The Real Problem With Internet Comments Isn't Anonymity

from the confusing-the-issues dept

Mon, Apr 12th 2010 7:03pm — Carlo Longino

Venom-filled anonymous internet comments are often a favorite target for politicians, writers and plenty of other folks who use them to represent everything that's wrong with the internet. Many sites have a love-hate relationship with comments, including news sites, which often want to encourage "participation" but don't get much out of the comments, including ad revenue, since many advertisers don't want their ads alongside them. Now, many of these news sites are rethinking their commenting systems, with a view towards cutting down in the bile that's often spewed by commenters on their site. Typically, these efforts amount to little more than switching comments off or forcing people to use their real names, with many publishers (and pundits) believing that the real problem is anonymity. But anonymity isn't the issue; the quality and tone of comments is. So if that's the real problem, why not seek to change it, instead of taking aim at a completely separate issue? As we've noted before, Techdirt gets a lot of comments, including the occasional unfriendly one from a jerk. Sometimes this jerk is anonymous -- but if they're a jerk, it doesn't much matter if they're anonymous or using their real name. With that in mind, it's nice to see that some of the sites in the NYT article above are actually looking at ways to tackle the real issue, and not just anonymity -- though there are plenty that still seem to think everybody will be nice if they use their real name.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anonymous, comments, nytimes
Companies: nytimes

82 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 6:09pm

Bah!
"Sometimes this jerk is anonymous"

...and sometimes he wears a helmet and pays too much attention to typos...

/self-deprivation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:20pm

the problem is finding enough time between papers to write on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:24pm

Re:
You just gotta love someone who complies by proving the post right....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David T, 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:29pm

Filtering would be nice sometimes...
There is a "reputation" system that some of the larger discussion groups use. Basically, other users give reputation to people who make useful contributions. In combination with number of posts, one can make a reasonable judgment about the source.

One could use a similar system in combination with user-defined filtering system where comments would be "hidden" that didn't meet certain criteria. That way the community could police itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
davebarnes (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:43pm

Proud to be a jerk
and a Grammar Nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 7:55pm

Re: Filtering would be nice sometimes...
There is a "reputation" system that some of the larger discussion groups use. Basically, other users give reputation to people who make useful contributions.

The problem with those systems is that they can be gamed, either by individuals or even groups. The way it works is that individuals or groups register multiple accounts and then begin to vote up each other's banal comments. Ever see some of those highly rated but stupid comments on Slashdot and wonder how they got so highly rated? It's called account farming. They plant the accounts, nurture their votes, grow them to a suitable maturity, and then harvest them. The harvesting is done by selling the accounts off on auction sites or the underground market. All it takes is money and you too can buy your very own high "reputation". And after you use it up, you can go buy another one. Or maybe you're an account farmer yourself looking to make a little extra scratch.

In combination with number of posts, one can make a reasonable judgment about the source.

Um, not really. Read what I just wrote.

One could use a similar system in combination with user-defined filtering system where comments would be "hidden" that didn't meet certain criteria. That way the community could police itself.

Yeah, but maybe not with the results you think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 8:11pm

Re: Re:
You know what I love, besides you? Rainbows and lollipops and smiles.

I also love anonymity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 8:43pm

Re: Filtering would be nice sometimes...
So, basically you're describing Slashdot, that bastion of civilized and insightful discourse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re:
somehow being a dark helmet is so much less anonymous than other posters? please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Coming from the troll who used to claim that anyone anonymous was irrelevant while still...being pseudonymous TAM.

Amusing, as always.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:06pm

i object
arh. i object to being called a jerk. and a coward. clearly it is other anonymous cowards who are jerks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:37pm

and here i thought that when I scan the comments for useful info and pass over the useless babble, I figured "I" was dealing with the problem correctly. (the point is, "stupid people will say stupid things"... IGNORE THEM!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Vila, 12 Apr 2010 @ 9:47pm

Way off
I think the real problem with the Internet is that there isn't enough porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 10:03pm

For some reason, this just reminded me of 4chan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re: Re:
At least one can look back over DH's commenting history. So it's still kind of anonymous but not nearly as anonymous as my commenting history. Or yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 10:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
hi mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2010 @ 11:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd make a terrible artist. Unoriginal and hackneyed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seumas Hyslop (profile), 12 Apr 2010 @ 11:22pm

Re: Re: Filtering would be nice sometimes...
That Slashdot is not courteous doesn't makes a rating/ranking system bad - it needs to be compared to what would happen if there wasn't the ranking/rating system. And the ranking system on Slashdot takes the commenting system from "not worth reading" to "barely tolerable". That's a plus.

Other sites like Engadget also employ successful ranking system, and it's pleasing to see that the ranking by the users doesn't always match the side which the Engadget content writers take. It works reasonably well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 2:32am

OK, so give us some examples of where Anon comments have been us as:

" favorite target for politicians, writers and plenty of other folks who use them to represent everything that's wrong with the internet.

Gee, and I thought it was cyberbullying, credit card and identity theft, porn, kiddy porn, weak surity portals, spam, malware and so on that is usually listed as "all things bad about the internet".

SO you get all riled up, because people comment (on you're venom and biases) in response to you're statements.

And ofcourse, everyone who does not agree with you is evil or a jerk!!

Sounds like the trolls at BoycottNovell, who think if you dont follow their line of illogic and conspiracy then you are labelled a "shill" or "troll". With little of no understanding of those terms. And a distinct lack of willingness to enter any form of debate on the subject.

