(More) Growing Pains at the Daily Paul...Or, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy

One example you might want to consider is that of Slashdot. They are one of the oldest forum sites on the web, and they have a pretty good system of moderation. They allow users to moderate other polls on a rotating basis. You only get 5 moderator points at a time (to bump a post up or down), so you use them with care. Users who post or visit the site regularly get their moderator points more often (once every few days or per week) while those who are newer or have less involvement generally get fewer. You are also not allowed to post in a subject once you have used your moderator points there so that you do not moderate your own posts or those in your discussions. Categories of moderation include +1 insightful, +1 informative, +1 funny, -1 troll, -1 overrated, and +1 underrated.

They also have a meta-moderation feature where you moderate the moderations (was the moderation of the post fair?) which further affects how often a user will get moderator points. If they moderate well, they will get their points refreshed more quickly and vice versa.

Another nice feature of Slashdot is the tree view of the forum allowing for a better conversational structure (responses to responses).

You can set the option to view only comments greater than a certain level (the maximum positive moderation is +5) or to view the latest posts.

For this site, you could have a moderation system on the forum topics themselves. The front page could display subjects sorted by moderation then by newest so only recent, highly moderated subjects stay on the homepage. The ideas I mentioned may be more than you were looking for, but hopefully they will help.

Also, I am a computer programmer, so depending on the language and platform of the website, I might be able to assist in the development effort as well.

is not wise. Searching for a perfect system of governance over imperfect people will in its ultimate conclusion promote the exclusion of every participant if perfection is the only admitted standard. This question of "people management" on this website is a question of governance. In the privately owned and operated environment of this forum it remains governance of if not people than their only substantive contribution which are their ideas and opinions. There will be no perfect system to accomplish what it is presumed we all wish to accomplish.

I don't think it is practical for any manager to pore through comments and then decide if they stay or go. Nor is it desirable for participants to assume the role of police amongst ourselves or deputies which single out that which they find undesirable for further review with a view to possible removal (censorship).This is a clumsy and bureaucratic system of control reminiscent of the KGB. Merely a method of arbitrarily judging which statements are to live and which are to die. It is censorship no matter if it is in the private or in the governmental domain.

There is a principle of free speech out there and for good reason it is called free. It is by this free exchange that those who are in need of clarification and correction and better understanding can gain from others who see clearly the wrongheadedness of a thought. Should the wise ignore the ideas of the foolish? How then will the foolish ever be anything but fools?

The other undesirable factor is intentional vandalism, trolls or trouble makers etc.

The road of tyranny is smoothly paved for the majority to stroll along in ease but leads to a mausoleum for every spirit.

The path of freedom is rough and cluttered with many insignificant stones of vandalism but leads to an elevated spirit.

It is a question of reading the heart. Of determining which are sincere and which are not sincere. The best system does not even need to attempt such a godly feat. It won't be perfect but it will define an environment which dissuades the insincere comment without barring the sincere but foolish comment.

Trolls can pay the $10 and then you have a troll in a system with no safeguards. Banning either people or comments is anathema to freedom forever denying a reprobate the very environment within which maturity and good will can by association prevail.

We need an imperfect but acceptable system which bars none from living among we the perfect.

Probably 50% or more of our meetup is populated with I.T. types. I will bring up the issue at our meeting tonight and see what kind of solutions we can come up with for Dailypaul. Maybe someone will volunteer. 8-)

I know there are loads of Ron Paul supporters that work in the Information Technology Industry too. Surely someone can bring real solutions to the table that will be acceptable to Manystrom and the Dailypaul community.

I know that all of us here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area enjoy the Dailypaul.com. I love the site right now, but maybe It is time to grow up a bit.

That works great. Everyone has read privileges but you have to enter a valid donation number from the site, or donate through this site. I think this is a rocking idea.

Do whatever you think is necessary to keep the campaign rolling. I'm wondering if some joker might think it's worth 10$ to wreak havoc, and if that's the case, then what'll you do? Kick them off even after paying?

