Recently, we’ve had a bit of a kerfuffle over a troll comment, left by a new BMG user who’s been trolling a lot of posts. We haven’t had a lot of trolling on Blue Mass Group, and as a community we seem to be quite vulnerable to it: it’s usually very successful. So let’s have a discussion about what it is and how we react.
What is trolling?
It’s commenting (or posting) for the sake of getting a rise out of people, or to elicit a reaction, usually an emotional one. When someone trolls, the content of their comment is not the point – the attention they get is. Trolling is successful when it distracts, redirects discussion, or takes over attention.
How can you tell if someone is trolling? There are no hard rules. You learn to recognize it, and sometimes you get it wrong. The key isn’t to use a checklist of “bad” behavior (ad-hominem? spelling? inflammatory opinion?), it’s to learn to spot the comments that will get a rise out of people or misdirect attention from fruitful discussion. Those comments may have some, all, or none of the “bad” behaviors on any checklist.
A commenter’s history can provide useful evidence. If you’re not sure whether someone’s offputting trolly-looking comment is just genuine naivete that could be solved with a kind nudge, check to see whether they’ve commented much of value in the past. If they haven’t, it’s probably safer to assume it’s a troll. They can always try again.
Feeding the Trolls
Trolling is successful when it elicits lots of comments. At that point, you can tell it was a troll for sure, because of the low quality of the thread it spawned, and often, unfortunately, because of how many more comments there are in that thread than in subsequent ones. That is when the troll has succeeded.
“Feeding” is participating. Troll comments are by their very nature tempting to respond to, and hard to pass up. When you do that, they succeed.
We usually do that here.
Please don’t feed the trolls.
When you see a comment you think is a troll, give it a 0 rating, but resist arguing with it. Find another comment and respond to that instead. A troll isn’t there to convince anyone, it’s to hijack attention.
Consarn you, commie sympathizers!
then let the toll go. I can’t just leave ridiculous postings unanswered, but I refuse to perpetuate the problem. I’ve noticed that the narrower the comment thread gets, the narrower the opinons expressed and, therefore, the less interesting they are to read.
I suspect the software behind this site deletes a post if it gets five more zero ratings than non-zero ratings, but I doubt that there are five us who want to go on Troll Patrol and send inflammatory comments down to Don Giovanni’s blog underneath the stage.
<
p>
As Cos points out, the problem is that trolls want a reaction. Ignoring them discourages them from reappearing and making still additional “ridiculous postings” that require answering. As far as I can tell, some trolls spend all their time on their “Recent Replies” page eagerly seeing what exclamation points they have collected.
<
p>
So if you deprive them of their fix, they won’t return for a refill. If you consistently give them a comment, even one, you are feeding the pigeons — and I hope you don’t mind the pigeon poop.
I would also like to reccomend lightiris’ excellent comment from the thread that necessitated this discussion.
<
p>
This is not about eliminating opposing points of view. It’s about removing posts that have intent to disrupt, and preventing them from devolving into the kind of nonsense that is disruptive to the community.
I’ve no illusions, however, that the people for whom the comment was intended will either read it or acknowledge it. This site had great potential, but I have to say I think the failure of the helmsmen to provide some direction and leadership is resulting in a real degradation in quality and consistency. If I wanted to spar with snide conservatives or single-issue fetishists on a regular basis, I’d talk to members of my extended family.
We have rules here. They are the Rules of the Road. We established them after a lot of discussion.
They do not ban snide comments, comments designed to get a reaction, or even in my opinion throw-away phrases like “crazy liberals” — especially when accompanied, as in this case, with a specific argument. Labeling people one does not like “trolls” and deleting their comments is hardly, in my opinion, an effective strategy to help develop and broaden progressive politics in Massachusetts. It certainly is bad for discourse.
I get that you disagree and that the rules of the road do not ban snide comments designed to get a reaction. I do not see how you could have regarded the post as containing an “argument”.
