SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Since the launch of SoylentNews in February of 2014, there have been 274,870 comment moderations made against the 412,100 comments that our community has posted to our site. Who has posted the most comments? Who garnered the most up-moderations? The most down-moderations?
Such simple questions, but they led to a fun bit of DB querying. The results surprised me, and I thought others might be interested, as well. Most surprising to me was the assessment of comments from Anonymous Cowards.
[Continues...]
Who received the most moderations?
For better or worse, to whom did Soylentils direct their greatest moderation effort?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Mighty Buzzard | 18 | 2260 | 626 | 1634 | 1008 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
The single greatest target of moderation was the "Anonymous Coward" with 78,936 moderations. This was followed by frojack, Runaway1956, VLM, Ethanol-fueled, and Thexalon who garnered over 3000 moderations each.
Who had the most down-moderations?
Here, only the number of down moderations was considered — it mattered not whether it was Flamebait or Troll — they all counted the same.
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| Hairyfeet | 75 | 1620 | 387 | 1233 | 846 |
| MichaelDavidCrawford | 2339 | 1513 | 387 | 1126 | 739 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| The Mighty Buzzard | 18 | 2260 | 626 | 1634 | 1008 |
| jmorris | 4844 | 2144 | 753 | 1391 | 638 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again, our prolific AC topped the list with 13,002 down-mods. Ethanol-fueled was the only other user who topped 1000 down-mods, coming in with 1238. Runaway1956 made a valiant showing with 992 down-mods.
Who had the most up-moderations?
In the eyes of the community, who most often received an up-mod? Again, no consideration was given for the nature of the up-mod — Insightful, Interesting, or Informative — all were considered the same.
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aristarchus | 2645 | 2494 | 615 | 1879 | 1264 |
| Phoenix666 | 552 | 2184 | 80 | 2104 | 2024 |
| Ethanol-fueled | 2792 | 3447 | 1238 | 2209 | 971 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again AC reins supreme with 65,934 up-mods. This was followed by frojack with 5,262 and VLM with just over 4000.
Who had the highest net-moderation?
Putting it all together — subtracting the number of down-mods from the number of up-mods — who had the highest net moderation on our site?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | DOWN | UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wonkey_monkey | 279 | 1754 | 117 | 1637 | 1520 |
| maxwell demon | 1608 | 1786 | 55 | 1731 | 1676 |
| Phoenix666 | 552 | 2184 | 80 | 2104 | 2024 |
| takyon | 881 | 2315 | 103 | 2212 | 2109 |
| c0lo | 156 | 2717 | 183 | 2534 | 2351 |
| Runaway1956 | 2926 | 4531 | 992 | 3539 | 2547 |
| Thexalon | 636 | 3225 | 83 | 3142 | 3059 |
| VLM | 445 | 4401 | 346 | 4055 | 3709 |
| frojack | 1554 | 5855 | 593 | 5262 | 4669 |
| Anonymous Coward | 1 | 78936 | 13002 | 65934 | 52932 |
Once again, the shy but prolific AC tops the list with a net of 52,932 mod points. Only one other Soylentil was able to surpass 4000: frojack with 4,669. Two other Soylentils exceeded 3000: VLM with 3709 and Thexalon with 3059.
Who hath pointy horns?
Who managed to acquire the most down-mods as a percentage of all moderations on their comments? For a tie, number of moderated comments is the second sort field. Who is the devil in our midst?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | #DOWN | %DOWN | #UP | %UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scarboni888 | 5061 | 1 | 1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -1 |
| MooCow | 6048 | 1 | 1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -1 |
| cybergimli | 436 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| rancidman | 769 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| rmdingler | 1038 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| SoylentsISay | 1331 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| stupid | 2631 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| contrapunctus | 3495 | 2 | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -2 |
| killal -9 bash | 2751 | 5 | 5 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | -5 |
Pfft, just a few minor imps around here. killal -9 bash topped (bottomed?) the list with 5 down-mods out of 5 moderations.
Who earned a Halo?
