Skip to main content

From the Book of FAQ, Revised Standard Edition:

Rule 1 (from the Exigesis of Hunter): To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation. Conversely, there is one particular reason troll ratings should never be used: to express disagreement with a poster's opinion.

...

1. Do not troll rate people for expressing a contrary opinion, so long as it is expressed in a civilized fashion. The exceptions are for conservative talking points or debunked or false information; this isn't a site for conservatives, they have entire swaths of the internet in which they can regale each other with their reality-impaired fantasies.

...

4. The exception to the normal troll rating golden rule of "rate the comment, not who makes it" is for people so disruptive to the community that they need to be quickly autobanned. This is a very difficult threshold to reach, and is reserved almost entirely for freepers or other trolls here only to disrupt. "Troll rate on sight" is not intended to be used against anyone but the most obvious and egregious of trolls -- if your definition of obvious and egregious is not the definition used by the rest of the community or by the site administrators, expect your rating ability to be suspended.

Rule 2 (from the Book of Trolls): Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to hide all of the posts made by such people, even the ones that are not in and of themselves trollish. It should be emphasized, however, that this should not be done lightly. Before rating comments en masse, you should be very very sure that the author is really a troll, and not just a regular poster who is having a bad day. If there is any shadow of a doubt as to whether a person is a dedicated troll, you should refrain from mass-hiding their comments. To reiterate, this "hide on sight" approach should be used cautiously and rarely.

Like pretty much everything else in the entire godforsaken world, the meaning of these rules do not unpack themselves.  It matters that the rules be good; it may matter even more that the rules be agreed upon.  Reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of these rules.  When they do disagree, though, they should come together, ideally under the wise tutelage of The Powers That Be, and figure out where they stand and how to proceed.  This diary invites such a discussion among us guests and such tutelage from our hosts.

"... or else it gets the HOS"

I should admit right up front: maintaining the currency of the FAQ is not one of the shining accomplishments of this site.  Comments (from kos, from Meteor Blades, from Hunter and others) are strewn throughout the site and seemingly collected only by a few "street lawyers" who want to have them at the ready to brandish as "rulings."  I have my doubts that even these noble figures remember and feel bound by what may have been an off-hand remark of theirs from the last Bush II Administration, but they certainly have some role in the mix.  (I think, though, that if it ain't in the FAQ, you can't charge that people should be familiar with them.  Reading the entire corpus of FAQ-related comments in the archive would take several days.  Maybe Jovian days.)

As indicated in the above rules, Hiding On Sight (HOSing, which you might say is conducted by HOSers, who sing HOSannas when they succeed and grumble like imprisoned HOSni Mubarek when they don't -- then again, it might be better not to say all of that, but I'm trying to lighten the tone here) is a necessary part of site maintenance.  When someone comes here intent on disruption rather than contribution, when they are here to sell their penis pills or gimcracks or Randian philosophy and conspiracy theories unbolstered by extraordinary evidence, what we want to do is get them the hell out of here fast fast fast -- and so, as the Good FAQ says, we can Hide On Sight and HOSe them off-site.  No one (who has much say) disagrees with that.

HOSings occur all the time.  I've been known to HOSe people off myself, when I am "very very sure that the author is really a troll" (see above.)  If there is "a shadow of a doubt," though, we are supposed to "refrain from mass-hiding their comments."  If others are HR'ing someone's comments -- even if HOSing, which means that the comment at hand need not itself be considered offensive, something that may confuse bystanders who weren't invited to the HOSenanny -- then you're not supposed to uprate them ... supposedly.  I actually don't see that in the FAQ, but people believe it there and quote it to those with the temerity to uprate.  What the FAQ says is, under Rule 3 of the Exigesis:

Do not give positive ratings to people having fights in the comment threads. It is insulting to a diarist to hijack a portion of their comment threads in order to have a fistfight between two or three users. It is insulting to the rest of the community to have to scroll past a fight dozens of comments long in order to get back to the topic at hand. If the fight is off topic or otherwise egregious, it should be trollrated in order to remove it from the thread, but there are almost no circumstances in which users should be rewarded for having a fight. Behavior like that isn't worth positive mojo -- don't do it.

which so far as I can tell may be the basis of the purported "don't get in my way when I'm HOSing someone to death" rule.  Now this may be one of those dicta I mentioned being strewn around the site, but if we believe it, I think we ought to say it clearly.  (I also think that we shouldn't believe it, for reasons I'll state below.)

Unreeling the HOS

Who decides that someone needs to be HOSed?  It's unclear.  One thing we know for sure is that it's not the Site Administrators, because they don't need the HOS.  If they think that someone needs to be put on the express bus to Banning, to sink into the Rivers of Babylon with Boney M (that's "Boney Mojo" to you, the malnourished soul you see on the mojo gauge of people you ain't seeing again), they can just do it.  They don't need permission (from us) or consensus (from us), all they need is web access.  So the HOS is a tool for Trusted Users, either through autoban (if it works, when it works, however it works, about which I have little idea) or as a sort of Bat Signal to the Admins.  ("User Miss Creant has received 4000 HRs in the past twenty seconds.  Perhaps there is a problem.")

We know who can ploink down a single HR: any TU.  Is there any limit on who can declare a HOS status (which I think of, for lack of a better word, a "fatwa"?  Recognizing that as I understand it the concept of "fatwa" goes way beyond declaring someone to be fair game, theoretically extending to matters as mundane as "eat your vegetables" and "don't mistreat your pets," I think it's probably the most recognizable word I can use for the concept of declaring a general individual duty to punish someone, so I'm going to use it.)  I think it works the way that Shi'ite fatwa works: any cleric (and I guess that's what we TUs are, in a sense) can issue a fatwa, but the extent to which it gets honored depends on how many adherents it picks up.  Some of us clerics are more prone to issue fatwas than others.  And so what happens is: some entrepreneurial sort, who either believes that the "is a troll beyond a shadow of a doubt" criterion is met or doesn't know or care about it, declares HOS and others follow, often en masse.  (A diary's tip jar got 125 hide rates the other day.  I'm on record as saying that I don't think the guy's a troll, but when I see that even I have to say "yeah, maybe I'll go onto to another comment and see if I should uprate it instead.)"

That's what piling on is about.  It doesn't actually help summon autoban (or it didn't back in 2006 when the relevant section of the FAQ was apparently written), but it does make a statement: "we really, really, really think that this poster is a troll."  And the problem is that that conclusion may still, sometimes, be really, really, really wrong -- at least in the eyes of a TU with a shadow of a doubt.  So what happens then?

Upraters are often accused of disrespecting the judgment of those intent on laying on the HOS.  But, it seems to me, this has it backwards.  Each HR is a vote: "no shadow of a doubt," "no shadow of a doubt," "lizard people," "no shadow of a doubt."  Each potential uprate is like a holdout juror: "I have a doubt."  The uprater had better be prepared to explain why, and a lousy explanation won't cut it.  Not respecting the view of the uprater -- something I've (cough, cough) recently experienced, has to be an open option for people.

I do think that when an uprater is willing to say "put down the HOS," though, others should be expected to address their concerns, even if arguably loony, because the HOSers have another option: anyone who can be autobanned can be manually banned, and if a "juror" is simply nuts the judge can be beseeched to dismiss the juror.  So I have no problems with an appeal to authority, and my guess (though I don't know) is that authority doesn't have much of a problem with that appeal to authority.  It doesn't happen all that often, after all, that a TU is willing to go through the very unpleasant process (trust me on this) of standing against the will of the many.

In general, though, the guideline I propose is this: if a TU is willing to stick their arm into the machinery to jam it, it should be very very rare that a user should be HOSed.  Remember, that doesn't mean that the user can't still be autobanned.  It only means that only those comments that themselves merit HRs should receive them.  I think that any TU should be entitled to try to pull the "emergency brake," the "doubt shadow," and eliminate HOS status.  (They should probably leave a comment saying that that's what they're doing when they do it, to allow people to abuse them to their face.  As in the real world of public transportation, pulling the emergency brake should be physically easy but emotionally daunting.)

So, no, TUs should not be told "we're in the middle of HOSing someone, get out of our way."  If they feel that they're really right, and want to take their lumps (which they will), they should be able to.  If the alleged troll is making enough trollish comments, it won't matter -- there will be plenty to HR.  But if they aren't making many malignant comments and most of what they have to say is benign, then it will matter, and it should matter.  And, again, they can always go to an Admin and say "get rid of this one now!"  And that works too.

HOS status should only exist, then, so long as someone has not pulled the emergency brake and taken responsibility for their opposition.  If no one does -- or if whoever did can be talked out of it -- then HOS away.  If not, hide comments as they merit it and/or call in an Admin.  HOSing should be -- what's that term from the FAQ again? -- "rare."

