A small-time Massachusetts paper is instituting a paywall -- for commenters

I agree with the idea, but for a local business, I don't think it will work.

Metafilter charges $5 to signup, which is a reasonable amount, and they have some of the best discussions on the internet.

Another place with some of the best discussions on the internet is free, anonymous and has the worst discussions on the internet.

Overall, it seems as though the idea works, but I don't think that it will for this newspaper.

How exactly is he a troll? He had a question about your article when you left off an thought. You left it off on purpose, and he is asking you to finish it.

You know, too many people define troll as "someone who disagrees with me", instead of it's real meaning. I think you just fell into that definition.

I'm pretty stunned by your reply, Matthew. I think my criticism of your post is valid - you're badmouthing (one might even say trolling) a small-town newspaper for its comment policy, but (as you yourself admit) you don't offer any kind of argument against it.

For asking you to "finish your thought," you turn around and call me a "pompous ass."

Is blogging your job? Do you consider yourself a professional? If so, do you think you're acting like one?

@Slappy - You're right about some of the writers on this site. Sebastian Anthony is also particularly sensitive to any critical comments about his posts.

The issue seems to be that the readers believe this site is a quasi-legitimate news source where the writers would welcome critical readers and be humble when mistakes are pointed out. The writers seem to believe it's just a way to get paid to search the web for goofy stuff and post their own opinions, (nice work if you can get it) and if you don't like it then go away.

If a site is willing to be unnecessarily augmentative with its readers and actively encourage them to leave, I would take them up on it. I know I am.

When have I been particularly sensitive...?

I welcome trolls of all shapes and sizes! Different points of view are what make life worth living, IMO.

Engadget editors are particularly bad about comments. Some have openly trolled themselves in the comments section just because someone disagreed with them or called them out on their open Apple bias. Some have gone so far as cursing at the commenters. And they even threw a fit and disabled comments because they couldn't handle the overwhelmingly negative response to the NON-STOP Apple coverage.

Grant Robinson was also bad about this. Any negativity on one of his articles and he took it as a personal attack. Attacking and belittling the person for even questioning some of his articles.

It's bad when someone writes an articles about trolling, a commenter makes a comment, and the author calls the person a troll simply for asking a question, as what happened here.

@ MR

I'd just like to say that having read these, the original comment (moosetoga) was fairly mild and simply pointed out that the article was written in a criticizing manner, but without any arguments made for why it was being critical. Your reply then raised the hostility level by several notches, attacking the poster directly for being "rude" and a "pompous ass" when all he did was ask you to explain your point of view in a way that the article lacked (as you yourself agreed in your first line).

Longtime reader and lurker here, and I just feel compelled to say something here.

moosetoga said this:
"I think it's a great idea. The founder of MetaFilter was on NPR recently talking about their $5 one-time fee and how it makes a huge difference in the quality and tone of community discussions. You don't present an argument against what they're doing beyond, "I understand having mixed feelings for Web commenters, but really... ?" Care to finish your thought?"

At what point was he trolling? Did he lambaste you on anything? He simply felt you didn't present an adequate argument and felt it was incomplete. He didn't use a single offensive word, nor did he phrase anything in such a way as to equate an attack. How did you interpret all of that as an attack? And then subsequently attack everyone else after that for pointing out that you were a "douche" for being so hyper-sensitive?

While I enjoy the occasional article here on DLS, I've always found it severely lacking in user comments to drive discussion and whatnot. And from the way some of the DLS authors react to user comments that don't even troll (such as how you reacted here), I can see why very few people bother commenting here.

Perhaps DLS should charge some its more "hack"-ish writers to post here to discourage such "douche"-y behaviors?

I'm not trying to fuel any flames here, but what bothers some people here is the way you reply to some comments. For example, your opening statement conveys a harsh, belittling tone on top of its defensive nature. "...since you seem to need one to make yourself feel better." indirectly insults the previous commenter, which will serve only to invalidate any defense you may present regardless of its validity.

Had you instead stated:
'Actually, I never presented an argument to begin with. But if you're interested, here's a small one.'
it would have been received more readily as it conveys respect to your reader.

Later in your same comment, you then said "You just illustrated how this idea of a commenter's paywall will do absolutely nothing to curb rudeness in commenters" yet Moosetoga said nothing rude at all. In fact, he calmly worded his stance and asked you for more of your opinions in a courteous, layman phrasing.

You also referred to his nickname Moosetoga as a 'troll mask' and called him "snide" and a "pompous ass." Again you insulted Moosetoga when I found his comment was neither snide nor pompous, much less deserving of being called an ass.

Replies such as these are overly defensive and unnecessarily insulting to DLS readers. If you'll notice, none of the comments were rude nor insulting until you posted your reply to Moosetoga. Slappy and Peter do have some valid opinions. Sure they could have been more diplomatic in their responses, but they were honest about how they felt. I agree, you made some good points in your reply to Moosetoga, but had they been worded in a friendlier tone the following comments would have been nicer. Though you may have felt personally attacked, I feel Moosetoga was the one wronged in this situation; he just wanted to know what you think.

Remember, commenters don't need your respect, but you need theirs if you don't want to lose readership. Trolls will be trolls no matter what you say, but to some people what you say matters.

*******************************************************************************

In regards to the story, I applaud the use of a credit card to authenticate a commenting account, as anyone can make multiple Gmail accounts. I believe it would be better if people were allowed to choose a permanent username though, more like DLS or Engadget. The use of the credit cards will be helpful in banning blatant trolls permanently though. That is a comment system I would love to see implemented, even here or on Engadget, as it would clean up the comment section trementously.