I don't like censorship and I'm seeing stuff I don't like in patterns of rating. Some of the stuff I don't like depends on community standards... what are they?
Don't rate things you disagree with as super-trolls!!! you can rate it as a troll, but super troll? A zero?
Let me clarify that I don't really care about the ratings, per se, but I do take the trusted user status seriously... I will help enforce the system.
I have given comments ratings merely to pull them above hidden. "Marginal" does for this, because rarely are they "Good" in my opinion, but many are marginal and should have had a flood of 1 and 2 ratings... not zeroes. I think a lot of those 0s are 1s made by people that... oh, look, I have a zero. It's their lowest rating, but that's not what role 0 plays in scoop.
Should this be hidden:
Christ, Kos, he's only been in office for 9 days. What'd ya think, he'd be a miracle worker?
Or maybe you're already shilling for the next Democratic candidate.
Face it K(l)os(er), we won. Cruz and Davis lost, thanks to good old fashioned liberal Democratic mismanagement.
Well, it's still hidden, I couldn't quite bring myself to call that "marginal" because the "Kloser" part of the comment is odious, I think. The benefit of the doubt is would give it a 2, but I have seen the authors tendency to argue this way, so I recognize it as a troll, and inflamatory comment to generate response (in defence of the can-defend-himself kos).
But 0? I still don't think it's a zero. I'm not easily offended I guess. This was a post by tellthetruth, who has several posts that deserve to be hidden, and deserve 0's. But I see people appear to think this means you can just brand all his posts a 0, any post you don't like. He's fair game. An ostrich (cause he's been ostrichized). That's for scoop to do if that's the purpose. Scoop could automatically hide low-mojo users like slash does, if it wanted.
You are supposed to rate a comment, not the user.
A zero is an act of censorship. Is this following comment worth that censorship?
TITLE: Rooting for more attacks?
I would hope not...but posts like this sure make it sound like you are.
SlackerInc made this comment. He's said a few odious things. He's bothered some people. But on the other hand, he's not anyonebutdean, is he? I didn't give a "good" rating... it's not "good" I don't think. I gave it "2-marginal" and I would have giving it a 3-FairEnough. This pulled it out of the hidden comments, as was appropriate.
He's given his view, and he's even couched it in rhetoric straight from proper rules of parlimentary decorum in this case.
I have seen people rate comments they are responding to, WITH 0's?! Come on. You say something isn't worth reading... but you are going to answer it!? Then you are not saying it's not worth reading (hell you've even thought it worth replying to...actions speak louder than words), you are saying you want to prevent others from reading it.
Maybe that's not what you meant to "say", which is why I'm bringing this to your attention. Perhaps you did mean it, and you would like to argue your side, that's also why I'm posting this diary.
I give you all the benefit of the doubt on what constitutes a troll, a "1", even an honest opinion can convince you it was a troll. But a zero? You can still vote a 1, you know, once you get 0?
In general, I consider it poor practice to rate anything you have replied to. You don't rate your opponent in a debate, the audience does. If you want to rate a troll, don't feed it.
Partly I'm telling you what I think is a proper attitude about rating 0's, but partially I'm asking. Do you expect me to put 0's on really stupid opinions? I prefer to merely skip past them.
My current attitude is that I'll continue to pull up a post like SlackerInc's above, as I'm urged to do in the Trusted User Guidelines. Censorship is serious. SlackerInc is not here to be a troll. He doesn't have to conform. Anyonebutdean is a hatefull scum, imo he could be banned. Tellthetruth is marginal, and his comments should be rated appropriately, if they are acceptable but marginal, rate them that way, if they are trolls, you think, rate them 1, if you don't know if it should be 2 or 1 but know about his posting history and decide to not give him benefit of the doubt, fine, go with 1.
But you have to have a higher bar to actually censor them. When in doubt between 1 and 0, regardless of history, you have to chose 1, I think, at least if there is an ethics to this.
Practical Concern: there are plenty ways around a rating system, plenty plenty plenty. You have to give the "trolls" enough respect that those ways are pointless to take. And if you are really disgusted, and want to ostracise them... DON'T reply! Just don't reply. You can't have it both ways, where these trolls generate more response than anyone, you take the chance to fight the straw man THEY have provided to get your thoughts in order and refine your message and attack and ideas, and then try to censor them? That's having it both ways. Like the preacher that goes down to the XXX theatre every day to heckle porn.