<
p>
But more importantly, could you remind me what we learned from the “Ten Things I Hate About Liberals” or similar material? If such tolerance is in fact such an effective strategy, what are its delicious fruits.
<
p>
Serve them, please, that we may sample them.
Only destroys that which the tolerant want to preserve – good dialog.
Lieberman beat Lamont. Kerry beat Dean. Rove got crushed in 2006. I think these are all examples of races in which radicalism, as the majority of voters in the respective elections saw it (maybe not you, maybe not me: I worked for Dean and supported Lamont), was defeated by moderation.
<
p>
Run too far to the edge, yell at your opponents rather than engaging them and persuading the undecided people who are watching, and get beaten.
<
p>
In the BMG context, that means: shut down people with whom you disagree, call provocative comments “trolls” and delete them, even if they follow our rules, and wind up like DailyKos/FreeRepublic — places where like-minded people, in their millions, talk to each other and talk past anyone who disagrees with them. I agree there is a certain power there, but I think it is marginal over the long term. Over the short term, it is sort of boring and not particularly thought-provoking or illuminating.
<
p>
By the way, what “we” are you referring to? Or is that the royal we 😉
Yes. People who mean to disrupt are trolls, regardless of whether they follow the rules or not. Back in my days as a forum moderator, the most troublesome people were the ones who always skirted on the edge of the rules, careful not to break them, but who always seemed to sew discord in every thread. When other users complained, they would point out that everything they did was under the rules, and that would lead to more fighting. And you know what happens then? The good people got tired of putting up with it and left.
<
p>
I feel like this is in danger of happening here.
I have had many bouts with those type of people on my blog – who love to claim you are stifling real debate when you shut them down.
<
p>
No, dumbass, I just want my blog community back and wipe clean the poisonous atmosphere you’ve created.
… and I’m sad to see some of my favorite posters (like lightiris, sco and Lynne) expressing points I disagree with. But that’s how it goes.
<
p>
I think that Cos’s advice to “not feed the trolls” is absolutely right. You don’t ever have to take the bait. Whether or not you can zero out a comment is almost beside the point.
<
p>
The quality of debate around here is everyone’s responsibility, not just the editors’. There are so many comments now that I/we can’t possibly keep up and monitor all of them, and if I did it wouldn’t satisfy everyone anyway. But I think it’s good to try to be patient, even with the most infuriating and obnoxious people — you don’t have to respond in kind. “Speak your truth quietly and clearly;/and listen to others,/even the dull and the ignorant;/they too have their story.” Hell, politics is all about dealing with obnoxious and infuriating people, isn’t it?
<
p>
We the editors are not perfect, and if you think you can do it better (or just more to your tastes), by all means do start your own community blog! That’s not a double-dog-dare, or a kiss-off: Soapblox is cheap, and the more the merrier. I have little doubt that someone could do a Massachusetts community-blog much better than this one. I mean, I’m in awe of The Albany Project; they’ve been in business two months, and they’re absolutely kicking ass.
<
p>
We have our rules, and our peculiar temperaments, and our quirks. They’ve served this site pretty well for 2+ years, but it’s not the only way. You wanna be you, be you, and if you wanna be me, be me. ‘Cause there’s a million ways to be, you know that there are …
(The “we” referred to those of us who read you.)
<
p>
Are you arguing that Daily Kos, because it is a gated community of progressives, has veered into some sort of non-productive radicalism that will lose elections just as Lamont, Dean, and Rove lost?
<
p>
Let me not be coy and name names. So Rock Republican Radio Machine posted this:
So, okay, we can ignore the snide stuff, the NAs and the HEYs. I’m wondering how responding to this guy enables us to win elections?
<
p>
Or how does it heighten the level of debate in some mysterious, known-only-to-Bob sort of way?
