sumdumass's Journal: Trolls with mod points.

I find it funny that I'm constantly being group modded by trolls who seem to think that ruining someone's karma is a legitimate way to counter an argument they do not agree with. This is probably the tenth time since late '09 that I have received an attack on messages I have posted. This time, in less then 24 hours, I went from having no comments moderated at all on my comment page to comments posted over a week ago with no mods at all and comments posted a few days ago being modded down for reasons obviously counter to the mod claim.

As for being obviously counter to the modded claim, Here is a post modded redundant when it is explicitly addressing the person I replied to about his misunderstanding of the post I mentioned. Could someone please explain how replying to someone about their inaccurate understanding of a post is redundant? And it isn't like I fifteen other people corrected him either, it was a dialog specifically between me and another person who admitted to mistaking my post for saying something else.

Anyways, this has typically happened only after I comment to someone who is commenting on some sort of religion or evolution post who has it wrong in some way. Is it really that important to people who do not like religion or people who have placed evolution as their religion the they need to take steps like this in order to suppress opposition to their wrongful opinions? I mean it's not like I'm saying Creation is correct or anything, I'm generally pointing out that they are doing the same things they blame the religions of doing when they make absolute statements about Evolution being an undisputed fact instead of composed scientific theory or when they have some sort of incorrect interpretation of the bible or whatever. I find it's typically easy to trip them up when I ask if anything could come along and make evolution different as in for our understanding of speciation or common descendant thoughts. When they say no, then it's obvious they are not following science because science allows for that regardless of how improbable it might be. For instance, the posts I believe that started this round of mass down-modding stems from some idiot who reposted a bunch of nonsense from a few websites about a few bibles verses they found and then took everything out of context in order to create some demonesque image of God. There are plenty of verses in the bible which one can legitimately question the compassion or loving nature of a god, but to take something completely out of context in order to make your point is a little intellectually lazy as well as dishonest.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the down-modding. When dealing with idiots who want to cite a few verses and ignore the context before and after it (whether they are for or against the bible) and draw completely one sided conclusions that do not remotely fit the story context, we aren't really dealing with articulate or intelligent people. It really does seem that the less intelligent the person is, the more dirty and underhanded shenanigans you should expect from them and like minded people. Maybe slashdot should have a system for their mods where someone could complain about the mass modding or a script that checks mods made to a single account within a certain time frame and then flag the comments for further review. It wouldn't need to be anyone special reviewing it either, just make sure they come up for metta moderation.

I'm kinda surprised by the results...

[damn_registrars]

Looking at your comments it looks like whomever did that was actually using legitimate moderations (troll, flamebait, offtopic) as opposed to the meaningless and cowardly "overrated" that they often use on my posts. Of course I'm sure you know there is a metamoderation system [slashdot.org], and you also know that it isn't worth its own weight in horseshit.

So in the end we'll all just have to take comfort in the fact that a single round of mod-bombing can't do squat to the karma of most reasonably established slashdot

Re:

[damn_registrars]

To be extra verbose, by "legitimate" moderations I do not mean that I agree with the moderations themselves. I only mean that they aren't "overrated", which has become all-purpose cowardly "I disagree" or "I don't like you" moderation.

I say this because even when the metamoderation system actually involved reviewing moderations on comments, the "overrated" moderation was immune. Hence the other moderations actually had some chance of being overturned; although now the metamoderation system doesn't overt

Re:

[tomhudson]

Like you said, just ignore the mods. I don't know how many times I've been mod-bombed, but I only got the "pink page of death" 3-day ban once, despite all that.

Post early, post often, be funny, be informative, and you'll be pretty much invulnerable.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

I got a 2-week ban once for about 8 downmods on a single post. (There were however 7 upmods on it, so I don't get why the ban, but this is Slashdot, so that explains the unexplainable.) But my karma seemed untouched. Mod-stalking may be more of trying to bring down someone's karma than getting them a temporary ban. Like trying to get their future posts to start at 0 or -1. And Slashdot obviously doesn't care if a moderator does 10+ moderations in a row on the same person, so why should mod-abusers.

Re:

[tomhudson]

Ouch - a 2-week ban. I might have asked them why. Or I might have just gone and found something else to do for two weeks ...

Slashdot obviously doesn't care if a moderator does 10+ moderations in a row on the same person

Maybe they figure that someone who's stupid to do that, they just don't give them mod points so often in the future (rather than prevent them from giving themselves away).

It's only karma :-)