Moderation Issues (3)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)

  1. Alan Fox: Neil and I differ just a little on this issue, Neil taking the relaxed view that his posts are harmless and need only an indulgent smile and an agile scroll finger. I’ve been adding “read more” breaks to limit their spread on the front page.

    Yes, I guess that might help a little.

    It’s good that some posts are “sticky”–staying at the top for awhile regardless of the quantity of comments. And it might be good that the comment column is kept active only by, well, active commenting. But since someone can comment on his/her own post even just to write, say, “duh”–people can clutter up that column with stupid comments on their own garbage ad infinitum.

    Though it’s obviously of the utmost importance for any site of this type to constantly generate new content, maybe one other suggestion would be to limit annual postings by any member to, e.g., 20 or 24 without explicit leave of Lizzie, so that no single person can dominate the place by submitting new OPs every couple of days. The pluses and minuses must be weighed here of course, but does anybody really have that much valuable information to share–I mean in addition to their comments on every thread, including this one, sandbox and noyau? (Especially those people who don’t read anything and are just regurgitating stuff they’ve seen on Breitbart or some similar shithole?)

    Anyhow, the value here, like everywhere else, does go up and down, and maybe Neil is right in taking the long view and not worrying too much about how awful it’s been the last few months, but a bunch of interesting regulars are definitely gone–and that’s even without patrick driving them away!

  2. Mung,
    I’m reminded of this (see attached image.) I think it expresses fine sentiments. Ghandi’s protest against the salt tax is a classic example. Keiths disagrees with the rules here. He’s entitled to demonstrate his disagreement with rule-breaking. He understands that rule-breaking comments run the risk of moving to guano.

    On the other hand, here in France, unions are taking similar protest action against labour reforms being introduced by the new Macron government. Air traffic controllers and railway workers have been striking. The result is inconvenience to thousands of travellers. Does the government feel pressured? It seems not.

  3. walto:

    Appreciate your thoughtful comments, walto.

    Anyhow, the value here, like everywhere else, does go up and down, and maybe Neil is right in taking the long view and not worrying too much about how awful it’s been the last few months, but a bunch of interesting regulars are definitely gone–and that’s even without patrick driving them away!

    Whilst I agree that the diversity has reduced over time (you only need to glance back at threads from a few years ago) and the rate at which new members arrive does not match the loss (parallels with inbreeding leading to extinction), I’m not sure if we can attribute this to specific problems. I get the impression the blog medium is becoming a little passé and being superseded by Facebook, twitter and stuff I don’t even know!

    I also think John Harshman spoke wisely when he said people should consider if they have something new or interesting to say before they post.

  4. Alan Fox: I also think John Harshman spoke wisely when he said people should consider if they have something new or interesting to say before they post.

    They should indeed, but, sadly, some people think that everything that pops into their minds must surely be interesting to everyone.

  5. Alan Fox: I get the impression the blog medium is becoming a little passé and being superseded by Facebook, twitter and stuff I don’t even know!

    Yes, I am seeing this effect on many blogs that I follow.

  6. Taking on board opinions from members here, and after discussing with Neil, I’ve changed J-Mac’s status to “contributor”” which means that further OPs from J-Mac will require an admin to authorise publication. This will not be withheld unreasonably but, as Lizzie has said:

    …I am ultimately responsible for what appears on this site, and there are some things I am simply not prepared to host, just as a publisher… …is not obliged to publish anything, and by being selective is not denying free speech. I am a free speech advocate, but I remain of the view that there is a fairly clear line between regimes that ban publication and publications that select what they will publish.

  7. Alan Fox:
    Taking on board opinions from members here, and after discussing with Neil, I’ve changed J-Mac’s status to “contributor”” which means that further OPs from J-Mac will require an adminto authorise publication. This will not be withheld unreasonably but, as Lizzie has said:

    iii

  8. Alan Fox: Taking on board opinions from members here, and after discussing with Neil, I’ve changed J-Mac’s status to “contributor”” which means that further OPs from J-Mac will require an admin to authorise publication. This will not be withheld unreasonably but, as Lizzie has said:

    …I am ultimately responsible for what appears on this site, and there are some things I am simply not prepared to host, just as a publisher… …is not obliged to publish anything, and by being selective is not denying free speech. I am a free speech advocate, but I remain of the view that there is a fairly clear line between regimes that ban publication and publications that select what they will publish.

