No kidding.

I'll fill in the details when I win again this December.

And it's true - you'll invariably get far more attention for a shitty, vile rebuttal than a thoughtful one. Although I don't think this is necessarily unique to Slog.

As usual.

;)

This will become the Big Debate of '08. "Dot Blog: Success equals unreadable comments threads? And this is supposed to be good for revenue?"

I'm not criticizing Slog. I'm just stating that when popularity is a direct reflection of uglier user feedback, it's time to ask questions about the blog model for revenue purposes.

@13, I'm not bothered by the trolls. I just ignore them. I'm bothered by the undeserved attention the trolls are given. If you reply to a troll, the troll wins. If you say a troll's name, the troll wins. If you allude to a troll, the troll wins. No ifs, ands or buts.

The highest complement on the Internet is to acknowledge someone exists. The lowest cut is to act like you never heard them.

The truth is, as long as you live, you will never have enough of a spine to accept that you are not the smartest, brightest, most special, coolest, and swellest people in the room. This seems to be a huge problem with kids from the 90's. All those ribbons for "achievement" or "Participation", and the general derision of competition, has left you scrotumless and stupid.

Go ahead, instead of dealing with disagreement, just label them a troll. It's SO much easier than standing up for your opinion.

At least Dan has balls from time to time.

Seriously, it's past time for me to stop bothering with The Stranger and Slog--and not because of the commentators.

Slog isn't perfect by any means, but they do seem pretty transparent in what's going on behind the scenese, which is kind of nice, imho. Most publications would never talk about their inner debates like this.

GOODBYE CRUEL BLOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

I always have to remind myself that people sometimes are drunk or high when they post. Or they disagree with themselves three posts later.

And yes, some trolls will eventually give up and move on if ignored. But, like the compulsive gambler, many simply can't (and ecce has already mentioned a couple of times his intent to bow out - but he keeps coming back), because they live with the irrational hope that the NEXT win will make up for the long, debilitating string of losses.

Trolls are simply mashochists at their core; they need to push our buttons, because they crave - not just attention, but more specifically - NEGATIVE attention. They NEED to be hated, it's what gets them off.

So, it helps to remember, YOU have the REAL power in this situation, because the troll needs YOU, not the other way around. Your hate is simply an emotional response to the anger the troll seeks to elicit from you; remove that stimulus, change the emotional content of the response, and the troll get nothing in the way of sustenance back from you.

How do you know when this occurs? Simple: the troll becomes angry, like a petulant child denied a cookie. That's when you know you've pushed the troll's buttons, and once they realize you've turned the tables, THEN they'll go away for good, because they know they aren't going to get from you what they most desperately need - your hate.

And it's true. If Dan and Erica and all the rest truly want to elevate the level of discourse on Slog (they don't actually seem to want to do this, other than the occasional complaining about trolls), then they would highlight constructive, thoughtful, interesting comments. I have rarely, if ever, seen them do this. You encourage behavior you acknowledge.

This post reminds me of my response to the hullaballo Belleve Ave caused on the Heath Ledger thread (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/re_heath_ledger_found_dead). Really?

It's one thing for people who don't read Slog very often to bite the bait, but regulars, who should be familiar with agendas and talking points by now, should know better. Unless they, *gasp*, like the drama and attention they get when they engage a troll. All the benefits of people reading your comments, none of the messy guilt over being a trolling attention whore!

First, you're a complete fucking faggot, Donut Boy. Do me a favor and go get a neck. P.s. make another t-shirt with a turntable on it, dork. Second, I got fucked with by them bouncers like 5 years ago at a show that Z-trip was playing. It was a Microsoft event ...

... but I'm not. I just think it's homo when people come on here and use fake names... Use your real name. The only reason you would use a fake one is if you were scared of what people think of your comments.. So yeah, BEAST is a fag.. bitch

Hey kub, get off the net and hitthe block with those cds fag boy. :)

as do i damnit *punches dawson for being such a fag*

Go back to the massline boards, you peace loving faggot. Dirtbag...[/

kanye's trouble is that he tends to make sense so the shots directed towards him are generally either manifestations of pure hate or comments on his habit of occasionally dressing like a faggot.

uote][cite] c.attle:[/cite]Seattle is full of pussies! Flower hiphop and emotional bullshit. Stick with what you say and mean it. All you fags talk shit and when a cat gets at you, you fuckin fold. Mean what the fuck you say before ...

Think about it, people.

And not to beat the dead horse on that particular subject, but it does only seem fair to give ecce credit where it's due; obviously he's a strong union supporter, and he totally gets props from me for being on the side of the good guys on that one.

However, he's decidedly off-base calling Dan a "scab" for appearing on Maher's show, as it's obvious he didn't cross a picket-line to replace a union member who would otherwise have been doing that particular "work". Clearly, it's just another example of ecce's penchant for hysterical hyperbole getting in the way of an accurate assessment of the situation.

Dan could be called a lot of other things for what he did: an anti-union sympathizer at worst, or just an uninformed, unenlightened rube, if one wishes to be charitable. But, "scab" is a special designation that really should be reserved for those who fit the definition; using the term indiscriminately merely serves to weaken the negative perception it should engender.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't do much for me in terms of giving away ecce's identity; not that I really care one way or the other.

Because that's the thing: you can never really tell for certain which type you're dealing with - a certifiable wack-job, or, a perversely sane person who enjoys making other people THINK they're a certifiable wack-job.

Which is, well, kind of wack in itself, if you think about it...