Applying the HOS

I've been involved in two HOS controversies in a week -- more, I think, than I'll usually see in a year.  One is notorious, one is ongoing.  I've said pretty much all I had to say about the notorious Aidos, most of it at least 2-3 times, and I think that it actually led to some useful propositions (well, I think so) by the end.  These include: (1) the basis for HRs should be explained in as clear detail as any TU requests; (2) what should matter in evaluating a fatwa is the evidence on hand at the time it is issued and acted upon, not that which may be found and distributed later, and (3) even if a comment is nor clearly HR-able by its content, the tone of the comment may justify banning.  Others have taken different lessons from this, and I won't have a lot more to say about those, because my greater concern right now is the ongoing controversy.

The ongoing controversy involves a user named "Red State Ambassador," which depending on your viewpoint is either a pretty funny character name or a taunt that the person can't be banned quickly enough to keep them from leaving comments all over the place, nyah-nyah.  "RSA" showed up a couple of days ago, purporting to be an emissary from Red State who claims diplomatic immunity to say contrarian things (and more recently offers to return the favor to some opposite number -- who, I'm betting, is being set up for the pranque de pranques if he or she actually presents credentials to Erik son of Erik.)

RSA, who claims to be a television writer and is not entirely unlike Jeff Lieber (though I make no such accusations) made some uncomplimentary comments about the ignorance of Kosters that were either (a) dunderheaded, (b) unsuccessfully satirical, or (c) successfully satirical.  (Interest declared: I go with a mix of (b) and (c), tending towards more of the latter.)  RSA is completely willing to challenge progressive and site orthodoxy, though so far as I can tell never in a crazed or malicious way, and the assertions that people make in grounding their arguments -- in, for the most part, a reasonably fair (though occasionally wrooooong!) way.  His comments often belie progressive sympathies and frequently belie a quick wit, as in this exchange he and I had (in which I implied that I didn't think he was here to wreck the site, but wondered if he was here to be a goad to progressive responses to his less-progressive challenges:

Me: I don't think that you're a sociopath -- but are you a homeopath?

RSA: I'm a seeker.  I haven't yet found my path.

Yeah.  Not a troll.  They're just not that witty -- and not that quick at it.

So where does this leave us?  A bunch of smart, wonderful, honorable Kosters are convinced that this guy is a troll.  I think he's a bit of a troublemaker -- but it's the kind of trouble that we should welcome, if someone cares to make it: it keeps us honest.  But some people admit that they aren't sure he's real and some can't get past his name.

So, what do we decide?  Hide On Sight?

Simple answer:  NO.

The "score" on his second-ever tip jar (prior to updates, largely the same as his first diary, which was vaporized, except that the embedded bolded letters spelling out "S-N-A-R-K" were closer together so as to be harder to miss) is roughly even.  Does that mean that he's not a troll.  No.  But it does mean one thing:

He can't be Hide On Sight.

He can't be Hide On Sight because there is, clearly, as evidenced by about 30 Kosters recommending his Tip Jar, much more than a "shadow of a doubt" as to whether he's a troll.

If people want to go after individual comments -- though I think that there's something unseemly about getting into an insult match with someone and then HR'ing only his insults -- they can.  But, frankly, I'm going to uprate where I feel it's appropriate -- until and unless directed otherwise by a licensed direction-giver -- because it seems to be part of a HOS approach and I reject it.

I don't have any problem at all with their going to Meteor Blades this moment and saying "we think this guy should be banned."  MB and Markos are like our Supreme Court: not final because they're right, but right because they're final.  If they say he's a troll, I have to accept that he's going to be treated as one, justly or not.

But I don't think it's fair for Those Who HOS to tell me, or other TUs, to desist from taking part in a debate over essentially is there a shadow of a doubt as to whether this guy's a troll.  We should be way past that now.  Too many TUs (combined with non-TUs) think he's OK -- if they want him gone, it can't be through a HOSing.

That, of course, is just my opinion and my proposal.  There's nothing official about it; I'm simply trying to persuade.  But I've reached the opinion that too many potential innocents are getting beaten with the HOS, and now we have to set down some rules we can all live with -- grudgingly or not.

Originally posted to Doane Spills on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:10 AM PDT.

Also republished by Trolls and Meta Groupies.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  For those who foretell "this will not end well": (53+ / 0-)

    I know it's a possibility.  This may be a mud-strewn comments section, alas.  But I do think that we need to think through how HOS should operate here -- and I don't think we've done a good enough job of it yet.  Now's a good chance to try.

    Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

    by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:10:28 AM PDT

    •  I've queued this up for Meta Groupies (10+ / 0-)

      if anyone there thinks it's appropriate.  The "Trolls" group is also welcome to republish with my blessing, if they wish.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:13:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Done! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv, Seneca Doane

        Thanks for the insightful diary.

        I too, thought of the illustrious Mr. Liber while reading the diaries from RSA (Not that I believe they are one in the same).

        I'm in agreement with your arguments above, although the second diary could be thought of a spamming. Just republishing the same diary with a few minor changes is probably close enough to set off most peoples spam detector. I personally thought the first diary was terrific snark and LMAO.

        -6.25 -7.08 The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. The glass is just twice as large as it needs to be. "Money Talks - Especially When It Walks" - Singingbird

        by Unit Zero on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm (16+ / 0-)

    I think we should give a better response to a Red State Ambassador (if such an entity actually is upon us) than Red State would give to one of us (which I believe involves Viking Kitties of Wrath).

    I'm a little uncomfortable with HOS at all.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:28:15 AM PDT

    •  There are situations where HOS is fine (11+ / 0-)

      Some obvious assbite comes on spamming with ornery filth at a time that the Admins are not likely to be looking wherever it is posting.  For that, HOS can be a quick solution to the problem.  But it really does seem like a rare, very clear, no real basis for disagreement sort of thing.

      I think that we're overusing it, though.  Even if it applied to Aidos (and if all of the information that eventually came out had been there at the beginning, I see a case for it, but others will disagree, it should not, no way, apply to this new guy.

      If he is from Red State, I think he's already faced the VKoW.  He's too liberal.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This gets to (one) heart of the matter - (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kenlac, allergywoman, skohayes

        Troll, then would be a definition of content and not intent.

        One poster -- let's not say anyone in particular but stay stereotypical -- would come here swinging and slinging, offensive and vile in pretense and statement, seeking to smash wills and bruise egos...general ruin in mind.  This would be your obvious ne'er-do-well and receive an HOS rating with your blessing.

        Another poster -- let's say closer to your second example -- launches audaciously to center-stage boasting an imperial air with Jacobean flair, hints of the Shakespearean fool dripping from every pompous sniff. Not so fast, says you.

        ok.  

        But they share the same goal, even if their tactics and strategy differ, even if they each would measure success by different outcomes.  The goal for both is to garner attention, to cause disruption, to create dissension, doubt and/or dis-ease, to purposely instill discomfort in those with whom they disagree -- whatever the disagreement might be.  Both can be fairly termed "gadfly" at least and likely equally described as "selfish annoyance," although perhaps for different reasons.

        And while this -- allow me to say -- 'better Troll' might be more of a shallow infection than an impending wound, there is still the annoyance and indication of something wrong that stands correction.  Not the least of the annoyance is that, even if we are to assume the best potential end-game for this 'better Troll' and the most heartfelt moral, at the core there is if not a lie, then a disguise.  We haven't been invited to attend this morality play; we're just being played.

        It's worth considering that the community has the right to say that a conversation, no matter how worthy, will not be conducted in this way.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:36:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i disagree with this: (5+ / 0-)
          But they share the same goal, even if their tactics and strategy differ, even if they each would measure success by different outcomes.  The goal for both is to garner attention, to cause disruption, to create dissension, doubt and/or dis-ease, to purposely instill discomfort in those with whom they disagree -- whatever the disagreement might be.  

          i think everyone who publishes a diary is seeking attention, regardless of content.

          that said, i think RSA was just intent on making people laugh - his post was pretty over the top and included in the body the SNARK letters. i don't think he was seeking to disrupt, create dissension, doubt, or dis-ease; i think he was seeking to entertain.

          simply because some folks either didn't get it and/or didn't like the snark, doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of us who were very entertained.

          i mean, it's one thing is someone writes a snark diary and almost every single person in the comments doesn't get it or thinks it's bad - that would be a pretty good indicator that it was bad snark.

          but when you have a snark diary where half the folks seem to get it and like it, i wouldn't use that snark diary to label the diarist as a troll.

          "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

          by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:41:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please don't assume it's necessary not to "get it" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane, tardis10

            not to be entertained.  Considering the implications of 'bad snark' is not that simple.