    It’s free speech alright… as you and Neil see it? Which means what exactly? In the end, the purpose of this blog cannot be disturbed which is to promote a set of beliefs…right or wrong…Any obstacle to such a purpose has to be censored or removed…Welcome to free speech at TSZ!*

    *Experiments shedding doubt on the evolutionary theory, Darwinian, Lammarkin whatever, need to be censored because that’s what free speech is all about including TSZ… pity…

    Maybe this should be published somewhere…

  9. J-Mac: Maybe this should be published somewhere…

    You can start your own blog, where you are the one to exercise editorial control.

    I’m pretty sure you can set up a free blog at “blogger.com” or at “wordpress.com”, where you don’t have to provide a server or pay any fees.

  10. Alan, in the other thread:

    After discussion with Neil, we’ve agreed that further opening posts from J-Mac will require admin approval for publishing. This will not be unreasonably withheld.

    Threatening J-Mac with censorship is a huge overreaction at this point. It’s out of line with the TSZ ethos and it will feed his martyr complex.

    Worse still, you haven’t explained to J-Mac (or to the rest of us) exactly why he is receiving this “special” treatment and what he must do to avoid having his OPs censored.

    Why the overreaction? Why not approach this calmly and carefully instead of resorting immediately to threats of censorship?

  11. I’d like to point out that my suggestion above was that EVERYONE be limited to, say, 20 or 24 OPs a year without leave of the moderators, not that J-Mac be singled out (even if his posts all are nonsensical and are the actual reason for any such rule).

    Alternatively, EVERYONE could be put on “contributor status.”

  12. walto:
    I’d like to point out that my suggestion above was that EVERYONE be limited to, say, 20 or 24 OPs a year without leave of the moderators, not that J-Mac be singled out (even if his posts all are nonsensical and are the actual reason for any such rule).

    I’d be okay with that. I would be more inclined to go with 1 per week, rather than 24 per year — even if only because that is easier to track.

    I would prefer to limit by quantity (or posting rate) than to limit by content.

    Alternatively, EVERYONE could be put on “contributor status.”

    That would be an implementation detail.

  13. Neil Rickert: I’d be okay with that.I would be more inclined to go with 1 per week, rather than 24 per year — even if only because that is easier to track.

    I would prefer to limit by quantity (or posting rate) than to limit by content.

    That would be an implementation detail.

    I was thinking 2 per month. 1 per week is just too much crap, I think.

  14. J-Mac: It’s free speech alright… as you and Neil see it? Which means what exactly? In the end, the purpose of this blog cannot be disturbed which is to promote a set of beliefs…right or wrong…Any obstacle to such a purpose has to be censored or removed…Welcome to free speech at TSZ!*

    *Experiments shedding doubt on the evolutionary theory, Darwinian, Lammarkin whatever, need to be censored because that’s what free speech is all about including TSZ… pity…

    It’s been obvious all along that the raison d’être of your sock puppet was to tell precisely the story you’re telling now. Nobody’s going for it, apart from UDders, IDiots, and gerbil-stuffing shysters. (Banny haplessly divulged his preoccupation while campaigning for censorship, back in the Nineties.)

  15. One OP per month per person sounds right to me, but I could go with Walto’s suggestion of 2 per month. If that results in too little new content, the rule could be loosened up later.

    The first of every month could be known as CRAP DAY.

  16. walto: but a bunch of interesting regulars are definitely gone

    That’s what bothers me most. There’s an outstanding group of people who wanted to be a part of TSZ, but ultimately couldn’t put up with it.

    Alan Fox: I get the impression the blog medium is becoming a little passé and being superseded by Facebook, twitter and stuff I don’t even know!

