Should Slashdot remove the ability to post anonymously?
Displaying poll results.13694 total votes.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman
There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman
Thanks to (Score:5, Informative)
I should add that myself and the Slashdot team have no current opinion on this, but I am interested in seeing these poll results.
Re:Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
The posts could be appended rather than edited. Eg: Sorry I meant to say "X".
Re:Thanks to (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is what's going away rapidly on much of the internet, so with a grain of salt, we must continue to allow the anonymous to survive here.
A freedom that is exploited for a distasteful act should not be revoked to satisfy someone's delicate sensibilities. There is no implied right to your need to not be offended.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that posting anonymously is good. I've agreed in the past that I do not want people editing posts. But I can see apending to posts. It would be useful. Especially when three people misunderstand my post, and I want to clarify. Do I clarify to all 3? The first one? The most popular one? And what about the future ones?
Re:Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
Editing would be useful. As mentioned, only if nobody has replied yet and nobody has moderated; in addition, probably a short time window would be good-- one minute, say.
In theory that's what the mandatory preview does, but in practice, sometimes I notice annoying errors only after I post.
Re: (Score:3)
The mobile version doesn't do previews reliably, at least for me. (Most current version of Android as far as I know, most current version of Chrome.)
Re: Thanks to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A minute or two to fix a post would be handy, because frequently the only problem is something trivial like misspelling a bit of code so it doesn't work, a stray apostrophe, you've lost your paragraph structure, or noticing that your phone's autocorrect has tricked you. I know there's preview, but still.
It's not like you're typically fundamentally rewriting the whole thing, just fixing a few misplaced characters to sort out a broken post. It could make the whole board look a lot tidier too.
Replying to your
Stack Overflow provides revision history (Score:5, Interesting)
Or do like Stack Overflow does and give each revision its own comment ID so that users can view posting history. Squash edits into a single revision only if they're within 5 minutes of each other.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to complicate things.
15 seconds to hit edit after you submit it. That will be dramatically easier to put in place and do the same thing. over 99% of the times someone wants to edit a post it' is right after they press submit.
Re: Thanks to (Score:2)
I could get behind this. A slippery slope tho.
Re: (Score:2)
But ONLY if nobody has replied yet AND nobody has moderated it yet OR if the modification consists only of text added after the original. Otherwise you end up with posts being completely transformed and conversations not making any sense anymore.
That list of complexities means that you're simply adding bugs... You'll slow things down locking on transactions (like a reply). You click reply, type out a long and cogent reply only to have it discarded because the OP edited their post.
Or, for someone who wants to prevent replies to their post, they simply run wget on the "edit" link to their post, thereby preventing anyone ever responding and thus presenting an argument as settled when it may not be.
Or you're going to have to save and enforce "timeouts"
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that adding limits like that is just adding potential for abuse. However, that doesn't mean there is no possibility for an edit option that is both sane and relatively safe.
My favored option at the moment is to put an "Add Edit" button on a person's account page. (Where it shows your previous posts.) The "Add Edit" button would give you a box where you could type in updates, corrections or whatever as a clearly delineated separate addition to your post. It would look like what we see on featured art
Re: (Score:2)
I like this. It's the most sensible option I've read yet.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a recipe for saying something popular to get modded up to visibility quickly, then editing it to inject your particular spam or trolling preferences while you've got the greatest visibility possible.
I would rather see an "Append Edit" option which would allow you to add something to your post, within the post, but clearly delineated as a separate entry. We see these on the the featured articles all the time.
Re:Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
Adding an edit function would be far better than removing the anonymous posting function.
Please don't add editing functionality - legitimate uses would be drowned out by revisionism.
Re: (Score:2)
legitimate uses would be drowned out by revisionism.
à la Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding an edit function would be far better than removing the anonymous posting function.
Please don't add editing functionality - legitimate uses would be drowned out by revisionism.
OK, but how would you feel about being able to add to your posts? So that you can clarify what you intended, add additional information, point out stupid typos etc (With such edits being automatically timestamped)
Re: (Score:2)
NEVER! Just post a "correction". Editing is the worst thing they can do, well, okay, the third worst...
