As the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
As some of the posts are partially about moderation and partially not, the sImplest thing to do, IMO, is just to move EVERYTHING back until the criteria for what belongs in the Wine Cellar are in place.
And I agree that the foot-dragging here is extremely off-putting.
Oops, that second comment of mine was meant for the Moderation Issues thread.
That is a problem. I only involve myself in moving posts when I’m reading the blog, which I don’t do 24 hours a day. I also tend not to make moderation decisions unless I think Lizzie is unavailable.
I did not intend to move comments that I judged as “attacking the person” prior to making my comment. If I’ve missed some of your and Keiths’s comment subsequent to that point that it would be appropriate to move here, I can do so I’ll have a look if you really think it’s necessary.
Not fine with it. I acted to try to break what I saw as a destructive cycle of bickering between to commenters that several other members indicated they were not enjoying either. I did it because I knew Lizzie was busy and anything I did could be reversed. If Lizzie, it being her blog, decides I need to put everything back how it was, I can do that. At the moment, I have the impression that rather than do that, she would like to develop the idea as an experiment..
Well, as I said it is Lizzie’s blog. She has said she is, while trying to balance her RL commitments, chewing over the need for some clarification on how things will work, if indeed they work at all.
I’m sorry but you’ll just have to give Lizzie the time she needs. I doubt it will be pore than a day or two.
Yes, Master!
None of this would have happened if you and Keiths could have adapted to each other’s presence on the same blog. I don’t think it is going to help to have an inquest over who killed who first. I just hope the Wine Cellar dies on the vine, which it will do if everyone who comments at TSZ could express their views and argue with those with whom they disagree without rancour.
Have you deleted a comment Keith? Quelle horreur!
This is not Keiths’s blog. It is Dr. Elizabeth Liddle’s blog. So far Lizzie has indicated she wants to develop this idea of a thread where both members can take any personal arguments to avoid disturbing the karma of other threads and where flame-fest comments that do break out in other threads can be sent.
I look forward to seeing your OP on moderation. I actually agree with you that we should go back to the system we tried during Lizzie’s long absence of only intervening on request. I guess we may disagree on whether anyone can flag what they see is a moderation issue or whether it is limited to the person addressed by the rule-breaking comment.
Alan,
No. Where on earth did you get that idea? Both copies are still here in this thread.
keiths,
OK, you got me on that one. Not noticing the duplicated post, I assumed you’d ETA’d one. Not that there would have been anything wrong with that at all, of course.
Alan:
Exactly. So why are you ignoring her explicit wishes?
Moderation issues belong in the Moderation Issues thread. That was true before this brouhaha and it’s true now. Lizzie confirmed it explicitly:
I made comments in the Moderation Issues thread that you moved to the Wine Cellar without my permission and over my protests. Possibly the worst thing you can do as a moderator is to interfere with someone’s ability to lodge complaints in the appropriate place. What were you thinking?
This is her blog, not yours, Alan. Move the moderation comments back to the Moderation Issues thread, where Lizzie has indicated she wants them.
Yup.
Alan:
I know, I know. Problem is I’m too busy complaining about moderation to complain about moderation.
Alan Fox,
I have two concerns. First, that the rules for moving comments to the Wine Cellar cannot be as clear as those for moving comments to Guano. One person’s bickering is another person’s topical comment.
Second, because of the first concern I think that this will generate more meta discussion and accusations, valid or not, of moderator excess.
I recommend that moving comments to the Wine Cellar be completely voluntary. Leave it as a place for people to take off-topic discussions and rely on social pressure to encourage the participants in distracting sub-threads to make use of it.
Alan,
Congratulations, you’ve managed to get keiths and walto on the same side!
Patrick,
Seconded.
Isn’t that funny?
The flareup precipitated by the invasive moderation significantly outlasted the flareup it was designed to address.
I agree with your concerns, Patrick, but I don’t really care that much if there’s a time-out place for bickerers, I just think the rules about what bickering is should be clear–or at least as clear as possible–and that they be implemented universally and impartially. Do you think this (repeated) request of mine has been unreasonable? The actions taken were not ‘transparent’ and I’m now getting the distinct sense that they were also not ‘reversible’ –at least nobody seems willing to reverse them, presumably because it will look like an admission that mistakes were made.
Also, as you mention it, there’s nothing at all unusual about keiths and I being in agreement. As I’m guessing others will have noticed, he’s a perfect gentleman so long as you don’t don’t disagree with him about anything. I’m apparently just more sensitive about some of his tactics when our disagreements have arisen than other, perhaps more grown-up or sensible participants here are. I thus take responsibility for my contributions to our bickering. FWIW, I believe I might the only one on this site who regularly does that. (Maybe I’m the only one who needs to?) I’m thin-skinned and hot-headed but I also apologise rather than continue to blame everybody else when there’s an outbreak of rancor.
Anyhow, if you do agree with its intent, can you (or Neil) ask Lizzie to consider my request, which has apparently fallen on deaf ears to date? Thanks.
walto,
Disagreements are fine. It’s the false accusations that are the problem.