            If rather than 'bad snark' it were viewed in light of the potential a poorly executed prank has for real damage, much like convincing someone else to hold a lit firecracker because it will make for an amusing video on youtube, the reason to object might be easier to consider.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:59:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i didn't assume that. i said... (6+ / 0-)
              simply because some folks either didn't get it and/or didn't like the snark, doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of us who were very entertained.

              that specifically notes that some folks didn't like it (as evidenced in the or part of the and/or), not that those that didn't like it didn't get it. many of them did get it, they just didn't like it, and that's fine.

              but i truly do fail to see where any kind of hard core and real damage can be done with it.

              to me, it seems as though we've not only lost the ability to laugh at ourselves, but we're losing the ability to laugh at the right wing - as that diary was an over the top parody of.

              basically, what this boils down to is a matter of differing opinions - i have one and you have another. and we need to all remember that neither may be right or wrong. opinions are like that.

              "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

              by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:54:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting comment (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney, poligirl, willibro, Vtdblue

          My issue in this diary is simply with the "HOS" process.  There are always two other potential processes -- "Hide Individual Comments Based On Offensiveness" (shall we call that "HICBOO"?) and "Compile A Case And Contact An Admin" ("CACACAA"?)  (I don't think I'll insist on those acronyms!)

          Where those other approaches can work quickly enough, it seems to me that they should be allowed to work.  If someone wants to post lots of material here that no TU is likely to want to defend, and we not only want their content hidden but to cut off their access right away because of their outrageous bad faith, then sure, HOS.  If not, then it seems reasonable to focus on the specific posts at hand as an emergency measure and deal with the question of emergency permanent banning separately.

          Unless the Admins tell us that they want us -- more than I have thought they do -- to act without them, HOS strikes me as an emergency measure, for the kind of thing that we really can't wait to address.  I realized in writing this that the notion of having HOS extend over a period of days is a clue that it's not necessary; there are few enough candidates for HOS that, if one appears and it isn't urgent to get rid of an out of control poster, there should be ample time to call in an Admin.

          Again, if Admins feel differently about this, fine; they just ought to make their preferences clear.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:11:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah - I erred in misplacing the HOS designee with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            the more general Troll -- my mistake.

            Still, in that you've pointed out even HOS tends to be more of a process over a period of days than an insti-ban, I guess I'd suggest that one candidate is as suitable as the other, provided the interactions are comparably agitating regardless of the specific tactics and strategies employed.

            Even in a situation where an HOS determination has been made, I see the sense and propriety of using the interim to call in an Admin but I wouldn't say that the 'delayed action' of an HOS negates its utility.  Rather, barring response and/or ruling from an Admin, the HOS is a tool, another way to resolve the situation.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:47:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So, lemme get this straight... (8+ / 0-)

      If one gets HOSed by those that HOS, is one truly HOSed if one doesn't have a history of being HOSed?

      Enquiring trolls everywhere want to know.   :)

      "We need more than just a win. We need to send a message to the rest of the Republicans in Madison that we are coming for their asses with a hickory switch and a clear conscience." -- Ruleoflaw

      by Dingodude on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:44:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've only HOS'ed one troll, ever. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Murphoney, MKSinSA

      RSA comes close - he's gotten enough donuts from me to gain a pound or two.  But on a 0 - 10 scale of assholeness (assholehood?) he's only at maybe a 9.1 or so.  Sometimes he's funny, alas.

      "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage." - Confucius

      by IndieGuy on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:01:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My question is: do you see any reason (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, poligirl, skohayes, Murphoney

        that his individual hide-worthy comments could not have been hidden individually while an Admin could have been contacted the next day or so?  Even for those people who thought that RSA was a troll, I don't think that he was even arguably the sort of emergency threat to the integrity of the site that would have doing more than the above.

        One question, though, is that if people are banning his comments enough to possibly invoke autoban, is it OK (in the short term) for people to uprate if they think that (as with RSA's) the comments just aren't that disruptive?  I think it should be OK, but I'd like to see more clear Admin guidance on this.

        Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

        by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:16:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not disagreeing with that point, actually. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA, Murphoney

          Contacting admins about RSA or others like him is probably an appropriate way to go.  I think the term "emergency" is a good way of framing it, and you're right - that one wasn't an emergency.  (As for Aidos, though - once it finally became apparent what she was about, it was hasta la vista, baby.  She was the HOS I was talking about.)

          Regarding the uprating - I don't think we should stop it if we could.  I do think the algorithm needs to put more in line with what it used to be, since right now it only takes one partner troll to keep the active troll in business.

          "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage." - Confucius

          by IndieGuy on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:37:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think this part is key (18+ / 0-)
    One is notorious, one is ongoing.  I've said pretty much all I had to say about the notorious Aidos, most of it at least 2-3 times, and I think that it actually led to some useful propositions (well, I think so) by the end.  These include: (1) the basis for HRs should be explained in as clear detail as any TU requests; (2) what should matter in evaluating a fatwa is the evidence on hand at the time it is issued and acted upon, not that which may be found and distributed later, and (3) even if a comment is nor clearly HR-able by its content, the tone of the comment may justify banning.
    If you're going to HOS someone, then there better be a responsive comment to the troll laying out (or linking to another comment) compiling the key relevant evidence.  
  •  this is ridiculous to me: (13+ / 0-)
    He can't be Hide On Sight because there is, clearly, as evidenced by about 30 Kosters recommending his Tip Jar, much more than a "shadow of a doubt" as to whether he's a troll.

    on a site this large, there are easily 30 trolls running around.  so this metric fails inherently.

    "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

    by mallyroyal on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:48:27 AM PDT

    •  A fair number of those 30, I'll bet, are TUs (7+ / 0-)

      but if this were an official decision-making process I supposed I'd have to check.

      If all the trolls were to uprate each other, they'd be pretty readily identifiable.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:57:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  some TUs have an axe to grind and will uprate (16+ / 0-)

        something another TU finds offensive and troll-worthy on purpose, because they dislike that other TU.  I'm sure it also happens innocently, because they believe the HR was uncalled for.

        how does your metric take something like that into account?

        like I'll see someone make racist statement after racist statement.  over-the-line stuff joking about slavery or whatnot.  others will see that as just good harmless fun.  got me?

        to me that racist is a HOS but others won't see it the same way, primarily because our definitions of racism differ wildly, sometimes because the others plain don't like ME.  so what happens under your plan?

        "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

        by mallyroyal on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:03:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Everything is written down (9+ / 0-)

          You have to own your choices here.  I think I can honestly say that I've never uprated a comment just because I disliked another TU.  Doing that just seems weird.  I may have to justify that uprate to someone someday.

          As for the poster you think is racist, about which others disagree: (1) HR all of the comments you think are racist, (2) don't go HOS if others disagree, (3) contact an Admin, because if they agree with you all the HRs are academic anyway.

          There are other possibilities and this diary may end with our finding that one of them, rather than what I'm saying I think the rule is, will prevail.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:09:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i agree. i think this is the best way to go: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane, willibro, Vtdblue
            As for the poster you think is racist, about which others disagree: (1) HR all of the comments you think are racist, (2) don't go HOS if others disagree, (3) contact an Admin, because if they agree with you all the HRs are academic anyway.

            "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

            by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:56:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt though (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv, poligirl, Seneca Doane, willibro, Vtdblue

      that even the people reccing this very comment would achieve unanimity as to just who those 30 trolls are.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:53:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  several of those tipping RSA's jar, if you had... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, PhilJD

      looked, are upstanding, long time users who are active in posting diaries and commenting.

      so this metric can work if one bothers to check who's doing the tipping.

      "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

      by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:52:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no. it doesn't. no kossack's judgement is (0+ / 0-)

        infalliable, I don't care how much they've diaried or commented.

        (yes I get that that means mine isn't either)

        how about we stop treating kossacks like they (individually or as a group) never get stuff wrong?

        "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

        by mallyroyal on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:21:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, you said: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane
          on a site this large, there are easily 30 trolls running around.  so this metric fails inherently.

          sure no kossack's judgment is infallible, and there no doubt could be a troll or two among the prominent long time diarists, but i don't think that such a wide variety of long timers is going to consist of all trollish long timers. the odds are heavily against that.

          and i agree, we shouldn't treat any group like they're always right or always wrong. no one is always right or always wrong. we're all just humans.

          "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

          by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:44:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That would apply with equal force to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          groups of Kosters intent on HOSing someone, wouldn't it?

          In fact, that's the problem I'm addressing here!

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know what the rules are (13+ / 0-)

    But my feeling is that by far the best approach to rate diaries and comments on their own merits or lack thereof. That applies not just to troll ratings but to recs.