<
p>
There are some people who post here whose views are palpably to the right of the majority. (I’m thinking of a certain lawyer.) They do tend to be somewhat touchy and occasionally post in an irritated and irritating way, but they are thoughtful and challenging — even when I find them annoying. I’d hate us to get the trollknives out and cut them loose. I think that’s different from someone who is out on a mission:
By the way, the stories about spitting on returning Vietnam veterans have turned out to be more urban legend than fact.
There is a difference between responding and listening and allowing others to listen (or in this case read). I don’t think it is hard to believe that what RRRM said (except for the love myself part) is how a lot of Republicans feel. It is important to know and understand this.
<
p>
BTW – I listen to Rush all the time. He makes me want to be a better Democrat.
Wouldn’t it be better to visit the New Republic’s Corner or Red State or Mass Backwards or some other haunt? Compare that to MyDD which seems to just have Democrats and progressives commenting and providing very intelligent comments indeed.
<
p>
2. My personal preference is to have a mix of opinions from both sides. Yes that means occasionally you will have to read some snide remarks (they come from both sides) but that is what makes BMG different from the sites you mention and the rare site that not only tolerates comments from both sides but encourages them.
<
p>
Long live BMG…
Playing devil’s advocate for a minute. A productive talk could come out of the stupid comment by Rock Republican Radio Machine about Air America (By the way, I think he is getting this from listening to too much Jay Severin.)
<
p>
Why did Air America fail? Why can’t progressive/liberal talk radio do well? Why does conservative/libertarian talk radio do well?
<
p>
Ignoring the useless part of post you could have a meaningful discussion.
Unfair! Unfair! Unfair!
<
p>
Could you read some subtle, extra-smart questions into my comments now, too. I don’t see why RRRM should get all the extra exegitical help.
<
p>
Come on. Can’t you find any Alexis de Tocqueville, Marshall McLuhan, or Max Weber buried in my comments?
Nice try
<
p>
And I suppose the soldiers returning home were not called “Baby Killers” either, right?
<
p>
Smile KBusch don’t forget to smile 🙂
<
p>
2. The Democratic establishment, with rare exception, avoided Lamont like the plague. Sure, most officially backed the winner of the primary, but much more could have been done that WOULD have prevented Lieberman from winning – both behind the scenes and in front and center. We could have cut off a lot of his funding and sent all sorts of political favorites to stump for Lamont.
who beat Simmons to take a House seat from the Republicans in CT, I came across lawn sign collections that were Republican (Simmons and the State Senate candidate) and lawn signs that were otherwise Democratic but pushed “Joe”. The mayor of the town, Enfield, was a big Courtney supporter and his lawn sported a Lieberman sign.
I would also like to note that if you want to broaden progressive politics in Massachusetts, why tell a progressive activist who can provide information and insight into local progressive races that he should go form his own blog, but someone who is clearly here only to provoke a negative reaction is welcomed with open arms? Who is really adding value to the site? It does not make any sense.
<
p>
Be careful in your zeal to keep this place from turning into DailyKos, you neuter it.
But if he wants a site where provocative opinions are shouted down and deleted, and people who have arguments to make (however much one may disagree with them) are labeled trolls, and where people post comments rallying other readers to shut down and delete comments with which one disagrees — well then, with respect, he should please do that somewhere else.
I thought your comment about the relief you felt when ratings were removed was very interesting.
Well, I was asking you if this was your ultimate intent, because you seemed opposed to posts (that some people view as troll) being removed by popular vote. Yet the system is set up to allow this. I see an inconsistency there – just wondering which way you were thinking of resolving it.
<
p>
But to answer your direct question to me: Lesse, if you remove the whole rating system, then of course there is no question to answer. If you retain the rating system, I think the 5 zeros option is interesting and worth keeping unless grossly abused. I see it as akin to our dearly beloved system of petition initiatives. We readers can step around intransigent editors and have a little group intervention all on our own. Think of it as the troll control caucus.
<
p>
Have you considered placing some options on a “ballot”, and allowing votes from users registered before, say, the date this diary was posed? Might be messy, might be interesting. Just a thought.