Please Slashdot. I beg you.Don't ever allow editing of comments! They need to be etched in stone. We don't want people to be able to whitewash history.
Amending is acceptable, as long as the original cannot be altered in any way, but it's still better to have people just re-post.
Re: (Score:3)
People will be called out pretty quickly if they try "revisionism", and the edit history would be there to debunk any potential claims about what they reall
Re: (Score:2)
A case in point for no more AC posting. And yes, we need an Edit button just as badly.
Re: Thanks to (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes /. Real baller are ACs and no edits. It's like living in one of those fantastic cultural neighborhoods that are still really industrial. You have to socialize with ppl while brushing off the druggies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks to (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, I could post stuff as AC that might get me in legal trouble if they traced it to me, say by posting information about illegal government surveillance (ala Snowden). I have done this myself, but not for anything as serious as that (a possible NDA violation having no ramifications on anyone at this time since the product was released years ago and already shelved, but the the NDA was technically perpetual).
Re: Thanks to (Score:5, Insightful)
It's getting increasingly rare to have a site that allows this level of anonymity. Besides slashdot, I can only think of imageboards as popular sites that let you post without registering anything. I personally think it's a huge strength of the site and shouldn't be done away with under the guise "but trolling is bad guys".
Sure, trolling is annoying, but it's a small price for this kind of anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see the problem. Moderators kill the worst trolls and the ones that are left keep us up to date with what the nutjobs are thinking. Things like APK are a pain but even that seems to get squashed most of the time. Anonymous posting lets people say things their family / company / government might not like.
Re: Thanks to (Score:2)
Mod trolls down (Score:2)
How about changing moderation: When you mod an AC post down, you don't burn mod points?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People would rampantly abuse that. If you don't like reading anon, set your filter accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
People would rampantly abuse that. If you don't like reading anon, set your filter accordingly.
And, reversing that, if the trolls don't like being easy to downmod because they're posting anonymously, they can log in.
Re: (Score:2)
Complaining about poll options:
Differentiate between "posting anonymously" (i.e. Anonymous Coward) and "posting pseudonymously" (Logged in to some account which may not be attached to your real life ID in any way).
This may change the results.
I have always been AC (Score:4, Interesting)
I am one of those that is AC but could have a 4 or 5 digit ID if I registered. I have posted AC and been modded +5 insightful at times. I will never login and post/reply. The only time I am forced to login is to submit a story.
The point of AC is to focus on WHAT is being said, not WHO is saying it.
Slashdot is not for SJWs. (Score:2)
Bending to the will of them cannot go well, as evidenced by Reddit, 4chan, and Fark's capitulation.
Re: (Score:2)
How about making modded-up ACs a bit more visible?
I was thinking of giving an automatic +1 boost as soon as a moderator gives a +1 to it. That is, they end up at +2 after a single moderation. Less waste of mod points for the good ACs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fever Pitch Trolling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the moderation system is for. Cmdr Taco designed it brilliantly so the sewage fast falls to the bottom.
Burner accounts (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, this shows one advantage in allowing anonymous comments-- since anonymous comments start at Karma=0, it's easy to leave them out of your reading-- if you browse at +1, you only see them if somebody moderated them up. The anonymous cowards don't really care-- they mostly get their lulz just from doing the post.
If anonymous were disallowed, you wouldn't have that automatic filter.
Re: Burner accounts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's brilliant! One question though. If everyone has their filter set to 1 how do the good AC posts get modded up so we can see them again?
By people following the moderation guidelines [slashdot.org] and moderating at a low threshold?
Re: (Score:2)
(legalizing viewing of child porn since it's a victimless crime, a view I support but I'd NEVER link to a registered account, for example)
Because you know you'd be identifying yourself a pedo. Fuck off victimless crime, I suppose you think the kids are willing.
Re: Thanks to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it much more annoying to try to follow a thread when 2/3rds of the participants post as AC. They may have meant to troll, they may have meant it legitimately, but I can't even tell when a response to me comes from the same person to whom I responded.
I firmly believe in allowing people to post anonymously; but Slashdot makes it trivial to create an account with zero connection to someone's real identity. For that reason, I a
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the modern Plain Old Text mode then?