    That's not to deny that the context of the comments and history/motives of the poster are relevant -- of course they are -- but if you want to comment on those things, well, comment.

  •  I don't troll rate or HOS comments because (15+ / 0-)

    all of those comments will disappear on May 21 anyway.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:51:09 AM PDT

  •  He's definitely too witty to be Erick Erickson (7+ / 0-)

    I have no problem with gadflies...just so long as they keep their tongues in their cheeks.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:55:09 AM PDT

  •  Most people TR just for disagreement (7+ / 0-)

    Ive seen it happen so many times. People use TR for whatever they want.
    I save my TR's for people that seem particularly loathesome to me.
    I thought uprating a TR meant you disagreed with the TR. No, it means that if someone like Meteorblades dislikes the comment you get a Stern Letter Of Warning for reccing a comment that has somehow violated the law. Example: I uprated a comment that used the term Obama Haters, not applied to anyone specifically. it was entirely civil--There was no offensive language, no name callling, no trolling. 15 other people did the same but the TR's outnumbered us by 2 so all 15 of us got a Stern Letter of Warning saying we had all been bad.(well sorta)
    Then the next day Mcjoan posts a diary whose title is Fuck You All!! and lots of people recced it with no Stern Letter. Go figure.
    So mostly I don't TR or uprate any more, it really doesn't make that much difference. Unless someone is REALLY offensive, if i don't like what they say I just click on to something else.

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:55:55 AM PDT

    •  Here's a good example (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl

      from this diary:

      I'm sorry to have angered you. (1+ / 4-)
      Recommended by:Josiah BartlettHidden by:FrugalGranny, trashablanca, KVoimakas, fcvaguy
      Hopefully my revised remarks here are less pointed, and more on topic.  I would, however, appreciate you avoiding the suggestion of ratings abuse.  Peace.

      by alpraz on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:25:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent | Reply to this ]  Recommend  Hide

      Now, how does this comment fit into this description?
      "... You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating...."

      If thats the definition then everybody who TR'd this comment abused it. They TR'd just because they disagreed with what the guy said or just don't like the guy.

      Wouldn't be surprised if I got TR'd for this

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:12:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I haven't HR'd RSA (13+ / 0-)

    since I don't consider bad satire (if that is what it is supposed to be) HRable.  Aidos, definitely was a different matter but I HR'd her comments on their clear whackadoodleness.

    I believe I've always explained an HR -- unless the person is a spammer.  Plagiarism and copyright violations always get HR's from me == and there is a perfect example of a couple of diaries which received uprates from respected users because they liked the diary and copyright law be damned.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:59:02 AM PDT

  •  I was surprised by the reaction to RS (9+ / 0-)

    because I thought Red State's diary was clearly snark and I found it funny.  

    I was really surprised by the other reactions there.  It wasn't the best snark ever but I certainly didn't find it worth the derision that others were giving it.

    •  I found it clearly snark when it was reposted, (4+ / 0-)

      but neither the first nor second posting struck me as the least bit funny.

      It kind of made me feel like a victim of rape or incest might feel when those types of jokes are used on Family Guy or South Park. I like Family Guy & South Park, but the pedophelia and incest jokes are disturbing.

      I do feel vioalted by RSA's brand of snark. I don't find it funny. I find it kind of disgusting and hurtful. DKos is a place where I'd like to feel somewhat safe. People posing as the enemy doesn't make me feel safe.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:58:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  which part of the snark was disgusting and... (6+ / 0-)

        hurtful?

        to be honest, i didn't see any abusiveness in the content of the diary.

        to compare it to rape or incest seems a bit of an over the top reaction.

        i fully agree that everyone has a complete right to dislike it - that's fine - not your cup of tea - but  fail to see where the abusiveness is in it.

        "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

        by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:12:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I find his/her whole premise disgusting. (0+ / 0-)

          GOP ideologies are deeply offensive to me as a compassionate and rational thinking human being. The idea that we libs just need to be "educated" by those who despise education and embrace indoctrination is repulsive to the core. If I or anyone else wants to hear that crap there are plenty of places we can go. It's just not funny.

          It isn't unlike a member of NAMBLA posting on a victims of child abuse blog. "You weren't abused, you just misunderstood. You just need to be "educated". Fuck that. I don't care if you think that's over the top. It's how I feel.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:54:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sure, if he was saying it seriously... (6+ / 0-)

            damn right i'd be offended.

            but the point was, the diary wasn't meant to be taken seriously and the diarist even literally spelled it out in the diary just in case someone was taking it seriously. snark is by nature not meant to taken seriously. those who do take snark seriously are going to get offended.

            kind of like when Tina Fey would play Sarah Palin on SNL in 2008. it was close enough to come of a Palin, but over the top enough to qualify as parody. and i don't think many folks mistook it as really representing Palin and i don't think many found it offensive either, save for a few GOPers including Palin.

            "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

            by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:02:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just don't think it's even decent snark. (0+ / 0-)

              It. Just. Wasn't. Funny. Tina Fey is funny. RSA is not.

              Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

              by JTinDC on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:10:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's fine. that's your opinion and it's all... (5+ / 0-)

                good.

                however, that was not the opinion of all the others. and to imply that those others, myself included, were getting enjoyment from something akin to rape, incest, or NAMBLA, is kind of personally insulting.

                if there had been anything in the diary that had been as harmfully abusive as rape, incest, or NAMBLA, most of us wouldn't have been laughing at it. most folks here are not that mean-spirited or evil.

                "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

                by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So the way that diary made me feel is invalid (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poligirl, Sylv

                  because I wasn't amused bu it as many others were. Yeah, fine, whatever. I've been personally deeply wounded by rightwingers in the past so I try to avoid them. I find RSA offensive, not funny in the least.

                  I respectfully ask that you please don't respond to my comments in the future and I'll refrain from responding to yours.

                  Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                  by JTinDC on Thu May 19, 2011 at 01:25:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  indeed, i could have been more respectful that... (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vtdblue, Sylv, joanneleon, Seneca Doane

                    that was how you felt and that you were not speaking for anyone but yourself and i am sorry for that.

                    i respect the way it made you feel. like i said, there were quite a few who didn't like it at all. and if you feel it was as bad as being raped, that's fine. you are totally entitled to feel that way.

                    but you also have to respect that there were plenty of folks who didn't view it that way, and enjoyed it.

                    i got all riled up cuz if you saw it that way, what must you think of those of us that enjoyed it? that we laugh at rape, incest, or NAMBLA?

                    you have the right to feel however it made you feel, and i guess i just want to make sure that i have that same right.

                    peace!

                    "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

                    by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:00:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I appreciate your apology. Please allow me to (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Seneca Doane, Sylv, poligirl

                      take another stab at better explaining where I'm coming from.

                      I, and I suspect at least a few others, see Dkos, perhaps more so in some of the groups,  as a community in which we can be assured some level of security in discussing issues with who we hope to be like minded people. We're looking for a bubble of semi-safety. We know there are pie fights, but we don't want to deal directly with Republicans here. I know they're welcome as long as they behave themselves, but thankfully most of them stay away with only an occasional one coming in and shitting on the rug.

                      And if we want a fake Republican doing comedy, we know where to look for that entertainment and find it from people who do it well. I don't know RSA. Who here really knows RSA? Are we being pwned? I don't know. I do know he's no Will Ferrel. He sure the hell isn't Tina Fey.

                      He's not funny. He's doing a poorly rendered version of Stephen Colbert. And when it's not funny, you're just left with offensive right wing blather.

                      I never meant to imply that anyone who found him funny was a bad person, but it would serve those who do to recognize the threatening atmosphere RSA creates, intended or not, for some, however few that might be.

                      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                      by JTinDC on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:36:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Progress! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sylv, poligirl

                        I disagree, but I'm glad you've explained your position better.

                        There is an innate tension between this being a "safe" place and this being a place where people can challenge and be challenged.  Both are valuable services, so there has to be a trade-off; there's no "right answer" overall.

                        One such challenge is: are you reasonable in feeling that this poster threatens your feeling of safety.  In other words, are you restricting his right to speak as he would prefer to a reasonable degree or too greatly.  That's our debate.

                        Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

                        by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:36:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  i can totally understand where you are... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Seneca Doane

                        coming from. i grew up around that harsh right wing judgment crap (Orange County, California - i have scars from that crap), and have actually had a couple of old family friends disown me. i don't like the way they made me feel, nor their extreme judgment of me, simply because i was a Democrat.

                        here's why i was so cavalier about RSA' post. in it, he referenced teacherken's "teachable moments", he remarked about Orange to Blue Blue to Orange, he referenced ErrinF's "delete my account, Kos", as well as the "BREAKING" thing. to me, someone would have had to be around here a long time to be aware of those things, and that's why i immediately thought it was from someone that was def a user here writing some good snark. but i can totally understand that others may not have taken it the same way as me, as not everyone has the same circumstances as me.