Crazy idea... what if we require members that wish to post to donate $10 to Ron Paul's campaign. I'm not 100% sure it's illegal, and it would unfortunately disqualify any foriegners, but you could funnel those to a PAC from what I understand.

So if someone wants to voice a dissenting view, they would have to have made a $10 donation to a campaign that they don't support.

Censorship and banning are contrary to the ideology of this libertarian campaign. I suggested time rationing (Limit new topics for each member to one new topic / 12 hours or whatever seems best). I suggested quantity rationing (Limit comments / thread to three for each member or whatever seems best). These promote carefully considered contributions and courtesy for others.

If we resort so effortlessly to censorship and/or banning concerning such a simple problem as a website how are we going to learn to govern ourselves in a free society of free responsible people? The challenge however small or broad begins today for all freedom lovers to love freedom, lumps and all.

Otherwise we carelessly stroll down Hypocrisy Lane for all to observe from a distance and ponder our ultimate fate. Let's not so soon march back toward the mechanisms of tyranny. Tyranny does after all promise many conveniences to the majority does it not?

That's how we got into this mess. One little step at a time.

I have truly been blessed to have found a home on this site among those who if I knew in real life would most definitely call friends. Back in March, when I got excited about Ron Paul, I began to seek a place that I could share ideas and concerns in a rational manner. I thought I had found that site in RedSate. Little did I know what was too come. As Paul's campaign picked up steam, so did RedState's censorship. Eventually I was kicked out of RedSate three times before I found my home on here. It should have only taken the first time to realize what a waste of bandwidth they are. However, I do not wish to see those with different opinions get banned as it would not seem fair nor "free speechish".

To me, simply offensive (even disguised offensive) comments should render automatic banning.

Clearly violent or mean spirited comments should be spendable offense for a period of time with possible banishment. To me, mean spirited comments just mean you are not on the proper intellectual level to have a meaningful conversation if you are to retort to the use of violent or mean spirited language that is direct towards an individual or an idea/concept.

As to the future...
This is a Revolution and a peaceful one at that. The site will have to find ways to evolve accordingly as there are many more battles to be fought on many different front lines... We may win this battle but it for sure will not constitute the end to this Revolution by any means for many more battles will have to be fought and this site should help serve as a front line for communication in those efforts.

The only thought I would suggest for the Future is a possible dividing of "sub" categories or blog sections for specific states or regions so that those tuning in can here and see about what is exactly going on in their home state for the future political battles to come. After all, President Paul is gonna need a congress he can work with too.

I would also like to take this time to encourage all to stay in the Republican party after these primaries for one simple reason:

A quote from SLC Punk
"You can do a lot more damage from inside the system than you can from outside of it"

This movement would die if we all just divided back up into our Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or what-have -yous. United we stand, divided we fall.

Well, kind of adds to the self-policing fact. Just throwing this out there, the conception is not totally complete, and other systems would drown out the need for this, such as a report system - which would remove all threads started by the troll, and remove their bumping ability for all posts.. like the comment can be posted, but it doesn't bump.

Anyways, if that wasn't implemented. I think a side element, and this has many flaws in it, if left on its own - the poster can specify whether they want their post, or reply to [ a troll's post / negative title etc. ], to be bumped or not. Simple conception I think, check box at the bottom.. and you click it to make the post, 'non bump able' - for the use of a bad term.

And eh.. this is more of a bump to see if there are any more ideas out there.. also progress report? cheers

Hey all,

So I had forgotten about this thread when I recently posted a "Who are all of these people?" topic a few minutes ago.

I think the solution is to use "libertarian" distributed solutions, like those that have been outlined, but the stop-gap for the short term, I think, should be to remove the "active forum topics" from the front page. Let people who are the real junkies dig deep into the forums, and that way, negative, suspicious, or alarmist posts will not continue to be brought to the forefront causing the self sustaining mob-problem that they are now.

The posts that have the MOST value, so far, to me, have been the ones posted by regular bloggers on the site. If Michael, et al, feels that a forum topic with a very interesting news tidbit should be front page material, they can post it or make a digest of all of the "daily Ron Paul news" (hence the name of the site) that has come up in the forums that is REAL news and not this weird crap. This will also eliminate the spamming of irrelevant polls.

