As the original Moderation page has developed a bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, I thought I’d put up a 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.
26th June 2015: the bug has now affected this page so there is now a new Moderation Issues page here.
I’d be interested in the justification for moving those two as well. The first is sarcastic, but not in violation of any stated rule as I read them. The second merely requests clarification on a moderation issue.
For the record, I don’t always agree with keiths (and I owe him a response in a discussion we’re having). In this case, however, I see his point.
Ah, I very much do hope that people will listen to the beginning of Hitchens’ speech, note that his (sole) objection to Holmes’ example of yelling “FIRE!” when there is none involved HIS (i.e., Hitchens’) reference no fewer than three(!) times to the “Yiddish speaking socialists” who were the subject of the case Holmes was deciding, then read my comment about that matter, and follow that up with your two disgusting and obviously purposeful misrepresentations of that comment, and draw their own conclusions. But, oh, keith, keith (or whatever your name is) you know very well what you did and that you get a real thrill out of doing just that, which is, of course, why you’re back at it again now for a third time. It’s your idea of fun, I guess.
But ach, look! The master baiter has done it again! Gotten a rise out of me! Olga, bring the notching device!
Patrick:
Moderators, CENSOR HIM! 🙂
Walt,
Since you are so disgusted with my misrepresentation of you, it will be easy for you to point out the many glaring differences between your statement and mine:
Yours:
Mine:
Let the backpedaling begin.
ETA: By the way, I’m not “baiting” you. I’m exposing another of your false accusations against me.
This is Hitchens’ (main?) segment of the debate/speech transcribed from the video:
read more, and scroll to comments for second half of transcript
HItchens does not get any better as his minutes drag on. A banal defense of David Irving … a droning anecdote about the unsaintly Thomas More and his reported scolding of a witch-hunter who would “break the law to punish the Devil” … ahh, Christopher, you thought you were both witty and wise with that segue into your Freeze Peaches argument. Atheists/secularists should never agree to any limits on speech, because if WE (for social justice goals) attempt to impose any kind of Hate-Speech-Law against the threats / incitement / harassment spewed by religious preachers, we will be sorry when THEY trap us with the same law. Listen to me, Christopher says, or you’ll be sorry. Just like dear old More’s witch-hunter was, no doubt, sorry when the Devil trapped him. Wait, wut?
Benefit of an Oxford education, I suppose, that one might follow Christopher’s brand of illogic somehow and come out convinced it’s either witty or persuasive for Freeze Peaches.
hotshoe,
There was a lot of scorn in your comment, but little substance that I could see.
You seem to be arguing that it is somehow illogical for Hitchens to warn about the unintended consequences of censorship laws, but you never explained why. Could you elaborate?
How does Hitchens’ warning amount to “Christopher’s brand of illogic”?
Keiths, you admire Christopher’s position, so maybe you can make a case for Freeze Peaches over all other rights and social goods, as he spectacularly failed to do so in the video I saw. Or not, if you don’t care to; I don’t expect to care either way but suit yourself. He’s boring. Can you make it interesting?
I see no reason to respect a man’s fetish for Freeze Peaches. No more than any other fetish, that is; I am perfectly happy with consenting adults who participate in Mixed Martial Arts without referees, or kinky sex without safewords. Fine, if that’s his passion, just keep it off the streets, out of sight of anyone who hasn’t consented. Freeze Peach? Just another fetish. Only not as much fun.
hotshoe,
You didn’t answer my question, which was:
Thanks. I didn’t know there was a transcript and was considering writing that out myself. Hitchens writes
It’s very often forgotten what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing Mr. Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into that sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape. In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish speaking socialists who were jailed by the excellent and greatly over-praised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed.
Then I write,
Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me.
Which (naturally) results in this sarcrapism from the master baiter:
Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.
You know, the guy who from his spot above the fray in sophomoroville really can’t understand at all why anybody might think little old keiths has said anything that any rights-defending citizen and defender of us all would not admire.
“I mean, c’mon, Walt, you anti-semite–lets hear you back-pedal your way out of this on your way to fetching your big boy pants. Jesus, Walt.”