After all it's much easier to call someone a "jerk" rather than address the real issues.

Sure, there are alot of jerks and idiots who are so biased and one eyed that nothing can be said in comments to change their minds. But most of these people run their own blogs, they (you) want to make comments, but cant handle any responses that infringe on you're narrow world mindset..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 3:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, plus I link to stuff that has my name all over it. I just laugh every time I see that goofy name/picture next to one of the silly things i say...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 3:20am

Re:
Somehow, I really get the impression you read a completely different post than I did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 3:23am

moderators are Censorship !
~~ Moderators are censors. Peer rankings by other commentators could squeeze out unpopular but reasonable posts.

"Anonymous Coward" posters could at least register at the site. Yes, sometimes interests may be served in an anonymous posts -- whistle blowers primarily, but 99.99% of the time on 99.99% of the post-able sites , Anonymous comments tend to be frivolous dribble most of the time. (Remember you can prove anything with statistics :))
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:14am

Re: Re: Re:
You forgot ponies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:16am

A purely mechanical solution would be effective.
Make comments more "precious" by LIMITING them in two simple ways:

First: most important: time limit *between* postings.

2nd: a *minimum* length of comment; dump all one-liners.

3rd: NO exceptions, not even for registered users.

Frankly, you above who've violated those rules engage in utterly trivial banter that's far more annoying than most trolling. You're not on topic, not helping the site to be entertaining, you're just the usual bunch of regulars (so I guess, can't really follow since you don't bother with handles) chatting and sniping back and forth. What you mistake for wit, or at best, friendly banter, isn't worth reading.

My simple system rightly lumps you in with trolls, and has the advantage that it can be done mechanically, which by itself proves the similarity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:18am

Re: Filtering would be nice sometimes...
Certainly such a system has been patented.
How much does it cost to license?
Is it based upon the overall quantity of comments or the number of commenters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:21am

Dont fret, the ACTA is here to save the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:02am

Biggest problem with newspaper comments...
...and it's something Mike does well, is to engage in discussion. Rarely do I see discussions where the reporter/staff chimes in. Often, regardless of the stories, the comments simply degenerate into "Obama is Stalin incarnate" "Sarah Palin is dumb" back and forth.

The people who wrote the stories should engage in the discussion, responding to meaningful comments, and ignoring (or deleting) off topic comments. Instead, news organizations continuously allow comments to degenerate into name calling competitions, which drives away any would-be-commenters who have something relevant to say, before they eventually lock commenting on the story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:04am

Re: Bah!
What are you depriving yourself of? Hopefully not air, given the helmet and all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:07am

" “the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.” "

The trend on big news sites is to force people to reveal their identities, to not allow any real sort of discussion, to prevent anyone who goes against the news sources agenda from commenting, to prevent people from pointing out errors, and to not allow people to point out where the article is wrong or biased. Try getting a link on any of these large papers that points at the ACTA text.

What world does this guy live in? On the rest of the internet the trend is to allow all of these things. A perfect example of that is TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:26am

hey wait
I am not some unknown jerk. I am known it is in my name.

poo - poo head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:30am

Re: Biggest problem with newspaper comments...
I think the problem with newspaper editing comments is that if they do they lose their safe harbor provisions and can be found liable for things posted on their boards.

Although i agree writers engaging in the discussion would raise the level of discourse and help focus the conversations in general, thereby making the comments more valuable to the general readership at large.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colonel Panik, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:11am

Problem with the internet
The only problem is that I do not own it. /°_°
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hate ponies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUTURE ACTA ENFORCER, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:25am

Re:
I don't know who you are. Yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
its okay the masnick doesnt respect the wishes of anonymous posters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
faggot, 13 Apr 2010 @ 12:38pm

this is fucking gay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 1:02pm

Re: A purely mechanical solution would be effective.
it can be done mechanically, which by itself proves the similarity.

I think that's circular reasoning. You're starting with the assertion that one-liners are worthless, then pointing out that they can be found algorithmically, and then claiming that this proves they're worthless. All you're really doing is stating your value judgment about short comments. That's fine, but don't claim you've proven anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tom, 13 Apr 2010 @ 1:03pm

To number 35
Thanks! I thought I was going to have to write that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 4:12pm

"But anonymity isn't the issue; the quality and tone of comments is. So if that's the real problem, why not seek to change it, instead of taking aim at a completely separate issue?"

And how would you suggest they do that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 4:13pm

Techdirt's Walled Garden
Or you can just do like Techdirt does: setup filters to filter out comments that you don't like (held for "review") and then just delete them. Then just tell everyone that you don't delete comments. I.e., lie about it.

Of course, you've got to let a few of the weaker ones through so that it isn't obvious what you're doing (also, the weaker ones make for nice straw men that you can gallantly defeat), but the better ones that might embarrass you can just be banished.

And don't let anyone tell you that Techdirt doesn't do this, because they absolutely do. If you want to read really good arguments against some of Mike's positions, you'll have to go elsewhere, because they may not make it here in Techdirt's very own little walled garden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Bah!
I think he meant deprecation but you never know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:15pm

Re: A purely mechanical solution would be effective.
"2nd: a *minimum* length of comment; dump all one-liners."

Unless you account for quotes that would be one way to stop me writing so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:17pm

Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"And don't let anyone tell you that Techdirt doesn't do this, because they absolutely do. If you want to read really good arguments against some of Mike's positions, you'll have to go elsewhere, because they may not make it here in Techdirt's very own little walled garden."

