The problem with that approach is that people like Ken can outshout everyone else's comments, rendering the space worthless for actual discussion. You'll notice that is was in fact the readers of VFTW who asked that Ken be banned - and the reason was that he was making numerous rude comments in every thread, comments that added nothing to the discussion at hand and which everyone else got tired of having to skip over. If he'd stuck to only one comment per thread, I doubt he'd have been banned.

Persistent trolls are every bit as destructive to online communities as spammers are, and should be banned for the same reasons.

True -- and I think most of us can at least understand why VFTW took steps to ban that particular commenter. But please let's not confuse blogs (where only the bloggers get to start 'threads') with online communities.

That's a fair point.

Also a good point.

IME, the best way to kill a troll is to ignore him until he gets bored. Banning him just incents him to sneak back in.

Hm.

Well, I'm not going to change the wiki. But neither would I change it back someone else does.

I don't think there is a sharp distinction between blogs and other online communities. Many of the blogs I read have a regular group of readers who have gotten to know each other via the comments. And while the blogger is the only one who can start a new blog entry, the comment threads can wander quite a bit (and are often the most interesting part of the blog). Also, many online communities have official moderators who can step in to nuke whole threads as well as individual comments, so even though anyone can start a new thread, they are not in total control of it. So the distinction between the two is more a matter of degree than an absolute difference.

Technically it's still censoring, sure. Though a couple of Ken's posts were, to me, beyond simply mean, and sounded threatening/stalker-ish.

I don't know...what is the ultimate purpose of this thread and wiki - just to track any and all censoring? Or censoring done by a blogger to hide better links, to save face when the blogger posts incorrect information, and stuff like that?

My vote is the latter, personally. Because over time any blog could end up needing to ban a stalker or other really bad actor - especially if readers themselves are upset over it. Or family-friendly blogs that want to keep the language G-rated.

That's true -- but it's good to remember who benefits most when blog readers start feeling they're part of a "community".

+1 Completely appropriate to have VFTW's actions noted here but no need to go further IMO.

Maybe add a new section to the Wiki, with wording like:

Censors (trolls only),
Censors (hides better offers, silences critics)
Does not censor

Previous posts have outed Delta Points and Miles Professor for censoring links to better offers, showing complete disgust toward their readers. Seems important to track these offenders.

That's a better breakdown. ^

It's a wiki! Edit away! ^^^

I disagree completely; I don't think there is any point in breaking down people who censor trolls/abuse vs those who don't.

Are we actually saying that a blogger deserves to be put on a list of censors if they decide to ban someone who writes, for instance, "The flowers outside your house smell nice, see you again tomorrow"? Really? What point does that serve? What about the fact that they all delete spam posts, is that censoring too?

Assuming they don't censor on-topic posts/replies/critiques and limit it to true harassment, I'd say leave them in the 'don't censor' category.

Just had a comment deleted from TravelSkills. Not surprising as it was calling him out for providing bad advice in exchange for a paid product placement, but still disappointing.

Surprised anyone still reads that worthless site.

Seems a number of people do: https://www.quantcast.com/travelskil...qcLocale=en_US.

Turns out I was blocked from the site. I guess pointing out mistakes isn't taken so well.

As if we needed another reason to not trust that blog.