                        and truth be told, the way some of the comments were worded in the diary yesterday made me feel like my taste was being attacked - similar to the way the diary made you feel like you were being attacked.

                        so from me to you - peace! i don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable here, and i do understand that snark is in the eye of the beholder. and again - i am sorry for jumping on you; i had just been feeling like i was being judged for liking the snark, so i was in defense mode.

                        we all need to be sensitive to others feelings around here. it's a big place and there are many many varied opinions and life experiences that shape how each of us views things. and it all starts with respect for others' opinions, even when they don't match our own. and you are definitely due that from me.

                        Pax!  :D

                        "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

                        by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:54:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  I objected on this basis: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv, allergywoman, Seneca Doane, skohayes
      The exceptions are for conservative talking points or debunked or false information; this isn't a site for conservatives, they have entire swaths of the internet in which they can regale each other with their reality-impaired fantasies.

      Yeah, he was a half-wit who spelled out SNARK, but saying something is snark doesn't give you a pass from spewing right wing garbage or condescendingly pretending to come over here to edjumicate us.  

      Otherwise any disruptive winger could hide behind a snark tag.

      I find your response to him equally valid, which is why the HR's and Recs were mixed.

      To me, if you're going to denigrate the site and its inhabitants your snark better be first-rate to avoid offense, and his was not.  But reasonable people can disagree.

      FDR: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
      RNC: The only thing we have is fear.

      by smileycreek on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, but I think that the community response could (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl, Sylv

        have focused on just those comments some thought were offensive.  He was declared HOS by at least one (and I think more) people, and some seemed to be acting on it.  There was no emergency requiring us to expel him immediately, which is what I see HOS as being for, and which can justify HR'ing comments that are not themselves offensive.  That's how I read the FAQ, anyway.

        Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

        by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:21:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Frolicking Trolls (6+ / 0-)

    I have a concept that I'll refer to as the frolicking troll. They come in many forms, but have some defining characteristics. The FT doesn't want to get along with anyone; being at DKos is all about scoring points and pissing people off. He's often rude, insulting and condescending. He's also prolific, with a firehose stream of comments and sometimes diaries. He alternates offence with wounded victimization, claiming that every other user violates the FAQ and common decency, he is as pure as driven snow. If he loses his temper, someone else made him do it. He knows all the rules, even with a UID from last week.

    Advanced versions may be quite charming at times. They actively chalk up mojo and gain supporters to use at times when they are going about their primary mission: trolling. They may claim that their trolling is actually humor or snark, or just the unvarnished truth. Their enablers love the phrase "rate the comment, not the person." They can stretch out their trolling for years.

    Ultimately, the result of having frolicking trolls in abundance: thread-jacking of any meaningful discussion, turning sincere users against each other, creating a hostile environment where long-time users give up and go elsewhere. Mission accomplished.

    The concept of HOS is simple and hardly requires agonized "how many angels on the head of the pin" screeds. If I'm convinced that another user is HOS, I'll state the reason in a comment, and proceed to HR on sight. If I've over-reached, I'll be warned by other users or admin, and suffer the consequences.

    It's the only way to get rid of frolicking trolls. The alternative is to have them hijacking every discussion, making the site unuseable for non-trolls. Their need for attention and pissing in punchbowls damn well shouldn't have priority over the rest of us being able to use the site which we have come to love.

    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

    by Karl Rover on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:09:02 AM PDT

    •  But that's not what HOS is for (9+ / 0-)

      the way I read the FAQ.  I understand why you might want it to be that way, but it's not.  Are you saying that you don't think you ought to have to follow the FAQ?

      If you think someone fits that pattern, I'd contact an admin.  In any event, if I disagree with your assessment -- some people have their weird, idiosyncratic anti-progressive issue here and there which you may think they are here to promote subtly -- then I have to uprate.

      "Frolicking trolls" is a good concept to think about, though.  I just don't know if one can distinguish them easily enough from people who honestly disagree on some key issues.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:17:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's the way I read the intent of the FAQ (4+ / 0-)

        As for this:

        Are you saying that you don't think you ought to have to follow the FAQ?

        "Give me a fucking break" is the only response that straw deserves.

        I think you should re-think your habit of uprating comments out of hiddens. That's a questionable practice.

        A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

        by Karl Rover on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:29:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I quote the FAQ in diary (8+ / 0-)

          It doesn't say that you are to take the approach you do towards "frolicking trolls."  It says to reserve HOS for the most clear-cut cases.  This is not a straw-man argument.  How do you reconcile your position with the FAQ?

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:32:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm following the FAQ. Period. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            allergywoman
            Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to hide all of the posts made by such people, even the ones that are not in and of themselves trollish.

            You're twisting the FAQ into knots to justify your own bad judgement in moderation.

            A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

            by Karl Rover on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:42:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I quoted in the diary text (8+ / 0-)
              Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to hide all of the posts made by such people, even the ones that are not in and of themselves trollish. It should be emphasized, however, that this should not be done lightly. Before rating comments en masse, you should be very very sure that the author is really a troll, and not just a regular poster who is having a bad day. If there is any shadow of a doubt as to whether a person is a dedicated troll, you should refrain from mass-hiding their comments. To reiterate, this "hide on sight" approach should be used cautiously and rarely.

              Come on: you did read the rest after the part where you stopped quoting, right?  I'm not twisting the FAQ into knots.  I'm quoting it with its full context.

              This context explains why I've had what you call "bad judgment in moderation."  I made the "mistake" of reading the rules.

              Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

              by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course I read the whole thing, duh. (0+ / 0-)

                Generally, the most important point comes first, with the secondary sentences being explanatory. The first two sentences give authority for HOS, at the users discretion, with the caveat that you better be right if you use that authority. Or suffer the consequences. Absolutely no doubt that I follow the FAQ when I call for HOS. No one has ever said I didn't.

                By the way, I've never said the Redstate troll should be HOS. But if anyone else says they are, they're either within the FAQ, or should suffer consequences.

                Have the last word. I'm tired of your splitting hairs.

                A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

                by Karl Rover on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:44:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, Seneca Doane, Wee Mama
              Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption.

              Cannot be known, only inferred. Requires strong evidence.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:28:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  to go even further on that, i believe it is... (4+ / 0-)

                considered acceptable to abandon your old account and move to a new account, if you do truly and fully abandon the old one. some folks have done this to change user names, or to change to their real name.

                this means that it really is not knowable to us whether a person is a sock puppet or a banned user. you would need to have access to other information as admin does.

                if one suspects a sock puppet/banned user, one should tell admin about it and they will determine if it is.

                "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

                by poligirl on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:34:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  No way in hell I'm going to read this, (4+ / 0-)

    so I hope it isn't important.

    Pareto Principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:11:13 AM PDT

  •  No offense (8+ / 0-)

    Because I do understand the need for moderation and I do use my donuts, but only use them very judiciously and rarely --

    But I fear we're soon going to lose our ability - or at least credibility - in making fun of the US Senate for its arcane and byzantine rules and procedures...

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:18:18 AM PDT

  •  I think I've used (10+ / 0-)

    maybe 5/6 hide ratings in the 5 years I've been here.  

    These days I think people HOS because there's no moderation.  Is it "gaming the system"?  Sure.  But no more so than the people who are deliberately offensive and get 30 hide ratings to a comment and them post a diary about bunnies in footie pajamas singing Kumaya that gets on the recommended list for a full 24 hour period with a tip jar containing 800 recommends to counter the 30 hide ratings they got on that one comment.  

    Is it a problem?  Sure.  But until someone figures out a better way and that better way is put into place, this will remain the status quo.  So far, no one's even close to coming up with an effective "better way".

    Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

    by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:26:31 AM PDT

    •  If that sort of pattern exists for someone (5+ / 0-)

      whom I think is a troll, I'd document it and take it to an Admin.

      If that's not the answer they want to see someone like me give, I hope that one of them will show up here with a better one.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:33:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "No" moderation ? (0+ / 0-)
      These days I think people HOS because there's no moderation.
      ...Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor and content of conversations.
      http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The FAQs do indeed state what (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl

        you indicate.  And, very obviously, what they state and the reality of many Truster Users and Non-Trusted Users behaving responsibly on day-to-day basis are two completely different concepts, unless you're experiencing a different dKos I am.

        And, as Markos himself noted here -

        What guidelines? Those guidelines no longer exist.

        Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

        by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:47:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously, I left out a word. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl, Seneca Doane

        What I should've written was administrative moderation because that is what I meant.  Hope that clears things up for you.

        Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

        by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:04:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That one word does make a big difference , (0+ / 0-)

          but we still have administrative moderation , it is just less visible .
          If warnings are still being sent out ...

           

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:08:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If I were perfect, I wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes

            make these errors, but I'm not, and hindsight is 20/20.  Bet you find yourself making them from time to time too.

            Hopefully you're right and warnings are being issued when necessary.  There's no real way for users outside of the administrative loop to know for certain unless one is actually given a warning.  And again, until significant changes are put into place and enforced, "community moderation" will continue unchanged is my guess.

            Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

            by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:32:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say you made a mistake . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seneca Doane

              I responded to your comment as it was first posted
              and then I responded to your comment as it was then posted .

              There's no real way for users outside of the administrative loop to know for certain unless one is actually given a warning.
              Some people from time to time report they have received warnings .

              http://www.dailykos.com/...
              Meteor Blades stating a warning was given .

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:23:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't imply that you said that I did. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                I wrote that I made an error.

                I've only seen comments such as the one that you link in passing from time to time, because I usually stay out of the majority of the comment threads and subthreads these days due to how volatile things have gotten around here in general.  

                In any case, hopefully something will happen that makes for a positive change to the situation.  Until then, I'm more than content to lurk.

                Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

                by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:38:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If I am reading this all correctly (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Seneca Doane

                  the powers that be ,
                  want the trusted users to do the leg work and not rely on one person , M.B. , to do it .
                  The system was sent up before M.B. took up the role ,

                  Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor and content of conversations.

                  and we are going back to that system post M.B. .
                  It will only work if trusted users work at it .

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:03:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree. As the constant (0+ / 0-)

                    bickering, mean-spiritedness, and meta overkill on the site illustrates, the dynamic you keep quoting is clearly not working.  And this Trusted User (ie. - me) is staying out of as much of it as I'm able.

                    Since we've gone full circle with this exchange and are, so very obviously going nowhere, I'm going to exit here.  Have a nice evening.

                    Ancora Imparo. ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

                    by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:32:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  I quit teh meta... (8+ / 0-)

    don't check teh hiddens any more. I just post my silly little photo diaries and roll with a few community type diaries. Or, at least I'm trying to anyways. Or something.

    "Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world." — Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:42:00 AM PDT

  •  I guess (7+ / 0-)

    I'm happy enough to judge each comment on its own merits.  Marx had some good things to say about history through an economic lens and reading Goebbels can teach you about how public opinion is manipulated by the unscrupulous.

    We are stronger when we encounter the arguments made by those we oppose and think through thier argument and our response.

    If we don't stop them here, then where? If not now, then when?

    by nightsweat on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:43:56 AM PDT

  •  for what it's worth (7+ / 0-)

    I think maybe I did HOS once, or maybe not.

    I don't think every TU should have an absolute 'veto' over HOS. However, I think the presumption against HOS means that people should carefully weigh arguments against HOS, not in general hoot them down. Some arguments against HOS, frankly, may be silly (e.g.: "you guys are just liberal fascists" -- not really an argument). Others may be very reasonable, even if one doesn't ultimately find them convincing.

    •  I've joined in a HOS once or twice (8+ / 0-)

      because someone took the trouble to post a comment with links to the troll's record, so I could see for myself that the HOS was justified.
      I've also uprated, sometimes unwittingly because there was nothing to show that a HOS was even going on, let alone justified. Upon being given a satisfactory explanation of the HOS I'm always willing to at least withdraw the uprate, if not add to the donut pile.
      People on both sides of a HOS/uprate contest should be willing to explain their reasons, and at least start out with the assumption that their fellow TUs are acting in good faith.

      When civilizations clash, barbarism wins. http://Allogenes.wordpress.com

      by Allogenes on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:07:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I studied a user , (0+ / 0-)

    watched , read , interacted .
    It became clear that the user was a troll to me .
    A flaming troll who wished death on other site users .
    That user was HOS for me even if no one else saw it .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:33:46 AM PDT

  •  Tipped, Reccommended... (4+ / 0-)

    And I've even bookmarked the page on my browser. That way I can have a good reference point in case something like this happens again.

    ...It's been unfortunately frequent for the these past few days, running into possible trolls. Looking back at this diary is going to be a great way to cool my temper and level my head before diving back in. Many thanks.

    "If you have this (brains), then you follow this (heart) and if anyone tries to judge you based on what you make... *you give them THIS* (the finger)" ~Taylor Mali

    by Ace Nelson on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:39:36 AM PDT

  •  well, i have one thing to say... (5+ / 0-)

    "To sing the blues you got to live the dues and carry on" --S. Stills

    by bubbanomics on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

  •  Two observations: (0+ / 0-)

    1) No matter what system is set up -- and no matter how clearly the rules are explained -- certain people will find a way to abuse it for their own purposes. That goes for both trolls and some trusted users (some of whom have bad Jovian days of their own).

    2) In a way I disagree with the following:

    When someone comes here intent on disruption rather than contribution, when they are here to sell their penis pills or gimcracks or Randian philosophy and conspiracy theories unbolstered by extraordinary evidence, what we want to do is get them the hell out of here fast fast fast

    Obvious trolls will be ignored on their own merits, and will do no lasting damage to the site's reputation, whether they get eliminated within hours or die a slow death by recipe.

    What concerns me more lately are the more "subtle trolls" (for lack of a better term). The ones who spout nonsense, inaccuracy, or outright lies that sound close enough to liberal orthodoxy to either be tolerated or (distressingly) outright praised. The ones that walk the fine line. The ones so skilled with the bullshit trowel that it can smell like roses at first.

    I shall not name names, but I can think of several regulars on the rec list who fit this description. They may not be "interested" in disruption, but that is the inevitable result of their "contributions."

    I think these kinds of diaries are more insidiously corrosive to the purpose of the site than the outright trolls are. However, I am at a loss to know what to do about the situation. Obviously HOSing is not the right tool for that job. The only suggestion I have is tongue in cheek: we need an "eyeroll" button -- a way of saying, "I don't think you're a troll, but I do think you're an idiot."

    I'm a concert pianist with a double doctorate... AND YOU CAN BE TOO!

    by kenlac on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:45:17 AM PDT

    •  Fair points. But this: (0+ / 0-)
      Obviously HOSing is not the right tool for that job.

      is the only one I think we'd need agreement on for these cases.  Whether they should be banned (and I don't know that you and I will agree on those merits) is a separate issue calling for a separate discussion.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:29:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Standard Text (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    was lousy when it was first posted and should be disregarded freely when it is at all ambiguous, IMHO.

    You know damn well I'm wasting countless hours doing a series to discuss these very same topics, SD. You couldn't have at least given me a heads up your diary was here? Thanks for the discussion. Obviously we need it.

    My thoughts:
    No TU can declare HOS, and to be honest any comment calling for HOS in a discussion thread should be hydrated as a disruptive personal attack, with CT overtones. One of the purposes to the diary series I'm writing was to provide a forum for discussing such things outside of the discussion threads where the disruptions are actually occurring, because more often than not those interactions between TUs are the actual disruption just as much as the comments that spawn them.

    To work as well as we all want, HR guidelines and practices have to allow for honest and potentially contentious open discussion by quietly disappearing the comments the consensus finds distracting. The current practice is to loudly make those comments the primary topic of conversation, not just defeating the purpose of Community Moderation, but turning it against itself and making it a joke.

    Anyone who thinks RSA should be HOS is an easily-trollable netcop wannabe, not a serious TU with a mature understanding of the task before us.

    I encourage all TUs to check in on my series The Hiddens. Today's edition implements a new much briefer reporting feature, and I'm looking for new input.

    Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

    by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

    •  Hay~! You're not the boss of Seneca~! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, Vtdblue, skohayes

      Photobucket

      I encourage all TUs to check in on my series The Hiddens. Today's edition implements a new much briefer reporting feature, and I'm looking for new input.

      I've seen your tedious "The Hiddens" replete with the same dictatorial tone you took when you appointed yourself "The Peacemaker" as to "All Things Racist or Not" and found yerself in a hell of a mess.

      So chill. You're simply out of your element taking on Seneca Doane. No contest.

      Bye.

      •  Cheerful as always (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        I'm not taking on anyone; you took my comment too seriously.

        Did you bother actually reading my ideas, or did just the fact I said "encourage" instead of "pitifully beg" cause your mind to just snap shut the moment you saw it?

        Sorry about that.

        C U 0

        "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

        by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:47:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          the tmax, Seneca Doane, Vtdblue
          You know damn well I'm wasting countless hours doing a series to discuss these very same topics, SD. You couldn't have at least given me a heads up your diary was here?

          Please. Seneca has to check in w/you?