I assume you have tried to post links to these bastions of insight but were blocked from doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"I assume you have tried to post links to these bastions of insight but were blocked from doing so."

Heh, you assume wrong. No, Techdirt sometimes deletes comments expressing opinions that they just don't like, no links involved at all. Especially if such comments are well founded with strong arguments.

I've carefully crafted this comment to fly under their filter radar. Let's see if it makes it through. (the first one didn't)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 5:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
Yeah right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:27pm

Re: Way off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxcBH_rA2Y
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
{citation needed}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JD, 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:45pm

Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
Umm, so? I thought everyone already knew this, except for the fan bois or the naive. Mike has practically admitted as much, after all, and it has been discussed on other sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
Sorry, you'll have to go look it up yourself because if I were to post any references this post would probably just be deleted. In fact, it just might anyway. But I know what I've seen, and it's true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"Yeah right."

How's that sand you've got your head in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not delusional - no, really, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
I can not provide proof that my posts get deleted because it would be deleted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brilliant !, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
Well - that proves it !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
Bullshit! Even before I registered my posts would show intermediately without filtering. The only filtering I have seen evidence of is to prevent spam (advertising) posts, and obviously that is not a comprehensive filter because some still get through.

As far as Techdirt deleting comments expressing opposing opinions or opinions they don't like. Bullshit^2 There are opposing opinions in the comments all the time, Just look at RJR or TAM to name a couple. As far as those "really good arguments against some of Mike's positions" let's hear some, or give us a link to some, or are the nothing but hot air like yourself?

Again {{Citation Needed}}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 9:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"Bullshit! Even before I registered my posts would show intermediately without filtering."

Of course not, as a fan boi, you don't fit the criteria. Try getting on Mike's hit list and then see what happens. I've seen it dozens of times. Why do you think Techdirt's pages are so infested with various tracking devices? They've got tracking cookies, at least three different web bugs (single pixel tracking images), and various script-based locally-stored-objects (javascript trackers) on their pages, to name a few. You think those are all for YOUR benefit? Ha!

"The only filtering I have seen evidence of blah blah blah..."

Well you wouldn't, would you? That's kind of like me claiming "Bullshit! There's no such thing as cancer because I've never experienced it myself." Way to go.

"As far as Techdirt deleting comments expressing opposing opinions or opinions they don't like. Bullshit^2 There are opposing opinions in the comments all the time,"

But not some of the best ones. Sure, a few easily debunked clowns are let through as straw men. Question: You know how to tell that Mike doesn't feel threatened by your arguments? Answer: Your posts don't get filtered.

"Just look at RJR or TAM to name a couple."

Case in point to what I just said. And that point was already covered in the original comment in this thread. Can't you read, or is cognitive dissonance hampering you?

"As far as those "really good arguments against some of Mike's positions" let's hear some, or give us a link to some, or are the nothing but hot air like yourself?"

Oh, little fan boi, so naive. Sorry, but those aren't allowed here. I'd try, but they'd just be filtered out. Again. In fact, I expect Mike to kick me out of this thread pretty soon anyway. So if I quit replying, you know why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 9:53pm

Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
So? I thought everyone already knew this since Mike has practically admitted as much in the past. Big deal. It's his blog, he can delete/block whoever/whatever he wants. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 10:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"Again {{Citation Needed}}"

Oh, and it's kind of funny that you would post a Wikipedia link like that. You know that they're WELL known for deleting stuff too, don't you? Or do you not believe that either?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 12:45am

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
"I've carefully crafted this comment to fly under their filter radar. Let's see if it makes it through. (the first one didn't)"

Thanks for confirming that you're an idiot troll rather than an idiot suffering from paranoia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 5:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
You dislike the fact that wikipedia removes things?
Interesting ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Winwood, 14 Apr 2010 @ 10:02am

IMHO the best system is one that lets users influence the visibility of comments - pointless, rude or otherwise juvenille comments are voted down and are less obvious while more valuable comments are promoted and clearer. See joystiq for an example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 11:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
LOL of course Wikipedia removes information without any evidentiary support or basis in fact. That is the whole point of Wikipedia and the reason for the 'Citation Needed' Template I Referenced. Yet again you have said that you can not provide evidence to support your accusations because the evidence would be removed. Circular logic is never the right answer. If you are afraid to post a link because of the great Techdirt conspiracy then how about keywords for a Google search, the name of a website, any evidence that you are not just suffering from paranoid personality disorder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's Walled Garden
LOL of course Wikipedia removes information without any evidentiary support or basis in fact.

Well at least you don't believe that the Earth is completely flat. And if you don't think that Techdirt deletes stuff too, why don't you ask Mike and see what he says?

If you are afraid to post a link because of the great Techdirt conspiracy then how about keywords for a Google search, the name of a website, any evidence..

Already tried. It got deleted.

any evidence that you are not just suffering from paranoid personality disorder.

Hey, I know what I've plainly seen. You, on the other hand, are plainly suffering from fan-boi-itis induced cognitive dissonance. I mean, seriously, anyone who would actually pay to join Techdirt's "insider" club probably fits the definition of a fan boi. Sorry if you just can't accept reality. Who would expect such a person to be objective? It's like criticizing a sports nut's favorite team.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isabel (profile), 15 Apr 2010 @ 5:02am

youtube
I've noticed even youtube seems to have a filtering system which completely blanks any comment voted down enough. It can get a bit annoying though as you can read replies to them and sometimes you wish they'd let you see the comment if you wanted to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 15 Apr 2010 @ 9:20am

Amazing how many of you bit on #39.
And in comments on a piece about trolling. Guess it shows that 1st level trolls don't even suspect that they're being played.