The thing is, while this particular incarnation was more obviously egregious, it was precisely the same sort of behavior I’ve faced on every thread in which we’ve interacted. Whether it’s involved something as snoresville as me repeating at the end of May what I’d said at the beginning of April about Alvin Plantinga (begging the question) and then being accused of shifting this take on “my hero” or about some arcane matter of the various meanings that “supervenience” can have, it’s always been selective quotations, intentional misrepresentations, weirdly repetitious (but masterful!) baiting, combined with a “win” at all costs attitude (as if it mattered to somebody as much as David Crosby cutting his hair)– the the identical M.O. in each case.
hotshoe’s remarks about the possibility of competing social goods (which I agree with) made me think of an earlier Patrick post in which he wrote:
It seems to me that there are a couple ways to take that. It may just be a psychological/genetic or causal point, about what happens to make you feel the way you do. And it may very well be correct: I can’t gainsay that, certainly.
But if you intend that to supply a kind of reason or support for your absolutist (or semi-absolutist–not sure where we are on that) treatment of free speech, I just want to warn that precisely the same argument may be made by 2nd Amendment gun rights supporters. To wit:
“I would not want what I can carry or own, what I can wield or fire, to be subject to someone else’s control. Accordingly, I will not try to control what others carry, own, wield, or fire.”
I mean, you may not share that causal background for your own belief, which is why the right you particularly want to defend is different from that of the NRA member –but if yours is a good argument for absolutism for the right you happen to like the most, so is theirs.
Now, someone might respond, “But I can kill someone with a gun–speech is harmless.” I don’t think that the harmlessness of speech is obvious, and based on what you’ve said about appropriate consequences for libel, pranking, etc. above, I take it you don’t either. So it seems to me a matter of considering various costs and benefits and weighing them. Neil made such a determination, and maybe came up with a different result than you would (I think his tack was a sensible one, myself, as I’ve said). But whether he was correct or mistaken in his calculation, I don’t think he should be excoriated for it. It was a judgement call.
Walt,
You are indeed backpedaling, as I predicted.
Alas, your words have been preserved:
You also described it as a “really excellent use of selective quotation for the purpose of misrepresentation”.
You are making an accusation. You are responsible for it. Back it up or withdraw it.
Your original statement:
My paraphrase:
Point out the glaring differences. Show us how my paraphrase amounts to “selective quotation for the purpose of misrepresentation”. You won’t be able to, of course, because your accusation was false.
And this from someone who hypocritically bemoans “misrepresentation” and demands that it be punished.
I happen to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I think that issue is a distraction from this topic. I would be happy to discuss it with you in a separate thread, if you like.
I see it as accepting that actions, including speech actions, have consequences and that moral actors are responsible for the consequences they cause. The risk of harm associated with giving anyone the ability to censor someone else is unacceptably high. Fortunately, it is unnecessary since we can address the harm without pre-emptively denying free expression.
Weighing costs and benefits with respect to free expression always leads to a death of thousand cuts because everyone has a reason why what they specifically find offensive should be banned.
Let’s be very clear about the situation here. This is an online forum. There is no threat of physical violence possible. The only thing any of us have is our words. While it’s certainly possible to libel someone online, that doesn’t seem to be your concern. As far as I can tell, you want someone to make everyone else behave according to your personal preferences.
I suggest you take responsibility for your own experience here. Interact with those you get value from interacting with, ignore those you don’t, and stop worrying about people writing things you don’t approve of. Let go of your desire to control other people.
Neil acted in contradiction to the clearly stated rules of this site. There is nothing in those rules that allows moderators to ban anyone, even temporarily, for the type of messages you and keiths were exchanging. It was an abuse of authority.
“Let’s be very clear about the situation here. This is an online forum. There is no threat of physical violence possible. The only thing any of us have is our words. While it’s certainly possible to libel someone online, that doesn’t seem to be your concern. As far as I can tell, you want someone to make everyone else behave according to your personal preferences.”
Well, I was called someone who believes “Yids” ought be be provided less rights than others. And I’m not anonymous here. Not sure if I ever was, but if I had been, Gregory would have outed me. Also I haven’t asked anybody to make everyone else do anything. In fact, unlike some others here who have whined about this or that action taken or not taken by moderators, I don’t recall having made any complaints to any moderators about anything whatever that they have or have not done. If you take a look, you’ll find that what I’ve actually said on this topic was something along the lines of “It’s not my site: I think you should do whatever Lizzie and the elders here want.” So I”m not sure what you’re referring to.