          Also, reading your "ideas" was like trying to read The Federalist Papers. Put me right off to sleep.

          Finis.

          •  I saw the subject line and knew (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane, Annalize5, Wee Mama

            it was going to be some quote yanked from some other discussion to show some thorn you've got in your paw that I wrote.

            I knew I should have put a damn smiley after that para. But oh well. Some people just like thinking the worst of people.

            I read the Federalist Papers to kill time; quite lively, IMHO. ;-)

            :-D [Just in case you missed the first one.] (Oh, and {/snark}.)

            "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

            by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:53:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, well then... (5+ / 0-)
              I knew I should have put a damn smiley after that para. But oh well. Some people just like thinking the worst of people.

              Let me apologize for jumping salty. God knows I've made comments I've felt necessary to clarify upon a second reading.

              I'm sorry. Please accept my apology.

              •  My mistake, actually (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                willibro, Wee Mama, Annalize5

                Because I wasn't paying attention enough to know it wasn't "some other discussion" the quote came from. Still, yeah, I should have known when I wrote it nobody would read it lightheartedly. Not in this environment.

                An environment I'm trying like hell to improve, and getting fuck-all appreciation for it, no matter how unobtrusively or gently I try (the more gently I try, the more presumptuous I look, and boy are Kossacks on short fuses these days.) Apology accepted.

                "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

                by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:34:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Ignoring the "head's up" part (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, the tmax, Wee Mama

      This is a cogent comment.  I've been enjoying "The Hiddens" -- occasionally.  I'm not yet hooked, but it's cool that you're trying it out.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:31:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would be one thing is tmax didn't have an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        willibro

        obvious axe to grind. Neither objective nor convincing.

        Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

        by Vtdblue on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:21:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to admit that I'm not reading (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro, Catte Nappe, Wee Mama

          it closely enough to notice an obvious ax.  I just think that reviewing the hidden comments for indications of how we apply our site moderation rules is an interesting idea.  I don't know that much about his stances, I just like the project in theory.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:15:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  First Step: Establish a rep for objectivity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        That's why you're credible on this stsff, SD, and the author of "The Hiddens" is not.

      •  See there I'm blushing already (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        I haven't even been doing it for a week, so if you've enjoyed it at all, let alone on more than one occasion, I'd like to consider that a mark of approval.

        Today I switched to a more "just the facts" kind of presentation, mostly just cataloging the stuff for those that can't see it or don't bother looking. Less backround, minimal babbling. I'd appreciate your feedback on it, if you have the time.

        "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

        by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:22:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that if the people you criticize (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama

          think that you're doing it objectively, I'll think so too, and I'd say the same if it were them doing it and you who were the critic.  I found some of the codes confusing, to tell you the truth, but you seem to be refining it.  Just keep at it and I'll check in when I think to do so and will leave feedback as time allows.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:19:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody ever thinks (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane, Wee Mama

            they're being criticized objectively. Not even me, though I try very hard to give more credit to my detractors than they give me.

            I know the couple of comments I just dropped in slinkerwinks diary aren't going to gain any supporters. Most of the codes aren't codes, they're just joke "categories" that are always unique. I was hoping for some questions in comments so I can know what needs explaining, but today has been the slowest day so far.

            Not coincidentally, I think, when you're over here draining all the interest in meta into your tip jar. I was trying to crack wise with the "you know damn well" line earlier, but I was also trying to make a point. You basically said exactly what I did about RSA, two days ago. Perhaps you could show support for my efforts by supporting my efforts, you know what I mean?

            Now I sound all pathetic and whiny. I should just sign off for tonight.

            See you in the Hiddens. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

            "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

            by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:49:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Meta Groupies? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allergywoman, the tmax

    Maybe you/they need to hook up with the tmax, who is attempting a daily digest and discussion of HR decisions?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  I haven't HR'd him for that very reason. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, the tmax

    I was unsure if he was simply a performance artist of some sort.  He was too perfectly a caricature of what we expect from a RedStater.

  •  (b) with a bit of (a) (4+ / 0-)

    RSA is satire so unsuccessful as to be fairly dunderheaded.  IMHO.

    Not worthy of enough attention to be HOSed.  Or HRed at all (or Recced), for that matter.

    Move on...

    grok the "edku" -- edscan's "revelation", 21 January 2009

    by N in Seattle on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:01:12 AM PDT

  •  Regarding THIS part of the FAQs: (8+ / 0-)
    this isn't a site for conservatives, they have entire swaths of the internet in which they can regale each other with their reality-impaired fantasies.
    I urge everyone to investigate the current status of the Swing State Project on DKos, where conservatives and Republicans are not only tolerated, but befriended and urged to become TUs.

    A bit OT I know; apologies to the diarist.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:07:50 AM PDT

    •  Hardly off topic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane

      You do realize that you can't be a TU of Swing State Project? It is DKE now, and if they're TUs there, they're TUs here, too, because there is here.

      What do you think that means for community moderation?

      Definitely something I'd like to discuss in The Hiddens, but now I'm just diary whoring, which is way worse than being off topic.

      Thanks for your time, hope it helps.

      "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

      by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A theorem: (5+ / 0-)

    Any effectively generated HR guideline capable of expressing site policy cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated guideline that supports certain basic site principles, there is a comment that is not HRable, but not consistent with those principles.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Thu May 19, 2011 at 10:37:49 AM PDT

  •  It takes courage to be a hold-out juror (5+ / 0-)

    and I am always inclined to respect an articulate contrarian.  I fear that we as liberals are by no means immune to the tyranny of the majority.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu May 19, 2011 at 11:13:14 AM PDT

  •  On "fast fast fast" (0+ / 0-)

    I think you're showing a lot of zeal for "vote them off the island" kind of moderation. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, necessarily, but I did have a thought. Perhaps we need to be sure the various systems for banning disruptive people is consistent and certain, but not focus on speed. My point is I think we benefit from having trolls around just long enough to make evident that we are not just enforcing a hivemind, give enough people other than the most trigger-happy TUs a chance to see them for what they putatively are, and observe the banning of purposefully disruptive contributors, whether sincere or not.

    So fast, maybe, but not fast fast fast. We need them to be around long enough so people can tell they were here, or there's no way to know when we go overboard into false positive country and start excluding people for being standard Internet assholes not yet used to our ways. As I believe has happened thanks to bullying HOS practices.

    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

    by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:21:25 PM PDT

    •  I am? (5+ / 0-)

      I think I'm on the other side of that argument.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 12:34:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I missed some (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        irony, I wasn't reading closely enough. My apologies. I'm too busy writing long diaries to read long diaries, I guess. ;-)

        I'll try again later. Sorry to have bothered you.

        "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

        by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:38:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I hope you aren't addressing the diarist (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, Wee Mama, tardis10
      I think you're showing a lot of zeal for "vote them off the island" kind of moderation.
      He's rather attempting to put the brakes on both the haste and the hive mind behavior.
      •  Well, sure, but... (0+ / 0-)
        what we want to do is get them the hell out of here fast fast fast
        It doesn't matter who the "them" being referred to was, that approach contradicts your contention. It is excessive zeal to protect the group against incursion which causes haste and hive mind behavior. Believing you are deliberating carefully doesn't change that. A star chamber is no better than a posse of vigilantes, though I'm not saying that is Seneca's intent. It just could be the result, is what I'm saying.

        "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

        by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 03:34:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Context (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane, tardis10
          when they are here to sell their penis pills or gimcracks or Randian philosophy and conspiracy theories unbolstered by extraordinary evidence, what we want to do is get them the hell out of here fast fast fast

          There is a certain category of troll that should not be controversial in the least - and "fast" is a pretty good time line in those cases. It is the less obvious cases, the questionable cases, the maybe not even an actual troll cases that both you and he are meta grappling with to develop a better approach.

          •  But that's assuming your conclusions (0+ / 0-)

            Penis pills are one thing, but even CT and Objectivists are less obvious cases than most (even here) seem to believe.

            What can I say? Everything Seneca said that I agree with I have already said myself, and there's plenty of it. But we do differ on how to handle what's left over, despite the fact that in the case of RSA, we come to the same conclusion. I just don't see why a diary that is supposed to 'wave off' this particular HOS doesn't just wave them all off until we come up with a way to develop a consensus.

            "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

            by the tmax on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:41:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do your work in your diaries and you can come up (0+ / 0-)

              with "Obvious Trolls" to test your theory.  In fact, I'm happy for you to take up the "Is this HOSeworthy?" line of discussion in your diaries and try to refine our collective sense of it.  It's a natural fit with what you're doing.  Actually, you may already be doing that.  As I said, I find some of the codes confusing; they seem to assume knowledge of the project already.  You could benefit from having a boilerplate "basic introduction to what this is about" to publish with each diary.

              Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

              by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:45:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There have been three already this week (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                I want you to take up this discussion in my diaries. That's the fit I'm looking for: a discussion forum, not just a place for me to expound and try, on my own, to categorize what defies categorization. Ironically, I'm getting criticized for claiming authority I don't have to pass judgment on other TUs, at the same time I'm getting suggestions to do more of that.

                The project has only been going for 5 days now. It may look like I'm presuming prior knowledge, but that's just because I'm not very good at it yet. I could benefit from having other TUs ask what the codes mean and suggest what the boilerplate should be, if I were sociable enough to convince any of them to come paint the fence for me. As it stands, I know I'm getting readers, and a small slice of them provide recs and tips. But it's nothing but crickets when it comes to discussion of cases; that's all still done in the threads themselves (where the comments that get hidden continue to be discussed for hours by the TUs, who can still see them, which is cutting off your nose to spite your face when it comes to preventing distraction.) Or else in the diaries of more venerable Kossacks like this, isolated from the rest of the moderation debate and directly, if not purposefully, undermining my effots.

                Thank you for responding. I'm sorry I'm so needy, but I really could use your help. Next time you see a dust-up over moderation calls or lengthy discussion of a hidden comment, and you realize it is causing more disruption than it is preventing, just post a comment saying "This is a distraction; let's take it to The Hiddens." I've been very conscientious about opening a new diary every day (if not so much on when I open it) which is more of an accomplishment for me than you might expect. I committed myself to doing this for three months, and frankly I don't know if I can keep it up that long all by myself. I'm not even sure I'll make it through the weekend.

                Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

                "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine

                by the tmax on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:28:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, Catte Nappe, bsmechanic

    and the discussion that followed. I did HR RSA's first diary, for one thing because the five letters in the fourth paragraph were not bolded the first time around (clever, no?), and his comments (what few there were) weren't that friendly, IMO, plus the attempt to stir up shit with the  "moles" from Red State that were TUs, and one was a front pager, to be revealed sometime in the future. I don't like seeing our FPers impugned like that, so I HRed the tip jar. After the diary was republished, I did not HR the tip jar, because there were about the same number of recs as HRs, so I could see there was some disagreement as to whether RSA was snarking, or whether he actually is what he says he is.
    I did go back and read his comments, and haven't decided yet, so let him stick around. We have a lot of smart, educated, informed people in this community who are more than up to the task of taking on a Red Stater or any other conservative.
    Sarah Proud and Tall knows how to write good snark, perhaps RSA could review her diaries and learn something.
    To your main point, I've never been a HOSer, I believe each comment should stand on it's own, and I've been known to rec comments of people I've HR'ed before.

    How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

    by skohayes on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:04:59 PM PDT

    •  Fair enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      I didn't see the first diary (though I've seen many of the comments.)  I took that McCarthyite part to be a parody of Red State conspiracy theorizing.  If I'd have interpreted it as a serious accusation, I'd have acted differently.  That's the risk that a good satirist takes.  (Bad satirists take it too.)  Peace at you.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:42:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the first diary,one had an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        additional reason to HR. $100 to the PCCC. Btw,are you sending secret messages ;)

        I didn't see the first diary (though I've seen many of the comments.)  I took that McCarthyite part to be a parody of Red State conspiracy theorizing.  If I'd have interpreted it as a serious accusation, I'd have acted differently.  That's the risk that a good satirist takes.  (Bad satirists take it too.)  Peace at you.

        For the record, I think HOS should be a very,very rare occurrence.

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Thu May 19, 2011 at 07:55:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Surely Not! Are Ryu Kidding? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10

          Hide rating something because it will lead money to go to a good cause is completely against the rules.  If that's true, those 125 HRs should be taken off the account's history completely.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Fri May 20, 2011 at 12:10:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not kidding. (0+ / 0-)

            But to throw out all those HRs would be wrong. People HR for all sorts of reasons. How can you know if the bounty was the motive that made someone HR it? Especially because the bounty wasn't on the diary at first and it was a comment that was buried among many more.
            Of course,I understand the larger difficulty with this. But at the end of the day,this time,I think the concrete good (the donation) outweighed the virtual world minor drama. No,I do not want to see this become a practice here. Although I confess, I was unaware that it is specifically prohibited.
            Overall,I actually think the treatment RSA has received is a positive reflection on this community.

            "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

            by tardis10 on Fri May 20, 2011 at 01:43:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Some of us have been on here so long (0+ / 0-)

    that other users just get on their nerves and vice versa

    its just human nature. hos isn't very fair, but meh.

    people get annoyed. oh there's Krush with her silly crap again. unless it deletes an entire topic for long periods of time, hos is not a big deal.

    Just say' NO' to conspiracy theories

    by Krush on Thu May 19, 2011 at 05:13:27 PM PDT

  •  If, as you seem inclined to suggest, RSA (0+ / 0-)

    is not a troll how do you explain the fact that the diary to which this trash can was attached was deleted?

    Is it OK, in your view, to establish an account as a prank, particularly such a divisive one as this has turned out to be. FFS you've written a meta diary on the topic.

    •  I presume that it was deleted because (0+ / 0-)

      it had attracted 125 HRs.  (The trash can was apparently that full because of a pledge to contribute money to a worthy cause for each one.)  He inferred that people did not get the joke and that this might be because the joke was not clear enough.  So he retooled and tried again.  I can't blame him for that.  I don't think he intended it to be divisive.  And it was clearer the second time.

      It used to be OK to create such an account as a prank -- but I think that was up until 2006.  If this was a current user and he wanted to give up the old account and make this his platform, that was OK.  Perhaps not wise, but within the rules.  If he wanted to do it temporarily, intending to return to his old account, then that's up to the Admins.  (It could have also been done with their explicit permission, which I assume is the case for "Silly Rabbit."  That he wasn't autobanned or manually banned the first day suggests to me that, as some have guessed, it could be a Contributing Editor or Featured Writer.  I know of one of them, for example, who is very funny, though it's not usually the face shown here.)

      I think there's a difference between creating a prank and creating a platform -- especially, one for humor.  I don't think that he intended to create an account to piss people off; that's incompatible with most of his comments away from the controversy, which have seemed just fine.  I think he was creating a platform to contribute here "from the perspective of RedState" -- which to me has a lot of comic potential.  I figured that he was leading up to deploying that character; if so, given this guy's evident talent, I still hope to see it.

      Remind me which diary of mine that was, by the way.  I'm creeping up on 1000 between the two non-campaign accounts -- some of course being reprints -- and I don't remember all of them without prompting.

      Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

      by Seneca Doane on Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:59:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unlike at DK3 deleting a diary means deleting the (0+ / 0-)

        comment thread which kind of deletes the original arguement. It also appears to delete the mojo effects of the trash can. I think you've been snookered.

        •  Are you sure? (0+ / 0-)

          The comment thread was still there, last I looked; I saw some of the comments.

          I see no reason to think that it does or doesn't affect the mojo effects of the tip jar.  Could be, but we've long been told that "piling on" doesn't contribute to autoban, so if that's your evidence that it was deleted, I disagree that it's convincing.

          Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

          by Seneca Doane on Sat May 21, 2011 at 10:30:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The comments remain (0+ / 0-)

            but the thread is gone with the diary. Comment URLs cannot be guessed at DK4 the way they could be at DK3. The DK3 Commentsonly method also does not work anymore. Comments in deleted diaries are also not indexed for search as I understand it.

            Mojo went from no bars to two bars once the diary was deleted so my guess is that the mojo effect of the hundred and twenty five donuts went with it. That is just a guess on my part and I submitted a bug report with my observation.

            •  Fair points (0+ / 0-)

              If these changes (which are new to me) affect the calculus of whether one should delete a diary -- and my guess is that, as usual, there were probably "delete this POS" comments, right? -- then the Admins should spell that out.  I find it unfair to charge the average user with your level of knowledge about these matters.

              Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

              by Seneca Doane on Sat May 21, 2011 at 11:20:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  These changes don't matter to the average user (0+ / 0-)

                because the average user is not an out of the box HOS troll. That RSA was aware of them might be indicative . . .

                •  I don't think it's fair to conclude (0+ / 0-)

                  that RSA was "aware of them" and acted accordingly to game the rules.  He was not exactly trying to keep a low profile, after all.

                  I think that it's more likely that he realized that he'd pissed lots of people off, that the joke didn't work, and that he wanted to take it down and retool it -- so he did.

                  I've never gotten a 0/125 tip jar, so I don't know how I'd react.  You?

                  Unplug the Koch machine! It's swallowing people's money!

                  by Seneca Doane on Sun May 22, 2011 at 11:24:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site