I made some minor edits to the rule page. The “Address the post not the poster” rule now reads:
Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. [purple text added 28th November 2015]
- This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
- As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
And for guidance I also added text from an excellent post by Reciprocating Bill:
Participation at this site entails obligations similar to those that attend playing a game. While there is no objective moral obligation to answer questions, the site has aims, rules and informal stakeholders, just as football has same. When violations of those aims and rules are perceived and/or the enforcement of same is seen as arbitrary or inconsistent, differences and conflicts arise. No resort to objective morality, yet perfectly comprehensible and appropriate opprobrium.
RB’s comment–or at least the first sentence of it, which doesn’t get into the philosophical aspects of whether values are objective (which is irrelevant to the rule in any case)–is good. Playing a game (or visiting someone’s home) involves respect. However, while the new rule relaxes the ad hom rule, which would be a good thing if the participants here were civil, it also makes implementation of it even more subjective–which is not a good thing. Furthermore, it’s fairly obvious that it can only tend to make insulting other posters more, rather than less, prevalent. That is not a sanguinary change.
If you really wanted to improve the rules (and without getting into irrelevancies about the nature of moral values) it could be done. And I have explained how in numerous posts. In fact, as you apparently respect RB’s views on this matter (as do I), I’ll bet RB could put together something quite sensible, if given free rein. (I’d be happy to help him if he wanted any assistance.) But you have to be willing to allow real changes, and based your endorsement of amendments only of this odd and marginal nature, I don’t think you are. My sense continues to be that you are wedded to the rules you originally made because they seemed to you uniquely consistent with an open, thoughtful, skeptical approach to dissemination of information and so you will now brook only amendments of a non-substantive kind which not only are deemed by you to be “friendly” but are so tepid that they are more likely to do harm than good. They are “normal science” when what is wanted is a paradigm shift.
Your original conception was certainly well-intentioned. But, as subsequent activities here have amply demonstrated, it was also incorrect. And while you have clung to your original rules, behavior here has deteriorated. Such behavior cannot be improved by relaxing the ad hom rule.
I mean, think about it. Do you really believe that a change of this nature could improve anything (other than Patrick’s feelings of righteous indignation at Erik’s weaseling)?
I’d be very open to you and RB having a shot at redrafting them.
Cool. I’m game if RB is. (And I’m quick to admit that maybe a quarter of my posts would have to be committed to the flames.)
Yeah that was my first thought, too. I mean, about my comments, not about yours 🙂
Might have to rename Noyau “Waltshoe.” 😉
walto (and Reciprocating Bill),
I’m curious to see what you come up with. I ask that you please keep in mind the potential impact on the admins and Lizzie. Perfect solutions requiring infinite resources are of only academic interest.
“This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic”
How about when they are self-admittedly ignorant or stupid? I.e. when their ignorance or stupidity is the explicit content of their post?
Erik,
I suggest that you would personally do well to focus more on the other changes to the rules. They affect you directly.
Naturally, I know you started this process because of me. Which reflects all the worse on you.
Yes, this is not an advance commitment to implementing your suggestions! I have enough (bitter) experience of trying to devise workable and fair rules of internet discourse to have a pretty good idea that
is a mug’s game.
But a fun one, and occasionally useful, so have at it!
Erik,
I’m trying to improve the level of discourse on this site. Your behavior has demonstrated some problems with the current rules. Congratulations — you’re going to be part of the solution!
If rule changes are being considered, I suggest the obvious one: Eliminate the rules except for the “no porn/spam/malware/outing” rule.
From my July OP Moderation at TSZ, part 1:
Experience since then has only reinforced that point. The site functions best at promoting free, open and topical discussion when comments are left alone rather than being moved to Guano.
The time seems ripe for “Moderation at TSZ, part 2” so I will work on that today and perhaps tomorrow.
A repost of my earlier OP:
Moderation at TSZ, part 1
Gathering my thoughts on moderation at TSZ, I found that I really have two OPs to write: one discussing the effects of rules and moderation at TSZ, and another exploring why the moderation — particularly the Guano-related stuff — has those effects. The second topic is by far the more interesting, but it’s the first topic that has the most practical import, so I’ll address it now.
In a nutshell: We’ve already experimented with different levels of moderation at TSZ, and the results are in. Less moderation works better.
Some preliminaries:
This is Lizzie’s blog, so of course any decisions regarding rules and moderation are hers alone to make.
