I have recently seen quite a few libelous and vicious comments here directed at members of the community that I feel are unjustified. These self-same members have had entirely innocuous and inoffensive comments troll rated into oblivion as a result. I'm not saying that anyone is entirely blameless here, just that I don't think that the current mob mentality some here seem to have towards moderating our comment sections is at all helpful to the site. In fact, I'd argue that the resulting furor tends to drive people away, and not just the intended victims.
I have some first-hand experience here because I was recently on the receiving end of one of these troll-ratings, merely for asking for some justification of the claims made about one of the massively troll-rated users in question. I got nothing definitive in response, although one user who participated in that fiasco was kind enough to explain his concerns to me in detail.
The main contention I objected to and wanted addressed was the one that this user was a "racist or a homophobe". Given the frequency with which some spouted this accusation, I thought it'd be easy for them to make their case. But when pressed, most of them didn't want to answer me at all. Some told me that he was a "racist and a homophobe" because he supported someone else who they thought was a "racist and a homophobe". Leaving aside the use of guilt by association as a standard of proof, they then couldn't back up that claim either. Some pushed it back another level, by claiming that other racists liked this second person as well! Others told me to look through his comments, so I did, finding such gems as:
I would fight to the death [...] for the personal freedom of any individual of any race, sexual orientation, sex, or religion.
Clearly, that settles it--I'm sure Tom Tancredo says that all the time as well.
I ask you, do we not have a responsibility to the site to think before we troll-rate all of someone's comments in anger? Oh wait, we do:
Some posters create accounts at dkos strictly for the purpose of causing disruption. It is considered acceptable to troll rate 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-troll-rating their comments.
This is a high bar--you'd want to establish that a poster created his account "strictly for the purpose of causing disruption". Thus, I'd expect that it'd largely be directed at trolls who have been previously be banned, once it can be reasonably established that this new account is indeed the same person. So let's look at an example where this failed:
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
This is the sad case of Jacob Freeze, who recently posted an inflammatory diary about Hillary Clinton and her position on torture. So look at his other diaries and then tell me that he created his account "strictly for the purpose of causing disruption". No, judging from last night, he's "a regular poster who is having a bad day"; in any case, I think it's clear that there is at least a "shadow of a doubt" that he isn't "a dedicated troll". This is the standard--and yet, his comments were indeed mass troll-rated.
Clearly, the system is broken, but I think this is a social problem as well as a technical one. As things stand, we might benefit from or require a more deliberative process to re-establish a fair system. Being a Trusted User is a responsibility, not just a nifty tool that gives you a troll button to wield against all comers. Therefore, is it honestly so difficult for us to slow down a bit, to think before we act, to have hard reasons before we impugn someone's character, and then troll rate them for the very accusation? That's all I ask.