German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseEverything in Moderation
In response to recent controversies, arguments, and heated debates in the comments section, I’ve integrated a new system in order to establish a user-moderated defense against “trolls”. According to Wikipedia, a troll is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Obviously people are are going to have differences of opinion, and the whole point of this site is to encourage discussion, but keep in mind that the site is called MetroRiderLA. It is written for, by, and with Los Angeles Metro riders in mind. And by “Metro riders” I mean those who ride the public transporation in Los Angeles because they like to, because they want to, and/or because they have to. Obviously anyone, including those who do not ride Metro and even those who hate Metro, can read, but keep in mind who is writing and who the target is.
It would serve no purpose for an atheist to go onto a website that promotes a religious lifestyle and post “proof” that God does not exist. It serves no purpose for a Windows user to post reasons Macs suck in a forum for Mac enthusiasts. Likewise, it serves no purpose for someone who believes that cars are the best mode of transporation to disrupt a community of people who believe exactly the opposite.
With this in mind, I’ve established a new system of rating comments in order to keep the conversation relevant and on-topic. From now on, at the end of each comment there will be a 
and a 
, representing a negative vote and a postive vote, respectively. If you approve of the comment, click the or don’t click anything, but if you dissaprove of the comment and feel that it is trolling, click the . Remember, having a different perspective on an issue is different from trolling. The should be reserved strictly for comments that you feel are baiting arguments. For example, if someone says “cars are better” that’s irrelevant because we are Metro riders not car riders. Flag it.
After a comment gets five negative flags from unique users (you can only flag a comment once), the following icon will apear underneath the comment: 
. This icon will remain with the comment and serve as a reminder that the commenter has been moderated by the other users as a troll and therefore not to engage in further conversation with the commenter.
The purpose of this system is create a fair system of moderation where the readers decide whether a comment is worthy of discussion or whether it’s just flamebait. It offers the user to opportunity to deal with a trolls comment by simply modding it down rather than dignifying it with a response (which only serves to empower the troll). Once a comment has been modded down to troll level, the icon alerts every reader of this fact - hopefully encouraging everyone to simply ignore it and move on to more constructive conversation. In the end, I hope this will reduce the uneccessary time and energy spent on arguments that can never have a conclusion and eventually silence the trolls without having to resort to more draconian measures like banning IP addresses just to keep everyone sane.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
bitchin!
Excellent idea. I much prefer to exist in a fantasy world without opposing viewpoints or inconvenient facts.
Remember folks.
and 
. I’ve already used one and I’m feeling better already.
Of course, if you have any constructive criticism for the system, please feel free to comment here.
I strongly support moderation (although self-moderation is better). I like my debates civil.
However, I am GLAD this blog attracts some transit-haters. They (at times) promote thoughtful discussion. It keeps us all sharper.
I have other resources if I wanted an echo-chamber of like-minded individuals.
I’m a bit confused, tho: Is troll-status strictly up to discretionary enforcement?
I like this idea, certainly at least in concept. There’s a difference someone presenting a different viewpoint, and baiting people with little points in an attempt to try to disprove an overall argument/discussion. I have been guilty of responding in some of those cases myself, and have realized I need to make a point of ignoring those situations.
Troll status is dictated per comment and per each readers discretion. For example, if you don’t like my comment you can moderate it down. If others don’t like it they can do the same. Once it passes the threshold, my comment gets tagged with the troll warning. It still remains, everyone can read it, and everyone can continue to include it in the discussion if they wish. The troll-status simply serves as a first line of defense against pointlessly heated arguments that will lead to no conclusion.
The “scarlet letter” only applies to individual comments, not users. If the individual posts another comment in the same thread (or different thread) it is not marked with troll-status.
Transit haters are allowed, and if people want to have heated fruitless arguments with them, there’s nothing stopping them with this new system.
What it offers, for me at least, is a chance to respond to a comment I feel is a flame without wasting my time writing a lengthy rebuttal which will only be twisted into something else which will require another lengthy rebuttal, so on and so forth. It annoys me in the same way being stuck in traffic does, and now I have an escape button. Instead of wasting my time writing a lengthy response (which will only be echoed by the echo chamber and damned by the by the troll ad infinitum) I can simply click
and without any words have spoken my peace.
There is a difference between a “troll” and someone who disagrees with the point expressed.
But, as this system doesn’t seem to result in anyone getting banned for expressing an unpopular or different opinion, it sounds great.
“There is a difference between a “troll” and someone who disagrees with the point expressed.”
Precisely. And I have trust in the readers that they will use discretion in defining who is trolling and who is just presenting an opposing perspective.
Good point. Margaret Thatcher said in an interview that she used to enjoy debates in the House of Commons for this very reason.
great idea — love how it doesn’t censor you, just shames you.. now what happens if you get a bunch of +’s? how about a highlighted comment or featured on the front page
“now what happens if you get a bunch of +’s? how about a highlighted comment or featured on the front page”
So far the postives just make it harder to get to troll level. So if you got 2 positives and 5 negatives, your overall rating level would be -3.
Maybe later I’ll dig into the PHP and try to make it a bit more functional.
Just so long as they do not cross the line into name-calling and other actions bordering on slander …
I can have an intelligent discussion with anyone, even if they disagree with me, if they don’t make it personal. Even Rob Dawg (who I respect for never stooping that low in all the years he and I have found ourselves debating issues).
I used to be a regular poster on MRLA, but bowed out in October due to job and health reasons, and I haven’t been to the site since then.
I still will only contibute occasionally, like for Ride Reports and special features that don’t require me to check on the site daily.
I like the - and + tags at every post. This helps take care of spam, since spammers constantly find vulnerabilities, and can help cool down the trolls.
One other thing readers ought to consider is flagging “resident trolls”. This is someone who jumps in on most discussions and looks to skate on the edge of trolling, where the content changes but the behavior patterns become so common as to become the poster’s schtick.
There’s a lot of this on Curbed, which has outstanding posts but comments ultimately become a primate-on-primate feces-flinging fustercluck, usually involving downtown L.A. boosters vs. haters.
Other examples have included “John” on the Transit Coalition’s old board, or the pro- and anti-Portland cliques on misc.transport.urban-transit.
Most of us tend to take a strict legal interpretation of what people have to commit before they get turfed. But psychology says people may often test boundaries to see what are the consequences.
If “freedom of speech” is absolute, trolling must be given a pass. Then, vandalism becomes a right.
When commentary is enabled, the comments reflect on the site as much as the content. Both should be of equal quality.
I’m proud to have been a part of MRLA, and done my best to give well-written, -presented and -thought-out content, and I’ve also been pleased with the small but smart commentary we have seen.