Laurel,
<
p>
The problem with what you suggest is that the rating system should be free of weather you agree or disagree with the point being raised and should have to do with the quality of the post. If you review the ratings made by many on this site, they appear more based on concurrence with the point then the quality of the post. The rating system could be misused to censor contrarian opinions.
<
p>
I agree that trolling can be a problem, but that can be on both sides. It’s not something that only conservatives or those with opposing views from the majority of BMG are guilty of. You could even be considered guilty of this. We all get emotionally tied up in arguments from time to time and lines come out that could be considered trolling.
<
p>
I think Cos’ suggestion about being vigilant about looking for trolls and look at their commenting history can be the only way to tell who those are that are here only to troll and reduce the quality of the discussion. Others, like myself, have contrary opinions to the majority on this site on most subjects but are here for quality discussion. How is one supposed to learn anything knew if they only read things and blog on sites with the same views they already hold.
JK, it’s pretty clear from the previous discussion on the rating syatem that different people will use it differently, or will use it in a hybrid way, no matter what the guidelines are that the editors set out. There is no one correct way to use this flawed system. I certainly have no argement with you if you want to use it in the way you describe. Likewise I will use it as seems fit to me. It is what it is. What is isn’t, is end-of-the-world important (not sayin it is to you necessarily, but we’re all wasting lots of time on this today…).
<
p>
As for my post you linked to, I was pointing out the ingrained sexism in our culture. If you don’t wish to contemplate why degrading terms become degrading terms, then, well, don’t. But your lack of interest or agreement doesn’t make my post a troll post.
I feel this is an issue worth spending some time on. IMHO we are talking about censorship. It’s important to keep in mind the principles we stand for, even though we disagree on how to implement some of those.
<
p>
As far as your point on “ingrained sexism in our culture” it’s a fair point, but it could be seen by some as meeting the definition of a troll.
Can you honestly look, not at the comment that was zeroed but at the commenter who made it and tell me that he or she adds anything of value to this site?
<
p>
Community moderation is essential as the site grows unless the three of you want to spend all your time cleaning up after flame wars.
Why is that so hard to understand? I think it is interesting that some people think that 15 and 16 year olds should be at home by 11.00. In fact, millions of people in this country think that. Sure, that commenter is inflammatory, of course I can see that, but the idea is interesting, and if progressives want to start winning elections in red states, we need to consider these kinds of arguments and figure out constructive responses, not just shout them down.
That wasn’t exactly to your question. But basically, sure, let people say provocative things so long as they are not personal insults. Otherwise, we’re just living in a bubble and won’t make much progress at winning elections in which a wide spectrum of the society votes.
So, we are to wade through a haystack of bullshit to come up with a needle that is, after all, smeared with crap? You can keep it. The community has been largely tolerant of dissenting voices until now, but a line must be drawn.
<
p>
Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting this red state business from. Let them take care of themselves. What I’m here for, and what I’m interested in is winning elections in Massachusetts. For the love of God, there are two elections in April that we need to win to make sure that equal marriage rights are protected, and we’re stuck talking about the definition of a troll.
The commenter–and those like him–add nothing to enhance the quality of discourse here. In fact, they have exactly the opposite effect, as noted by sco. They suck the oxygen out of the room. I’m not interested in nasty one-liners from conservatives on a site that’s supposed to be dedicated to the advancement of progressive politicis in Massachusetts. I’m interested in trying to keep abreast of issues and activities that support progressive goals, and I don’t want to have to wade through a dozen or more potshots and/or gibberish designed to provoke me to do so. IOW, this site should not become a test of my tolerance for childish idiocy in the form of “these kinds of arguments” because they are not arguments at all. Again, the question becomes, what do you want the site to be? A place for activists to get together, share, and coordinate? A place for political junkies of all stripes to hang and share ideas in a substantive and informed way? Those two things sound good to me, but what’s passing for “conservative participation” is far from substantive or informed.