Since the #39 troll's cycle time is about 90 minutes, I'd suggest TWICE that be a minimum time limit for my rule #1, *here*, but I now lean toward 1 (one) comment per day (per IP, but that's adequate obstacle).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2010 @ 11:12am

Re: Amazing how many of you bit on #39.
"Since the #39 troll's cycle time is about 90 minutes,"

Err, a couple of questions...
1. What makes you think #39 is a troll?
2. How did you go about determining #39's IP address to determine a "cycle time"? Or are you just trolling yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2010 @ 8:35am

Two more proposed rules.
4: Enforce a fixed handle; no more "Anonymous Coward" filled in automatically. As is facilitates trolling since trolls can (invisibly to other posters) promote / argue with themselves, or otherwise pretend to be multiple persons.

5: Questions aren't comments and should to some degree be suppressed. Key feature of trolls are a need for attention and a lack of substance. This is less easy to do mechanically, but I think the presence of three question marks should automatically delete a post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 May 2010 @ 5:54am

A later last word.
Because I'm still thinking on this subject -- can't really avoid it if one at all values comments -- while still evaluating Techdirt. My initial enthusiasm is wearing thin.

The regulars here are a perfect example of a large part of the "real problem": bickering among themselves over tiny points until no one else stands a chance in the irrelevant din. It's simply a stamina contest among trolls. And while I don't care how they waste *their* time, the volume of drivel does cut into *my* time, besides any potential pleasure that I have in visiting the site. Sure, I can and do skip over recognized names, but others seem to repeatedly just use "Anonymous Coward", and wading through those is time-consuming.

So I'm now even more sure of the rules I propose as a mechanical way to improve this or any site, simply by making *each* comment more likely to be valuable.

Also, specifically for this site, the "reply to" button creates a mess by over-use. I'd prefer each post be forced to have a title typed in, which would be another way to cause delay in posting.

Note: the post numbers here apparently CHANGE: 39 is now 40. I didn't want to at all quote the troll, but the post I meant to refer to above is "Techdirt's Walled Garden".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 28 May 2010 @ 5:16am

My own blog.
Another rule has occurred to me.
6) Outlaw analogies; they're all lousy, diverting, and waste time. Mechanically implementing would be like rounding up wild mustangs by building corrals and expecting the horses to run in and shut the gate behind themselves... er.. Anyhoo, think that a slight amount of review could reduce this, simply insert a "red flag" saying "No analogies, please." Or at least put it into some sort of posting guidelines.

For an only too typical instance, see http://techdirt.com/articles/20100524/0056149544.shtml
Where a horse and buggy analogy ran its course to someone asking "wouldn't you rather have a car?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cindi Burkey, 1 Sep 2010 @ 6:38pm

problem with internet comments is not anonymity
I was actually googling this issue becuase I wondered if anyone had done any studies of internet communication and whether the practice of commenting has injected rudeness into casual conversations with strangers offline.

The thing is, prospective employers will google your name. They will see everything you've written that your name is on. Most people won't comment in their own names saying "stfu" or "retard" or "looser" (my favorite mis-spelling). Why didn't the author back up the article with anything? She/he states that the tone of the comments is the problem, not anonymity--without explaining why the two are not related.

They are related, because people generally know now that using their real names means ---anyone can look them up, and their words might come back to haunt.

Social accountability, which is absent from anonymous commenting, is the only solution with any real teeth. Leave out the social context --that is be anonymous-- and you can get away with everything. But use your name, and you *will* have to answer to people in the real world, outside of this 4th dimension we call the Internet which is everywhere and nowhere all at once, but more importantly, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cindi Burkey, 1 Sep 2010 @ 6:56pm

Internet Comments
On the other hand---reading the comments on the NYT article is eye-opening. Someone posts:

"I often get more out of the comments, sorry reporter, than I do out of the original article. It would be great to be able to sort through the noise to get to the best comments, but I don't think the best comments are necessarily associated with readers who provide their full name.

"As many a high school or college student has learned, the web is one's permanent records. Does it make sense to have comments regarding current events or political issues associated with one's name for the rest of your life? I think not and I'll continue to post under just my first name or I'll not post at all."

Another person states that because of fear of retaliation, some people cannot post under their real names because the threat to them from angry strangers might be very real. Especially if one is commenting on something contentious--who knows if the angry guy on the other side of the debate won't come find you? And what if he's really as nuts as he sounds?

I wrestle with this a lot myself, do I use my real name or no? I have reason to believe a prospective employer passed me over because of my internet activity. I have believed strongly in using my real name, because I feel like it's a civic duty to observe and comment on the world and current events. I worked in public radio for a very long time and I know my opinions are informed and my writing is articulate. I have as much right to post my opinion as the next guy. But what if that employer disagreed with my views? Well, then, we wouldn't have been a good match anyway, I tell myself. But then I wonder if it's better to be invisible. As a matter of fact I often contemplate getting rid of my web sites completely and staying off the internet. I can't quite do it. I want to know what's going on.

