Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In

flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.

Comments

THIS IS THE SPOILER

[News for nerds]

Very good movie. Frodo won alive.

Oooh no!

[John_Renne]

The movie isn't even in the theater yet and the reviews only made me want to see it more. Yes I read the reviews, yes I read the books now pleeeaaase let me see the movie

Why couldn't it be released in the whole world simultaniously? I don't live in the US you insensitive clods!

Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b

[gazbo]

Introduction:

Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.

On clichés:

I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.

The FAQ:

Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.

• Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
• Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
• Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
• What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
  1. If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
  2. ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
• What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
• Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.

Commenting :
This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.

• Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
• Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
• What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
• What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
• Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
• Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
  • Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
  • Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
  • O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
  • Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
  • GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
  That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.

I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:

Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.

DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

JRR Tolkien wrote that book with that name before you americans started drawing attention of terrorists by doing the shit you do!!!

If you're still sorry for those lives in the WTC then go and open a bank account :) muahahahaha...

WTC != TTT

[noisyb]

Now and again for all those uneducated americans that believe "Tolkien named the 2nd book "The Two Towers" because of the WTC" (see 1st thread) ...uhm... uhm.. ahh.. i don't know where to start.. uhm.. FUCK YOU.. if you're still sorry for that bullshit WTC go and open a bank account somewhere and support bankiers..

No. THIS is the *biggest* spoiler of all...

[adilsonoliveira]

Gandalf lives. :)

Re:Spoiler filled?

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco is a guy?

No need for seeing the movie

[lightweave]

Ha! I just saved myself a few bucks for going to the theater as well as the time watching the movie. Just read the second review in the story and you get a complete description of the film. Very nice. Its not just a review its THE movie told without the annoying bits of moving pictures. Much more convinient and so much schorter than the books. The only distrubing thing is that the background music is from "Friday 13th" but you can't have everything.

Virgin trolling ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come and troll on linux.lu. Very new forum, hasn't seen any trolls yet. All users are beginners and novices!

HOW MANY TWO TOWERS STORIES ON SLASHDOT?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this month??? What is this fucking site??? Slashdot is a site for kids??? Fucking stupid stories about Harry Potter, Two Towers and LEGO BRICKS!!! And everytime it's TACO who publishes them and ON THE FUCKING FRONT PAGE!!! Fuck off *LAMER* TACO!! Stay beyond the boundaries of the lamerland!!!

p2p?

[joshuaos]

Has anyone managed to download it yet from one of the p2p's? If so, which one, and which copy? I tried to download the second Harry Potter movie and got a pr0n and the first Harry Potter movie instead!

Cheers, Joshua