Whose comments had the best percentage of up-mods to total-mods? And in the case of ties, received the most up-mods? Who are the angels among us?
| NICK | UID | TOTAL | #DOWN | %DOWN | #UP | %UP | NET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dx3bydt3 | 82 | 69 | 0 | 0.00 | 69 | 100.00 | 69 |
| romlok | 1241 | 70 | 0 | 0.00 | 70 | 100.00 | 70 |
| Hawkwind | 3531 | 75 | 0 | 0.00 | 75 | 100.00 | 75 |
| jdccdevel | 1329 | 78 | 0 | 0.00 | 78 | 100.00 | 78 |
| rleigh | 4887 | 102 | 0 | 0.00 | 102 | 100.00 | 102 |
| DrMag | 1860 | 103 | 0 | 0.00 | 103 | 100.00 | 103 |
| SrLnclt | 1473 | 117 | 0 | 0.00 | 117 | 100.00 | 117 |
| Joe | 2583 | 126 | 0 | 0.00 | 126 | 100.00 | 126 |
| Aiwendil | 531 | 164 | 0 | 0.00 | 164 | 100.00 | 164 |
Here, it appears we've got a flock of angels, or at least people who know which way the wind blows. All folks listed here scored 100.00% meaning all of their moderations were up-mods. Aiwendil topped our list with 164, and we had 4 others — Joe, SrLnclt, DrMag, and rleigh — who each had over 100 such comment moderations... not even a single down-mod among them!
I must admit I was surprised to see the sheer number of positive moderations of AC comments, and the fact that 83.5% of those mods were positive.
[Update: Added two tables, one each for top percentage of down-mods and of up-mods. -Ed.]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @01:36AM
I don't know why the editor is so shocked that AC comments frequently get modded up.
Anonymity serves a purpose: you might be in a privileged position where you can add details to a conversation but don't want to be identified. It also is used by people who have nothing to really fear but just don't care to create a searchable record of all their opinions. Some people we know just can't handle certain opinions. If *I* wanted to id myself for all postings, I would just use Facebook.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by martyb on Monday October 10 2016, @02:01AM
It's because of the large number of complaints I've seen in the comments about comments posted by ACs and repeated requests to abolish it. It's quite wearying. I'm a firm believer in providing an anonymous way for people to comment a story. There may or may not have been a time when I have done so, myself. =)
The other factor is that I read stories at -1/-1 which means that when I read a story, I see *everything* that is posted. It takes a pretty strong stomach to see all the crap that gets posted to the site day in and day out and keep coming back for more. Though not a frequent occurrence, I've seen comments modded down to -1 that did not deserve it; viewing stories at -1 allows me to find and rectify those errors.
Thank goodness for the moderation system which offers a filtered view of the comments to our community.
So, in light of those, I was pleasantly surprised to step back and see, from a high-level perspective and, how well it actually works!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday October 10 2016, @02:09AM
if an anonymous comment can stand with out attribution, it should *absolutely* be modded up.
"Peer review" is of no use for new ideas, if it is the only criteria for discussion.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:57AM
I personally usually post AC.
There are people out there who literally want you to starve in the gutter for holding a different opinion. They will go after your job, family, friends, and business associates to shame you into their opinion and then keep going as it will never be enough for them. I have seen it happen enough to know better. I am also looking for work. The wrong comment searched for by the wrong person could mean the difference between a cool job and a continued search. Luckily USENET these days is a pain to search through or comments from 20+ years ago could come back to haunt me. Hell I have been burned IRL by people by stating the wrong opinion to someone I thought I trusted and they turned around and burned me as something I said a year ago is no longer considered 'nice'.
Most of my 'real' comments under my real name on this site are very boring and helpful.
Under AC I post 'unpopular' and 'popular' opinions but I usually back them up with whatever 'facts' I can. I have got +5 to -1 on a variety of subjects. If they could even in any possible way be considered controversial I post AC. As search engines are a thing. I post AC a lot here as a community we have drifted into a semi political site. It is also one of the reasons I am considering moving on. I used to enjoy it but these days it just makes me depressed and does no real good and only causes anger for both parties.
The only weird one I never got was gewg. He would SIGN everything. Might as well log in and make your life a bit easier......... Then if you want AC just check the checkbox or logout.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday October 10 2016, @01:39PM
we have drifted into a semi political site
TLDR of the below is politics is low effort and I/we need to post more/better story proposals.