<
p>
The community said NO to this person and buried the comment. That’s your community doing what it’s been charged to do. You can’t have it both ways: either you allow the community to police its own or you take the policing proxy away. You can’t swoop down and chastise the bread and butter of your community for applying your policing tool differently than you would have. If you’re going to do that, then do the policing yourself because the end result is that you piss off the people who are making this site hum by effectively providing cover for the trolls who disrupt it.
<
p>
What, pray tell, does that have to do with a debate about events for people who are 18+?
<
p>
Nothing, of course. The comment was so obviously a parody it might well have sported a fake nose and moustache. Had the original post taken the opposite tack–lamenting the exploitation of teenagers by the liquor and recording industries, for instance–it’s clear that particular commenter would have attacked that, too.
<
p>
This is the Internet. A troll is a troll. And to run a blog, you have to be able to recognize one without getting sidetracked into a disquisition on epistomology.
or provocative comments. I know I didn’t, and that’s not my point. My point is that you supposedly value diversity here yet you invite a poster, an individual who makes substantive contributions and who actively participates in progressive causes around this state, to leave because you apparently value the comments of a a troll-rated conservative adolescent more. Instead of asking Cos to leave, why don’t you ask the spitballer to contribute more substantially in good faith? It’s not like the person is banned, or something. Why don’t you give that individual some guidance regarding the tone and tenor of the blog you wish to have? You claim to support a “strategy to help develop and broaden progressive points in Massachusetts.” So how is it, exactly, that inviting Cos to leave and playing defense for the spitballer advances that?
<
p>
Here’s my ugly opinion on this: you don’t know what you want. You don’t trust your community to actually use the rating system you provide. When the community wrestles with trying to find a happy medium of tolerance and intolerance, you jump in and run interference over nothing. Perhaps it would help our spitballing friend to have a few comments buried as that might help him clean up his act a bit? Moreover, you pick and choose the commenters you wish to chastise depending on your mood, it seems, as there is no logic to who gets an upbraiding from you and who doesn’t.
<
p>
Since I have a sign-on and used to be a fairly consistent contributor, I thought I’d share my thoughts on this subject. I suspect this comment will earn me an invitation to start my own blog, too, since that seems to be the solution to sincere criticism that doesn’t comport with your vision.
As I have said several times, I didn’t invite Cos to leave. I suggested he should start his own blog if he wants to follow different rules. Then, he can post here (I like his comments!) under our rules, and there under his rules. Personally, I don’t see it as “favoring” one type of comment over another, I see it as trying to respect process, and have as broad a discussion as possible.
When I call a comment a troll, for you to assume “nah, Cos doesn’t actually think it’s a troll comment, he’s just saying that because he disagrees with it” is not even close to “respectful”.
<
p>
However, the larger point is that it was a troll comment, from a user who’s been trolling a lot of posts recently. Debating whether he’s violating these “rules of the road” is entirely beside the point. I don’t care if he’s violating those rules, what I care is that he’s trolling. When you (ab)use your editorial position to overturn community consensus that a comment is trolling and that we don’t want trolling here, you hurt the quality of this blog. That’s the point you’re missing.
I don’t disagree with you much at all, Cos, which may be for the first time.
<
p>
I suspect that Bob’s problem is the slipperly slope. Indeed, as I have read many of lightiris’ complaints about those conservative posters, it generally sounds like he/she is personnally offended and somehow demeaned by anything that does not affirm his/her own opinion. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but that is how his/her comments on this topic seem. In other words, there is a danger, as on those other sites, that any view that is not Orthodox to the site will be deemed a troll and deleted outright.
<
p>
Also, to be fair, there is a fair amount of counterzinging, along the lines that all conservatives are heartless monsters out to crush poor or brown people. While these generally ilicit response and argument, nobody ever wants to delete them.
