They completely hijack otherwise good diaries that have meaningful discussions going on. This should never be the case. And their vitriol of late has increased too much. I for one I'm sick of coming across trolls on good threads.

then no one should respond except to troll rate the offending comments  -- but NOT those that are not offending.

So here's my proposal with such people  -- and I have experienced it with someone else at dailykos

1) if the comment is trollish, do NOT post a comment in response, but troll rate it

2) if the comment is not trollish, then feel free to engage.

Punish the offending act, not the person as a whole.

The trolls could care less about troll ratings. They just enjoy being the center of attention. So they can flood a thread with troll many postings just to feed their emotions.

And of late its only two or three same posters here that are real trolls. Its their persistency that makes them all the more obnoxious.

From the comments I have seen, they both seem to be involved and know what is going on.  Let's not ban them over one bad primary selection.  Now, if next year they start praising Gerry Connolly.....

:)

Let's not forget we are all democrats.  To offend a fellow democrat, whether it's a Miller supporter or Blanton supporter, is just not smart. 

After June 13 we'll all be buddies working side by side. With some experience under their belts, our trolls can take their annoying qualites to the Allen sites.

Republican trolls are another matter entirely.

Lowell, can't your censure his post before he posts it? Like what GOTV does.

we have a "troll rating" system here, like on Daily Kos and MyDD.  It's the community as a whole that's disapproving of your comments and "taking them down."

You say, "If and when I reveal myself, you will find that I am a solid Democrat who has the ability to influence many votes in Virginia."

If you're so confident in yourself and in Miller, what are you afraid in revealing yourself? I've no problems with dissent, in fact we all welcome it. What I object to is the consistent and deliberate distortions by the same Miller posters who do so all in the name of free speech. Its grating.

The doctor's diagnosis . . .

Delusions of grandeur; under-handed partisan attacks; refusal to engage in honest debate; uses the Democratic party label like Republicans use terms like patriotism.  Who could that be?  Man, I'm stumped. 

It's too close to the primary to mess around with this sort of side issue insanity.

This site is Pro Webb so don't mess around in order to not dilute the message.

Thomas Paine you NEED to be Banned from this site ... and probably a few of the others because your PERSONAL vindictiveness is showing through. As sharp and constructive as a few or your points may have been the hate in your mail borders on stalking ...

Take your grudge against the campaign somewhere else .... out of the Lee-ward winds. .... and if you need to make yourself feel better ... throw a few more bucks to the Miller campaign....

Of course you could make your points in a more professional manner .... but that isn't in the cards .. is it?

I can see from this thread alone that we are missing comments; the comments must have been from trolls, and hence the replies have also disappeared.  I can't say much, since some of the comments were so lame, I troll-rated them myself.  BUT...we do need a solution to the problem...

I think what needs to happen is we need to (like DD and the Kos) have a few diaries on how to deal with trolls.  I am a trusted user on Kos, and I have the priviledge of troll rating comments and seeing the hidden comments.  Believe me, this is not a job ANYONE WANTS.  It is ugly, and full of hate. 

See, what I have learned is: I no longer believe in responding to them (the trolls, or unwanted miscreants, if you will).  I would rather cut and paste their comment into an independent comment of my own, so everyone can fully appreciate their audacity and hate filled rhetoric.  I also believe that people on R&K need to:

ONLY TROLL RATE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY TROLLS!!!!  A troll, by any definition of other political websites, is someone who is OBVIOUSLY (sorry for lack of a better word, pertaining to the situation at hand) SHILLING for the unwanted candidate.  That means, WEBB HEADS, if someone brings up a question on Webb's feelings on an issue or a platform, then you should do your best to EXPLAIN why JIM WEBB is thinking clearly and with the best interest of the country at heart, and not just erase someone's concern.  Yeah, sometimes a douchebag is gonna infiltrate into our blog, and we are going to have to put them in their place.  But must we offend everyone who simply has a QUESTION about James Webb's politics?

As for the ratings, well; look at them with at least a little bit of objectivity.  They may not actually be "troll-worthy" and sometimes they deserve a "marginal" or "unproductive" rating; believe me, those are just as telling as a troll rating.  I truly think that in order to keep working our hardest we need to be reminded of useless so-called constituents who bring nothing to the table of Democracy.

So let them stay.  But deal with them the best way for US.  Cut and paste their comments, so their thoughts can educate the future.  As Webb supporters, we continue to explain how a group of PROGRESSIVES can escape from mediocrity, the political game, and stupidity, and we prove that it is feasible.  Keep the "trolls" around, so we can remind oursleves that we ARE doing this for a reason; after all, remember what happened to the Republicans?  I mean, their party was hijacked by a group of unrelenting, self aborbed, MONEY HUNGRY people filled with anger.