I trust the judgment of the mods and bloggers on what makes sense and what doesn't. I know, sounds like a gov't solution, but at least it's local =P

-Jayson

I've tried reading most of the posts on this forum (3 pages worth is a lot of reading) and I'm becoming more and more concerned with the growing consensus that we need to start banning posts and/or posters. Isn't this exactly what we admonished Red State for doing just 3 days ago?? Can anyone see how hypocritical this would make us? Banning posters is very un-libertarian, and as a supporter of the most libertarian candidate in half a century, I would have thought most of us would frown on this type of remedy. Not to mention how much work you’re asking of Mike to spend all day deciding who to ban or who to give warnings. Certainly there are better solutions than banning posters and posts. I give some examples in my post below (Post entitled “my $0.02”).

My thanks to conza88 (Post entitled “My thoughts – here goes”) below for mentioning my recommendations in your post. I am confused by what you say about my recommendations, though. You say that you agree with my idea of rating posters rather than posts, but then disagree with highlighting the posts of higher rated posters. What is the point of giving posters higher ratings if they are not singled out in some way? A simple boldfacing of their screen-name could accomplish this.

I think it is important, if a rating system is used, that we rate posters not on whether we agree with them, but rather on the informative nature of their posts. That is my biggest fear in going to a rating system. Many posters, such as myself, find it a waste of time to just parrot some other poster. We post to provide an opposing point of view. Often times, we do this not to be difficult or inflammatory, but to (hopefully) open the mind of the reader to alternative viewpoints that may have never been considered on a particular issue. Also, it is frequently important to be a devil’s advocate on viewpoints of Dr. Paul’s that are certain to be attacked by other candidates at some point during the campaign. It is my fear that a rating system could bring negative ratings to important posters like this.

Lastly, I’ll repeat my request from below. Is there any way that posts can come with a time stamp, rather than just a date stamp? That doesn’t seem like it would be too hard to implement.

Thank you Mike for all your hard work.

Michael,

First of all let me join the other members in thanking you for all the good work you do and for letting us help you address this troll situation which is in all of our best interest to handle.

As you put it: "We're too big, so either the system breaks down, or it requires some new rules. Another way of putting it is that we need a sort of government, and a Constitution! Ironic in a way, isn't it?"

I had been thinking lately of that exact same idea that we need our own government (you and whoever?) and our own Constitution (some rules). We are like a microcosm of America. And as authorized by the Constitution one of the duties of the government (you) is to “provide for the common defense”. And in our case that means we need to come up with a defense against "foreign" attacks from trolls and such.

I have read all the comments and replies and man there are a lot of different ideas and methods that our very resourceful community has come up with and it looks like Michael has created a very challenging task for himself. I mean what criteria does he use to judge one way of doing things vs. another and somehow sort through all this data and come up with the best way to handle both the “Social Issues” and the “Technical Issues”? And out of all the different technological ways one could manage the threads, comments and replies which way is going to be the most workable?

I think we probably can all agree that the main three criteria for deciding which is the best ought to be that it should be whatever is the simplest and easiest way for Michael to continue administrating DP as long as it achieves our purpose to identify and give the boot to trolls and other disrupters while at the same time taking into consideration that the traffic to DP is going to increase exponentially. (Don’t sweat it Michael! Piece of cake!) And I’m with everyone else in saying whatever you come up with is fine with me.

I decided to take a shot at it and here’s what I came up with. The easist part is determining the purpose of the DP site which I believe we all can agree is something like: “to get RP elected as the next president.” And I think that there are at least three sub-goals: 1) Keep up with the campaign related news, 2) coordinate campaign activities and 3) help each other maintain high morale toward achieving our main goal. It’s this last sub-goal that is most affected by trolls so the rules have to be designed to maintain high morale.

Toward this end I would recommend that new members signing up should not have any limitation on the number of times they can comment and reply per hour and per day, etc. and that there should be no waiting period. The reason is that none of these kinds of technical things would ever deter any self respecting troll. He/she would just work around them. And besides this way newbies who suddenly get the urge to comment won't find out that they are required to wait a few days which could I think any many cases kill their urge to participate and we might lose some of them unnecessarily.

