We are very lucky on this blog that, so far, there have been no extremes of posting requiring even a reaction, much less intervention.
As moderator, I am well aware of the responsibility. But also the various threast that exist.
Hence I was interested in this:
Why online communities attract trolls
I have allowed 'Anons' to comment before, mainly because they almost all have had a reasonable contribution. So I am erring on reserving the right to delete (whilst posting I have) without much compunction if someone uses 'anon' to hide behind a more extreme response.
But it seems idealistic to ignore that an adequate definition of what is trolling is hard to arrive at, and 'ignoring' them may be easier to advocate than do.
As I have written:
I must say I am intrigued that there seems to be general consensus that there is a mechanism by which a 'troll' can be identified... and dealt with on either an individual poster and/or moderator basis.
I fear I seem unable to do so, and hence often have to trawl though a load of dross, and counter-dross, to try and arrive at an objective view on what is being discussed.
I envy those who can short-cut the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.