Would I like some people here to be less obnoxious? Absolutely. If such people were on a site of mine, would they last there? No. Do I think there’s any benefit to allowing obno behavior on sites like this? I don’t. But I haven’t asked or suggested that anybody do anything to or about anybody or anything. All I’ve done on that front is say that it is my opinion that Neil did not do anything horrific, and shouldn’t be excoriated as if he were an evil tyrant.
So, again, what I don’t like is being misrepresented. But I’m not suggesting that you be banned for it.
Yes, I deliberately avoided the USian gun fondlers in my list. But since you bring them up, you are correct that their arguments are exactly the same.
“I have a right to own and display in public – in school, in a saloon, in a meeting room – any type of armament I want. Even though I may be stupid, damaged, impulsive, and vicious, you have to respect my right. And you are a tyrant or a spineless lackey of the tyrants if you try to impose any restriction on my
god-givenUS Constitution-given right. iSound familiar, Freeze Peachers? That’s all y’all in a nutshell. Just substitute “any type of words, trolling, incitement, harassment” for “any type of armament” and you’ve got your exact case.
Hmm, I think it’s obvious that speech is often harmful, even more so than gun fondlers’ displays. Because speech is pervasive and we can’t escape it without retreating into hermitage. How many of us know, personally, a kid who was harassed into suicide? I do.
Words hurt.
So, we social humans try our best to develop norms (not laws) to reduce the potential for harm; we ask for good manners; we expect better than the bare minimum of not shooting first. Don’t swear in grandma’s house, don’t tell your daughter she’s a worthless slut, don’t pick a fight by teasing your brother so much that he gets mad and hits you, don’t stand in the street by your neighbors chanting “Die, nigger, die.”
The interesting question here is where to draw the line between controlling our verbal behavior by norms and manners compared to controlling by laws. Too bad the Freeze Peachers assert there is no line, that verbal behavior must never be controlled by either norms or laws but only by individual preference. And if you don’t fall into line with them, [insert scary music] they’ll scream CENSORSHIP.
I was basing what I wrote based on your consistent support in this thread for moderators to be more proactive. If I misrepresented you, I apologize.
What, specifically, would you like the moderators to do here?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “evil tyrant.” Insufficiently respectful of the rules and freedom of expression, certainly.
Excellent, we’re starting to define the boundaries of where we agree.
I still don’t understand why anyone would want to cede control over what he can read or hear to someone else, particularly in an online forum where ignoring those who provide no value to you is so easy. The only two types of people I have seen take that position are those with an emotional need to be protected and, unfortunately more commonly, those who want to be the ones in control. Are you a third type?
Sez you. And as your hero Hitchens says,”What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Wrong. What is heard cannot be unheard afterwards. Preemptively preventing the harm (that otherwise will be caused by saying some kinds of things) is a positive social good. “Address the harm”? Sure, you go ahead and figure out a way to “address the harm” for the mom whose 12-year-old son was verbally harassed into suicide. In your world, is “pre-emptively denying free expression” to homophobic middel-schools bullies the worst evil? Better to wait until the harm is done and then “address it” rather than act pre-emptively? Really, is that your morality?
Funny you should use the figure “death of a thousand cuts” since in the real world, the “thousand cuts” are the accumulation of daily micro-aggressions, trolling, harassment, and bigotry … which can make public life unlivable when unchecked by either the spirit or the letter of the law. Forum life is public life; the internet is the real world now, not some magically-detached space.
And you’re wrong in another way, too: “Weighing costs and benefits with respect to free
expressionmarket capitalism always leads to a death of thousand cuts because everyone has a reason why what they specifically findoffensivepotentially hazardous should bebanned.regulated.Yet, somehow, in spite of the Libertard prediction, western countries are muddling through with a variety of regulated markets.
Exactly the same applies with regards to regulated (moderated) speech. We will muddle through somehow. We already are.
Just wondering.
Does everyone agree broadly with Lizzie’s stated aims here?
If anyone disagrees with those aims, why post here?
If you agree with those aims, and think we are straying from the path of civil discussion, what could be done, short of Lizzie popping in to administer a sharp verbal clip round the ear, to improve matters? (Please don’t suggest more rules or more moderation, there has to be a better way!)
Is that how some perceive this site now?
Alan,
If commenters would consciously accept responsibility for everything they write, I think it would go a long way toward improving the quality of the discussions here.
