Squawk box

I sense a disturbance in the force.

This thread is for people to tell me what they think is going on, going wrong, and what they think we should do about it.  I’m listening.

Lizzie

[Edit added 18.40 pm CET 20/08/2018 by Alan Fox]

As the comments have ballooned, Lizzie would very much like members to summarize their thoughts and suggestions into one statement and there is now a dedicated thread, “Summaries”, where they can be posted. Please just post one summary and please do not add other comments. You are welcome to comment on other people’s summaries in this thread. The idea of the “Summaries” thread is to make it easier for Lizzie to get your input. Comments judged by admins not to be summaries will move to guano.

Members who would rather keep their thoughts confidential are invited to use the private messaging system. Lizzie’s address is Elizabeth.

1,219 thoughts on “Squawk box

  1. Some questions on CYOM.
    1. How is it better than the ignore button?
    2. How can we evaluate something that is not yet available?
    3. WordPress has many off-the-shelf plugins. Has anyone looked?
    4. Forum software often has much more flexibility regarding choice about what is visible. Has anyone looked?
    5. I’m doubtful anyone not already familiar with WordPress hooks etc will be able to produce a viable plugin from scratch in a reasonable time. Anyone with WordPress experience?

  2. Patrick: You should re-read 1984 along with Newton. As it turns out, war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength, and letting people speak is not denying free speech. You both clearly got the wrong message the first time around.

    Not in favor of war, slavery or ignorance.

    And understand have choice and still not get what you choose.

  3. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Vincent:

    I just wanted to say that I think the “choose your own moderators” [CYOM] scheme has merit. Assuming that it’s technically feasible to implement, it sounds like a fair solution all round. Cheers.

    Sal:

    Yup. A thread author should have the privilege of deciding the terms of engagement and participation. Simple!

    Sal,

    What you are talking about bears no resemblance to my CYOM proposal.

    Your proposal would be a disaster, and it would violate Lizzie’s stated aims regarding moderation.

  4. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    A repost from earlier in the thread:

    For those who are late to the discussion, here are some relevant links:

    Lizzie’s stated aims for moderation

    An evaluation of the current scheme against Lizzie’s aims

    The “opt-in” proposal

    The “choose your own moderators” proposal

    The “no-guano” proposal

    An evaluation of the three schemes against Lizzie’s aims

    A comparison of “opt-in” vs “choose your own moderators”

  5. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Patrick, to DNA_Jock:

    Accusing me of denying people free speech when you, Alan, and Neil broke the rules, exceeded Elizabeth’s authorization, and abused your admin privileges to settle a personal score with keiths is beyond hypocritical.

    Jock has entered Kellyanne Conway’s topsy-turvy world of “alternative facts”.

    “I’m protecting free speech by preventing a voice I don’t like from being heard!”

  6. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Let’s take a closer look at Jock logic:

    1. Lizzie invited feedback from everyone.
    2. There were too many responses for her to wade through.
    3. Therefore one voice — the one that Jock personally dislikes — should be completely silenced.

  7. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Jock:

    …users might not be aware of the degree to which they had, by their choice of moderator, consigned themselves to an echo chamber.

    Just as they are currently not aware of the degree to which they’ve been consigned, by the official moderators, to an echo chamber, unless they read Guano.

    Especially considering that you, DNA_Jock, have childishly chosen to guano comments with no notice and no links, for no reason other than spite.

  8. Alan:

    4. Forum software often has much more flexibility regarding choice about what is visible. Has anyone looked?

    Yes. The software I use has the equivalent of an ignore feature. Just click on the guy, and in his profile click “add foe.” And the guy disappears from view. BWHAHA!

    This is my forum:
    http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/index.php

    it says:
    “Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.”

    I got it through Dream Host 1 click install.

  9. Since you are having difficulty apprehending Patrick, perhaps an illustration will help.
    In this analogy, the regular commenters here (e.g. BruceS or walto or newton, sorry guys) are the chap with the bullhorn and you, Patrick, are the lass with the tattoos.
    You can probably figure out where keiths fits in.

  10. Patrick:

    Technically, I see the choose-your-own-moderator system implemented with tags on each comment.If I subscribe to you as a moderator, any comment with the tag “Guano — BruceS” would be displayed only as a link in my feed.I could choose to view it if I wanted, or easily scroll to the next comment.