<
p>
With respect to the commenter that has spawned all ofthis navel gazing, I agree, and have been baited before I realized it wasn’t worth it. I guess that the line must be like Powell’s view of pornography. But this does little to address the possibility that the line will move ever closer to simple us vs. them, at which point the site would be a useless echo chamber.
<
p>
I’m a she, btw.
<
p>
I am not personally offended by people who do not “affirm my own opinions.” Holy shit. I deal with people who don’t share my opinions in my job, in my elective office, and in my own family. And as for being “offended,” geez, I spent 6 yrs in the military. It takes an awful lot to offend me. No, being offended is not the issue.
<
p>
In case I haven’t been clear, what I do oppose is commentary that is designed not to contribute but to be nasty, distracting, and disruptive. That is trolling.
<
p>
I post on other blogs where conservatives actually do contribute something to the quality of discourse. Such places do exist on the internets. This isn’t currently one of them.
I was careful to note that this was my impression, so my apologies if I have misunderstood you.
<
p>
But here, again, you seem to lump every single conservative poster on this site into Mr. Rock Radio’s box. It is simply not true that each of the conservative posters on this board are trolls.
I’ve posted so many comments on this topic, that if you look back at my comments, you will see that I have been careful to not lump all of the conservatives into one category. PP is the only identified Republican that I know of who posts in volume and substance. We all know who the others are–even David has commented to many of them. I have never said that “each of the conservative posters on this board are trolls.” Never.
<
p>
So this isn’t a “nasty” personal dig at people like CentralMassDad, Peter Porcupine, etc.
Reading his mini-bio, you wouldn’t either. He’s not a left-liberal for sure, but that doesn’t make him a conservative.
Sorry if I misclassified you as a conservative CMD, but the point still stands.
your point does not stand at all. Point out to me where, in my hundreds of words that I’ve posted on this topic here today, where I have been trollish, which, by my description, is “nasty, distracting, and disruptive.” Where? It’s all well and good to kick back at me if you don’t like my point of view, but it’s not well and good to mischaracterize me in what has been a heretofore thoughtful and sincere discussion.
<
p>
So, make your point stand. Show me where I’ve been trollish.
<
p>
Emphasis added by you and bolds added by me.
<
p>
I would say your comments were intended to marginalize contributions by conservatives like myself and Peter and lump us in with the likes of Rock Radio. That is very “nasty, distracting, and disruptive” to me, my feelings were hurt 🙁
the meaning of “troll.”
<
p>
As for marginalizing, I really suggest you go back and actually read what I’ve said–at length–on this topic. You will see at that point that I have not treated conservatives as a monolithic entity, and have, in the past, mentioned Peter Porcupine as an exception.
<
p>
I don’t even know who you are, and I’m not at all familiar with your posts. I don’t think we’ve engaged in any discussion whatsoever, so to the extent that you find yourself feeling marginalized–and insist on feeling so despite my clarifications–you are free to feel as you wish.
about Central Mass Dad. I rarely interact with him and don’t know enough about his politics to know if he’s a Republican or a centrist Democrat. Beats me. So, no, I’m not talking about him.
<
p>
As for Peter Porcupine, she is clearly the only Republican that I’ve been able to identify as Republican who contributes substantially to this blog. I was careful in my previous comments, especially on the other threads, to indicate that I was not talking all of the conservative commenters on this site. Perhaps you missed those?
<
p>
And, btw, do you think that my comments on this matter have been trollish, i.e., nasty, distracting, and disruptive? Are you really saying that? Certainly my last one, which is short, is not “nasy, distracting, and disruptive” given the context of the discussion. If you are saying that, however, I simply don’t know what to say to you.
No, it doesn’t sound like a “nasty, distracting, and disruptive” comment.
<
p>
I think I have agreed with near everything Lightiris has said on this score, and it is all carefully nuanced. We don’t all have your stamina, though, to beat things to death until the right margin cries for mercy.
<
p>
That is what I call a keeper. Thanks–I’m adding it to my list of Pithy Remarks for future reference (with appropriate attribution, of course).