So, what’s a good way to identify who the trolls are and other trouble makers? First of all I agree that it should be up to the members of the DP community to police ourselves by some sort of rating system. The two most frequently suggested systems are the ones that rate the “comments” and those that rate the “user”. But from my viewpoint either system would ultimately “rate the user” because a member’s posted topics, comments and replies, if negative or disruptive and reported to Michael, would identify the user as a troll/disrupter just as well as rating the user directly by clicking on the user’s name, making another click or two and rating him (if I understand this method correctly).

However, there is a disadvantage to rating the user directly because it would involve giving Michael only the user name and it wouldn't give any evidence to back up the bad report. This can open the door to either a troller or a well meaning, but mistaken, member to falsely accuse someone. If Michael gets a copy of the “offending” comment he can double check the validity of the bad report if needed. (Not doing it this way is somewhat similar to false imprisonment where the prisoner is jailed without a trial and any proof of a crime – habeas corpus [follow the Constitution, right?].)

However, if each member rates the comment or reply I would presume a copy of the comment would be sent to Michael along with the user’s name which could then be stored where it could be read later if and when the user accumulates the maximum acceptable number of bad reports and Michael wants to read and evaluate the bad reports before deciding to ban the person. This method would also be easier for the user because the buttons for rating the comment or reply would be right there at the end of the comment vs. clicking on the name and then clicking on another button or two.

My final suggestion on the rating system is to have, besides the button to generate a bad report, another button for good reports. And keeping in mind that the purpose of doing the ratings is to identify the trollers who are trying to lower the morale of the group we could name the button, “Too negative” or something like that. And the good report could be named “I liked it” or something. Yes, I know these names are different from the other popular sites, Digg, etc. but I think our purpose for rating comments is different than theirs (and ours would be better). Thus, these names would help the rater keep focused on the main purpose of the ratings that of identifying trolls. Names like “Report as Spam” are technically right but not related close enough to “maintaining morale”.

Another thing. It seems to me that certain really important topics deserve more time to be read by a larger number of people so it would be good if there was a way to rate the new topics so that the really good ones stayed on the front page longer (or in a special Hot Topics area on the front page). Maybe this could be done by rating them and the ones that maintained a rating above a certain number or percentage would get to stay on the front page. I have no way of knowing if this can be done technically.

Anyway have fun Michael. If you end up being certain on part of the reorganization but are not totally sure which way to go on this or that detail we’re here to vote on it or whatever.

Thanks Michael and fellow Paulies. Upward and onward!

When Jerry Garcia was alive and the Grateful Dead was touring, the WEB was huge, and the dead even set up tents with computers to "blogg" the shows

The Grateful Dead Forum had "busdrivers", and the WEB gave these folks free connection for their service, for monitoring the sites.

Besides foroms and the store, there were various chat rooms, and people had the ability to create their own chat rooms, to discuss issues brought up in the Forum.

Another site, was MSN's "Slate", years ago, Moria Redmond was the editor, and she also had "Busdrivers" ocalled "Starred" writters, who monitored the site.

Since Jerry died, and Moria left, both forums have shrunk considerablly. But for your growing pains, these types of forums and how they operated may work well for you. At least that would be my hope.

I thank you for what you have done creating a open forum, where I was free to say how I felt about issues without my posts being deleated or me being banned. When Ron Paul becomes president, I hope he has a place for you in his administration, knowing Paul's administration would be small.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MIKE! And congratulations on your growth, despite the pain, I'm sorry for that, but proud of your accomplishment.

These suggestions may go against our purpose, but they would make this website even better:

• Whenever someone creates an account on this website, require that person to undergo approval for their very first thread. I've noticed a number of negative threads having been created in the past week or so by people who have accounts that are less than a day old.




• Do a thread/comment rating system similar to that of Digg, Yahoo! Answers, and Youtube. If the +/- ratio is less than 1, then make the comment hidden by default. Perhaps implement a setting where the user can choose to always view or hide such "negative" comments/threads.