    I’ve been saying for several years that blogs are the CB radio of the 21st Century. Not to be unkind to Lizzie, I’ll mention that those of us who play nicely together might want to take a shot at quite a different format, and attempt to get some former participants to join us. The most natural thing for some of us would be to publish a journal of ideas. (Just an idea.)

  17. I think a limit on posts per person would be excellent, though loonies would try to get around it by using sock puppets. It certainly would not constrain most of us.

  18. Joe,

    I think a limit on posts per person would be excellent…

    I agree. It’s a much better solution than what Alan and Neil implemented.

    Theirs involves censorship and runs afoul of the TSZ ethos. This one doesn’t. Theirs singles out a particular commenter for second-class treatment. This one treats everyone equally. Theirs requires the moderators to judge fitness for publication. This one leaves that up to the individual contributor.

    …though loonies would try to get around it by using sock puppets.

    Anyone who’s loony enough to try that is unlikely to be successful at disguising him or herself. And of course Alan and Neil’s scheme is just as vulnerable to sock puppetry.

    All things considered, an OP rate limit is a much better solution.

  19. keiths: I agree. It’s a much better solution than what Alan and Neil implemented.

    All that has been implemented, is that some people need moderator approval for starting a new thread.

    Limiting number of posts per person would already need that (but for everyone other than moderators).

  20. Neil,

    The “OP rate limit” proposal is completely different, and better, than what you and Alan came up with, as I explained above.

    1. The rate limit proposal doesn’t allow censorship of OPs. Yours does.

    2. The rate limit proposal applies to everyone equally. Yours singles out an individual and treats him as a second-class citizen.

    3. The rate limit proposal does not require (or allow) moderators to pass judgment on the contents of OPs. Your does.

    In short, your proposal singles out one individual for censorship at the whim of the moderators. The rate limit proposal has none of those flaws.

    It’s a much better solution than what you and Alan came up with, and it fits far better with the TSZ ethos.

  21. Neil Rickert: All that has been implemented, is that some people need moderator approval for starting a new thread.

    Initially, Lizzie was a little too trusting of others. Remember the guy (Chris Doyle?) who permanently deleted a complete thread? The current situation is that there are three categories of member. Default is “contributor”. This allows composing of OPs but not publishing, which requires admin approval. A good half of our members are contributors. For members who wish to publish posts regularly, we have “new author” category, which allows publishing without admin approval. New authors cannot post-edit their OPs, nor alter material in the comments. Most regulars are new authors, and it is currently available on request to any contributor who wishes to contribute regularly. Then we have “author” category, which allows post-editing. As it also allows editing and deleting of comments this category is available to regular members who specifically agree not to delete/edit comments.

    Limiting number of posts per person would already need that (but for everyone other than moderators).

    It’s technically simple to change member’s status so that everyone is a contributor. And admins could then control whose posts appear and when. Frankly, I don’t want that.
    Much simpler to suggest a guideline and consider removing automatic posting rights from a member who is abusing the system. This requires no change at all.

  22. Alan,

    It’s technically simple to change member’s status so that everyone is a contributor. And admins could then control whose posts appear and when. Frankly, I don’t want that.

    I don’t either, and it isn’t necessary. Moderation policy doesn’t have to prevent violations. It can respond to them after the fact.

    The important thing is that we eliminate the undesirable aspects of your proposal: a) the inequity, b) the censorship, and c) the judgment of OPs by moderators, based on their contents.

    The rate-limit proposal eliminates those flaws. It’s much more in line with the spirit of TSZ.

  23. Keiths is right. Furthermore, a per annum limit would put someone on what you call “contributor status” only after such time as they have hit the limit. So all the moderators would have to do it keep count. Ministerial rather than editorial, so less subjective, less subject to bias or other abuse.

    I recommend we give this plan a start beginning on October 1. Everyone is automatically a “new author”–so there’s no need for ex-ante editorial judgments–except perhaps if there’s a very good reason, say a particularly brilliant post by me that’s my 25th of the year and it OBVIOUSLY ought not to be suppressed even for the required three weeks until next October 1st.) 😉

  24. You would think that evolutonism is some sort of religious cult, what with people wanting to silence others from criticizing it.