I think some of this is just lack of focus post-election and not systemic, but I think it’s partly a disagreement about what BMG should be. Is it a debate society, a source of progressive commentary, or a source of activism? How does the site balance the three? How much say does the community have in the site’s direction?
<
p>
These are excellent questions and deserve consideration by those who wish to continue posting here and those who own it. Otherwise, I suspect this site will devolve into little more than site for the those who like the potshot approach to instant gratification.
What would you like?
Hey, dKos did it successfully! 🙂
1. Because you have legitimate concerns about the down-side of the Big Box Blogs, I’ll start with that. Avoiding the gagging plague caused by marauding troll warriors is not all that difficult. Life is all about managing expectations. The problem appears to be the conservative shit disturbers and the reaction they provoke in the liberals/progressives. Since you guys have extended an invitation to the “differently striped” to post here, then make your expectations about their participation clear, i.e., that their participation be substantive, respectful, and contributory. Your guidelines regarding our participation seems more clearly defined than theirs. If you hold them to a higher standard than they’ve been held–which is, essentially, to no standard at all–your troll-rating problem will go away.
<
p>
2. Rein in your fetishists. You’re small enough to do that. A simple email to the individuals who spam this site with irrelevant bullshit boutique issues should be given a heads’ up. This is especially important during primary seasons when the true believers come out en force. A lot of your flame wars would dissipate if you did that. It’s not unreasonable on a blog of this size and slant to confine your areas of discussion to certain parameters. If you want it wide open, then be prepared for all out war come the presidential cycle and dKos-like diatribes about circumcision to follow on the heels of the egg-and-sperm dude.
<
p>
3. Because you are not providing, to my knowledge, any privilege for racking up 6s, you might consider changing your rating scale to simply three: thumbs up, thumbs down, and troll. What’s the difference between a thumbs up and a 6 or a 5? Not much. The worthless comment, 3, is completely gratuitously hostile and personal. A thumbs down is much less insulting and could be as benign as while I appreciate the work you put into this, I simply don’t agree. Your 4 rating just doesn’t say very much and is, much like a 5, rather invisible and ineffectual.
<
p>
I’m out.
Whole-heartedly agree with item #3. I hope the editors might be willing to consider it.
<
p>Though I generally agree with you on Item #2, I think that one is a little tricky. Fetshism is in the eye of the beholder. The criteria for what constitutes a boutique issue is a bit subjective. For example, I personally think that Ben LaGuer’s legal saga is a boutique issue, and choose not to read anything on BMG pertaining to it, but there are some folks who think otherwise. I wouldn’t want to see them lose a forum for discussion. Besides, many big issues that lead to great societal change started off as “boutique issues”. Five or ten years ago a debate on extending civil marriage as opposed to “domestic partneship” to gays would likely have been considered a “boutique issue”.
To me a thumbs up means an endorsement. I give 5’s and sometimes 6’s to comments that I don’t agree with but are well thought out and “articulate”. I will even recommend a post that I don’t agree with if I think it adds to the discussion. Not everyone uses the comment rating systems as a means of voicing agreement or disagreement.
<
p>
BTW – I didn’t think the original comment that caused this discussion was a troll comment. While that comment didn’t add anything to the discussion, deleting it took away from the discussion.
<
p>
I’m with Bob 100% on this.
I agree that is a great question, though not necessarily something we need to settle (BMG seems to be trying to be all three, and partly succeeding). I don’t think that question is the issue here.
<
p>
Trolling has no useful role in a debate society.
<
p>
Trolling has no useful role on an activist blog.
<
p>
Trolling has no useful role on a blog of progressive commentary.
<
p>
Whatever Blue Mass Group is going to be, it should be resistant to trolling. That means we need to learn, as a community, to spot trolls and to react constructively to them.
<
p>
It also means, IMO, that Bob ought to learn to let us do that without jumping self-righteously in the troll’s defense due to a misplaced sense of objectivity.