Doing away with anonymous commenting could be harmful and discourage people from saying what they really mean. Moderation really seems like the only solution. Costly maybe--but a responsibility for any site wishing to be credible. Someone needs to deal with Huffington Post because it's really terrible, for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:09am

Proposed Rule #7: simply bar the word "troll".
It's inflammatory in itself. Drama queens like to use it -- and overuse it -- as a simple means to dismiss any argument that they don't agree with, or can't answer. It's similar to the way "terrorist" cuts off all debate about pesky civil rights and gov't actions. Since that particular arrangement of characters are now so perniciously mis-used, simply filter them out mechanically (or perhaps replace with "trite epithet" or some minor other stab at the one using them). At least require them to consult a thesaurus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Salhia, 11 Dec 2010 @ 1:58am

famous brands in kuwait
Fashion Men
Loro Piana Ground Floor 22996430 لورو بيانا
Canali Ground Floor 22996418 كانالي
Dananeer Mezzanine 1 22463157 دنانير
Moreschi Mezzanine 1 22996479 مورسكي
Hield Mezzanine 2 22412574 هيلد
Maestro Mezzanine 2 22465477 مايسترو
Moustache Mezzanine 2 22426678 موستاش

Fashion Women
Al Ostoura Ground Floor 22467871/2 الأسطورة
Alta Moda Mezzanine 1 22407150 التا مودا
Amaya Arzuaga Mezzanine 2 22470202 أمايا أرزوغا
American Retro Mezzanine 2 22996469 أميريكان ريترو
Black Boushiya Ground Floor 22442297 البوشية السوداء
Black Boushiya Mezzanine 1 22414316 البوشية السوداء
Black Boushiya Mezzanine 2 22414315 البوشية السوداء
Bleu Blanc Rouge Mezzanine 2 22442305 بلو بلانك رؤج
Chanel Ground Floor 22459290/1 شانيل
Fashion Corner Mezzanine 1 22462035 فاشن كورنر
Coco Ribbons Mezzanine 1 22491652 كوكو روبينز
Designer's Lounge Mezzanine 2 22490044 ديزاينرز لاونج
Donna Karan Mezzanine 2 22411131 دونا كارين
Elegance Paris Mezzanine 1 22496470 اليجنس باريس
Escada Ground Floor 22472942 ايسكادا
Escada Sport Mezzanine 1 22996427 ايسكادا الرياضية
Essere Mezzanine 1 22419535 ايسيري
Private Collection Mezzanine 1 22419535 برايفت كولكشن
Schumacher Mezzanine 1 22996495 شوماخر
Flat Sole Mezzanine 2 22497466 فليت سول
Gerard Darel Mezzanine 1 22411131 جيرارد داريل
Gold Pfeil Mezzanine 1 22996437 جولد فايل
Golden Galaxy Mezzanine 2 22426476 المجره الذهبية
Je T'aime Mezzanine 1 22497206 جي تيم
Jimmy Choo Mezzanine 2 22411131 جيمي شو
K. Collection Mezzanine 2 22412573 كي كوليكشن
Kenzo Mezzanine 2 22411131 كنزو
Majestic Angels Mezzanine 1 22472851 ماجيستيك انجلز
Marina Rinaldi Mezzanine 1 22411131 مارينا رينالدي
Max Mara Mezzanine 1 22411131 ماكس مارا
Moda In Mezzanine 2 22996474 مودا ان
Mosaic Mezzanine 1 22996435 موزاييك
N.B Boutique Mezzanine 2 22499333 ان بي بوتيك
Niveau Elevee Mezzanine 2 22461617 نيفو إليفيه
Osha Mezzanine 2 22404238 اوشا
Philosophy Mezzanine 1 22411131 فيلوسوفي
Rena Lange Mezzanine 1 22401124 الخمسة
Shoe She Bar Mezzanine 1 22454050 شو شي بار
Thoub Zaman Mezzanine 1 22416955 ثوب زمان
Torina Mezzanine 1 22465959 تورينا
Toul Mezzanine 1 22421811 تول
Red Valentino Mezzanine 2 22461721 رد فالينتينو
Zinia Mezzanine 1 22499949 زينيا

Fashion Kids
Baby Dior Mezzanine 1 22979015 بيبي ديور
Bon Point Mezzanine 1 22979014 بونبوان
Chicco Mezzanine 2 22424848 تشيكو
Les Petits Parisens Mezzanine 2 22996441/3 ليه بوتي باريسين
Majestic Kids Mezzanine 1 22417039 ماجيستيك كيدز

Fashion General
Charles Jourdan Mezzanine 1 22996433 تشارليز جوردون
Dunhill Ground Floor 22498611 دانهل
Dior Ground Floor 22979022 ديور
Elite Mezzanine 1 22414131 أيليت
Fendi Ground Floor 22493985 فيندي
Givenchy Ground Floor 22416751 جيفينسي
Lacoste Ground Floor 22979011 لا كوست
Lime Light Mezzanine 1 22408837 لايم لايت
Louis Vuitton Ground Floor 22979016/7/8 لويس فويتون
Palermo Mezzanine 1 22424829 باليرمو
Plus IT Ground Floor 22424010 بلس اي تي
Ruco Line Mezzanine 1 22403238 روكو لاين
Sergio Rossi Ground Floor 22446060 سرجيو روسي
Tod�s Ground Floor 22407541 تودز
Trendy Lable�s Mezzanine 1 22473946/7 ترندي لابيلز
Valentino Boutique Ground Floor 22400768 بوتيك فالينتينو
Verona Mezzanine 1 22400131 ڦيرونا
Versace Ground Floor 22996444 فيرساتشي