My suggestion would be for commenters to pause before they click ‘Post Comment’ and to ask themselves questions such as the following: Is what I am about to post actually true? Am I willing to be held accountable for, and to defend, what I am about to post? Would I be willing to post this if I knew that people important to me were watching? If someone else were posting this, would I regard it as a mistake? And so on.
The Hitchens’ video provides some evidence for my claim, as do a couple of my previous comments in this thread:
May 26, 2014 at 5:43 pm
May 26, 2014 at 8:53 pm
I suggest that the person claiming that someone can be trusted with that kind of authority over others bears the burden of proof.
That’s an interesting rhetorical technique you’re using (I’ll assume inadvertently, per the site rules). I don’t know the formal name, but informally it’s the “Won’t someone think of the children!” fallacy.
As a father, I agree strongly with you that we need to protect our children as we teach them how to be decent adults. Emotional manipulation aside, we shouldn’t make rules for adults based on what’s appropriate for children any more than we should mash up all of our food because babies can’t eat steak.
Your inability or refusal to take responsibility for your own reactions to what you encounter online does not justify silencing others.
I know you only through your pseudonym. I don’t know your gender, race, age, sexual orientation, family situation, physical location, or anything else you don’t choose to share. I can’t physically intimidate you, interrupt you, talk over you, or silence you. Of all places and times in human history, the Internet is where unfettered free expression can truly flourish.
Will it be perfect? Of course not. Freedom is messy. I choose to be part of something potentially beautiful rather than giving in to the fear and desire for control that is inevitably destructive.
That’s a bit of a tall order, especially as I don’t think we can know the absolute truth. What about “Should I check my facts first?”
I’ve moved some posts to guano as they seemed to me to be outside the rules of this site. Please feel free to re-post omitting remarks that might be construed as not assuming others are posting in good faith or attacking the person rather than the comment.
Yes, of course, I should have known that I am either the coward or the internet tyrant desiring control. Could I be both? (I want to be both!) Well, you can feel free to assign me whatever role you like in our little interactions, Patrick. I can’t promise to say my assigned lines to your satisfaction, though. sorry.
How could I have been so blind as to not notice that I’m on the side of “inevitable destruction”? Thank the ange!s that men like keiths and Patrick are on the side of Truth Justice and the American Way! ™
Hey, wait, hotshoe, YOU don’t get to be both. I want to be at least one of those!
Oh wait, I’m already the coward (you should see my pants–if you can really call these things pants). So I guess you get to be the tyrant.
But you can’t be both!
Teehee.
Since my favorite phrase at home is “When I’m king …” — I’d say you’ve made the right choices for us.
Thanks, it’s been fun.
P.S.
pants, Safe For Work, I’m sure
hotshoe, to Patrick:
You’re free to assign yourself any role you like and to write your own lines. Neither Patrick nor I will call for you to be censored or Guano’ed.
I do ask you to take responsibility for your statements, though, just as I did in this comment, which you of course could not read without immediately demanding that it be Guano’ed.
The truth hurts, eh, hotshoe?
keiths:
Regarding “Is what I am about to post actually true?”, Alan asks:
I’m not saying that the answer has to be an unequivocal ‘yes’, just that the commenter should make a good-faith effort to avoid falsehoods.
Had walto applied this principle, he wouldn’t have made his recent false accusations: Link, Link
walto:
Patrick:
There’s no need to apologize, Patrick. You’re correct, and Walt is wrong.
walto:
You guys, this is the part where the witch has you walk and walk and walk only to wind up right back where you started.
And you don’t get to see the witch.
Reciprocating Bill,
Which is a very good thing, since “where we started” was with minimal moderation, and it looks as if that’s where we’ll end up, despite Neil’s, walto’s and hotshoe’s best efforts.
hotshoe,
hotshoe, thanks for your thoughtful and passionate posts regarding the dangers of unfettered freedom of ______ [fill in the blank]. They’ll be helpful to me in a future ethics class when I cover natural rights theories.
Bye.
The master baiter points out that I wrote And ridiculous accusations of keiths(hmendric’s) kind are exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined.
He’s right: rather than say “exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined” I should have said “exactly the kind of shit that I would pull, and for which I would discipline posters on my site.” I put that badly because I absolutely do not think they should be pulled or he should be disciplined here. They and he obviously are right where they belong.
As I asked walto, please give me a third option. In my experience online, calls for censorship are always based in fear, desire for control, or both. If you have different reasons, I’d very much like to hear them.
