| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Troll alertTroll alertPosted Dec 22, 2003 16:26 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings by danw6144 Parent article: SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings It's a troll. It's obviously wrong. It was clearly posted to attract attention and cause many replies. There have been similar posts in other stories, also first posts and also irrelevant. Reading LWN isn't that fun anymore when such trolls are posted and there is nothing I can do about it. It remains the first post no matter how many readers point to the flaws in it. Sure, the articles are still interesting, but reading the comments leaves a bitter aftertaste. That's not something I pay money for. I'm not suggesting to go the Slashdot way. There are other systems, such as Scoop which work much better because "mod down" has no cost except the one you have paid already, i.e. the time spent on reading the comment. The current approach is blocking trolls by the editors. Unfortunately, as the trolls become less obvious, they become harder to identify by the editors.
(Log in to post comments)
(JOKE) alert Posted Dec 22, 2003 16:56 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] C'mon you dont want to close yourself in a "all well" cristal dom!...Even if possible the world would lose much of its fun...
Troll alert Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:25 UTC (Mon) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] Yeah. Here's another vote for only allowing paid users to comment. I don't mind if they troll if they're paying LWN for the right... :)
Troll alert Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:26 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] I don't think this could count as a troll; posting the same comment in more than one place is still not a crime, although bad style. Yet, it's somewhat subjective to disqualify someone as a "less obvious" troll. Simply don't reply if you think they are, but sometimes people may make mistakes without being a troll.You are right though that danw is off, whether deliberate or not:
|
|
||||||||||||