• Create an off-topic forum for all threads irrelevant to the campaign and its grassroots base.



*EDIT*



• I don't know how many mods/admins you have on here, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to get one or two more on if you're the only one. May I suggest one of the European posters? Since there's a time difference of 5-7 hours between us and them, one of the European posters could monitor the site when most of us are asleep. Since they can't donate, I'm sure they would take up on such an opportunity to help.

Mike,

You will not be able to permanently boot anyone off the site. A simple creation of a new email address at Yahoo! or Google and the jerk is right back in business. You might place a non-expiring cookie on the computers of undesirables, but the more sophisticated folks would be able to find and delete it. In some cases, you may be able to identify the computer that the person is using and add it to an exclusion database. Unfortunately, the cookie and hardware ID methods would eventually cause every computer with free access, such as library computers, to lose access to DP. In any case, it is a problem that can only ever be resolved temporarily or unsatisfactorily.

The biggest problems come from those who, as one poster said, spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD cannot be combated through ignorance or secrecy. It can only be fought head-on, with Wisdom, Articulation and Knowledge. The weakness to that is, while everyone can be a FUDder, only a limited number of people are WAKy. Those who have aspects of wisdom and knowledge and who can articulate well, we call leaders. Basically (with tongue in cheek), we follow Ron Paul because he is WAKed - and that's what is needed on the Daily Paul: Wise people who can articulate their points well and can refute the lies with knowledge.

There will always be hit-and-run posters. There comments are always useless, illogical and derogatory. These can be easily recognized and deleted. Others, who use fallacious arguments to spread FUD, present a harder problem. These must be faced and dealt with in such a way as to leave no doubt about the wrongness of their arguements. I recommend that the points of such arguements be placed in a sort of FAQ so that they can be referenced when they come up.

In other words, WAK the FUDders.

When people say that Dr. Paul is WAKy, remember to say "Thank you"!

This is a no-brainer, IMHO. Simply put: run the site according to libertarian principles.

Everyone should be free to speak his or her own mind, whether or not they agree with Ron Paul or his supporters. But if their words have a negative effect on others, it may be fairly said that they have broken the primary rule of libertarianism. Those who spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are being disruptive and harming others, and should therefore be banned.

This policy is not only fair and reasonable; it also demonstrates that we are willing to live by the principles that we espouse, and that Ron Paul represents.

__________
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” --John Quincy Adams

To be honest, if you lined up all these "disruptive posts" and showed them to me, I'm sure in most cases (although, I'm sure not all) I would have a much bigger problem with the knee-jerk, defensive, group-think, bill-o-reilly-bully-style reactions to the posts. Calling people whiners, turncoats, nay-sayers, etc., often with some less than eloquent phrase, such as "stfu".

It's not my website, however. Define your "free speech zones" as you will. My opinion is not to ban anybody unless it's clear that they are more than a general troll, but a true "plant" of some kind.

Hey guys - and thank you Mike! It's good to see this issue being addressed, as it does need to be. Thanks for the article it was definitely insightful. Now as for my thoughts and criticism of the some systems suggested and those that I agree with :)

- Digg / rating system: (only for users, not posts - should be hidden, not visible. If there is abuse of the system, that person would be banned instead)

I believe a digg / rating system - would destroy the credibility of the site. This ain't and should not - be a popularity contest. Which is what happens when you add this feature. People then try, as is following human nature really, to get the most positive remarks etc. And those that are not agreed on, or have positive criticism's but are seen wrongly in a negative light, then get falsely reported. The way to cut out this behavior is to make it hidden from fellow users. It takes away the temptation - to post populist comments etc. it is a form of censorship really, it makes everything move towards group think. And that is NOT what we are about. Open ideas / opinions etc. in a civil manner. So - it should not be about rating posts, it should be about rating the USER - which is the bigger point at hand. And once again, it should not be visible to the user, or anyone - besides mike / a moderator.

antiwardoc was spot on:
"Some of the people are quite clever, and I think that no set of fixed rules will trap them. We (you, Mike) need to be just as clever in identifying them."