Optics
Opti life Ground Floor 22409244 نظارات كيفان

Jewelry & Watches
Ahmad Y. Behbehani Ground Floor 22441716 مجوهرات احمد يوسف بهبهاني
Ahmad Y. Behbehani Mezzanine 1 22493653/4 مجوهرات احمد يوسف بهبهاني
Al Arbash Jewelry Mezzanine 1 22461953 مجوهرات الأربش
Al Nibras Ground Floor 22420861 النبراس
Bvlgari Ground Floor 22996498/9 بولغاري
Cartier Ground Floor 22408471 كارتيير
Chaar Jewelry Mezzanine 1 22996555 مجوهرات الشعار
Chopard Ground Floor 22451988 شوبارد
Damas Jewelry Ground Floor 22454701 مجوهرات داماس
De grisigono Ground Floor 22432222 دي جريسيجونو
Flawless Mezzanine 2 22422691 فلولس
Ghadah Jewelry Ground Floor 22400952/1 مجوهرات غادة
Habiba Jewelry Mezzanine 2 22445410 مجوهرات الحبيبة
Jawhara for Jewelry Ground Floor 22444481/2 الجوهرة للمجوهرات
Korloff Ground Floor 22464762 كورلوف
Morad Y Behbehani Ground Floor 22467626 مجوهرات مراد يوسف بهبهاني
Morad Y Behbehani Ground Floor 22476021 مجوهرات مراد يوسف بهبهاني
Patek Philippe Ground Floor 22490022 باتيك فيليب
Piaget Ground Floor 22476034 بياجيت
Rolex Ground Floor 22413636 رولكس
Abdulamir & Hussain Al Arbash Jewelary Ground Floor 22400166 مجوهرات عبد الأميرو حسين الأربش
Tiffany & Co. Ground Floor 22460320/1 تيفاني
Tijoree Mezzanine 1 22497294 تيجوري للمجوهرات
Van Cleef & Arpels Ground Floor 22996488/9 فان كليف & أربيلز

Accessories
Foular Mezzanine 2 22451561 فولار

Health & Beauty
Al Fodari Perfumes Mezzanine 1 22456602 عطورات الفودري
Al Shaya Perfumes Ground Floor 22426898 الشايع للعطور
Atyab Al Marshoud Ground Floor 22424433 أطياب المرشود
Amal Al Kuwait Mezzanine 1 22490888 أمل الكويت
Nail Lounge Mezzanine 1 22492249 نيل لونج
Picadilly Salon & Institute Mezzanine 1 22450799 معهد وصالون بيكاديللي الصحي
Al Jazeera Perfumes Ground Floor 22420177 الجزيرة للعطور

Gifts, Crafts & Novelties
Al Bait Athary Mezzanine 1 22410875 البيت الاثري
Al Mashrq Mezzanine 2 N/A المشرق جاليري
Tanagra Ground Floor 22979001 تاناغرا

Furniture & Home Furnishing
Decorama Mezzanine 1 22453088 ديكوراما
Recamo Mezzanine 1 22433234 ريكامو

Specialty Boutiques
Aigner Ground Floor 22996428/9 ايجنر
Bin Nahki textiles Mezzanine 2 22424848 بن نخي للأقمشة
International Mill Ground Floor 22460225 المطحنة الدولية
La Casa Del Habano Ground Floor 22403312 ذات السلاسل
Marcello Sweet Moments Mezzanine 1 22419400/200 مارتشيلوا مومينت سويت
Porcelain Ground Floor 22434938 بورسلان
Princes Textiles Ground Floor 22469219 الأمراء للأقمشة
The Deal Mezzanine 1 22979012 اللقطعة
Vertu Ground Floor 22411956 فيرتو

General Services
Al Usaimi & Bitar Photo Mezzanine 2 22423483 العصيمي والبيطار للتصوير
American Express Mezzanine 2 22594444 أميريكان اكسبرس
Commercial Bank of Kuwait Ground Floor 1888225 البنك التجاري الكويتي

Flower Boutiques
Bouquet Mezzanine 2 22418867/8 بوكية
Munira Flower Mezzanine 2 22404442 أزهار المنيرة

Dining, Cafes
Cafe Royal Ground Floor 22438490 كافية رويال
Canape Mezzanine 2 99741616 كنابية
Caribou Coffee Salhia Plaza 22996416 كاريبو كافية
Fauchon Salhia Plaza 22996446/7 فوشون
Fonduc Salhia Plaza 22996424 فوندوك
Johnny Rockets Salhia Plaza 22996410 جوني روكيتس
Leila Salhia Plaza 22996413/4/5 ليلى
Lorenzo Caf� Salhia Plaza 22996420/1 لورينزو كافية
Starbucks Coffee Ground Floor 22404623 ستار بكس
[ link to this | view in thread ]
farah, 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:20am

hiii
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Carson, 22 Jun 2011 @ 8:10pm

