If you are having issues with anybody’s posts over at DWA I suggest to take them to task and ask them to stop.
Jason, I think that Steve is saying that you and he call each other names for the entertainment of it (think if playing the dozens). He also seems to be saying that Steve and I don’t call each other names because he knows I will track him down and kick his ass.
😛
And you will. That’s why I’m nice to you, Cassandra.
‘If you are having issues with anybody’s posts over at DWA I suggest to take them to task and ask them to stop.’
Yeah, because that would work.
As I said in #38, I don’t necessarily have an issue with it. Mike is very clear about his no deletion rule and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of making an issue of it here when there is clearly no effort to lead by example (on this site or elsewhere).
cassandra
that explains why I don’t call you names, all right
you don’t call me names because you know I would cry
LOL, Steve!
Yeah, because that would work.
Then I don’t get your complaint, Dom. If you don’t like how these guys behave on your blog, then take that up with them.
Seriously? You’re a sharp girl, so you’re either toying with me or you’re on antihistamines. It’s not about how they behave on my blog. It’s that they’re complaining about behavior that they’re guilty of themselves.
Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
screw you, you freaking racist
Don Sqyuishee
The defense rests.
Bitterique
mines funnier fat ass
The jury finds Dominique guilty.
Yeah, but we’re not talking about your dick.
It’s that they’re complaining about behavior that they’re guilty of themselves.
And? Then you call them on it. If you aren’t going to ask for good behavior in your house, don’t be surprised when you don’t get it. It doesn’t seem too useful to tolerate any acting out that may be going on at your blog, then decide to highlight any hypocrisy when we are discussing the policing of this blog.
Oh. My. God. Forget about my freaking blog. Look at what they do here. You are discussing the policing of people doing EXACTLY what they do in the comments section of this blog.
good one
We will meet one day, DV, and I promise you will like me.
You people need to stop with the name calling before I send Steve up in here with a can of whoop ass for all you guys and girls.
ps Dom — who owns the blog does make a difference in who sets the standard of behavior. As far as I can tell the kind of bomb throwing that we are talking abut here seems quite acceptable at DWA. If that is wrong, it is up to you to clarify that.
c’mon, it was kind of funny. even the fat ass part.
Ah, so DV has deleted all my comments in this thread.
What an asshole.