The Democrats shouldn't allow themselves to be infected with the same rash, but lets fight fable with fact.

and you're right about the echo chamber.  Let the Miller trolls show the world what types of people support Miller.  That alone should be enough to win Webb the election, not that there's much doubt Webb's going to kick butt on June 13.  Watch out, George Allen, cuz you're next!

that's cart before the horse

While I feel quite positive based on various pieces of anecdotal evidence, we have to work like we were coming from 10 points behind.

at LEAST 20 points behind.

Lets really win, bc we CAN.

:)

It is tiring and old and unkind.

I just prayed for you.  I hope it helped.

There are terms such as civility; honest discussion;  reasoned debate that you might want to look for first. 

No court in this land or Founding Father would support your very, very broad undestanding of what the First Amendment means.  Take some time--read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention; The Federalist Papers; perhaps you could even re-read your own "Rights of Man" (from which you'd hopefully make the correct inference that your best writing ended with "Common Sense" over 220 years ago--you know, before you spent time in a French prison.) 

The way that I look at it, RK is Lowell's house.  Lowell, this one is your call.

I see these guys as largely a distraction.  I'm all for a high level debate on issues, but these kids' points can be summarized as a variation on the following:

1. "Jim Webb is not a real Democrat, Harris Miller is." 
2. "Democrats are defined by how long they've been in the party and how much money they've given to candidates (with some latitude for occasional Republican support)"  No talk about principles, or what being a Democrat means in the true sense of the word.
3. "If Harris Miller wins the primary, will you support him in the general election?" 

These aren't really matters of debate, these are just talking points regurgitated from a strategy session at the Miller campaign office 3 months ago.

My thought is that we've got our work cut out for us with just a couple days to go--these guys are basically a distraction.  We should jettison them (remember the founding fathers did hold a constitutional convention in a secret location with limited membership).

Your house though, your call.

Don't ban the Miller trolls, but PLEASE post about something other than Jim Webb. We're getting an overdose out here and there are plenty of other game which need hunting like certain congressmen and delegates.

I've been pretty much working 24/7 for Webb, with 2 weeks to go.  Others are more than welcome to talk about other things.  I will also attempt to do so, but today was an awesome day for Webb and I'm totally pumped.

It's called freedom of speech.  If they want to make asses out of themselves, let them.  They want to hurt their own credibility later, let them. 

In two more weeks, the Miller trolls will have to choose between Allen and Webb.  We'll see how they respond at that time.  I have rounded up some voters for the primary, and we should all call our friends and make sure they vote. 

Don't do any banning please. 

I just wish people, all people, would remember above all to be decent and resist making personal attacks.  Dispute the ideas, don't degrade the person.  Though I may make a mistake from time to time, I am not a fool nor an idiot.

We are all friends, though we may disagree from time to time.

Thanks again to all of those who support freedom of speech...

As for the issue at hand, I am happy to elevate the level of debate and tone down the rhetoric in my posts questioning comments that some of you make about Harris Miller.

I only ask that you show the same restraint and respect in your posts.  While I don't recall if I saw it on this blog or another, photoshoped photos of Miller with pee pants and comments calling Miller names don't add to the debate or your stature in the eyes of those who are not regular bloggers.

Why is it all right for you to trash Miller and his supporters, but any trash talk about Webb and his supporters is off limits?

As for my posts being repetitive or boring, what about:

-- My report, subsequently corroborated by a Webb supporter, that Harry Reid DID NOT endorse Webb.

-- My post, as reported in The Washington Post, that Webb spoke at a Republican pre-election rally in Annapolis on Nov 3, 2002 where he endorsed a half dozen GOP candidates for the Maryland General Assembly and the Senate.

-- My efforts to share star Virginia political reporter and blogger Bob Gibson's Sunday column on Web and bloggers.

-- My efforts to point out that Miller gave more than $60,000 to Democrats and only a few thousand to Republicans.

-- My report that only one union has endorsed Webb (and one union has endorsed Miller), while the national AFL-CIO, the Virginia AFL-CIO, and the Northern Virginia Central Labor Council of the AFL-CIO have all stayed neutral in the Miller-Webb race.

-- Pointing out that Webb contributed money to George Bush, although many pro-Webb bloggers say, falsely, that he didn't.

