As a broad general rule, I don't reply to replies in which it's clear that the poster didn't read all of my original post. The biggest offenders appear to be (a) people who read individual sentences without looking at my overall statement, (2) people who read one or two paragraphs and stop, or (c) Anonymous Cowards.
- More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than up....
- Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards....
- ... So, for successful trolling, ALWAYS log in.
- A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite clever, funny, etc., and they are only modded down because they are offtopic....
- ... the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today....
I certainly don't know how accurate the results of this "investigation" are. However, some of it tracks, and I'm a little surprised that it would go through the incredible down moderation it suffered. The 377 Offtopics, I can kind of understand; technically it is offtopic ("Oracle breakable after all"). But out of 851 votes there were 4 Flamebait and 27 Troll votes. How did 31 people look at this post and decided the intent of the poster was to stir up trouble?
I don't agree with all of what "negativekarmanow tm" said. The implications of referring to the moderation poll is just silly; every option in "that poll" (with the possible exception of "A Dozen Moderators") can be activated by user preferences.
On the other hand, the trend toward modding down seems strong enough to have inspired a (small?) counter-movement. I feel that "King Mob" is just as effective at censorship as "Big Brother", and I think there are at least a few others here at Slashdot who feel the same way. The fact that people couldn't wait to mod down a post that was factual (if not neccesarily accurate... I presume the
I know, I know... I mispelled "Angela Bassett" as "Angela Basset". I have trouble with unpronounced double consonants!
Angela, if you ever read this, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I worship you and I am so sorry!
I can't believe it! I just started looking at Slashdot's friends/fans/foes/freaks system, and I have ten fans!!! Plus, there are two fictional characters (like me!), a UFP automated probe and a Cthuloid deity among you!
Hello to CptnHarlock, daeley, dbremner, diffuze, Louis_Wu, npsimons, Nyarly, solferino, stripes and warpeightbot! I look forward to reading your jornals and comments in the near future.
I'm so -- *SNIF* -- happy! (This is a good time to picture Sandra Bullock fanning her face in Miss Congeniality.)
From the Jargon File's entry on the word troll:
To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames;...
Any and all "Troll" moderations will be metamodded by me as "Unfair", as it is impossible to know the intent of the poster. Similarly, all "Flamebait" moderations will be metamodded as "Unfair". How do you know the post isn't stating the poster's actual opinion?
A secondary issue is that polite, sensible postings will often receive the "Troll" or "Flamebait" mods. Knowing the intent of the poster is the primary issue, which renders these moderations meaningless in any case, but these mods are often applied to calmly-stated and thoroughly-reasoned posts that don't even pass a deskcheck for Troll- or Flamebait-like qualities. In these cases, the best guess is ignorance or stupidity on the part of the moderator; in a worse scenario, I suspect political motivations.
While I don't have an out-and-out moratorium on "Offtopic", "Redundant" and "Overrated", I feel it's more important to promote good material; I start off against these mods. (I was inspired in this by someone's journal entry; I'll post a link here when I locate it.) Also, "Offtopic" and "Redundant" are more often dunce caps for moderators who can't see relevance or distinction rather than accurate labels for the comments.
Positive moderations I judge on a case-by-case basis, but my experience is that I seldom metamod these down. I judge these as "Unfair" perhaps one time out of ten.