    There is no balancing.Anyone can choose to be a moderator and anyone can use the services of zero or more moderators.

    I agree with keiths that this solution best fits Elizabeth’s stated goals for the site.It will require some coding, however.

    I’ll just clarify my comments once then I will leave it. By balancing the workload, I meant what happens if one moderator gets chosen by nearly everyone: Does that person have to agree to spend more time moderating both the discussions threads and a public moderation thread, if it exists (ETA: deleted phrase after re-reading Guano idea).

    ETA 2: I see you say no one can complain if they get to choose their own moderator. I assume that also means no one else can complain. IN that case, I agree that makes the private versus public moderation issue moot by eliminating complaints about moderation. In that case as well, I assume you agree that anyone that does nonetheless complain should be suspended until they agree not to.

    ETA: if Guanoed posts become viewable only via a link after being moderated by the chosen moderator, what happens to to new posts when that moderator is off-duty? Do they stay visible? Or are they held in a private queue for the moderator until she or he comes on duty? And what if the moderator is away for vacation?

    Are you or Keith (through you) planning to post in the summary thread?

  11. Patrick,

    The problem with all this is that a post can contain both interesting points and abuse. Whatever method is used to shield people from reading certain posts, or certain posters, it risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    A stricter moderation policy should lead to people moderating their attitude and language, if they place more value on participating in valuable discussions than on swinging their e-peens. If a poster doesn’t want to moderate themselves it just shows that they think the shouting matches are more interesting/fun/satisfying/whatever than having serious discussions. In that case the site would clearly be better off without them.

  12. I just had an off the cuff idea. Imagine that posts do not display the username of the poster. Just a post number for reference, to assist in responding.

    Would that perhaps result in more focus on the message than on the messenger?

  13. faded_Glory:
    I just had an off the cuff idea. Imagine that posts do not display the username of the poster. Just a post number for reference, to assist in responding.

    Would that perhaps result in more focus on the message than on the messenger?

    My problem would be that I am only usually interested in posts by certain authors. I could not ignore others, either manually or by the wordpress gizmo (if it still even works today).

    There might also be the issue with certain authors being recognizable by style. Mr Byers is hard to miss.

  14. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    As for Jock’s “not knowing the degree of the echo chamber” complaint, that is easily handled by notifying each reader of comments that have been “virtually guanoed”, and allowing them to click on them to make them visible. This could all be done within the comment stream, just as the Ignore function is implemented within the comment stream.

    Patrick described something along those lines here:

    Technically, I see the choose-your-own-moderator system implemented with tags on each comment. If I subscribe to you as a moderator, any comment with the tag “Guano — BruceS” would be displayed only as a link in my feed. I could choose to view it if I wanted, or easily scroll to the next comment.

  15. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Alan,

    Some questions on CYOM.

    Glad to see you finally engaging the topic, after avoiding it for days.

    1. How is it better than the ignore button?

    It’s far better than the Ignore button, which is all-or-nothing. With the Ignore button, you either see all of a person’s comments or none at all. With CYOM, you continue to see the comments that pass muster with your chosen moderators. Only the ones they flag as guano are filtered out.

    2. How can we evaluate something that is not yet available?

    By specifying it and consideering the specification. That’s what this discussion is about. The specification will become more detailed over time, of course.

    3. WordPress has many off-the-shelf plugins. Has anyone looked?

    I’ve looked, but not extensively. I think Patrick has also looked. I think it’s doubtful that there’s a suitable plugin out there, but we should certainly do a search before rolling our own.

    4. Forum software often has much more flexibility regarding choice about what is visible. Has anyone looked?

    Ditto.

    5. I’m doubtful anyone not already familiar with WordPress hooks etc will be able to produce a viable plugin from scratch in a reasonable time. Anyone with WordPress experience?

    It would make sense to hire a WordPress expert/PHP developer. Patrick, who does software for a living, has estimated that it would take a competent PHP developer two weeks to develop this feature. I, for one, am willing to donate significantly toward the development cost. I am also willing to write the spec and work closely with the developer to see that it gets implemented correctly. I am not a WordPress/PHP person myself, and would not be able to do the work myself without a steep learning curve. However, I am a competent programmer and could assist in writing and debugging the code within the framework implemented by the developer. I could also maintain it.

