I brought this up in a thread on the other side a few weeks back. I don't think mob policing is the solution but I understand the op's frustration. The report button works if enough members use it. I also think we need to be less gullible when it comes to newcomers who swoop in like they're the next Goldsmith or Williams or have the attitude of "where have I been all your life?"
I have learned the best lesson for myself is to ignore the beast lest I get dragged into the crap pile. However I do draw the line at demeaning or bullying. That raises me dander.
My concern is that Lukas may get fed up with the negativity and turn out the lights.
Yeah, true about the different types of trolls! Some are passive aggressive, others just flat out attack, but the more unscrupulous ones come off with a naïveté that is laughable. Oh, and lets not forget the "cheerleader" trolls.
I think some of the complaints are a little over blown. There's some who are over sensitive, lack a sense of humor and lash out in a nasty tone when it's unwarranted. So ironically I would "down vote" their intolerance if given the chance.
It's really simple, put members on ignore, use the report button or stop posting here. BTW, I never heard of a down vote system that didn't include an up vote option.
I brought this up in a thread on the other side a few weeks back. I don't think mob policing is the solution
It's a jury of your peers, not a mob. Why not try it and give Allardyce a break? I'd trust 12 members over one who can under or overreact depending on his mood that day.
Octoberman, you are correct. Too much "thread-crapping."
Minus dubya once accused me and Tall Guy of being "Threadcrappers" - we had dared to challenge one of his many bizarre rants in bold text. Man, i was so happy! I had a tee shirt made up which i wore with pride: Threadcrapper!
I brought this up in a thread on the other side a few weeks back. I don't think mob policing is the solution
It's a jury of your peers, not a mob. Why not try it and give Allardyce a break? I'd trust 12 members over one who can under or overreact depending on his mood that day.
I used the term mob to merely describe a group action, nothing negative intended. I trust the jury of 12 as well over a sole decision maker.
I brought this up in a thread on the other side a few weeks back. I don't think mob policing is the solution
It's a jury of your peers, not a mob. Why not try it and give Allardyce a break? I'd trust 12 members over one who can under or overreact depending on his mood that day.
I have put a (very) few commenters on ignore who clearly just wanted to lob grenades into a conversation and “watch the world burn” but overall I think the old methods work best. When someone acts a fool, they tend to get told so by a fairly common sense majority, and life goes on. Do I wish there were fewer negative comments overall, especially when commenters are dismissive of the hard work of our favorite labels? I sure do. But I don’t think the way to achieve that is to move to a model that ultimately suppresses the free sharing of thoughts. It’s not exactly a First Amendment issue, or a matter of life and death, but I think the FSM message board works pretty well as is.
Tom, about 9 years ago I wrote kind of a similar topic. While it ended up getting derailed over time, you might enjoy the first few posts. The analogy of Lord of the Flies and our Internet behaviors still seems true today. (Sadly.)
Tom, about 9 years ago I wrote kind of a similar topic. While it ended up getting derailed over time, you might enjoy the first few posts. The analogy of Lord of the Flies and our Internet behaviors still seems true today. (Sadly.)
So wise as usual joan. You truly are our Simon. The greatest thing my AP English teacher did was include this wonderful novel in our syllabus. What a spot on analogy that makes me wish I had discovered this board sooner.
Upon further review, what I *should* have titled this discussion is "Would we benefit from a comment RANKING system."
The best implementation of what I'm thinking is the arstechnica.com comment system. Users can choose to view comments as they appear chronologically, or by rank as the highest ranking comments float to the top, and lowest ranking sink to the bottom.
Freedom of speech doesn't have to mean that intelligent discourse is weighted equally with taking a dump on a discussion.
Upon further review, what I *should* have titled this discussion is "Would we benefit from a comment RANKING system."
The best implementation of what I'm thinking is the arstechnica.com comment system. Users can choose to view comments as they appear chronologically, or by rank as the highest ranking comments float to the top, and lowest ranking sink to the bottom.
It's essentially runs like that now. Go the other direction - FSM members can only post if they are hooked into 3D hardware. Whenever anyone gets out of control, we throw them into a virtual Agony Booth.
