@ Helen L-H - Nice idea in theory. As 'Not my real name' asks, how would it be enforced? And if it could be, might that then risk reducing the number of commenters? Not everyone would want their views made public under their real name - and that includes those who do the odd bit of online reading when they're supposed to be working!

As for the really persistent trolls, just skim their comments and ignore them, and then they might just give up and go away.

@Amusingly anonymous person

Lots of sites require registration, which at least ensures a particular person 'owns' their posting name. I doubt anything stronger could be enforced; but it could be encouraged.

I totally agree with David Allen Green and Helen L-H, about users using their real name.

We need to keep these 'trolls' beyond the pale! They usually use their common tongue and insult us political bloggers on the NS.

Helen: Mr. Divine is my real name.

George Allwell: You're right, it's not an instant cure for racism but gets people questioning and that's a start. Don't you think?

David and Helen I suspect that there has been meetings at the NS with regards to this whole idea of a troll or rather what can be regarded as 'non-intelligent' comments. And that you all have differing viewpoints on the matter, and what to do with them.

You could have a stricter policy but the whole flow of the comments thread suffers. At the moment you need a range of different perspective and if you become too harsh you lose the variety, and you lose the creativity and funny comments that makes the NS comment box attractive in the first place. The interplay between people becomes stiff and boring, and you'll lose people if you become too restrictive. Some blogs are like minded slapping each other on the backs.. boring as hell.

Your own ideas on comment policy is related to your positions on the NS staff. If your job is in charge of moderating you can feel like the thing is out of control like a classroom of unruly kids, and that you as a teacher are responsible. And that people will say, "Hey you're not doing your job properly, Look a the state of your blog". Consequently you lay down the law. Is that not right?

Very true and likewise I use my real name, I think the internet traffic has increased on the New Statesmen because their is no restrictions on points of view. Why do you think the news has reported that internet traffic has grown on the left political websites!

Increasing business turnover and the ability to change people's mind on political matters. I have learnt alot since I have been blogging on the New Statesmen, and would feel that any restrictions would suggest that the NS is like any other political blog!

Many political right blogs are very restricted and only use selected comments. That why I think the right is losing internet traffic and losing Voters!

I like the fact that NS Editors and Bloggers 'put the cat upon the pigeons!', and political matters can be argued probably and the truth will come out!

Steven, why don't you make a blogpost responding to the (legitimate) concerns that people have about immigration, like the erosion of community spirit, depression of wages and working conditions,etc.

If you disagree that immigration has had those effects, then fine, but at least engage with the arguments and offer your views.

To stop racism it would be helpful not to have 'lefty' people label other people as bigoted trolls.

Racism won't end until we are all racially the same.

Five minutes after that happens we'll be picking on each other based on hair and eye colour.

This is the same Stephen Baxter that told one of his commenters on Enemies of Reason to 'fuck off and die, painfully' a while ago. And who told me to get off his blog for disagreeing with him:

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/misandry-the-acceptable-pr...

What do they make journalists out of these days? silk?

@gaijinsan: the way I see it everyone has something interesting to say even foreigners living in Japan.

Helen Lewis Hasteley and David Allen Green are right. A registration scheme requiring you to click a link in an email you receive is used elsewhere and is fairly effective way of reducing the trolls.

Simple filters to eliminate, for example, the spam posted by kehu44abc and chicgoods10 above, would also be a boon.

check out helen's piece about games and 'griefers' as described therein. much more appropiriate than 'trolls' I posit.

Depends suppose Gerry Adams posing as a politician says he gets upset at being called a terrorist .only for it to be pointed out he was one, then he say's I'm being insulted ,similar If a blog is written from a political wing, By which I include the BBC as being bias, If you write upto say you disagree you r called a troll ,Look at labour list, criticising its own parties point of view on anti terror laws, if you were writing defending the then gov'ts views you were called a troll even though it's the ame view a the party

Publish their IP adresses, that will soon spook them.

@ Steven Baxter - Cor blimey! You really brought 'em out, dinchya?

The left whingers that come on here only know one way to respond to facts persented to them - denial and distortion and SHOUT.

Do you think it is something to the lack of a reasonable argument to support their vision of redistribution wealth so that everyone in the world is wealthy, maybe they recognise that the mathematics of that approach doesnt pass the primary school test never mind the real world fact that there will always be some who are better offf than others, always.

oo. meant to say. steven baxter.... arrr

Not just race that attracts the trolls, George Monbiot wrote about it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jan/21/debate-i...

Soon they'll be advertising for professional trolls in the Tory Press to sabotage sites like the NS.
Perhaps they've started already.
Trolls are no better than those selling their wares through spam.
There should be an ettiquette for bloggers. There are a lot of nutters out there who are simply abusive and they should be filtered out, immediately.

I think the word, "troll' is dished out by people who can't answer the question or viewpoint the other person is submitting. I call it " The Troll Towel In". It's a bit like when the boxing trainer throws in the towel. "You're a troll I'm not answering you." They've given up.

As you might know I'm for immigration in a big way so I get all sorts of insults. But I respond by taking the piss (without calling someone a racist) which usually enrages them even more. Or I partly agree with them and twist the argument around, a bit like the aikido expert I am. I don't scream, "Troll" and run away. I engage with racists and bigots and it takes a certain skill with words and thoughts. Shouting, "troll" is a coward's way out.

If you want to stop racism Steven you take these guys and gals on one by one. You play around with their heads. Enrage them, flatter them, show them where their contradictions lay, laugh and joke. Screaming, "Racist, Troll, fascist, Nazi" is so one dimensionally useless.

A classic case of someone who can't answer questions posed to him is Benedict! Have you worked out the twin candlesticks yet? You never did tell me what you knew of technical share analysis... still studying those books?

Some people think that other people are delibrately trying to wind up another person or provoke a response. But surely if you think about it any response which is opposite to yours can be seen as provoking. Some people can't believe that anyone else can think differently to them on a issue. Thus they reason that the person is lying to provoke a response when in fact the person is merely expressing their viewpoint in their particular way. They reach for their "Troll Towel" and strut away in their smug singular sincerity. They've given up.

In time someone will do a Phd on blog comment psychology and how people react to what other people have wrote.

And the Phd psycholgist will identify certain types of people who write, "Troll .. don't feed the troll". They'll work out what these people have in common (a small willy) and place them in a sub-group of blog commentators. They'll find common characteristics of their semantic and syntax usage. They'll see patterns in their political views and the extent and ways in which they engage with members of other sub-groups.

One of the other sub-groups will be the commentators who call for certain people to be banned and for the guidelines on commentary to be put under stricter management. They themselves don't realise that their own views could be considered a candidate for censure depending on the view of the one who holds the finger to the delete button.

I could go on about the sub groups forever. There are the people who see other people as being mentally ill. What do they say, '25 % of people have been diagnosed as being mentally ill, the 75% haven't had their illness confirmed'. In time people who claim other people are mentally 'ill' will be viewed like racists. Think about it.

Agreed (in the most charming of ways too).

As you say, you are lucky. You can write about something two, three, four times and still expect to get paid for it.

"If you want to stop racism Steven you take these guys and gals on one by one. You play around with their heads. Enrage them, flatter them, show them where their contradictions lay, laugh and joke."

That's very big of you. Stopping racism with your superiority. Playing around in the head of a troll. I always find mockingly explaining their contradictions works.

Racist rage. Contradiction explained (in a light-hearted way obviously). Racism stops.

I bet you didn't expect a cure for racism in the comments section Steven...