None of us are absolutists about free speech or moderation, as far as I can tell. We all seem to agree that some moderation is necessary — to get rid of spammers or to prevent pseudonymous commenters from being outed, for example. The disputes are over the degree, not the fact, of moderation.
The optimal level of moderation may shift over time as a blog and its commentariat evolve. There is no single guaranteed-for-all-time optimal moderation scheme, and no comprehensive “moderation theory” for deciding ahead of time which scheme is most likely to succeed. Experimentation is essential.
With the preliminaries out of the way, the argument is quite simple, and I’ve already expressed it on another thread:
The ultimate test for any moderation scheme is how well it works in reality, with the actual commenters and the actual moderators. We’ve already run many such (informal) experiments at TSZ, and the results seem clear to me: Changes in the direction of more moderation have backfired, and changes in the direction of less moderation have made TSZ run more smoothly and with more on-topic, substantive discussion.
For all our disagreements, Alan and I both think that the experiment we tried in Lizzie’s absence was a success. If you recall, the policy during that time was to move comments to Guano only upon request (of the “injured” party originally, though that was broadened for some reason to include third parties).
Since that experiment worked so well, and since attempts at increased moderation (like the Wine Cellar, to use a recent example) have failed, why not take the lesson to heart and eliminate moderation altogether, except in the extreme cases where we all agree it’s necessary (spam/porn/outing etc.)?
It fits with the ethos here at TSZ, it minimizes the workload for the moderators, and it eliminates the reason for the numerous and lengthy moderation discussions we have here at TSZ, again and again.
Seems like a worthwhile experiment, doesn’t it?
keiths,
I agree. I believe we’re in a minority, though, particularly when the only vote that matters is Lizzie’s.
I’m optimistic that improvements will be found even if they don’t involve wholesale removal of rules.
Patrick,
I think part of the problem is that Lizzie wasn’t around when we did the “moderation only upon request” experiment. If she had seen firsthand how smoothly things went during that time, she might now be more favorably disposed toward my proposed change.
The important point is that we can experiment. We saw a big improvement with the “only upon request” experiment, so why not continue in that direction by altogether eliminating the movement of comments to Guano? We can always revert if the experiment doesn’t pan out.
I’m not going to remove the rules, although I’m prepared to consider modifications.
I understand the arguments for removing them, and I agree that no-rules sites can be interesting places to discuss things. TR remains a good site IMO.
However, this site is an attempt to set up an alternative i.e. one in which there are rules but the rules (apart from the basic site hygiene ones) are simply “rules of engagement” as it were, like the rules in a sport, and enforced by a “referee” whose only tool is removal of foul from field (well, the metaphor breaks down, but whatever).
I think Noyau is a moderate success and provides a place where people can take an argument if they want a no-rules environment. But it is my intention to stick with rules for the main page.
Re-drafting and pruning suggestions are however very welcome.
Lizzie,
Given the success of the “moderation only upon request of the ‘injured’ party” experiment that was conducted in your absence, would you consider giving that another go?
I’ve never been keen on that approach keiths. Maybe it worked here but I’ve seen it produce great bitterness elsewhere.
One thing I’ve always wanted though, but it needs a software approach, is the system they have using SCOOP software at Daily Kos.
But doing that in wordpress is not in my skillset, and SCOOP is no longer available.
I think Drupal can handle it.
Lizzie,
You’re not willing to try something here that is known to have worked here?
Keep in mind that under the current regime, people do request that comments be guano’ed and they do complain when they think that comments are unfairly exempted.
How would going to a “on request only” scheme increase the bitterness?
keiths,
While I like your suggestion, I do see the risks. Ever played “call your own fouls” basketball? I’ve seen guys pick themselves up off the ground with blood running down their face saying “No foul.” then throw an elbow to the head of the guy that knocked them down on the next turnover. Nobody dares to look less hard by claiming a foul.
It can’t get that fun online, but it could interfere with the discussion.
There are risks and potential unanticipated consequences with any moderation scheme.
My argument is simply that given a choice between two schemes, one of which is known to have worked much better than the other, we should choose the one that worked better! Why would we deliberately choose the worse one?
Sure, things might eventually change, and the scheme that was better initially might no longer be. But that is true of any scheme.
Can we talk about fight club?
Yes.
I personally would favour a ‘no Guano’ rule, or at least on request. Whines about the moved post and moderation policy in general can take up reams of space within a thread. And if the post isn’t moved quickly enough, it can be blockquoted into subsequent posts by others along with legitimate content.
It depends on the restraint shown by the current crop of posters of course. And any games they may be playing.