Lay off those and we’ll do fine, walto. Let’s leave it there.
Haha.
Moderation can’t be voluntary—not if it’s to be anything more than a shabby joke, at least. Why? Because the people who most need to be moderated are the least likely to recognize that about themselves.
cubist, if I understand it correctly, I think their theory is that the moderation is to be handled on more of an adversarial than inquisitory system. That is, in order for somebody to be treated as a bad guy, somebody else has to “press charges” (i.e., complain). The moderators don’t do anything on their own (except, I guess, with respect to outings, porn, or spam ads).
On that theory, I guess there has to be an initial whine, before any action may be taken. I’m indifferent to this, myself. I don’t see how it matters very much, one way or the other–since I’d think a participant may be as unreasonable as a moderator in seeking administrative action.
Patrick:
cubist:
Some people will self-moderate and take their beefs to the Wine Cellar (though the name should probably be changed to be less derogatory). Some people won’t self-moderate but will use the Wine Cellar at the behest of others, as Patrick suggests. Some people may dig in their heels and refuse to budge. If that happens, we all have the option of scrolling past their comments.
What’s not to like?
cubist,
I see that walto and I may have interpreted your comment differently. By “voluntary moderation” were you referring to the Wine Cellar or to Guano?
I think it’s great place for random stuff that the commenter wouldn’t particularly care if anyone attacked, or wouldn’t particularly care to defend, or wouldn’t particularly care if it even attracted conversation at all. Stuff that doesn’t warrant an OP. Sort of twitter-like but without the character limit.
So in that grain…
All hail the newest member of our plutocratic overlord club, Taylor Swift, who, despite never, for the rest of her life, ever having to experience a single day of material want has demonstrated her willingness to squeeze a nickel so hard she can force the snot out of Jefferson’s nose.
edited a spelling mistake
I say we blame the moderator for that.
How on earth do you misspell snot?
Patrick,
The rules that keiths and walto are so keen on forcing Alan to create don’t really matter to me. They won’t impact me since I’m not the sort that carries on a personal spat for years. I suppose if they want objective guidelines they could ask for strictly numerical ones, either in back-and-forth post count or for length of time a spat goes on.
LOL, but that wasn’t it. I let my browser’s auto-complete put overload in place of overlord.
Alan Fox, I don’t think you have any problems as moderator, though granted my ability to read everything is as limited as yours.
I suggested ice floe some many moons ago (and thank you to whoever it was that corrected my spelling at the time). But wine cellar is much funnier. Stick to your instincts.
keiths hasn’t asked for any rules, actually. And I’d be ok if there weren’t any also. But if there are going to be some, I’d like to know what they are.
Aardvark:
I’d like less moderation, not more.
Guess again. All that matters is that your foe chooses to carry on the spat. In that case you will be regarded as “whining” or “bickering” for simply responding to your foe’s latest attack.
TSZ was created in reaction to the unfair moderation practices of UD. Rules that don’t distinguish between antagonists and their targets are unfair and have no place here.
Let me suggest a rule (well more of a guideline, really). Let this page have only the minimum moderation covering porn, spam (thank-you akismet), outing and hate-speech and moderation will cover just moving egregious examples to guano and the redacting of personal, libellous and gratuitously offensive material.
Arguably the sandbox could fulfil this role but there seems to be a demand for both a place where off-topic stuff can be discussed in a congenial manner (the sandbox, where the normal rules apply) and this thread where those that enjoy flame wars can indulge themselves, with the added bonus that comments that in the imperfect, spotty and erratic judgement of admins, are on balance, distracting from a thread discussion and slipping into the grey area between the clearly acceptable and the clearly egregious comment can also be moved.
There is the added bonus that the rights and wrongs of a particular judgement call by an admin can be argued about here and the moderation issues thread could morph into being more about technical issues, general matters about rules, ideas about improving the TSZ experience .
For me, there’s another bonus. Let’s say that in this thread (caveats above aside), because I am released from the normal constraints of acting or not acting like Solomon, I too can join in flaming here. Is that fair?
@ walto,
Yes, to talk of reversibility was, on my part, somewhat disingenuous. Things can be put back how they were but the events can’t be erased. My reference to events moving on is that my actions were taken without consulting Lizzie, who has subsequently confirmed that she is comfortable with what I did.
If you insist, I can spend some time checking through for comments I have missed or can you be satisfied that I have some sympathy for your situation and I was motivated in no small way to seek a solution that might help and just see whether moving forward with this idea works, at least giving it an opportunity to fail. It’s an experiment.
@ Keith
I have to say, in all your protestations, I have yet to detect any element of reflection. For one who has argued, convincingly, that nothing is certain, I find this somewhat disappointing. I’ve asked you a couple of times before, what do you think you achieve when you shift into attack dog mode?
Patrick,
When my mum was ill with Alzheimer’s before she died, I found distraction was a very effective method of dealing with her sometimes very loud and inappropriate observations. 🙂
Technical question.
