[4Canada]

<br />Gaulois, <br /> <br />Are you talking about the members that are here strictly for a reaction? <br /> <br />1.Where do you draw the line? <br />2.If we do react, we get "be nice" comments. (everyone included) <br />3.I think this is a test in, can we ignore stalkers? <br />4.I've recently made a choice to start ignoring as much as I possibly can.

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= 4Canada] <br />Gaulois, <br /> <br />Are you talking about the members that are here strictly for a reaction? <br /> <br />1.Where do you draw the line? <br />2.If we do react, we get "be nice" comments. (everyone included) <br />3.I think this is a test in, can we ignore stalkers? <br />4.I've recently made a choice to start ignoring as much as I possibly can.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Many find ignoring them most difficult, judging from actual cases and how irritating some of these trolls are. The danger is missing the gems (that are definitely not trolls) because people have disconnected reading the article section comments. I am certainly aware of a few and have joined them. Do your own analysis on comments and you will see that most of the replies are troll related. <br /> <br />There is no "fine line" as far as I am concerned and would be most appreciative of our Moderators to do it at their whim, i.e. I trust their judgment!

[Reverend Blair]

How do you define obvious? I've had reactions to columns that I thought were obvious trolls, but I'm not exactly unbiased in cases like that either. I've seen the same in articles written by others that I agreed with. I seem to have a bit of a sliding scale when it comes to articles I'm ambivalent about or disagree with though. <br /> <br />I think we should draw the line at personal attacks and needless obscenity, but as long as a perceived troll is going after the idea and not the writer and/or other posters we pretty much have to let things stand.

[4Canada]

<br /> What bothers me is how these attack comments seem to be the first ones made after any article has been submitted. Do we have an insider that hates us? Or are the hate commenters somehow hooked in where the rest of us are not? If the attack comment is the first one made it sets the tone for the rest of the thread and the subject matter can sometimes get forgotten. People leave without getting involved or respond in kind.

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] How do you define obvious?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />It is difficult in the land of the mild mannered and soft spoken. I will be politically incorrect in stating that we are way to soft on correctness. Correctness has its value afterall. I did not think I would ever have to argue this. <br /> <br />When you are one a Canadian Sovereignty site, you just don't post that it sucks and that the Americans are currently the greatest for the well being of this planet. Zero tolerance for case like Jimmy Jay or even Darvin J. are no-brainer. We have wasted a lot times sifting away the stuff from these clowns and cannot get into any serious analysis of articles. 4Canada comment on the early story comments are particularly relevant on how articles discussions are getting sidetracked right up front. I do highly welcome comments that challenge the article but at least bring their case forward.

[Captain Flynn]

<p> <br />Could you institute a Slashdot-style karma system? Trolls get modded down by other users, good commenters get modded up. You can set your preferences so you only see comments above a certain mod level. There's enough regular, conscientous users here that I think it would work. I'm not sure how much work it would be for the coder though. <br /></p>

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Captain Flynn] <p> <br />Could you institute a Slashdot-style karma system? <br /></p>[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Be patient my friends . . . <br /> <br />Until the rules are broken, we won't do anything but moderate. But the number of offtopic and generally rude posts from some people is most certainally increasing. Don't think Hulk hasn't noticed <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br />

[gaulois]

I have seen on lightreading.com forum the ability by individuals to screen out members that they perceive as trolls or no value added. Don't know if geeklog give you this feature. <br /> <br />Last one showing this morning from Earl on hist first one liner post on Quebec Sovereignty is "It's Canadas gateway to Americanization...and I'm all for that.". <br /> <br />Now this is an excellent example of a case with no insults or personal stuff that is simply a troll on a Canadian Sovereignty site. No rules were broken because we have not stated a policy on zero tolerance trolling. These are increasing. In the absence of the feature stated above and a zero tolerance troll policy, how can we get rid of those before people drift away from Vive?

[Jesse]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] I have seen on lightreading.com forum the ability by individuals to screen out members that they perceive as trolls or no value added. Don't know if geeklog give you this feature. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Geeklog doesn't, currently. There's apparently some demand for it, but no code floating around to implement it. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= gaulois] <br />Now this is an excellent example of a case with no insults or personal stuff that is simply a troll on a Canadian Sovereignty site. No rules were broken because we have not stated a policy on zero tolerance trolling. These are increasing. In the absence of the feature stated above and a zero tolerance troll policy, how can we get rid of those before people drift away from Vive? [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Trolls are actually an important part of any discussion site, so long as they're kept in check. Vive doesn't have a zero tolerance policy; current policy is to keep them within the bounds of reasonable discussion. The moderators (myself included) have recently become more strict about what is allowed, but we're still trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Calumny]

Jesse, can you expand a bit on what you mean by: <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Trolls are actually an important part of any discussion site[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />My guess would be that you mean this in terms of the 'troll' adding new/alternative perspectives. Is this the case?

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] <br />My guess would be that you mean this in terms of the 'troll' adding new/alternative perspectives. Is this the case? [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Not quite. They sometime do have a point, but the excercise for the student is: when they don't, show them they don't. What they have to spew is usually countered by a few facts. <br /> <br />Others can easily be ignored. <br /> <br />

[Calumny]

Okay, so that being said, Vive's mission statement states: <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Our goal is to build a website-based organization which is a <b>respected</b> hub of civic nationalist information, theory, community, and activism. Our vision is to build a social movement for popular sovereignty in Canada by educating and engaging citizens. This social movement can then support the adoption of legislation and/or government that prioritizes and institutionalizes mechanisms for protecting and improving Canadian and global democracy and self-determination.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />To my mind, this makes Vive somewhat more than the 'discussion' site mentioned by Jesse. <br /> <br />I think it's important to differentiate between sites that <b>are</b> 'forums' or 'message boards' and sites that <b>have</b> a forum to aid in achieving a broader mission or purpose, and understand that behaviour that is tolerated on one may for wjatever reason be tolerable on one may not be desirable on the other. <br /> <br />If I want to put up a forum site to say provide 'News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters', that pretty much sums up my mission. I'm not likely to be overly concerned about what goes on in the forums because the site is pretty much a take it or leave it proposition. If one 'Nerd' leaves because they aren't impressed with the conversation there'll be another to take the place. So long as I can keep a certain number of people coming and going, I'll make a buck (if that's my interest). I'm not trying to build a cohesive group to support an on-going mission and work towards a desired long-term goal. <br /> <br />Vive however is in theory trying to aid in building a committed sovereignty movement. As this requires more than the 'Nerds' who may be accustomed to, or be seeking out, a rough and tumble web forum environment, I think what people are suggesting is that Vive needs to be exercising care in how it presents itself and what people will see when they arrive here. It is not incumbent on Vive to provide a forum for every right or left wing wacko with a personal agenda to forward, or necessary to tolerate behaviour that is likely to repel many 'just browsing' visitors. <br /> <br />I think the moderators here do a good job in somewhat trying circumstances, and I don't have any quick solutions to rectify any problems that may be occurring. <br /> <br />But, I would point out that the purpose of the 'Vives' and 'Slashdots' are not the same and that what may be okay for one could harm the other. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>