The problem is not the rules, it’s the enforcement.
Tell it to Barry. Your buddy.
That’s a good point, I think. I haven’t heard from RB, so I haven’t done any more on this, except think about keiths’ suggestion regarding moderation only upon request. I guess I don’t really understand it. If anybody may request that a moderator “do something” about a post, all that does is (possibly) eliminate three people from taking action–i.e., asking a moderator to do something (assuming that only non-moderators may do that–which may be incorrect).
OTOH, it could be that keiths is saying that only some one person who has allegedly been attacked by an offending post may make a request for action. The problem there is that a post like “Atheists all live in a pit of despair” or “Theists are stupid.” don’t attack any one particular poster. Furthermore, it seems clear that third parties may be offended by a post not directed specifically at them. So, again, I don’t really know what he’s advocating for. Is it that admins should have less rights regarding the initiation of any “action” than everyone else?
Is the theory that if they are going to have the power to move a post, admonish a poster, or whatever, they are required to give up some right they would have if they had turned down the request to be a moderator? What if some offensive post is directed specifically at them (as many of Gregory’s and keiths have been at Alan and Neil)?
So, maybe keiths would be willing to clarify what he’s looking for here. Thanks.
FWIW, my own initial sense is that the rules need to be replaced by an acknowledgement of some sort of “know it when I see it” principle that is based on common courtesy. That that would be subject to abuse is obvious. And I think there is no way to entirely prevent that–either with the current sort of explicit rules-based system or with a people-based system. You just set up the mechanisms by which as much abuse (of any kind) can be staunched as best you can.
First, you appoint temperate, competant, trustworthy, nice admins. I think the four here meet all those criteria. But as almost everything on this site has to do with (aka devolves into) some kind of theism/atheism battle, I think it makes sense to have at least one acknowledged theist on the team. The pick should be up to Lizzie, of course, but FWIW, I’d think FMM or Sal would make sense myself, if they are thought to have both the interest and the aptitude.
Second, as I believe the penalties should be stricter–a progressive discipline system leading to banning (the concept of moving posts to a different section of the site seems ridiculous to me)–all the mod decisions should be unanimous. That’s the only way I can think of to produce as little abuse as possible–other than have open votes by all “regulars”– where the latter is defined by some minimum number of posts during, say, the last year.
As indicated above, I don’t get keiths’ request at all, so I’d suggest that anyone could initiate an action, including one of the mods, unless he explains why there’s something wrong with that.
Posts that are ultimately deemed inappropriate should be eliminated (as should the Guano section). Repeat offenders should be suspended, suspended longer, and then banned. Noyau should be used for off-topic musings, jokes, etc. and be subject to the same constraints. Sandbox should be used for technical questions about site use, like appropriate html codes, etc. Voting and other moderation-type stuff and relevant discussions, pleadings, etc. should be done in the Moderation section, publicly. Stuff put in the wrong section could be moved without requiring unanimity.
I could flesh out the specifics, but these are tentative, I haven’t heard from RB and this was supposed to be collaborative. So I’ll just leave it there, and just say that I think changes along these lines would improve the site dramatically–though, of course, I could be wrong. If I am, you could always change back.
One other thing. In place of the specific rules you now have, I’d put examples of abuse, that can be changed over time as rulings get made. The move is, thus, from a sort of statutory approach to a case law approach. So, for example, if the mods came to agree that Patrick’s recent hazing of Erik was inappropriate, there would be the addition of something like “Asking the same question of some poster repeatedly, after it has become abundantly clear that the person being asked has some aversion to answering it–regardless of whether such aversion is viewed as sensible or not.”
FYI.
This thread and the rules of this site are probably the most interesting thing here. It’s an example of what it looks like to try and come up with objective morality from the ground up in real time.
fascinating.
peace
Need data.
No it isn’t.
hmm.
I think it’s a good idea in principle. Let me think about this.
I wonder if Jonathan Bartlett would be interested. He’s got the right skillset I think.
I wouldn’t want to speculate as to how (though I have my theories) but I have substantial evidence that it does.
And there’s actually good evidence for the effectiveness of semi-random implementation.
But I take William’s point at least inasmuch that perception of bias is almost as problematic as actual bias.
I’m going to think a bit more about possible people to approach. Certainly one more pair of hands would be useful.
While I’m flattered that some think I might pull the sword from the stone, I have no particular insight into what rules or level of moderation might encourage exchanges that more resemble Liz’s aspirations for TSZ. The rules as they stand are pretty simple and straightforward.
