Raise the Hammer

Oh, please, please, please! How soon can you have this up and running?

love it...provided a user can only vote on a comment once.

i vote yes for comment voting.

Fourthed. I may just bother to register now just to take advantage of this.

Sounds like a good plan Ryan. I agree that any filtering should be done on a comment by comment basis rather than by user to avoid both sock puppeting and to keep the site as open and inclusive as possible. Though I do worry that we'll get people registering a bunch of identities just so that they can "stuff the ballot box" and artificially increase or decrease a score.

I'm in favour. I can't see any one person creating multiple identities, but I assume that would constitute abuse and end in a banning.

Well, this would certainly assist my efforts to keep our resident troll on a strict diet. You have my vote.

based on my experience on other web forums, these sorts of measures don't work. Most of us might think that "nobody would create multiple identities", but that's exactly what trolls do, and will always do.

Go ahead and do it...the first few weeks will be nice, but after that, expect a slew of 'new users' and more trolling.

im not sure multiple identities would be a problem since we would be voting by comment not by user. if the comment is good/strong/acceptable/whatever, it will get voted up. if it is off topic/inane/insulting/etc, it will get voted down.

while comments by certain users may get voted down more than others, it really has little to do with their username.

I know my last comment may sound a bit paranoid, but believe me I've seen it happen before.

The internet does strange things to otherwise rational people, see the "John Gabriel Greater Internet Dickwad Theory" below.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/interne...

i really hope that a system like this will push users to put more thought and research into their comments if they are trying to say something substantial -- maybe putting things into context based on the readership of RTH, or to try different methods to get their point across. im not looking to silence users, but to increase the quality of comments.

i think that the 'trolls' on RTH are still trying to participate in the community to some extent, unlike other trolls on the internet, who just want controversy and distruction. things are a bit more focused here.

but repetitive

but repetitive

yes. and believe me the repetition will get voted down. especially if it is off topic to the original post.

if users like A Smith find that their comments continually get voted down, and they still want to be hear -- then they should try to stay more on topic, or to rephrase their argument in light of the audience, or if the majority of users on RTH are still not receptive, find another venue to voice their opinion.

I'd be in favour, as long as people don't vote against comments just because they disagree.

But if someone is obviously trolling, then go for it.

The supression of comments simply because enough people voted negatively against the comment sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. If not enough people like what you say, your opinion will be supressed. Not exactly the kind of activity one would expect to find at RTH.

RTH describes itself as such: "Raise the Hammer is dedicated to providing a variety of views and approaches to the goal of making Hamilton a great city. Towards that end, we encourage readers to contribute feedback, letters to the editor, and article submissions."

I am not sure how the practice of supressing unpopular comments could be reconciled with this statement. I can understand frustration with comments like what A Smith has made in the past, but IMO a policy like this would compromise this site's integrity, to the point where I personally would be reluctant to continue visiting this site.

Ryan would have the ability to remove or modify the moderation if it was being abused.

Sounds like Slashdot. Which proves that, if motivated, the trolls will find a way. But I think the community of commentators on RTH is small enough that simple moderation will do.

I like it, Ryan. Guess I'll finally have to register! Unfortunately, this means shortening my screen name. . .

I find voting to usually be horribly unbalanced. Nothing suppresses the minority and enables the vocal majority like finding a way to make people feel marginalized in their opinions online. Its one thing here to thing to think few will agree without and feel oppressed, its another to have statistical data to back it up.

It just breaks down all conversation to binaries of yes and no; true or false. You're with us or against us. I either must agree or disagree with you. If you want to see clear and true partisanship clearly, its a good way to measure it and arguably, encourage it. But if you want to ever "fix" partisanship, it won't help you there.

Another way to look at it, would you want your blog entries and articles to also be responded to in such way? 500 to 1500 words, evaluated in a mere yea or nay. If no, why treat your commenters as second class citizens?

I for one, do not intend to use my voting privileges to vote against a comment just because I disagree with the opinion being expressed. After all, differing opinions are what make debate and discussion on this site interesting. I only intend to vote down the comments that I believe are intended to disrupt healthy, civil debate by hijacking the topic to pimp a favourite hobby horse, engaging in personal attacks, taking drive-by cheap shots that don't contribute to the discussion, etc.

Hopefully these measures will improve the quality of the conversations around here.

That sounds good. A question on the default for anonymous users. Will they see unfiltered comments or those above a tolerance of 0 (or -1 or -5 or -some other number)?

I think a clear code of etiquette that all registered users have to (at least symbolically) agree to and the option to opt out entirely are excellent ideas.

We can't fall into the trap of voting down comments because we don't agree with them. The disagreements and open debates are why I enjoy coming to this site. Not many boards can get away with this without it devolving to pointless flame wars.

It will be up to everybody to be mature enough to vote on comments based on their quality and not the position the author takes.

I'll vote for comment voting, with Ryan's proposed etiquette statement.

some voices speak for those that cannot speak for themsleves. I realize that many may not agree with my views of things, but I do represent the voices of those that are oppressed.

A Smith is a pain in the butt, but in some cases he does bring up valid points. I know that this poster has gotten the better of me as I am sure that my opinion has gotten the better of others as well.

Freedom of speech is that, the freedom to voice one's opinion.

Why does there need to be voting system? Debating an issue, to win allies is the important issue. Why suppress views?

The intention is to moderate behaviour, not opinions. As Ryan stated a few posts earlier....

Toward that end, I'm happy to include the following:

1. A clear statement of etiquette that explains the purpose of voting: not to downvote opinions with which you disagree, but to express disapproval of comments that lower the level of discussion by trolling, insults, intellectual dishonesty, and throwing around claims without supporting evidence and arguments.

2. An opt-out provision for registered users - if you don't want to see comment voting, you can turn it off completely for your own user account.