    Another option, of course, would be to do all of this using customizable forum software.

    What we can’t afford to do is leave power in the hands of corrupt moderators like you, Neil, and DNA_Jock. CYOM puts the power back in the hands of the readers, where it belongs.

  16. Some questions on CYOM.
    1. How is it better than the ignore button?
    2. How can we evaluate something that is not yet available?
    3. WordPress has many off-the-shelf plugins. Has anyone looked?
    4. Forum software often has much more flexibility regarding choice about what is visible. Has anyone looked?
    5. I’m doubtful anyone not already familiar with WordPress hooks etc will be able to produce a viable plugin from scratch in a reasonable time. Anyone with WordPress experience?

  17. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Readers,

    Note something remarkable: The current discussion of CYOM would not even be happening if the moderators had had their way. They have suspended me for 30 days, despite the fact that (as Alan admits) I violated no rules, and (as Neil admits) the moderators do not have the power to suspend people. Even if I had violated a rule, the 30-day suspension is draconian and unprecedented. Exactly the opposite of what Lizzie, who asks for moderation to be light, would have done.

    The only reason we are even having this productive discussion regarding CYOM is because Patrick, a former moderator, was willing to step in, protest the illicit censorship, and make my voice heard.

    Lizzie created this thread so that we could discuss the problems with TSZ, along with potential solutions. Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock have tried to prevent that from happening by silencing someone against whom they hold a personal grudge.

    The conduct of the three moderators has been shameful.

  18. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce:

    Are there suggestions for implementing public moderation that make it a fair, open process that leads in a specific way to a decision point (whether on the admissibility of a particular post or the bias of a moderator)?

    Far better to implement CYOM, so that moderation complaints are no longer an issue. If one of your personal moderators starts “misbehaving”, in your opinion, you can simply replace him or her with someone whose actions are more in line with your own opinions about what should and shouldn’t be guanoed.

  19. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    Given that, moderators should be fungible, so I see no theoretical reason why people cannot choose their own moderators. But there do seem to be practical problems:

    1. What if one of their chosen moderators is not available when a poster wants to post. Does that mean all posts have to go to a waiting for moderation queue? That seems to be a change from current technology.

    No, absolutely not. I think you’ve got it backwards: you seem to be thinking that a reader’s own posts are subject to pre-publication moderation by their chosen moderators. That isn’t what I had in mind at all. It’s other people’s posts that can be flagged by your personally chosen moderators, in which case you don’t see them.

    2. How can Lizzie balance the workload among moderators?

    No balancing necessary. Each personal moderator — who after all is just an ordinary member — does what he or she can, when he or she is available and willing to read comments. Any member at all who is perusing a thread can click a button indicating that they feel the current comment is guano. By that action, the comment becomes hidden from all of the people who have selected that member as one of their personal moderators. It’s that simple.

    3. What happens if a chosen moderator takes a few days away from the site?

    No problem. Readers can select as many personal moderators as they like, so that one of their moderators is likely to be “on duty” on any particular day. In any case, it’s no different in that respect from the current scheme, in which the moderators are available sporadically and certainly not 24/7.

    4. Does a moderator have any input into who gets assigned to them? For example, could they reject being solely responsible for someone they consider a tough case?

    No, and they wouldn’t need to. A personal moderator isn’t signing up to represent anyone else. They’re simply expressing their own opinions on whether a particular comment should be considered guano. Other readers who consistently find themselves in agreement with that particular member may choose to designate that member as one of their personal moderators.

    I don’t think it’s even necessary for a personal moderator to know who has chosen them. It might, however, be courteous to let them know that they have been chosen so that they can decide whether to bother flagging comments as guano.

  20. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    I’ll just clarify my comments once then I will leave it. By balancing the workload, I meant what happens if one moderator gets chosen by nearly everyone: Does that person have to agree to spend more time moderating both the discussions threads and a public moderation thread, if it exists (assuming Lizzie decides to keep some from of Guano)?