Plain Old Text: Same as "HTML Formatted", except that <BR> is automatically inserted for newlines, and other whitespace is converted to non-breaking spaces in a more-or-less intelligent way.
The old HTML-only thing where you had to keep chucking <p>s and <br>s in hasn't been required, nor I believe is the default any more, for years.
We also have a Preview function now, so you can check if your paragraphs have been mangled or not.
Totally agree with all your points (Score:2)
I was going to post something along those lines but you put together a great comprehensive post of all the reasons why I support AC posters, I can't think of a single thing to add.
Despite people complaining about Slashdot I think the reason it's still around is it's found nearly the best balance possible between anonymity, freedom of expression, and protection from trolling.
Maybe someday.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This. They basically get weeded out by by the moderation and default limits. Most folks never see them.
Don't monkey with crap that doesn't need monkeying with.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Even when they spout bigoted crap, it just gives us an opportunity to call them out on it.
Very occasionally I post AC too, if I want to say something that I don't want traced back to me for some reason, like it comments on private health issues or something that could affect my employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I tend to not read as many AC entries anyway...I can ignore the idiots, though that sometimes means I miss entries that actually contribute to the discussion.
I don't see it as necessary to attempt to block trolls...as has been said, they'll find their way in one way or another if they're desperate. I ignore them like I ignore advertisements.
Disposable email cat and mouse (Score:2)
With countless services like Mailinator, I can create as many throw away accounts as I want.
And there are also services to classify a particular domain as belonging to one of said "countless services", like this one [block-disp...-email.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I checked, major free webmail providers like Gmail and Yahoo! required subscribing to mobile phone service. Trying to submit the signup form without entering a phone number led to a "Please fill out this field" error.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Gmail requires an existing identity for password recovery might depend on how much abuse Google has seen from that country or IP address block and Google's perception of cell phone penetration among prospective users in that country or IP address block. I'm told you also get to create one phoneless Gmail account per new activation of an Android tablet. But a phone number is an absolute requirement for a new Yahoo! account.
CGNAT (Score:4, Informative)
You can still throttle the spammers by limiting the frequency of posts based on IP address
Yeah, if you want lots of both type I and type II errors. In IPv4, a throttle will cause collateral damage for people behind the same carrier-grade NAT [wikipedia.org], such as students living on campus in the same dorm complex or residents of a country that doesn't have quite as many allocated IP addresses as the United States. And in IPv6, with each subscriber getting upwards of 4 sextillion IP addresses plus however many they can get through tunnels, watch abusers bounce around to evade a ban.
Re: (Score:2)
You can still throttle the spammers by limiting the frequency of posts based on IP address
Yeah, if you want lots of both type I and type II errors. In IPv4, a throttle will cause collateral damage for people behind the same carrier-grade NAT [wikipedia.org], such as students living on campus in the same dorm complex or residents of a country that doesn't have quite as many allocated IP addresses as the United States.
Hah, tell me about it! Sometime around 2004 or so, Slashdot managed to ban just about every broadband user in Swansea, the second-largest city in Wales, population 200k-500k (depending on how wide an area you count). Why? Because back then the major broadband supplier, NTL (now Virgin Media) ran everyone through a set of caching proxy servers that didn't preserve the original user's IP address. Obviously somebody in Swansea had been trolling/attacking Slashdot, and as a result the latter just put all th
Compromise (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps anonymous posts could be allowed only if one is signed in. That'd eliminate alot of the shitposts reflexively typed out without any thought, and the ability to abuse proxies to get around the post rate limits.
The potential downsides are that there are many lurkers who don't bother to log in anymore, and just post anon with their name at the bottom of the message. Also, some insiders have given detailed first-hand accounts of the issues at hand, where they wouldn't have dared if they had their name attached to it. If it's considered plausible that Slashdot MIGHT keep logs of who 'anonymously' posted something while logged in, they might not take that chance if it means firing/waterboarding/lawsuits.