Other people create infinite lists of political stuff to talk about. You could have the "techie opinion about Breitbart" but that does get old. At least everyone's got an opinion so we end up with like 100 comments. Its easy enough to do. How about that debate last night? Embarrassingly enough I fell asleep.
When we try to talk science, usually someone posts a journalist sites coverage of a press release so myself (or occasionally some other karma whore) will LMFGTFY and post a +5 informative link to the original NASA press release or the main mission page or whatever instead of some journalist (clickbait) site. Then we'll make fun of the journalist for being an idiot and still thinking rockets work because they "push against the air" in the current year, and a couple "merica F yeah" style posts will appear translated to "NASA F yeah" which we'll all agree with and upvote, and the story ends with like 7 comments. And that's the exciting ones!
On the "other site not to be named" they had a marketing contract no one is willing to talk about where every Wednesday at 2 PM central time they posted an e-ink story for years. At least we knew every wednesday afternoon we're talk about the glories of e-ink again and some shills would counterpost against any criticism of the holy display technology. Yeah yeah officially this never happened and Hillary never broke no law nowhere too. Anyway it might be interesting to schedule some stories, every Monday we'll round up whatever cool has happened on instructables and hackaday and similar hives of scum and villany (just kidding, or ... have you read the comments there?), then on Tuesday at 8am Eastern we'll talk about last weeks FLOSS weekly podcast topic or whatever. Back in the old days "the oil drum" used to post "the drumbeat" daily, talk anything you want about anything for one day. That might be an interesting idea. "A daily letters to the editor" or whatever.
I also miss /. book reports. Most of them were Packt and there's not much we can say about collated manpages. But maybe expanding it to all forms of media?
I've been continually agitating for a calendar post date on articles defaulting to submission date for ASAP I guess. Antares OA-5 might not be much of a story, but its still launching on oct 13th after 5 delays AFAIK. I'd suggest posting that story on the 13th exactly (unless its delayed again of course). Not last month and not some random day next week, the 13th.
Something I haven't seen in years is on the scene reports. Not to drop the docs I went to a "major city" makerfaire a couple weeks ago and I could write an interesting travelogue that might even be accepted. The point not being that I went to a makerfaire but we all have a lot of shared or shared-ish experiences that might make interesting general discussion. So I saw a giant robot arm. OK then. Also the amount of "little kid" stuff seems to be expanding which isn't so good because my kids are too big and I want to see adult stuff (adult as in IQ100+ college grad, not so much X rated, although the concept of a wing of X rated makerfaire is interesting... they used to have an scary wing at my local makerfaire so the costume zombie people don't accidentally scare little kids too much). Project Artemis was swarmed a year ago to the point of needing crowd control and abandoned this year, which was weird. Our tax dollars at work, NASA put on a hell of a good show, seriously was worth seeing the displays. I would have been happy to watch the blacksmiths outside for a long time or the fighting robots competitions but unfortunately I bought kids so its just like a zoo or museum where the kids think their grading metric is how fast they can visit each exhibit no matter how superficially. I'd like to see reports from tech-friendly tours, hamfests, makerfaires, cons, ...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:39PM
Some very big changes are happening across the world, politically, at the moment. It's difficult to escape. For us whose beards are getting grey, the world is becoming unrecognisable.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Monday October 10 2016, @03:15AM
I read at 0/-1 and expand the -1s manually, and I do so precisely because ACs and mismodded comments need people with modpoints to help out. Good comments shouldn't be lost just because they're made anonymously, and people being dicks with "-1 = I don't agree with you" need their moderation corrected.
I also rarely downmod, preferring to save the modpoints for modding the good comments up. Sometimes I'll downmod obvious asshole behaviour or off-topic bullshit, but it's honestly not that common. In fact, I don't think I've downmodded any of the non-AC users in that top-ten list except for aristarchus.
