This may be my last communication. I'm leaving room to change my mind. Troll-rating one who parts company with the troll-rating procedure is one thing; demanding that someone be banned for such behavior is on a whole other level.
I've emailed Kos on the issue but haven't heard back. Nor do I expect to. The provocation was what I consider an abuse of troll ratings which quickly enlarged to include the system itself. I've concluded that they're often given cavalierly, for no better reason than personal offense or honest disagreement, which hardly constitutes disruptive behavior. While, as I mentioned in my email, ratings decisions are highly subjective, that doesn't preclude guidelines or at least suggestions.
After thoroughly rereading the FAQ, my understanding of the test is: has the poster a)hijacked the thread, either by injecting irrelevancies or blatantly bogus assertions, or b)advocated or threatened violence toward anyone, including targets deserving of considerable scorn, not c)challenged liberal principles upon which a consensus of opinion are based or - God forbid - d) expressed a less-than-glowing reaction to a particular website feature.
That's about it. While recommends are limitless, as there is so much to recommend, troll ratings are tightly restricted for a very good reason: to make the user think twice, and then a third time, before doling one out. And if someone should uprate a previously eliminated post, not out of spite but because it essentially shut down controversy, it is easily cancelled out - again - by two troll ratings. And that's fair.
But how the system operates is one thing. Why the system exists is a separate matter entirely. It could be argued - and yes, upon further reflection I am making that argument - that ratings are superfluous to the purpose and substance of Daily Kos. In fact, whether commenting in order to be recognized, either for one's cleverness or to condemn the enterprise, the motivation detracts from the effort simply to contribute to the pool of knowledge and information. Lengthy discussions on to troll rate or not to troll rate (and remember, it takes but two to send a beyond-the-bounds remark to the hinterlands!) are commonplace, which I for one find more distracting than the alleged offense itself.
Nefarious characters abound. Histrionic ErrinF, a legend in her own mind, is ridiculed for demanding that she be disappeared from the premises. Because the structure can't accommodate her (and what would become of the fruits of her poisoned tree?) she feels compelled to beg for more only to create that much more debris. If I were in charge, I would grant her request, making it clear that extraordinary circumstances preclude others from similar appeals. As long as I've been here, I'm still not familiar with all of the technologies and search devices available to me. Lord knows how much time elapsed between my becoming a trusted user and discovering then exercising that trust; now that I've both recommended and troll-rated posts, I realize I feel uncomfortable doing so, and so I will not.
Particularly the latter, and particularly now. Which is why I will no longer respond to a community insult ("how will you ladies feel when Joe wins the general?" "wow, sexism and delusion in one brief sentence") with a curt "be gone," with or without explanation. And since I'm not certain if or when the lack of comments eventually revokes my ratings status, I also don't know if my personal policy is effectively moot. What I do know is that, having done what I can to correct my own frivolous ratings, it cannot be undone.
A final thought: this is a liberal site. I'm very much a liberal. Kos, who pays the bills, has every right to set the rules. I heartily believe that - in general - liberals are a whole lot smarter, original, and altruistic than conservatives. Yet liberals are immune neither from group think nor conformity. It is the self-imposed conformity which I can no longer abide.
PS. A lot of "I"s, to be sure. Anyone remember the obsolete definition of "diary"?