Making anons jump through a bigger hoop before posting might be the best option; those who really need it will be willing to do it, while those posting things that add nothing to the conversation are likely to give up. I suggest an ersatz intelligence test in addition to the normal CAPTCHA. It could be like so: a logical statement is presented, and a multiple-choice is given as to which logical fallacy it demonstrates. The end result is that anonymous cowards will become schooled on logical fallacies. Win-win. Optionally, combine with Recaptcha-style reuse of actual statements posted to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the effects of submission page spam could be done by default sorting the submissions of the previous 24 hours by the submitting users' karma. Then again, I counted all of 9 submissions for 7/17, so I'm not sure there's a significant problem (ok, there were 30 on Friday). I'm skeptical that anonymous cowards should be able to submit things though. Accounts that make spam submissions shouldn't be able to keep spamming submissions and have it put there along with every other submission without penalty
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the manual moderation stage is essential--about the only thing I'd trust it to is an advanced AI, and any advanced enough to do a decent job of it is probably going to qualify as a person.
The comment about the Forbes link-to-welcome-page is interesting, though. If that's not a incoming redirect by their servers but an actual property of the link provided to /., that suggests one filter should be basically a link-checker--and we probably should be tagging links to sites that will automagically drop
Re: Compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, as you suggest, creating a list of such URLs, known junk link farm domains, and so on, and either refusing to accept any submissions that use one as a primary story link, or at least giving it an initial down mod on submission, could be a good way of automatically filtering out some of the more readily identifiable cruft from the submissions queue.
Re: (Score:3)
Are trolls and spammers really a problem? They start at 0 and often go down to -1 fairly quickly. You only see them if you opt to, by default they are hidden.
The benefits outweigh the costs IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
That's in order of increasing pain, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a very good suggestion -- a compromise as you suggest. And I think that the arguments against it insomuch as it may help identify (log) someone who "needs" to post anonymously are missing the point. Everything you do here is logged, and having the additional datapoint of an e-mail address is not going to make you any more anonymous. You're not anonymous on Slashdot or anywhere for that matter. You're just annoying. This suggestion seems like the right one to improve the signal to noise
Hell No (Score:2)
The Slashdot comment system was created in the pre-9/11 spirit of freedom. It should be preserved as an example of how things could be, in contrast with where we seem to be heading nowadays.
If they abolish AC's here, there will be still Soylent news.
I voted "no" with mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of ACs are a total pain in the ass. But my belief in free speech outweighs that. And there are times where it really is necessary to post as AC. Plus, how many non-ACs actually use their full name on here to the point that they are individually identifiable. If Slashdot eliminates AC, are they then going to pull a Facebook and require full legal names? And who's going to check that out to make sure no one is lying about their name?
The best way to handle abusive ACs is by invoking the old saying "Do Not Feed the Trolls". A troll's goal is to invoke a heated response. Instead, ignore them and don't give them the satisfaction. I'd also like to see Slashdot users with moderation points use them as intended. Make the good posts and replies rise to the top, instead of using "Troll" or "Off Topic" or "Flame Bait" or "Overrated" to be the equivalent of "I disagree with this post".
Re: (Score:3)
I voted "no" with no mixed feelings at all. AC posting is part of Slashdot since the dawn of time. Sometimes I post as AC myself, in order to say things that wouldn't be seen well by my employer, government or whoever. Trolls, OTH, are generally moderated down into oblivion.
Whistle Blower (Score:2)
Continue AC but don't expect repies/mod up (Score:2)
I can see why people may want to post things anonymously but I tend to think of them as trolls/putting something up they aren't willing to own up to.
So, unless they are absolute genius or make an important point, I'll just let them be.
Future Poll ideas (Score:2)
Bizarre bug report? (Score:2)
The reply scoring is broken? About an hour ago, I received a reply with a weird score and when I clicked on "Score" to see what was going on, I got a weird error message that it couldn't tell me what was going on.
Then I came over here and posted a suggestion. My reply had no name, but the "Score:?" at the top. Clicking on Score didn't even produce an error message... What is going on here?
Re: (Score:2)
As additional diagnostic data, that report of the bug appeared to be normal, with my name and "(Score:5)" at the top. No idea what is going on...
Bad Question (Score:2)
Why even ask this question, when there has been such a low threshold for story selection ?