    I will note that some people here are constantly attacking ideas, while other people are constantly attacking the people that attack those ideas.

    But we’re going to punish the former behavior rather than the latter behavior when it is the attacking of other members that is against the rules.

    Just don’t seem right to me. But if Lizzie says yes. Well, it’s her site.

  25. Sometimes it’s hard to tell if certain people make posts and comments because they really believe what they are saying, or if they are just trying to flood the site with crap to make the site useless, like a DoS attack.

    The OP throttle idea has the advantage of being effective no matter which side of Poe’s Law a person is on.

  26. J-Mac Publishing

    03-22-2017
    03-24-2017
    03-31-2017
    04-29-2017
    04-30-2017
    05-14-2017
    06-11-2017
    06-12-2017
    06-17-2017
    07-31-2017
    08-19-2017
    08-24-2017
    08-29-2017
    09-03-2017
    09-04-2017
    09-11-2017
    09-22-2017
    09-24-2017

    18 OPs in 7 months. Less than three OPs per month on average.

  27. One OP per month per author seems fair to me, but I have no objections if the consensus is that it should be two.

  28. The problem is that the people who are atheist and/or anti-ID can’t seem to come up with any interesting OPs on their own. All they are is “skeptical.”

  29. Mung Publishing

    19 OPs in 39 weeks in 2017. (Leaving out one that was just a thank you to Elizabeth.)

  30. So having run some of the numbers, it really appears to be not the number of OPs but rather the content that bothers people. And that’s disturbing.

  31. Mung: The problem is that the people who are atheist and/or anti-ID can’t seem to come up with any interesting OPs on their own.

    None of the OPs by J-mac were interesting.
    None of the OPs by mung were interesting.

    The most interesting recent OPs were by Tom English and by Kantian Naturalist.

    Of course, what is interesting is in the eye of the beholder.

  32. Nice counting, mung–I mean if you start last January, several months before J-mac ate his spinach (laced with kool-aid) and began blurting out every incoherent “thought” that popped into his tabula rasa. How’s he been doing since September 1?

  33. Neil Rickert: None of the OPs by J-mac were interesting.
    None of the OPs by mung were interesting.

    The most interesting recent OPs were by Tom English and by Kantian Naturalist.

    Of course, what is interesting is in the eye of the beholder.

    This points up why moderator decision-making should be as ministerial as possible. That patrick has flown off to NRA/Trump headquarters is a GOOD thing. Let’s not waste it by having mods vote on what’s ‘interesting.’

  34. For J-Mac I did not count January and February because he did not post any OPs in January or February. So the figures are for the months where he posted. March – September is seven months.

    If I count January and February for J-Mac it’s 18 OPs in nine months for an average of two per month.

    I’m trying to point out that if people want to stifle free speech here then you’re going to need to use some metric other than once every two weeks.

    How about one OP per quarter?

    🙂

    Here’s another idea. People should stop responding if they don’t find it interesting.

  35. Mung:
    For J-Mac I did not count January and February because he did not post any OPs in January or February. So the figures are for the months where he posted. March – September is seven months.

    If I count January and February for J-Mac it’s 18 OPs in nine months for an average of two per month.

    I’m trying to point out that if people want to stifle free speech here then you’re going to need to use some metric other than once every two weeks.

    How about one OP per quarter?

    Here’s another idea. People should stop responding if they don’t find it interesting.

    Hear hear!

  36. Mung:
    The problem is that the people who are atheist and/or anti-ID can’t seem to come up with any interesting OPs on their own. All they are is “skeptical.”

    It’s almost like all this matters less to us than it does to you. I some times think of topics, but then I just can’t be bothered.

    Mung: I will note that some people here are constantly attacking ideas, while other people are constantly attacking the people that attack those ideas.