- Alternatively, as we are all smart and intelligent here, and mostly capable of policing ourselves - a report system that is open, like you click on the persons user name, and you can then, 'report' the person. If - say 10 people have reported that person, they are suspended until further notice. [banned from posting / editing]. Then Say if 20 people report, it moves up to ip banned, so they cannot create other accounts. Basically, we the group serve as a judiciary - personally people may make mistakes, a false accusation - but if 20 people [ whatever no.] do, collectively - we cannot be wrong. That is basically a trial by Jury right there. You have been judged by your fellow peers - that is justice. Just remember the reports would not be shown on the person, and there should be no positive remark 'digg' or whateva. Only a 'report' function imo.

Dave Pedersen:
"As for voting I think negative "thumbs down" type voting is counterproductive, it empowers the trolls to carry out their gleeful penchant for destructiveness." - correct. :)

"Awarding stars or whatever is a promising idea. It by itself will not limit negativism but will guide people as to what is positively received. Once three stars are awarded the comment can be advanced to a voting section which will identify which are the very best comments worthy of the "hall of fame". This is all positive and fun."

- sorry, Hall of Fame for comments? this isn't American Idol... I believe this is also totally counter-productive, nothing to do with the trolls/trolling - but this is no way the purpose, or even a facet of what this site is, or should be about..

MashTheGas says:
"I think an easy way would be if you get reffered to a particular user XX numbers of time by other savvy and dated posters (consideration of how long one has been a memeber here) would be a good indicator of a problem poster. I have only reffered two different comments so far to you for your consideration."

I agree totally here. Adds to my points above, essentially those who have 'stood the test of time' [been here for awhile and not been banned for trolling / etc.] would be able to determine well the 'status' of the poster etc. But as always this would be open to abuse - as with my suggestion above - trolls can create many accounts; then after they are - week old or past the [rule] line, they will and can report people en mass. As mentioned by antiwardoc "Some of the people are quite clever, and I think that no set of fixed rules will trap them." essentially make the prominent rules public, but the details kept secret [no. of times a person needs to be reported by the collective before they are suspended or banned etc.] *knowledge is power, and in this case it is only beneficial for those who wish to abuse the system to know about the details.*

As for the new member waiting period discussion below, the trolls can easily create many accounts, and once they have reached past the waiting period - troll with that account until it gets banned, then continue on. Too much effort you say, they wouldn't do that.. they're not that determined! [Evidence: ronpaul"forum troll"4life, is a fine example - 8 hrs straight on here, nothing but negative drivel... 0 people swayed] - thats determination alright, pity its oh so misguided..

wolfe says:
"Which is why a percentage would probably work better... 95% (number could be tweaked for best results) negative kills a story for good... 5 or more of those in a row, kill front page posting....

Pretty much anything that gives us some control over front page posts, helps... comments shouldn't be regulated at all unless manystrom wants to... simply because comments are not harmful and none of us mind taking on a few shill opponents every once in a while, even if to take out some frustration, or to clarify our own thoughts...."

Totally agree! Awesome idea aswell - say all threads created by a person, who has been determined or reported extensively as a troll. LOSE their front page coverage; they can still be posted in etc. but they won';t be on the front page - hence comments die, and so does the thread - pretty much ASAP! :D

MDKidd says:
"3.I like the idea of rating POSTERS rather than POSTS. As good posters get higher and higher rated, the color of ALL their posts could be changed (or something similar to make them stand out). Readers can surf the forums quickly to seek out the best posters saving valuable time in ignoring the worst posters, whose posts could also be changed to some other color. The key here is rating posters, not posts, so that ALL that posters posts are highlited. What's great about this idea is that it requires no post deletions or censorship. Bad posters can be easily ignored by coloring their posts in some distinguishable way."