This is /. not MSNBC !
from a longtime visitor....
Cowboy Neal told me to do this (in a dream)
Reducing the abuse of anonymity (Score:2)
I voted for Cowboy Neal mostly as a protest vote, but I do have thoughts and a constructive solution to offer. (Surprise, surprise, but the real surprise would be if the suggestion got serious consideration.)
Secrecy and anonymity are difficult to justify except in terms of prior secrecy and anonymity. However, so much of that exists that we'll never wipe the legacy. Notwithstanding, as cameras and microphones become more ubiquitous, any notion of privacy may disappear, which will obviously "solve" those pro
How to fix the long comment penalty! (Score:2)
You have to click on the Edit option next to the penalty after you click on "Score". I can't imagine that I set it that way, but I don't know how it got that way. Maybe 10 years ago or something?
Also found out that the short comment modifier is set for 200 characters,
I still wish there were a warning at composing time.
Re: (Score:2)
This site for exchanging opinions on given topics. It shouldn't be easy to filter people out. Your suggestions just enable echo chambers and insecurity. Let the easily offended go somewhere else. They have plenty of options these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad your time is so worthless that you are glad to waste it.
Oh wait, maybe you didn't understand that was part of my concern. You could have asked.
Or even better, you could have offered some constructive suggestion of your own.
Oh wait, I went back and looked over your recent comments. No sign of constructive contributions there, and you probably didn't get any funny points, either.
One more thing. About that dismissive ad hominem "insecurity" attack. You better stay away from mirrors. (Again judging by
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor says whipslash is interested in collecting kudos.
Another feature I might help pay for would be to tag internal references to other users...
Hell, yes! (Score:2)
Not because there aren't a clear majority of decent, thoughtful AC posts, but because the people who make these posts should have no objection to registering and establishing a posting history. They still have all the anonymity they need, while the trolls and flamers will disappear.
I am an anonimous coward (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give mod points specifically to rate AC's. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or let me get AC voting points separately from the normal points. Like every day
I think anonymous posting is fine (Score:2)
Just add a filter (Score:2)
Leave the Anonymous Posting capability in place, but implement a mechanism that allows those who are logged in to completely filter out posts by the AC types.
Make it a checkbox or something in your profile settings, I dunno. Make it a bonus ability to those who have decent karma. ( Like the ability to disable ads )
If I see one more post about COWS GO MOOOOOO I swear . . . . .
Absolutely! (Score:2)
YouTube only allows comments from logged-in users and look at the quality of discourse there. ;-)
Also:
- If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
- If ACs post at 0 and the default threshold for reading is +1, does it matter?
I'd rather allow ACs (there are some benefits) and keep them invisible by default.
@whipslash, I appreciate the work you're putting into this site, and soliciting opinions BEFORE making changes. Hope it's working out for you.
Side note regarding p
I've been a member a long time (Score:2)
Thanks to the community moderation, I've seen a vast amount of good anonymous posts here with decent information moderated up.
I've used the anonymous feature multiple times, depending on the topic also, sometimes some anonymity is required.
Personally I don't see the need to see this feature go away at all.
No, but work on moderation (Score:2)
However I sometimes want to pass a complete thread to non-slashdot civilians (yes, there are some, they live on the surface, they are hideous) and, as such, I don't want to see 'gay n**ger' (I notice that the full version is defeated by the lameness filter, that's a good start) or goatse etc. in the thread. I don't mind constructive obscenity, such as com
What would be nice... (Score:2)
... would be a robot that automatically deletes any post relating in any way to US politics. There is nothing useful to be said about it, apart from the necessity of burning it to the ground and starting over from scratch. And immense amounts of time and effort are wasted arguinbg about these non-issues that have no importance and don't affect anything in the real world.
Re: Only 3 types of comments ruin ACs for me (Score:2)
And they won't go away even if AC is removed.
A brief history of Slashdot tr0lling (Score:5, Informative)
[Apologies for the l33t sp33k, but the lameness filter is actually pretty effective at blocking even the discussion of the older common tr0lls.]