I added a private messages plug-in as an experiment and I find it handy for the occasional back-channel communication. Just in the last day or two, my message box has picked up several spam bot blurbs.
Wondering, is this a general problem? Is there a better PM plug-in? I just picked this one as it seemed simple and uses a page rather than mixing with the admin panel.
Feedback appreciated!
One more thing…
My excuse for overloading the system with my comments is that my wife, who usually controls my internet addiction within safe limits, has been away for a good part of the last month or so. She’s back later today so there will be fewer (take that, grammar police!) opportunities for me to read and comment. I will try and reply to anything directed at me but it will have to fit round RL activity.
I have to point out that “Waiting for Lizzie” can be, essentially, “Waiting for Godot”.
The site would grind to a halt if the admins did that, and I selected them on the understanding that they wouldn’t 🙂
walto,
I agree entirely with you on this issue.
Lizzie and Alan: I would like to see the comments moved back to their original threads. I’m not going to do it myself because I don’t want to start a mod war. (As always, Lizzie’s site, Lizzie’s rules.)
cubist,
Can you come up with clear and unambiguous rules for when comments should be moved? If not, the resulting disagreements are going to dwarf the number of comments you have to scroll past now.
Aardvark,
Laws against “hate speech” won’t impact me because I don’t spew hate. Until the definition of “hate speech” changes….
While obviously not as important as government interference, I support the principle of free expression in online fora. Without very clear rules, which I don’t think can be defined, this approach is going to cause more disruption than it fixes.
Numbers, in this case, aren’t objective. One of the participants in what you might consider a “spat” could well have a legitimate grievance. Sending them both to the woodpile would not be fair.
Do you really have that much trouble scrolling past comments you don’t want to read?
Alan Fox,
Ninja!
🙂
I look on moderators as akin to referees.
Partisans should realize that grey-area calls will frequently seem unfair and biased against their ‘team’; this perception is almost always false. By the same token, even the most consistent ref will appear inconsistent. And there will always be some variation between refs.
Polite requests for clarification should be welcomed and answered, but repeated requests for clarification start to smell like attempted manipulation…
These are volunteer refs. Their time is valuable to them. Try not to abuse that.
I, for one,
welcome our new insect overlordsappreciate the thankless work our moderators put in here. Without them, there would be no site.Finally, it never ceases to amaze me that there exist participants who seem to think that winding up the ref is a good idea. It never is, whether from a moral or a purely practical perspective.
I appreciate this post, Patrick. Thanks very much.
I’m not looking for the “events to be erased” (I think only The Flash could do that, by running around and around in a circle, really fast.) I’d definitely settle for things to be put back how they were.
I never doubted that your intent was honorable. Just think the implementation was bad.
I’ll bet a dollar that if you go back and start looking through the comments you moved and those you didn’t, you’ll end up agreeing that the easiest thing to do is just move everything back to moderation and start fresh. There’s no obvious rule of practice there, anyhow. In fact, nothing that I’ve been able to discern even when trying pretty hard. Some whines have stayed in moderation and some non-whines were moved.
BTW, speaking of fights and fighters, where has phoodoo been?
I agree.
Thinking about this (and I have not read enough of the relevant comments to make a specific judgement): I would support actual moderation discussion posts staying in Moderation, and reserve the Wine Cellar for the actual spats that are the subject of moderation, as it were.
So the spat goes to the Wine Cellar; discussion as to whether the spat should have gone to the Wine Cellar goes to Moderation.
Does that make sense?
If not, it could be because I’m still too ill-informed. Still don’t have time to inform myself properly, unfortunately….
The more reasonable and engaging Mung becomes, the less we see of phoodoo.
Just an observation. 😉
Lizzie,
How do we distinguish between a “spat” and the normal discussions we have here?
Would you be willing to make the Wine Cellar available on a voluntary basis and rely on social pressure to convince people to move their discussions there?
I took a peek at “Messages” yesterday, and noticed that (a) I don’t have any, and (b) spammers are already active there.
I don’t have any suggestions. Spammers are like mosquitos and gnats. You can never completely keep them out.
And…once you’ve sorted this all out…a fresh start?
Ones that break the rules about addressing the post not the poster.
That might work. Trouble is, it might take the warring parties to agree to continue there.
hmmm. Will think. Would welcome suggestions.
Re re-moving stuff:
I’m inclined to leave things where they are now, and try to get a set of clearer principles to implement from here on in.
I do see the point of a place where people can converse in a place with more relaxed rules than the main blog threads. I’m just not sure how to make sure that both sides are happy to continue. I don’t thing this should be a place for unilateral rants.
There were two recent posts about moderation on Scientia Salon:
The virtues of moderation, part I
The virtues of moderation, part II
Those might be relevant.
Could social pressure work here? In my opinion, no it couldn’t.
If you really want social pressure to do the work, then it would need to be a requirement of participation that everybody provide their real identity, their home phone number, their home address. And maybe that would need to be checked. When anonymity is allowed, the effect of social pressure is greatly weakened.