Anonymous
Anonymity is the main problem with the internet. In the old days you never said or did anything without being personally responsible for your actions. With that said you always thought before you spoke or acted. Now you can go on the internet and rant or complain in a fake name. Think about what anonymity actually does. Think about millions of people acting without worry of consequence. This is why we have viruses flooding the internet. Its why we have so many children doing immoral things online under aliases. Its why politicians and terrorists can create so many problems without consequence. The internet has become an evil tool at anyone's disposal. It is nieve to say "Well it depends on who's using it." The internet is one big temptation. Its more powerful than many people realize. So powerful that most people aren't capable of getting into the driver's seat without taking others on a terror ride. I don't like the idea of regulating the internet. But I do support a law that creates locks on every single website that requires an identity key that is directly tied to the actual government verified identity of the person using it. That way everyone can have that level of fear that they might get caught if they are up to know good. Right now, websites like Topix.com thrive on anonymity and that's why its a huge mess and a breeding ground for hatred. The longer we exercise these emotions, the more narrowminded and idiot our culture becomes. We are effectively annihilating ourselves a little at a time. The internet reduces us to nothing at the present time. And it isn't suitable for children PERIOD. Yet, millions of children are allowed to get on there. Even if their parents don't approve, they go to a friend's house where that kid's parent approves. Its a mess. And it has to change. If the people don't get busy fixing this problem, its a matter of time until the internet will become regulated and the fun will go right out of it. No more free information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abraham, 2 Jul 2011 @ 3:19am

Reponse from Mani on my nationalization comment
What makes you tick anyway Mani?
Oops! Mani, It seems like my English grammar offended someone here, you could be right that my grammar was not impressive on my previous comment about Nationalization, but I only wrote my comment in passing and did not contemplate on the likelihood of having my compilation assessed word by word as I was only trying to have my critique submitted.
Thanks for your disparagement which has made me a better man, BUT for your information, my English results at school were not bad at all, we have white people who can hardly speak English and people like you would just deem it normal I reckon, should a black person miss the right word, the character is at stake.
Someone would allow me to accentuate that we really need to recuperate from the inheritance of apartheid and stop prejudicing other people based on their casual staging, on a grim note as well, it is not because things are difficult that people like you do not dare about the socio-economic transformation amongst blacks, it is only because they do not dare that they are difficult.
I do not want to have my wording misconstrued and labelled a racist, I only want to help blindfolded individuals like you that truly apartheid is still not uprooted within our social order, white people are still very reluctant to accepting changes in South Africa, we are not going to bid about the bush with this aspect because of people like you jumping into classing other blacks when issues have been raised.
I also want you to know that I am from a coloured community from my mommy suggesting that my DNA is between black and white, consequently neither this nature nor my personal achievement will they stop me from raising issues
Lastly, just visit www.mathebesbooks.com and read more about my newly published book on mining nationalization, you can also learn more about me on Google search should you still pursue analysing my English. Take note that I only managed to publish my book in UK as no publishing company in South Africa could have given me the opportunity to raise my view through this mode; white people in South Africa still determine which news should be accommodated in the media. And my father taught me how imperative it is to respect people irrespective of their giving.
People like you dominated by indigenous thoughts of who speaks better English, obviously have never travelled outside, My cousin who has a master�s degree was raised by a French father and can hardly speak English as he attended his s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 6 Jul 2011 @ 7:35am

Rule #8, one that shouldn't be necessary to make.
But perhaps most importantly: DON'T TROLL YOUR OWN SITE! (I here define troll as any comments that aren't necessary, especially the mere contradiction and personal attacks that I've already ruled out above.) The blogger sets the tone -- it's one of the more significant social cues on any site. If you deign to respond to posters, and can't be unfailingly polite, at least avoid vulgarisms. The use of common pejoratives simply encourages those of low wit -- and reveals you as a witling who can't see this obvious fact. Arguing with those whom you state are idiots simply points out that you don't trust readers to draw that conclusion, and aren't confident in either your writing skills or your case. When combined with the blogger using vulgarisms -- while claiming a college degree that should have provided more and better words -- it can only diminish the case.

And the better class of readers, particularly of the business class, who might use those words privately, are still displeased to see them in PUBLIC print; it's an easy way to judge web-site, blogger, and readers.

Besides, the use of vulgarisms gives snarky readers a chance to point out that the blogger is less than an urbane sophisticate.

Catch phrase: Don't get down in the mud with pigs: you'll get dirty, and the pigs like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abraham, 11 Jul 2011 @ 8:29am

Re: Rule #8, one that shouldn't be necessary to make.
Chief, I just read your comment dated July 06-2011 on and on and on and so forth, but still cannot get it very clear my borther or even sister, can you help us understand as to what is your probable advice based on? please just take us through, I know you can do this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abraham, 30 Jul 2011 @ 5:47am

Julius Malema
As a concerned citizen and political leader, I find it very much insulting for a person to refer to other political supporters as uneducated for the fact that they are not intending to feed the bill of those who utter such naive remarks due to their different political incline.
On the 29 of July, as I was coming from work, I accidentally bought Pretoria news as I was eager to check on the developments of the appointment of a chief judge of SA. Since this news paper decided to pick on our political leaders for character assassination, I just lost an interest on it.
As a matter of fact, Russell Hosking from Elarduspark commented on Malema�s media accusations and decided to label Malema and his followers as uneducated clowns.
Though I do not understand what type of education this person referred to, supposedly he was referring to college and university education, to start with, Julius Malema is currently studying with UNISA for your info. Secondly, should you accidentally attend seminars that are addressed by Julius Malema; you will notice that within his followers, we have Doctors, Advocates, lecturers, teachers, accountants etc.
Let me assist Russell on how to identify people who are not educated;
1.A person who is not will to accept democratic changes in a democratic society
2.A person who is not willing to accept that they have indeed previously robbed Peter and Pay Paul, knowing it is exactly the case fearing for equal rights which will order them out of their comfort zone and work hard like everyone else.
3.A person who killed Hector Peterson young as he was, falls among the uneducated
4.A person who found you minding your own business in your own household and decides to take everything you have, when you later at least request for a certain potion from what has been stolen from you, a thief decides to feel agitated by your humble request, that person is uneducated.
5.When a person confuses another human being with a dog and decides to grab a gun and shoot, that individual is uneducated
6.When supposedly a human being dislikes my political head and decides to shoot at me for they are repulsive with my president, other political leaders, and news papers suddenly have businesses elsewhere as though they did not know about the incident, surely those people are not educated , the list goes on Russell, there isn�t much time.
7.Visagie [ secretary of AWB] who did not know how to conduct himself during a television interview is also a good example of uneducated people
8.Four boys who have been given a maximum sentence on killing of a farmer and his entire family have been added on the list of the uneducated as well.

