However, during the "Peso Incident," I did some checking up on the appropriate use of troll ratings in the Dkospedia. Here is the relevant article:
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. If you disagree, you can say so, but so long as the commentor is stating their opinion civilly, merely disagreeing with your own opinion does not constitute being a "troll". This is true of gun control; Nader fights; Hillary vs. Not Hillary; DLC vs. Not DLC; energy policy; Senate strategy; House strategy; campaign strategy. Merely having a different opinion and stating it differently from how you would like does not constitute "trolling". Having honest and frequently passionate discussions of the issues is an imperative, if we are to obtain a progressive movement marked with actual successes.
I am going to stop here for a second. In today's diary, many said I was abusing the rating system by troll rating those who called me a bigot. In defense of the name-calling, some said that I was troll rating disagreement. That is a fine line that I hope we can discuss below and in the comments.
Here's two more tips:
Troll Rating multiple posts by the same poster -- that is, preemptive multiple troll-rating strikes -- is not the intended use. Rate individual posts individually, don't just go down a thread knocking off troll ratings to a particular poster because of one or two comments that pissed you off. It is entirely possible for a valued site contributor to have, on one particular issue, an opinion that drives you absolutely nuts. Well, they're entitled, as long as the conversation stays remotely civil.
Retaliatory troll-ratings -- troll rating someone simply because they troll rated you -- is forbidden. Period. Do it with frequency and you stand the chance of getting your rating ability taken away.
That's it. That's the intended use. If you use troll ratings in any other way but to explicitly hide certain comments from the conversation so that they will not detract from the more substantive threads of the conversation, you're using it wrong.
Trolling defined
Trolling, defined, is not simply disagreeing with your opinion or the collective site opinion. It is engaging in behavior which is directly contrary to the stated goals of the site -- furthering the progressive Democratic agenda. There are a number of things which very clearly constitute "trolling", and which should be troll rated (and therefore deleted from the conversation) quite legitimately.
- "Democrates suk" or any of the other derivations of true trolling by those of enfeebled brain. Don't argue, just zap them. More on this in a bit.
- Advertisements or other thread spamming. Zero them out. Especially if a user is posting the same comment to multiple threads. The cause may be just; the behavior isn't.
- Off-topic posts. There's entire threads devoted to being off-topic: the Open Threads. In other conversations, it is rude to interrupt a diary or story conversation with your own unrelated "threadjacking".
- Proven-false information, conspiracy theories, or debunked talking points. ...
- Attempting to "out" the personal information of other site users. This isn't just trolling, but is expressly forbidden and will almost certainly result in immediate banning.
Stopping again for a second before we continue. I think we all can agree that these five examples of trollish behavior are in fact trollish behavior and such comments are worthy of troll ratings. What follows is where all the disagreements lie...and where flame wars start...
- Personal attacks on other site users, including following them from thread to thread.
Now, what is a personal attack? Today I and others walked that fine line, and I think, if anything good can come out of that diary today, perhaps a civil and frank discussion can take place on what is a personal attack.
Is it ok to call someone an idiot if you think their opinion expressed is idiotic?
Is it ok to call someone a racist if you think their opinion expressed is racist or bigoted?
Is it ok to call critics of Israel anti-semitic? Supporters of the Palestinians?
Is it ok to call someone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? Or a homophobe?
Is it ok to call someone who enjoyed or saw no harm in the Gilligan Island Pie Ads a sexist or a womanizer?
I would suggest, and please comment on this as well, that given the extreme gray area and fine-line-dness of this category of troll rating, a good rule of thumb would be that if you have to resort to name calling or the use of descriptive adjectives to categorize the person you disagree with, no matter how justified you think it is and no matter your lack of intent to insult or personally attack the person you disagree with, it is not a good idea to post such a comment. Rather, try another way to express your disagreement.
For example, in my diary today, it was suggested that people call my opinion xenophobic or isolationist, rather than call me a bigot or a racist. See how fine a line it is? The former can be seen as expressing disagreement civilly. The latter can be interpreted as a personal attack and insult.
This category of troll ratings (the personal attack category) is the most subjective. As such, it would be helpful if we discussed our views on it. Especially since the Primary Wars are in their early stages already.
Thanks.
Comments are closed on this story.