I can't help myself either.

I just hate classless winners.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

(Then it's just fun.)

If one of the Clinton heavyweights post something, or weigh in, and you feel it's factually necessary to step in- fine. But do try to ignore it. Look at Alegre's threads, even most of the people I listed there ignore them. If we all ignored her thread, how many comments would it have? Well, besides her own, of course.

Well, when that happens, you write a heavily-quoted diary ;)

With all due respect to those who run this site, I really wish we had tighter moderation. There are too many people running around posting trash, and it just stokes the passions and fires, and makes elevated dialog near impossible.

to tee them up and drive 'em over the wall :^)

It's what I live for.  How can you take this from me!!!

it is fine to run amok in obvious freeper diaries (heck sricki often beats me to it) just stay away from flame bait of an uncertain origin.  Eyes on the Prize, which is Unity.

That said you are generally well behaved and your version of running amok is different than a lot of others.

Johnny G maintaining his lead in the right on post dept.

I've actually been thinking about writing a diary to that effect, but haven't yet done the diary thing. The actions of IsThisSnark, the spin-off name "allergy," the parody signatures of "Donate to Hillary Now!" linking to the Black Knight - it's totally and ridiculously out of hand. It strikes me as the mob behavior that is the worst of what the blogosphere's echo chamber can do, its why I keep periodically running and hiding from MyDD for a period of time. Which is to say, nobody in particular did anything incredibly out of line, but the out-of-lineness of the resulting emergent behavior is scary to watch.

Alegre, from all I can tell, is well-meaning, she is determined, she's been a member of mydd obviously way longer than I have, and I think the flip-side of ragekage's argument is that we shouldn't attack people who obviously aren't trolls with the most dismissive and mocking of responses.

The Is this snark? thing was hilarious until people started posting 10-12 times per diary. Now it's just taking up space. Also, making usernames that impersonate and/or mock other users (e.g. Jeronne Armstrong, aIegre, allergy) is just plain uncool.

Agreed, 100%.

This should be a mantra around here.

Indeed, thank you!

Eh, I know that's fun, but if you saw a diary titled that with only one comment, you'd probably ignore it altogether, right? And then it wouldn't be any fun for them.

i really enjoy the snarky pics from everybody even the endless supply of cats.  

If it gets really bad here this weekend or after and we need a break, we could start an open-thread picture gallery.

We need a picture that we can post that would just absolutely enrage them.  Something like Bush and McCain french kissing.

Heh, thanks. It's hard work being this damn good.

j/k. Yours belongs at the top; mine ought to be common sense. Alas.

As sricki said, this isn't a bad idea, and is very funny. I suppose I'd say if we've got a real live McBlogger on our hands, go for it. But otherwise, ignoring 'em is the best way to go. Again, they're looking to cause a ruckus, even if we ID them as a troll- they absolutely cannot stand being ignored.

for known McBloggers:

How 'bout a video?

Obama thinks he will change the politics of destruction in Washington.  It won't happen.  He can try and that's good, but he won't get it done because the powers with the money profit too much at the hands of do-nothings.

I largely agree with what you say in this comment.  I like Hillary, would love to see Gore take the job, but we have what we have.   I also see the seemingly unassailable wall of moneyed interests blocking the change Obama espouses.  That is also why I support him.  Not necessarily for policy or administrative strengths, for both candidates have those; but for his ability to inspire us to want change.  

IF he can continue to insist upon a change in tone and dialog, a change in people's expectations for what our government should be; I believe it can have a long-term effect, over several election cycles, of actually changing this country for the better.  Even if he is elected President and serves two terms, I expect that change will only begin during his tenure; but its effects can fundamentally change the awareness, passion, and involvement of the electorate.  Ah well; I can hope.

Sure - I'll admit it, I voted against Bush in 2004 much more than I voted for Kerry. A lot of die-hard Republicans are going to be voting against [INSERT DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE PROBABLY OBAMA] instead of for McCain in 2008, unless we can convince them to vote for Bob Barr which is awesome.

There's nothing wrong, IMHO, with saying "I support Democrat X because I want to vote FOR the Democrat instead of voting Against Republican McB." Which seems to be what you're saying here.

The important thing here I think is that most trolls pretend to represent a "side" of an issue, and we should be careful not to blame everyone on that side with the actions of the troll.

This is an important aspect of Troll Management.  Trolls will often blame everyone on a side with the actions of trolls.  If someone insists on saying "a Clinton/Obama supporter said X, and therefore they are all arsehats" - they are probably a troll.

I don't know if there is a good Troll Management Handbook out there, but there should be.

-chris

You already know the decision?

(Oh, and to answer you question, that would probably be a bad idea.)

The admins of any site are never going to be any better at verifying veracity than the community using that site.

There is a risk of over vigilantism - such as the "purges" of the FleaFlicker era - and I share your concern about that more than I am concerned about actual Trolls.

What is best, in my opinion, is to encourage both an awareness of the issue of Competitive Trolling as well as the countering awareness that their primary goal will be to act as force multipliers.  Effective Troll Filtering can be useful in limiting their impact, overzealous Troll Filtering achieves the Trolls' goals.

-chris

From my read the diarist has been very clear on that.  There is a big difference between arguing in favor of a candidate and intentionally sowing dissent.

This sort of thing is of professional interest to me - Information Security is my area of expertise.  Infosec is about more than keeping your data safe from exposure - issues such as the veracity of data are at least equally important.  If you cannot trust the accuracy of the information you have, your ability to perform tasks such as decision making are impeded if not completely thwarted.

If there is an opposition interested in interfering in your activities then it is reasonable to expect such efforts.  If the stakes are very high in terms of absolute value, then it is unreasonable to expect there will not be such efforts.  In this environment the stakes are incredibly high by every measure.

Since these forums do not contain hidden information that calls for cryptographic and identification/authorization protection, it is reasonable to expect the efforts by opposition forces to be primarily if not wholy attacks against veracity.  I would expect these attacks to take two major forms:

1/  Inserting "disinformation" into the flow to lower the effectiveness of the system.

2/  Creating doubt in the users population to lower the efficiency of the system.

An example of Attack #1 is the intentional insertion of false stories - "Barack is a Muslim", "I read he is a communist sleeper agent"...

An example of Attack #2 is the sowing of fear and doubt - "don't say those kinds of things, the Other Side is listening", "I think John is a spy, he said this and that."

Were I to take my skillset and apply it to the Dark Side, these are precisely the types of things I would advocate.  Since I am not inclined in that direction, I advocate awareness of these threats and openness as the most effective countermeasures.

So, my advice?

o  Speak freely about every topic.

- These are not at all the types of environments where "secure communications channels" can be created, so expect everything you say to be heard by everyone. Let the Other Side spend their resources trying to figure us out.  In the meantime, we'll be out stealing their land and taking their cattle.

o  Do not fall prey to FUD (Fead, Uncertainty and Doubt).

- The sky is not falling.  The Republican party is not omnipotent (more likely nearly impotent in their current disarray).

o  Trust your instincts.

- The "Smell Test" has a high level of effectiveness.  If something smells bad, don't swallow it whole. Cautious nibbles can usually confirm or deny your suspicions.

o  Give people the benefit of the doubt.

- "Trolls" are a tiny minority in most situations.  If someone seems barking mad, try a few reasonable responses (nibbles).  Most often in the end you will realize that they are just emoting and imperfect communicators.

There is a need for a good Guide on these issues. I may have to try to write one up myself.

-chris