100% agree on the posters, rather than posts point. Disagree about the highlighting of their comments though. Someone may have a correct point about one issue, but totally of the base with ignorance on the other. Their opinion is negatively effected. It makes it a popularity / agreeance contest.. it makes it a voting measure. I will give you a [thumb up] because I agree with what you said, i will give you a [thumb down] because I don't like what you said.. no matter how true, or not the statement is.. As mentioned above in my comments, rate the poster, not the comments. The poster rater should be invisible, not seen etc. and if they get too many reports they are banned, suspended etc..

13 says:
"step one ... Have a Rules topic or area , clearly outlining the purpose and goal of the site. If they dont read it it doesnt matter.If the Rules arent followed then you will be punished.

step three ... Have a escalating scale for offenses, meaning , a warning, a warning and removal of post, a ban on posting temp or perm, ip ban ONLY if the site is physically attacked,ie DDos or something similar."

Agree with all those, whole heartedly. :)

As for your point about too much freedom Mike, I think this adds to it well - “But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” ~ Edmund Burke

Overall I think one of the main things that should be taken across, from my views is that - this site works, its a big success, the only problem we have is - the trolls etc. The only measure should be to remove them, as that is mostly the point. Changing the sites dynamics dramatically, beyond the measure of restricting trolls, and putting in systems to stop them, should be frowned upon... And lastly with whatever system you wish to implement, I'd be more than happy to help spot & help cover up loop holes / flaws etc. if there are any ;p conza88@hotmail.com on msn, if anyone wishes to add regardless :D
Thank you.

RedState was initially set up as a conservative, Republican site. Anyone familiar with RS knows that they have degenerated into a bomb throwing group of blabbering fools and neo-cons. Then they get picky and boot off the RP supporters. Personally, I never saw any of the filthy type posts that they profess were sent by RP supporters. The site is a joke now and is a ruination of what could have been a good thing.

The Daily Paul site is set up with one clear objective and goal. We are here to discuss pertinet information and encourage helpful diologue to get Ron Paul elected to the White House.

I don't think it's fair to other serious site members to just leave it open to anyone to do their drive by trolling. It disrupts the positive flow and distracts from the message that this site was intended to be.

Let me add my two cents to this commentary.....firstly that Michael, you have done a terrific job with the post....I too, read for hours and don't often comment as much as I'd want to.

With regard to your issues above.....
A rating system for each post would be great - a good system of thumbs and points is on www.mercola.com - he's a great doctor who is a HUGE fan of Ron Paul and I believe has sent quite a few of many of his million plus viewers to support him. I posted a comment early in the year to a statement he had made chiding him about his statement saying that Ron Paul probably won't win. After that HE CHANGED HIS ORIGINAL POST when he began to see how Ron was rising in popularity. NOW, he's PROMOTING him with the belief that he CAN win!

Second, with regard to banning some users....
Of course, profanity and the like should not be permitted along with any character assasination especially of Ron Paul. A healthy debate is great, but oftentimes the unconverted seem to want to remain so by wearing down all those who are already for Dr. Paul, and that is where the point system will kick in. Let them turn away in frustration if they don't want to be convinced of the correctness of our candidate and the Constitution for which he stands. I think that it is fairly easy to figure out who those are who need some information as opposed to those who are here to cause trouble. As for the mischief makers, basically you or an alert poster can make you aware of it and most likely it would need to be disabled.

Tangential conversations, as long as at their core it is related to Ron Paul may not be of serious consequence....once again the rating system would be in play.

use a slashdot like system, including the firehose. for those non-techies, it's at http://slashdot.org

Dr. Paul should propose a bill in Congress, authorizing the site to have the CIA trace any messages that we deem to be "unPaulian" and seditious. He should be empowered to seize all the property of the perpetrator and transport him to an undisclosed location to be questioned strenuously about his actions, and to get a list of all other people with whom the perp has had email contact in the last two years, with appropriate followup.

To save time, we should contact John Yoo and see if this can be done by executive order without having to waste time on passing a law: clearly, this is a time-sensitive matter and trolls are simply another form of terrorist trying to change our way of life.

Or, we could simply add to the software the ability to tag users who appear to be showing bad faith and trying to act in a divisive manner, and after a sufficient number of tags by different other members, have that person's account suspended. But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.