Tr0lling originally started out as posting something on-topic but factually wrong in order to get reactions from people. Tr0lling was elevated by some to become its own art form; the best tr0lls could get pedants to crawl out of the woodwork like termites fleeing a flood. And the resulting posts and reactions were genuinely funny -- anyone who understood what was going on got a good laugh. But that kind of tr0lling peaked over a decade ago.
Other garbage has since cycled through Slashdot like ugly fashions on a New York runway. First came the memes: sites confirming the passing of various operating systems, etc., which at least often tried to stay on topic. They were inoffensive, but showed little real effort; they quickly stopped being amusing. Then came the nonsensical randomness, such as a certain movie starlet known for Star Wars and a lap full of hot breakfast food (I never quite understood that one). They were perhaps attempting to be absurd but mostly came off as stupid; again, they were reasonably inoffensive. But the current rash of copy-paste has become the new nadir, where cud-chewing morons too stupid to create their own original racism have figured out enough of the clipboard to re-vomit someone else's puke in the comments.
( In a huge burst of irony, some of the tr0lls themselves got pedantic, claiming the garbage posts did not qualify as "tr0lling" under their definition. Thus ended the reign of the major tr0lls, whose posts were quickly modded down into the -1 muck along with the rest of the bile. )
Throughout all of this, anonymous cowards and other low-lifes have always posted hate speech, political screeds, and offensive, racist crap. Browsing at -1, however briefly, will expose you to the words of horrible, useless human beings. Don't do it -- just click "no".
Slashdot has fought back, of course. The lameness filter has long kept out garbage like ASCII art, and certain phrases that I couldn't quote in this post. The remarkable bottom line is that Slashdot's moderation system, flawed as it may be, has kept the comments mostly readable for a very long time. Sites that failed to emulate it have come and gone, mostly forgotten by all but the Wayback Machine. Sites that still allow comments have almost nothing usable in them (youtube is a prime example of a site with unusable comments.) Meanwhile, Slashdot's community has managed to keep some semblance of order together. That's quite an achievement, especially over the nearly two decades of its existence.
Re: A brief history of Slashdot tr0lling (Score:4, Interesting)
You're partly correct, but I think you misremember some of the trolling. For a really long time, getting modded down too much resulted in an IP ban. Because of certain tr0ll accounts, Malda created a bitchslap script that would cause accounts to post at -1. Eventually this was tied to karma, and accounts with low enough karma automatically posted at -1. This resulted in the creation of a lot of tr0ll accounts, effectively immune from moderation by virtue of already posting at -1. Some tr0ll accounts were spam, but others were actually characters and parodies. Tr0lls took the time to write stories and poems, some of which were clever. Some were also pornographic, usually with Slashdot editors as characters. They were intended to be amusing and actually took awhile to write. Even the *BSD is dying posts were clever, as tr0lls came up with many unique and entertaining ways to mourn the death of the OS. Not all of them were the standard, "Netcraft now confirms...." post that you're thinking of. Keep in mind that there were still tr0lls who were on topic and would draw out the pedants. Hell, there was even a parody site run by tr0lls called Geekizoid, which ran Slashcode. On that site, "troll" and "totally gay" were ways to get modded up while "not gay enough" and "inciteful" were among the downmods. No, the Natalie Portman and IN SOVIET RUSSIA posts weren't especially funny. But some of the other trolling was quite creative and funny as hell. Effectively relegating the tr0lls to AC posting has destroyed the characters and a lot of the creativity.
Re: (Score:2)
... and here I am without mod point.
Nice addition (and +1 for showing value in an AC post).
I would add that sometimes the IN SOVIET RUSSIA posts (along with some of the other meme trolls) were actually used in a clever or silly way that did invoke a bit of laughter and humor, but there were often few and far between.
Re: (Score:2)
In North Slashdot, quality trolling and stupid memes are for old people.
My favorite troll . . . (Score:3)
. . . went something like this:
Actor James Earl Ray Jones, who shot JFK and later starred with Lou Ferrigno in the film "Conan, the Libertarian", has recently been recast-ed . . . as "The Beaver" . . .
Now that one was a hoot and a half!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/~stine [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add "we have nothing to lose but our chains" somewhere for great social justice.