Some recent exchanges have left me with the following question: Are TU's expected to explain by way of comment why they have troll rated another comment? I'm looking for guidance on this, so if you have some, please help me out. I've looked (again) at the FAQ's and have re-read Hunter's piece on troll rating, and I don't see anything that supports such a norm or expectation. On the other hand, I have seen a number of comments, of the "who dares . . ." variety, that suggest that troll raters are expected to identify themselves and explain their use of the ratings. I've also seen a number of folks who seem generally to explain their doughnuts, regardless of whether an explanation has been asked for (or demanded).
I'm still learning my way around here, but it seems to me that there are many instances in which frequent and repeated explanations of a doughnut quickly deteriorate into "did too--did not" territory. When that happens, others often join the fray, until we almost inevitably get
to the "maybe you didn't today, but I saw what you did yesterday" kind of stuff, which frankly reminds me of Reagan's "there you go again . . . ." Discussion then tends to be about the merits of the TR rather than anyone's ideas about anything.
more below.
Most of the comments that I've seen TR'd have been pretty obvious: personal attacks, name-calling, use of bigoted or offensive terminology, and thread hi-jacking. If someone calls someone else in the thread an "a-hole", it hardly seems necessary to provide the offender with an explanation. Then when the explanation is followed by 3 or 4 more comments along the lines of "me too, for name calling", it gets a bit tedious. It would seem to me that dropping a doughnut and rec'ing the first troll rater would be sufficient. I think its reasonable to expect someone who feels that they've been blindsided with a TR to at least review the rules to see where they might have transgressed.
I recognize that there may be times when an explanation might be in order, either to educate a commenter who may have inadvertantly trolled out of bounds, or to call attention to a true troll, for the benefit of other commenters. For example, as a newcomer here, I certainly have little experience in identifying sockpuppets, and appreciate a 'heads up' from the site elders when that is the suspected nature of the infraction. Similarly, it may be helpful for someone to point out in a comment that certain language, although in general circulation, is specifically disapproved on this site. And finally, I have very occasionally seen an explanation of a TR followed by a dialogue between 'troll' and troll rater, which has ended with the latter removing the doughnut after more or less abject groveling by the perp. So that use of an explanation seems constructive (but rare).
But more often than not, if I'm trying to read down the thread (and not just jumping in where the mojo is) and come upon one of these extended call-outs and doughnut hosings, I just get frustrated and leave, hoping to come back when all the comments and replies have been mercifully hidden.
So what are the expectations around here when dropping the big one on someone? If I screw up, can I expect an explanation? and if I pull the trigger, should I provide one?