I’m not trying to assign roles to anyone. I want to read what you have to say, uncensored. I might not agree with you, but the chances of either of us learning anything are greatly reduced if someone else is controlling what we can read.
When you’ve been around the Internet longer, you’ll learn. Don’t beat yourself up about it.
The “third option,” as hotshoe has already pointed out, is enforcing expectations of civility. If, for example, keiths (or whatever his name is) were to come to a party at your house and pull the crap he pulls here or if I were to loudly point out that he’s a prick in front of your other guests, once you’d asked him/me to stop being obnoxious a couple of times, you’d ask him/me to leave. Some people are not fit for your living room.
Simple.
I’m not sure. Walto, I hope you choose to respond to my last comment to you.
The issue is who gets to set the expectations.
This is Lizzie’s blog, so her rules apply. Thus far she has chosen to keep the expectations respectful of free expression. I sincerely hope she continues to do so.
You should see one of my family gatherings.
In any case, the two important characteristics of this space that make your analogy invalid are a) It’s not a living room — at its best it is a debating society and b) It’s not a physical space.
As I pointed out to hotshoe, all any of us have here is our words. The potential for free expression is much higher than in meat space. We should take advantage of that.
I think so. Demonstrate respect for the principle of free expression. Don’t try to control others. Take responsibility for your own reactions.
Simple.
Patrick,
Exactly. This is The Skeptical Zone, not a party at someone’s house. People should expect to have their views challenged here. That isn’t “uncivil behavior” at all.
Walt, I suggest that you print that out and tape it to your monitor. You can highlight it in orange if you like. 🙂
I failed to note in my previous reply, this is not a third option. It reflects a desire to control others.
Patrick,
Yes, and it’s interesting that although hotshoe and Walt already have the right under the rules of this blog to criticize behavior they consider “uncivil”, that is not enough for them. They want the moderators to interfere. As you say, it reflects a desire to control others.
An understandable one, too. If others aren’t appropriately muzzled, then any criticism directed at them can be answered, with potentially embarrassing results. Walt learned this the hard way.
Walt,
A wild coincidence. I ordered a used copy of your book on meditation that you mentioned in the Critique of Naturalism thread, The Perennial Solution Center, and it just arrived.
It turns out that my copy is autographed by you, with an inscription to the book’s original recipient. Out of respect for your privacy, I won’t mention the recipient or the inscription unless you want me to, but I thought you’d be amused, as I was, by the coincidence.
Two things.
I would like to point out the difference between the Free Speech provision of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically allows for a regulated right of gun ownership. The First Amendment has no such provision for regulating speech. That is the difference those who would suppress are ignoring if they claim a similarity.
The word censorship is bandied about a lot and it is quite correct that it is a word with a specific legal meaning. The fans of suppression constantly insist that only a government can censor and I won’t argue with them. However there is a colloquial understanding of censorship that they ignore when they do this. Person A doesn’t like what person B is saying so they ask Power to suppress it. The power doesn’t have to be governmental to be practicing censorship, it only has to have power over person B’s ability to speak. In practical terms, censorship is what Person A is asking for.
I would suggest that rather than argue the point about whether censorship is or is not actually censorship there is a better term for the practice. People don’t want to be called censors because it is an ugly term with an ugly history and they don’t want to be painted with it. But there is a better term. Suppression. Call them suppressors. I personally think it is an even uglier term.
Having said all that, I would like to support Neil Rickert’s timeout but I’ll write another comment for it.
I am quite willing to suppress people who will come and shit on my carpet. Call me whatever name you like, I don’t care. There are reasons for suppression – good reasons and bad reasons. Suppression as such is neither good nor bad.
I have seen the results of laissez faire community management, and in most cases they were not pretty, at least to my taste. I fear this community is heading in that direction, as the activity of carpet-shitters intensifies and people start to withdraw in disgust.
My Statement
Here is my statement about what happened a few days ago. I am not planning to debate this, as I don’t think debating will be useful.
The Event
A “disturbance” broke out. Someone has called it a “flame war”. That seems as good a term as any, so it is what I will use.
Who was to blame?
Sorry to disappoint, but it is not my role to cast blame. As a moderator, I take it that I am supposed to do my best to keep this a site for open thoughtful discussion of a skeptical nature. That does not require casting blame. And casting blame only increases acrimony, so detracts from the goals of TSZ.