Now Russell knows very well on how to identify an uneducated person, I have just given you a free educational orientation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2011 @ 8:34am

Goodyear tires suck!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:57pm

Proposed mostly mechanical rules gathered for one post:
Some exposition included.

Make comments more "precious" by LIMITING them in two simple ways:

First: most important: time limit *between* postings.

2nd: a *minimum* length of comment; dump all one-liners.

3rd: NO exceptions, not even for registered users.

Frankly, you above who've violated those rules engage in utterly trivial banter that's far more annoying than most trolling. You're not on topic, not helping the site to be entertaining, you're just the usual bunch of regulars (so I guess, can't really follow since you don't bother with handles) chatting and sniping back and forth. What you mistake for wit, or at best, friendly banter, isn't worth reading.

My simple system rightly lumps you in with trolls, and has the advantage that it can be done mechanically, which by itself proves the similarity.

4: Enforce a fixed handle; no more "Anonymous Coward" filled in automatically. As is facilitates trolling since trolls can (invisibly to other posters) promote / argue with themselves, or otherwise pretend to be multiple persons.

5: Questions aren't comments and should to some degree be suppressed. Key feature of trolls are a need for attention and a lack of substance. This is less easy to do mechanically, but I think the presence of three question marks should automatically delete a post.

...

Because I'm still thinking on this subject -- can't really avoid it if one at all values comments -- while still evaluating Techdirt. My initial enthusiasm is wearing thin.

The regulars here are a perfect example of a large part of the "real problem": bickering among themselves over tiny points until no one else stands a chance in the irrelevant din. It's simply a stamina contest among trolls. And while I don't care how they waste *their* time, the volume of drivel does cut into *my* time, besides any potential pleasure that I have in visiting the site. Sure, I can and do skip over recognized names, but others seem to repeatedly just use "Anonymous Coward", and wading through those is time-consuming.

So I'm now even more sure of the rules I propose as a mechanical way to improve this or any site, simply by making *each* comment more likely to be valuable.

Also, specifically for this site, the "reply to" button creates a mess by over-use. I'd prefer each post be forced to have a title typed in, which would be another way to cause delay in posting.

7: simply bar the word "troll".
It's inflammatory in itself. Drama queens like to use it -- and overuse it -- as a simple means to dismiss any argument that they don't agree with, or can't answer. It's similar to the way "terrorist" cuts off all debate about pesky civil rights and gov't actions. Since that particular arrangement of characters are now so perniciously mis-used, simply filter them out mechanically (or perhaps replace with "trite epithet" or some minor other stab at the one using them). At least require them to consult a thesaurus.

8: that shouldn't be necessary to make.
But perhaps most importantly: DON'T TROLL YOUR OWN SITE! (I here define troll as any comments that aren't necessary, especially the mere contradiction and personal attacks that I've already ruled out above.) The blogger sets the tone -- it's one of the more significant social cues on any site. If you deign to respond to posters, and can't be unfailingly polite, at least avoid vulgarisms. The use of common pejoratives simply encourages those of low wit -- and reveals you as a witling who can't see this obvious fact. Arguing with those whom you state are idiots simply points out that you don't trust readers to draw that conclusion, and aren't confident in either your writing skills or your case. When combined with the blogger using vulgarisms -- while claiming a college degree that should have provided more and better words -- it can only diminish the case.

And the better class of readers, particularly of the business class, who might use those words privately, are still displeased to see them in PUBLIC print; it's an easy way to judge web-site, blogger, and readers.

Besides, the use of vulgarisms gives snarky readers a chance to point out that the blogger is less than an urbane sophisticate.

Catch phrase: Don't get down in the mud with pigs: you'll get dirty, and the pigs like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 29 Sep 2014 @ 6:02am

Re: moderators are Censorship !
Actually, anons have gotten Most Insightful/Funniest comment in the past, and Whatever and Antidirt are trolls. You were saying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 29 Sep 2014 @ 6:11am

Re: A purely mechanical solution would be effective.
1. What if I want to respond to multiple posts after reading the entire comments section, to make sure I don't say the same thing everyone else did?
2. But one-liners can be funny. Besides, what makes a one-line comment less useful than a two-line comment?
3. We don't need this rule because the others shouldn't exist anyway, and it's someone frivolous, which ironically is what you despise.
4. Actually, the site sets the same anon picture for you for each independent posting you make on an article. So if you were to use a different handle and agree with yourself, we can see that.
5. Questions are an important part of the discussion.
6. Why not? It takes seconds to read and doesn't even take up a kilobyte of space.
7. Of course you would want to ban the word troll, seeing as you are one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2015 @ 10:31pm

out_of_the_blue just hates, hates, hates it when due process is enforced.

That's why he likes antidirt's dick so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]