Cultivating a space where commentators can vigorously disagree with a writer--whether on a blog, Twitter, G+, or Facebook, *and* remain committed to being in a real dialogue is pretty challenging. It's fantastic when these exchanges work and become constructive in that space. On the other hand, there are times when it goes off the rails despite your efforts. What drives the difference? How can you identify someone who is commenting simply to cause trouble versus a commenter there to engage in and add value to a genuine debate? What influence does this capacity for *anyone* to engage with one another via the great leveler that is social media have on social media itself and the tenor and direction of scientific communication?
- Are there immediate signs of a troll commenter and type (concern troll, etc.)? What are they? How do you respond?
- What are some keys to a strong comment policy that encourages open, candid discussion but discourages troll behavior?
- What do you do about well-meaning commenters who engage trolls but in ways that themselves don't forward the discussion?
- Is there a difference in ways of managing trolls or turning the conversation to constructive on Twitter vs blogs vs G+? Do some basic rules apply?