How I responded
I started moving a few of the inappropriate comments to Guano. But that did not stop the continuing flame war. So, in order to stop the disturbance, I temporarily suspended the ability of two members to post. I called that a “cooling off period”, and announced that it would be 24 hours, though I ended it earlier. What I did was change the role of those two members from “Author” to “No Role”. In retrospect, it looks as if that didn’t actually have any effect on their ability to post comments.
I changed those roles back to Author the next morning, which was after less than 24 hours.
Taking responsibility
I believe that I have acted responsibly, and taken full responsibility for my actions.
What my critics seem to mean, when they accuse me of failing to take responsibility, it that I have not submitted to trial by a kangaroo court that would declare me guilty by bald assertion.
What I am supposedly guilty of, is violating Lizzie’s rules. Sorry, but Lizzie’s rules do not tell us how to deal with a flame war. I was in uncharted territory, doing my best. I take it that Lizzie has wanted TSZ to be a site for open thoughtful discussion on skeptical issues. I did what, in my best judgment, I thought would allow TSZ to continue to be such a site.
I do hope that Lizzie will find time to clarify how we should deal with difficult problems.
Free Speech
TSZ is not a free speech zone (one where anything goes). It is a skeptical zone. It is a place for thoughtful discussion of a skeptical nature. In the past, Lizzie has chastised members who wandered too far from that goal of thoughtful discussion.
Censorship
Nobody was censored. Nothing was deleted. Nobody was prevent from posting. At most, two people would have had to delay posting. If the site had crashed due to a software problem, that could have caused similar posting delays.
Guano
Some of my critics have demanded that I explicitly state which of Lizzie’s rules were violated by comments that I moved. They have demanded that I move them back.
Sorry, but this is legalistic nonsense. Lizzie’s rules are not sufficiently explicit to deal with all possible situations.
Perhaps those critics want to be exonerated, and have punishment removed. But that completely misunderstands the use of Guano. Nobody has been accused of anything, so there is nothing from which they could be exonerated. No punishment has been meted out, so no punishment can be removed. Moving comments to Guano is not punishment. Rather, it is done in an attempt to keep discussion topics reasonably clean for thoughtful discussion, by moving distractions out of the normal discussion stream.
If any other moderator thinks that one of the comments that I moved was a thoughtful contribution to discussion, he should feel free to move it back (with a posted comment to that effect).
How do I keep calm?
Why am I not reacting with anger at the accusations made against me?
I’m not sure, but I think it is the beta blockers (medication that I take to control blood pressure).
Neil
I haven’t criticized your attempt to end the “flame war” largely between Keiths and Walto as I think you were acting for the best reasons. I wouldn’t have done the same without checking with Lizzie or at least advising her of any new policy.
Getting flack from all directions is a good indication that you are somewhere in the middle of being fair.
Your offer is tempting, since we appear to disagree on some fundamental values, but I’d rather try to come up with a solution. Because we disagree, I’d very much like to hear your thoughts on a rough proposal.
Consider a situation where the forum software provides a choice of filters. One might be the Neil filter, another the Alan filter, and yet another the Patrick filter (aka the UnFilter). In your profile you could select which filter you want to use and you would only see posts and comments that were approved by that filter.
Would you (plural, I hope walto, hotshoe, and others will chime in) consider this to be an acceptable mechanism for addressing the preferences of all participants?
Please leave aside whether or not WordPress supports this and the level of effort required. I would like to know if those in favor of more intrusive moderation are more focused on what they read or on what others write.
I’ve seen the opposite. Usenet thrived for decades without censorship.
The less moderation the better.
I would remove comments that advocate violence or illegal behavior.
For outing posters who choose to be anonymous, I would recommend banning. Same for anyone who advocates some adverse real world action against another poster.
Patrick,
That’s a great question, Patrick, and perfect for separating those who want to be protected from “uncivil” comments from those who want to control other commenters.
I look forward to hearing what SophistiCat, Neil, Walt, and hotshoe have to say in response.
Neither camp is going to end up very productive in the long run. Ideas need to be challenged, as much for the sake of the promoter of the great idea or the daft one as anyone.
I was once young(er) and innocent of the ways of the internet
The rule I tried to work with then was “would I let my mother read this?”. But that was my blog, then and this is Lizzie’s blog now.