I think you are missing one key aspect of trolling, and it’s this: trolling is part of a larger strategic process to evaluate what kinds of barbs, talking points, attacks, etc. will successfully achieve the means of misdirection, distraction, or disorganization.
<
p>
The web is very much a testing ground for what discursive strategies will work in more traditional media to spin, distract, and misdirect voters from issues at hand.
<
p>
We’re naive to think that trolls are just verbal bomb throwers out for kicks. To be sure, some are. Others are very much involved with groups and organizations that are advancing agendas in the political process.
<
p>
With that in mind it’s more important than ever that we adhere to a policy of DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!!
<
p>
Every reparte you send back is being counted and evaluated.
You might be right.
<
p>
Do you have any evidence, though, that our trolls are not just idiotic or that Luntz-like message gurus are watching out for troll “words that work”?
We do know that members of the Republican State Committee visit this forum. Your guess is as good as mine as to what they’re doing.
Hey, we GOPers like to participate in these discussions. Besides, with our ranks so decimated, the heretofore progressive wing of the Massachusetts Republican Party now has greater sway relative to our brethren on the right. I know this post might elicit a reaction, but I’m no troll. Just a nonconformist in a very Democratic world.
We have a (small) number of regular Republican contributors on this blog who participate and are respected. You’ve probably seen by now that we engage Republicans in discussion and disagreement. We don’t call them trolls simply for being Republican.
<
p>
That should not get in the way of spotting the actual trolls, and dealing with them accordingly (don’t argue, just give a 0). Unfortunately, in the eyes of one of our editors, there somehow is a conflict between these two things, and that makes the blog less resistant to trolling.
And it’s been MONTHS since I’ve snatched a little Democrat goat off a bridge….
<
p>
(I can say ‘Democrat’ now, because GWB at the Pelosi retreat called upon her Caucus to call us the ‘Republic’ party.)
<
p>
(BTW – when will anybody on BMG post about her Flying Castle? The SPEAKER needs an exercise room and a movie studio in the air? Tip must be SPINNING!)
with little goats and porcupines
the Estimable Mr. Ogre…
<
p>
http://www.ogresview…
I’m not actually sure about what you are referring to.
as apparently the plane that Hastert used goes to Illinois easily but California not so easily. It’s a current VRWC talking point, and there’s been some debunking of the MSM coverage at Talking Points Memo.
Discredited smear
<
p>
How about that Iraq thing, isn’t there anything else important?
Open debate. Clean elections. Real separation of powers and equal branches of government. Proactive government, with cost estimates before passing new criminal laws. Bring back school libraries and school nurses [wouldn’t that be nice]. What does a “Progressive Republican” platform stand for or look like, anyway? Hopefully, it is pro-equal marriage, and pro-equal pay for equal work?
Making Light, which has the best comment section of any blog I read with the possible exception of Unfogged, deals with incivility by disemvoweling — the removal of all vowels in the offending post or section of a post. This involves significant effort on the moderator’s part (the monitoring, I mean — there’s a simple utility to disemvowel the post) but it doesn’t happen that often because even if someone wants to argue with the troll, the troll has a hard time participating without any vowels. Yet their posts are still there to be read, just with some difficulty.
<
p>
A poster on the John Edwards blog just used a simpler solution — when a troll (quite possibly an agent provocateur from another campaign) put up a couple of silly diaries, she posted a dessert recipe in reply to each.
I’ve encountered disemvoweling before, though not the dessert recipes 🙂
<
p>
Still, we rarely get trolls here, and I think the system we have now (comment gets hidden if it gets a bunch of 0’s and no good ratings) can be good enough. We just need to a) resist arguing with trolly comments, and b) get it through to Bob that trolling and disagreement are different things, and the he should get out of the way and let the community troll-rate when we see a troll.
<
p>
And really, if we can’t get that through to Bob, no other anti-trolling methods will work, not matter how funny.