This might be an instance of “If it’s broke, don’t fix it.” By and large, it is my perception that the broken conversations that occur here are the conversations that the participants want. They’re often incompatible with Lizzie’s goals for the site, but what she aspires to is very difficult to attain, requires a real (not just simulated) level of respect and conversational charity, and can’t be compelled. Even under ideal circumstances they aren’t often going to occur.
That said, there is lot to be proud of here. Sometimes those conversations do occur. Bannings are next to non-existent, and only explicit violations of very explicit rules (which are very few) result in outright redaction. Persons of all viewpoints can and do create opening posts. OPs and Loudspeakers in Ceilings aren’t used to bully participants or throttle expression. No one debates sitting on a trap door. Participants don’t disappear.
The tradeoff, probably inevitably, is the freedom for participants to get what they want, which in many cases are intense, exceptionally competitive conversations, conversations that sometimes become completely dysfunctional because they concern deeply personal, often over-valued elements of world-view. They essentially never end in a concession, so if you’re looking for same you’re going to be frustrated. If that’s not the sort of interaction you want, or at least expect, what the fuck are you doing here?
I do commend to your attention the following principle: If you don’t want shit on your shoe, don’t step in shit. That means passing over some threads that have utterly predictable outcomes and declining to engage some participants. It’s not that hard.
And yet again RB writes the post I would write if I could write a post like that.
And this:
Still not convinced the rules need changing. I take the point about a theist on the admin team, though.
And I’d still like to consider a SCOOP type set up if I ever could figure out how to do it or get it done.
Those are good points, RB. Thanks.
Allan Miller,
I agree. I think moving comments to Guano only when a complaint is made would eliminate a lot of meta discussion.
walto,
Thanks for putting your initial thoughts together. I don’t agree with a lot of what you suggest, but I appreciate the effort and look forward to the discussion.
This sounds to me like a recipe for turning the site into a permanent meta discussion about moderation decisions. A few clear rules generate far fewer complaints than a bunch of subjective decisions.
I don’t buy into identity politics, so I don’t see the need to choose admins based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. I don’t believe having a theist as an admin would result in any of the other UD regulars participating here.
If Lizzie does think this idea has merit, fifthmonarchyman is a poor choice. He has repeatedly failed to support his claims and I don’t think it’s wise to give someone who operates by “revelation” the ability to damage the content of the site. Sal has a tendency to leave threads when his claims are pressed too hard for his taste, then return as if nothing had happened. Nonetheless, he’d probably be trustworthy as an admin.
If Lizzie wants a theist admin, I suggest Mung. He participates here regularly and, while I disagree with him on most issues and dislike it when OldMung surfaces, he’s the only theist here I’d even consider buying a used car from.
I strongly disagree. The banning offenses we have now are sufficient. This isn’t UD.
No comments aside from the banning offenses should ever be removed. Again, we are not UD.
I do not like this brave new world you propose.
walto,
Your bias is showing. If you’re going to be censoring and banning, which I hope Lizzie will not choose to do, then failing to clarify and support, or retract, one’s claims should be the criteria. While I strongly oppose such a rule, that would at least support the goals of the site. What you suggest would encourage more bad faith behavior.
Elizabeth,
If you decide to add one, I hope you’ll consider the recommendation I just made for Mung. I realized after typing it that it might get him lynched as a Judas over at UD, so it’s got that going for it too.
(Sorry Mung.)
I don’t know. I had earlier suggested same (no one took me seriously), but today I found that he had silently edited one of his own OPs to remove a question he had posed, many hours and 100 comments after the fact. I find that very creepy.
Reciprocating Bill,
Damn it, Mung! This is what I get for trying to be as nice and forgiving as Lizzie. If it turns out that he did change the OP, I retract my recommendation.
Reciprocating Bill,
+1.
Well, in shameless exploitation of my ownership of the site, I asked johnnyb to become an admin here, and he has agreed!
He may not have a great deal of time, and if it doesn’t work out, then we can think again, but welcome your new admin!
And huge thanks to johnnyb!
High five johnnyb!
Admins, I’ve put a post in the admin broom cupboard inviting you to explain the technical ropes to johnnyb. Could you chip in?
Whoa! I see that the question to which I referred above appeared in Mung’s first comment on this thread, not in the OP. It’s still there.
I was wrong then, to say that Mung changed his OP.
I apologize to Mung for having done so, as well as to anyone else who drew unfair conclusions due to my mistake.
(Crossposted from the original thread).