Anonymous Coward writes:
I was going to post this to a particular story, but thought this might generate more attention and discussion as a general submission.
Seriously, what is going on with all these troll mods? Just because you disagree with someone, thus earning a "disagree" mod, does not mean that person is a "troll." To steal a definition from Urban Dictionary:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Just because you disagree with someone, does not mean they are trying to do the above. Be faster on the "disagree" and slower on the "troll." Under such abuse, it is hard to have a good discussion and, in itself, is trollish behavior by "generally disrupt[ing] normal on-topic discussion." Other than people disciplining themselves, a concerted effort to police such abuses, or making moderation logs public on the bottom of a comment where the score is shown now, I'm unsure of what to do about. As it stands, it is getting increasingly ridiculous to read what discussion is here on any topic remotely controversial, and is expanding outside of even those. It is starting to drive me away from the site, and I'm somewhat confident it is doing the same for others. I'd be interested to see what others think about the depth of the problem, if they even believe it even exists at all, and what solutions you all have for it.
[Ed note. This story is published exactly as received. First off, it bears repeating that complaining about moderations in the comments often leads (rightly) to an off-topic moderation. That is a contributing factor to my decision to run this story. Secondly, moderation is something that I on occasion have found I've fat-fingered and given a different moderation than expected. Thirdly, in the grand scheme of things, a comment's moderation is — relatively speaking — small potatoes. It is NOT a measure of your IQ or value as a human being. or standing in the community. Just accept that stuff happens and that as likely as not, someone will be along to moderate it the other way. Which is a good opportunity to say: PLEASE USE YOUR MOD POINTS! Lastly, if you think a comment was moderated in error, then send the CID (Comment ID) link e.g. "(#876543)" in an email to admin (at) soylentnews (dot) org. Keep in mind however that we are all volunteers here and there most likely will be a delay between when you send out an email and when we can get around to it. --martyb]
[Updated: 20190823_111312 UTC See comment from JR who far more precisely and eloquently expressed the idea I was attempting to. I concur with his assessment. If I want people to upmod a comment of mine that I believe was unfairly downmodded, then I need to be willing to upmod other's mis-modded comments. For perspective, so far this month, anywhere from ~150-~350 mod points were used in any given day. It bears repeating: use your mod points!]
That's because downmodding isn't supposed to be there to lower the score of comments you find Uninsightful, Uninformative, or Uninteresting, except for the Overrated mod for something mediocre that makes it to 5 or such. It's there to lower the score of comments that contribute nothing to the conversation for anyone.
That's not what GP was talking about. He was talking about the lack of a "stupid" mod. I personally have sometimes mused that an "idiotic" mod would be occasionally useful, but "stupid" works too. That doesn't mean the post is uninsightful, uninformative, or uninteresting, it means it is stupid, usually lacking basic logic skills.
Note that I'm not seriously suggesting a "stupid" or "idiotic" mod, but an "illogical" downmod could be useful. Or even a neutral mod that's more informative and useful than simply "disagree." Often I'll read something that I don't "disagree" with -- it's objectively wrong or misses basic logic or isn't understanding the subject matter in the discussion correctly. That's not a "disagreement" -- there's something literally wrong with the post that's not helping discussion. Maybe such moderation should only be neutral, but it would be better than simply "disagree," which isn't actually descriptive of the problem.
And "overrated" could potentially work, but only if the post attracts upmods -- there's no way to flag the post as problematic under the current system that actually describes the problem with literally WRONG posts.
Often I'll read something that I don't "disagree" with -- it's objectively wrong or misses basic logic or isn't understanding the subject matter in the discussion correctly. That's not a "disagreement" -- there's something literally wrong with the post that's not helping discussion. Maybe such moderation should only be neutral, but it would be better than simply "disagree," which isn't actually descriptive of the problem.
Incorrect. Making the smackdown of their assertion with facts and logic part of the public record is indeed a public service and contributes value to the conversation. Ask any scientist if a negative result isn't nearly as valuable as a positive one.
An example of why modding "literally WRONG" will go pearshaped immediately:
Donald Trump is the best president ever.Donald Trump is the worst president ever.
Which statement is factually incorrect?
Suggestion: if there's a "factually wrong" mod, it should come with a requirement that the modder also respond with a 'correction'... which shall not include any of the laundry list of typical insults. (Just autocensor 'em, and if that leaves the "correction" looking stupid, serves 'em right.)
Google:https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2018/09/worst_president_ever_donald_tr.html [cleveland.com]Worked when Bush was alleged President.
We have a winner! Our first example of why "literally WRONG" won't work as a mod choice ... the 'correction' consists of a link to an opinion piece.
I predict that any such mod option will lead to flame modding rather than an influx of facts.