You may not like what I have to say, but understand I say it as:
-- a Democrat who supported Howard Dean to the bitter end of his campaign and then threw my whole-hearted support to John Kerry,
-- as a Democrat who supported and defended Clinton throughout his eight-year presidency,
-- as a Democrat who has challenged the powers that be at the state and national levels of the party to bring about reforms and change,
--and as a Democrat who wants to defeat George Allen.

As stated earlier:

Your points can be reduced to the following arguments:
--Jim Webb has supported Republicans in the past, therefore he is not a real Democrat.
--Harris Miller has raised money for Democratic candidates, therefore he is a "true" Democrat.

We are all familiar with the same tired argument--you have just marshalled new evidence to support these same points, which I might add have been rebutted ad naseum.

Why didn't Harris Miller support Leslie Byrne in 2005?  Why does he insinuate that Jim Webb supported the Iraq War in his TV ad (picture of Bush and the Mission Accomplished banner)?

Also, why DID Harris Miller support Iraq War II?  Call me cynical, but was he at all motivated by the killing that the high tech industry has made in our having waged this war?  In the past, when the Miller has had to chose between the ITAA and the interest of Virginians, he has sided with the ITAA.

I am not sure what posts you are thinking of banning for, but I have read at least one very reasonably thought out and poignant post by "Thomas Paine" and think that for that his content is at least sometimes very useful.

That being said - you are certainly within your rights to ban anyone you like from your blog.

I recall a long discussion about possibly banning "Republican Tom" from the Roemmelt site last year, and Bruce decided not to do so because free speech, even the appearance of it, was more important than what little damage "Tom" was doing.  Of course Bruce was running for office himself, so he looked at this differently.

BTW - For those who are thinking that I am just a troll myself.  How many of you have already arranged with the Webb Campaign to host a fund raiser for James Webb's candidacy on the off chance (quite likely) that he does win the Primary?

I have.  I talked to Webb's Campaign Staff over a month ago in Arlington (took a few hours off to make the trip).  I am on Jim's calendar for June 18th, and should he win the primary, we'll be hosting a fund-raiser for him.

Today I have a Miller sticker on my car, and I have already given money to the Miller campaign, but should Jim Webb win the primary I'll be contributing and trying to get 100 of my friends to do the same on June 18th in Haymarket.

Oh - and I had a call from Jim the other day, and am quite embarrassed to report that his staff caught me in the middle of solving a tough problem at work and I bungled a fabulous opportunity to express some concerns I have about him.  Sigh.

...really a community blog, which is why I am asking for everyone's input.  As I've said many times, comments are "troll rated" into oblivion by the community, so it's really your decision what to do with the "Thomas Paines" of the world.

Lowell,

I would encourage you to double or triple the threshold of troll ratings an individual post can receive before it is 'voted off the island'.

I don't advocate banning individual contributors unless they directly threaten others or otherwise violate the expressed written rules (and even then only repeat offenders should be summarily banned).

By raising the threshold, users can see for themselves which contributor's postings are consistently rejected/rebuked while denying said posters their desired martyrdom. This also gives others the satisfaction of troll rating would be instigators while negating the need to respond to obvious attempts to rabble rouse.

The great majority of RK readers can tell the difference between a Democrat and a demagogue.

If the software can adjust the color or shade of the text you could display, in real time, the cumulative rating of each post in the following way (this is for amusement purposes only):

Each rating is adjusted to give a +/- rating (perhaps x=rating-2) and the results are summed to arrive at a cumulative score for the post (for example, 3,2,3,4 would equal a total of 3 after adjustment while 1,0,1,2 would total -4).

Once an individual post's score falls below a threshold (perhaps in increments of 10) the color of the text is changed to a lighter shade. Eventually, if the post's total falls far enough (say, to -20), the color will have been reset all the way to white.

Posts totalling > -10 would display like this.

Posts totalling < -10 and > -20 would display like this.

Posts totalling < -20 would display like this.

Note: users who want to read the original faded post need only highlight the text.

This would allow particularly egregious posts to 'fade away' in a democratically (and karma consistently) appropriate way. This would also preserve all of the responses in the hierarchical thread.

Probably not doable but it made me laugh...

I'm a nerd...

at SoapBlox, the tech gods who created this system. :)

3,2,3,4 would equate to 4 (not 3).

oops...

Censorship by ballot? This is as democratic as it can be, posts are not removed and yet the overall opinion of the masses is represented.

In response to your posts in general, I'll now be William Shakespeare:

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

...might I suggest "Born Fighting"?