    I will note that some of us are the only ones posting any ideas, and the rest of you just sit back and attack them rather than post ideas of your own. I gather that this is because you’re afraid to, as then they’d be attacked and you’d find yourselves unable to defend them.

    But hey I could be wrong, however unlikely the historical precedent makes that. 🙂

  37. Mung: Here’s another idea. People should stop responding if they don’t find it interesting.

    You know, you’ve managed to convince me. You should get and post ideas more often, rather than just sit back and attack. You might just manage to convince others if you do that.

  38. walto: Let’s not waste it by having mods vote on what’s ‘interesting.’

    I am fully sympathetic to that view.

    On the other hand, deciding what is interesting to the readership is an editorial decision. It’s a decision that editors and peer reviewers routinely make.

    To paraphrase W.S. Gilbert, a moderator’s lot is not a happy one.

  39. Mung: For J-Mac I did not count January and February because he did not post any OPs in January or February. So the figures are for the months where he posted. March – September is seven months.

    Right. Three OPs per month on average is 50% more than 2 OPs per month (my suggested limit)–and for those who’ve suggested a 1 OP per month limit, it’s 200% over-budget.

    Too much crap by any sensible standard.

  40. Rumraket: I will note that some of us are the only ones posting any ideas, and the rest of you just sit back and attack them rather than post ideas of your own.

    I don’t think that’s right.

    Others are posting ideas. It is just that you see them as bad ideas. And those others see what post as bad ideas.

  41. Just catching up on comments since this morning.

    What changes specifically do our members want. Seems to me, the simplest option is no change and meet problems as they arise.

    So what problem needs addressing specifically?

  42. Neil,

    On the other hand, deciding what is interesting to the readership is an editorial decision. It’s a decision that editors and peer reviewers routinely make.

    To paraphrase W.S. Gilbert, a moderator’s lot is not a happy one.

    Christ, Neil. You’re a moderator, not an editor. We don’t want you “deciding what is interesting to the readership.”

    Why should you and Alan arbitrarily be granted that power, when it’s totally unnecessary and counter to the spirit of TSZ?

    It makes no sense.

  43. Mung, re J-Mac’s output:

    18 OPs in 7 months. Less than three OPs per month on average.

    With the last two words — “on average” — torpedoing your entire argument.

    From 8/19 to 9/24, J-Mac posted eight OPs. Eight OPs in a 37-day period!

  44. keiths:
    Neil,

    Christ, Neil.You’re a moderator, not an editor.

    Wrong! Lizzie’s site is a benign dictatorship. She delegated decisions in her absence to admins she appointed. That’s me and Neil, currently.

    We

    Who’s we, in this context? You and who else?

    …don’t want you “deciding what is interesting to the readership.”

    Neither Neil nor I are censoring. We may, if the situation demands, limit the ability of a member to post OPs if that member appears, in our judgement, to be abusing TSZ.

    Why should you and Alan arbitrarily be granted that power

    Ask Lizzie. She set up her benign dictatorship. She chose her admins.

    …when it’s totally unnecessary and counter to the spirit of TSZ?

    You seem to not comprehend the spirit in which Lizzie set up her blog, no matter how many times I refer you to her statements.

    It makes no sense.

    You certainly appear to make no sense of it. Lizzie was trying to facilitate communication across a wide divergence of view.

  45. Alan. Specifically, make every member a new author but institute a one or two OP per month limit on everybody. What could be simpler?

  46. walto:
    Alan. Specifically, make every member a new author but institute a one or two OP per month limit on everybody. What could be simpler?

    I’ll vote for that.

    But I would prefer to see people resist the bait.

  47. walto:
    Alan. Specifically, make every member a new author but institute a one or two OP per month limit on everybody. What could be simpler?

    It’s very simple. I just don’t see what it will achieve. An OP has merit or it doesn’t. If a member can write a fantastically erudite, topical, witty, rivettingly interesting OP daily, why restrict them? If another member can only write crap, why indulge them?

  48. Anyway, let it be voluntary. I have no problem with that. I’m not going to be breaking any records in OP submissions myself.

Comments are closed.