He's the only user I can think of that I've downmodded frequently, not because I have a problem with him, but because his comments tend to be random, borderline insane word salad with only the most tenuous connection to whatever the subject is, so they frequently get off-topic moderation from me. Though I've noticed that I haven't had to do so as often lately, so maybe he finally started taking his medication.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fleg on Monday October 10 2016, @03:40AM
>random, borderline insane word salad
yeah i can see how it might come across like that, but mostly he's just dropping lots (lots!) of (potentially obscure) cultural references. if you know what he's referring too its pretty funny, but if you dont its going to come across as gibberish.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday October 10 2016, @05:26AM
Eh, if you say so. I personally haven't found the delivery to be particularly amusing, since it usually just reads like someone's attempt at writing a chatbot seeded with a bunch of memes and references. Still, that's not what I was talking about, because he really has gotten better about remaining vaguely on-topic and readable compared to earlier on. Older stuff was often incoherent run-on sentence gibberish that strayed way too far off topic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 10 2016, @08:37AM
In fact, I don't think I've downmodded any of the non-AC users in that top-ten list except for aristarchus.
I love you too, Marand! You came out early as one of the alt-right/Pre-Milo/pretty much insane members! I am honored to be down-modded by you! But, I might suggest, there is this thing called "the principle of charity", especially in academe. It says that we should not immediately assume that someone is talking nonsense, instead we should check whether the fault in understanding lies within us! That means that maybe it only appears that word-salad is word-salad because you do no understand enough words, or the syntax of the too many words. So Marand, please continue your mods, they will be very useful in determining when I, and others, have exceeded the comprehension of the lesser intellects here on SoylentNews.
(Oh, I never mod you down, because that would be cruel, and pointless. Carry on!)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Monday October 10 2016, @01:01PM
I love you too, Marand! You came out early as one of the alt-right/Pre-Milo/pretty much insane members!
Okay, I suspect this is just trolling, but I'll bite, because I'm interested in seeing you justify this statement.
What convinced you of that particular assumption? I'm curious, because I don't generally participate in the political discussions, I normally avoid discussing my own political leanings, and I'm not "right" leaning anything, alt or not. Do you just label people that disagree with you as "alt-right" for easy dismissal, or is it something you throw around thinking it will piss people off? Next, what sort of label is "Pre-Milo" supposed to be? I also wonder what I said to earn the "pretty much insane" diagnosis, especially from someone whose writing style frequently resembles delirious rambling.
Finally, I find it interesting that, because I criticised your comments, you chose to insult me, personally. Given your self-proclaimed superior intellect, shouldn't such behaviour be beneath you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:59PM
And you wonder why I called you pre-milo....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday October 11 2016, @02:40AM
I like to see aristarchus as the Batman to Ethanol-fueled's Joker. Like Ledger and Leto, Eth is a method actor. Ethanol-fueled didn't create aristarchus (contrary to Nicholson's portrayal), but he did kill the proverbial Jason Todd. [soylentnews.org]
Eth, thank you for the response. I will try to live up to your challenge. But please understand that I, and many others, do not understand what your issues are. You post, or as you put it here, "jewpost" in a way that does not invite or encourage the interesting intellectual exchange that should be the hallmark of SoylentNews. Maybe you are right. We should both take a time out. But I just have to say, If I come back to this place and it is like 8chan or Stormfront, I will SJW it until my karma goes permanent negative sub-alpha, prime. See you on the other side. No, I am not Adele.
Pushed over the edge, aristarchus returned as the lib-troll SoylentNews deserves. There's still more conserva-trolling all in all, but aristarchus is doing his work to bring balance to the Force.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @02:17AM
Adding-
Especially in today's climate, there are certain unpopular opinions (you know who you are) that get blasted regardless of any validity they might have.
Ending ACs is essentially tyranny of the majority, and I pleased there are venues available to express unpopular ideas.
Hell, the site might be better if it were completely anonymous.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @08:59AM
Ending ACs is essentially tyranny of the majority, and I pleased there are venues available to express unpopular ideas.
That's a specious argument. And I'm pretty sure you know that.
It is not required to provide a national id card and photo id to sign up with a totally made up name.
And even an unpopular idea can be well presented, without risk of it wrecking your career when using a pen-name.
But refusing to be responsible in any way for your postings just makes you a bomb thrower, a wall tagger who won't even sign his monograph, someone who wants his say, but no blowback.
This AC ruse has never been to preserve anonymity, and never been about unpopular ideas. Its always been about reserving the right to judge, while cowering from judgement. If there is tyranny afoot, its the AC.
Its rendered that green site virtually unreadable. Its slowly doing the same here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:32AM
Really?
No one has perfect control over what they reveal and considering how many people have been doxxed with pseudonyms, perhaps your reality field could use some calibration. As the saying goes- the internet is forever, and several people using social media have come up against this unfortunate fact. I'd rather not.
Also, I'm under no obligation to fashion a well presented unpopular idea. Do you work under the same constraints? Then fuck off.
But refusing to be responsible in any way for your postings just makes you a bomb thrower...
Says the gentleman among the most down-voted. Hypocrisy much?
And in that, what difference does it make if it is you or AC making the comment, speaking of specious arguments?
Anonymity serves the the same purpose as it did when the Federalist Papers were published: to keep the raging mob from your door and to consider the argument, not the person.
Anonymity has always been an aspect of free speech, and you are too naive to consider some people may not be living in countries with as expansive free speech protections as the US.
By the way, you think Snowden will ever get to visit his motherland again?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @06:36PM
No one has perfect control over what they reveal and considering how many people have been doxxed with pseudonyms
People get doxxed mostly because they're Facebook-using suckers and give away their real information elsewhere and use the same pseudonyms in various locations. Only rarely is it anything more complex than that.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:15PM
Says the gentleman among the most down-voted. Hypocrisy much?
I think you meant to say, most UP voted. Oh, wait, you didn't because you are an AC, and only throw insults.
And in that, what difference does it make if it is you or AC making the comment, speaking of specious arguments?
Makes a lot of difference. Some I pointed out. Some other are obvious. You can't carry on discourse with random voices in the wind who throws a bomb into a crowded room and runs away blameless.
Anonymity serves the the same purpose as it did when the Federalist Papers were published: to keep the raging mob from your door and to consider the argument, not the person.
The federalist papers were not anonymous. Even in that day it was widely know who two of the authors were.
"Hamilton, Madison, and Jay did not invoke the pseudonym Publius in order to hide as individuals from being credited with authorship, in order to help their tenure chances, or in order to avoid embarrassment at the Thanksgiving dinner table.
"Rather, their reason was precisely to the contrary: to share authorship, and indeed credit, with all the Framers of the Constitution."
(Wendy Long, author an Law Clerk to Clarence Thomas.).
I've read Publius. He is friends of mine. You sir, are no Publius.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @11:15PM
"At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he had drafted claiming fully two-thirds of the papers for himself became public, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (No. 49–58 and 62–63). The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2016, @10:39AM
How do you see this opinion of yours squaring with the statistics for moderation on AC posts listed in the article? It seems that AC posters are moderated positively with a ~6:1 ratio. (Granted, it may also be useful to see moderations as a percentage in relation to total number of user posts.)
For the record, I post AC out of laziness and the belief that an idea should be able to stand out on its own merits (and often making use of linked supporting evidence). My account was becoming fairly useless as I could see it starting to clog with the same topic, centered around replies to multitudes of authoritarians with pointed questions designed to provoke the reader into entertaining the idea that US government has limits to its authority and also what those exact limits are.) I also find being AC quite useful in limiting the scope of a discussion, as some past discussions get sidetracked by unrelated tangents in my post history. "Baffle 'em with bullcrap" is still a time-honored evasive approach and not one conducive to weighing the merits of original assertions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:18PM
How do you see this opinion of yours squaring with the statistics for moderation on AC posts listed in the article?
Sheer volume.
How is that so hard to fathom?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 10 2016, @10:29PM
I also find being AC quite useful in limiting the scope of a discussion, as some past discussions get sidetracked.
Exactly.
Once you've had YOUR say, the discussion should be over, right?
I refer you to to my previous statement: If there is tyranny afoot, its the AC.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 11 2016, @05:30AM
Perhaps 'sheer volume' indicates a need. I would be very sorry to see AC go away. I rarely use it, but when I do, it's because the alternative is to not post at all (having judged the risk too high).
As to the quality of discourse, it's good enough. Evidence: We're still here.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2016, @07:59AM
"Sheer volume" of bomb-throwing cowards would generally produce a net negative moderation total. With 6 positive moderations for every negative, it seems on the surface that your assertion is in error.
We make a loss on every unit, but we'll make it up through volume!