    No. A chosen moderator has no obligations to represent anyone else, and no obligations to spend any more time at TSZ than they’d like, or in threads in which they have no personal interest. They simply express their own opinion on whether any particular comment they happen to read should count as guano, and their expressed opinion then affects whether others, who have chosen them as moderators, see the comment.

    Also, there would no longer be a separate Guano thread, and thus no need for public moderation discussions. Rather than moving comments to a separate Guano thread, all comments would remain in place in their original threads. It’s just that some of them would be hidden from anyone whose personal moderators had designated them as guano.

    Are you or Keith (through you) planning to post in the summary thread?

    I don’t know about Patrick, but I’m definitely planning to post a summary. Alan’s one-post rule creates a problem, however: I have to make sure my single comment includes everything I want to say. It would have been far better to allow multiple comments, as long as they were all clearly part of a single summary.

  21. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    The problem with all this is that a post can contain both interesting points and abuse. Whatever method is used to shield people from reading certain posts, or certain posters, it risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    The current scheme has exactly the same problem. Guanoing is all or nothing. A comment either gets moved or it doesn’t.

    You could, I suppose, allow personal moderators to mask portions of comments from view. But I think that’s unnecessary, and it conflicts with the site goal of not editing comments.

    Remember, every reader has the option, with one click, of viewing any comment that has been hidden from them by their personal moderators. So if they’re in the middle of an interesting discussion, they can easily view all of the comments without leaving the thread. They just have to click on the ones that were masked.

    The beauty of this scheme is that it gives control back to the readers, where it belongs.

  22. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    A stricter moderation policy should lead to people moderating their attitude and language,

    A stricter moderation policy enforced by whom? Right now we have three corrupt moderators who are willing to abuse their privileges in order to silence someone against whom they hold a personal grudge. The current scheme at TSZ depends on having trustworthy moderators. The current moderators aren’t. Who do you propose we replace them with, and how do we find these people?

    One of the advantages of CYOM, as I pointed out above, is that it prevents such abuse:

    3. It solves the problem of moderator abuses. The moderators become admins, with limited powers. They can’t abuse powers that they don’t have.

    4. It becomes far easier to recruit admins. Admin responsibilities are far lighter than moderator duties. The policing function vanishes, so they aren’t subject to criticism for how they police others. Admins just have to keep the site running by doing routine work like fishing comments out of the spam queue. Their moderation duties are limited to notifying Lizzie in the rare event of potentially bannable offenses.

    The admins are restricted to admin duties, while moderation is farmed out to personal moderators chosen by each reader for him or herself.

    With CYOM, people who desire a stricter moderation policy can have it. They just need to select personal moderators who share their notion of proper strictness.

  23. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    I just had an off the cuff idea. Imagine that posts do not display the username of the poster. Just a post number for reference, to assist in responding.

    Would that perhaps result in more focus on the message than on the messenger?

    It wouldn’t work. It’s easy to recognize most people by their writing style and the positions they take.

    It’s also counterproductive. You want to be able to associate positions with people, so that commenters don’t have to restate their positions from scratch each time they appear in a new thread.

  24. DNA_Jock:
    Since you are having difficulty apprehending Patrick, perhaps an illustration will help.
    In this analogy, the regular commenters here (e.g. BruceS or walto or newton, sorry guys) are the chap with the bullhorn and you, Patrick, are the lass with the tattoos.
    You can probably figure out where keiths fits in.

    DNA_Jock,

    Despite all of your analogies, at the end of the day you’re claiming that letting people speak violates the principle of free speech. You refute yourself.

  25. BruceS: I’ll just clarify my comments once then I will leave it.By balancing the workload, I meant what happens if one moderator gets chosen by nearly everyone:Does that person have to agree to spend more timemoderating both the discussions threads and a public moderation thread, if it exists (ETA:deleted phrase after re-reading Guano idea).

    No one is under any obligation to moderate. If I select you as my moderator and you go on vacation, I’ll simply see all comments, including those you might have marked hidden.

    ETA 2:I see you say no one can complain if they get to choose their own moderator.I assume that also means no one else can complain.IN that case, I agree that makes the private versus public moderation issue moot by eliminating complaints about moderation. In that case as well, I assume you agree that anyone that does nonetheless complain should be suspended until they agree not to.

    I’m not sure who they would complain about. If you don’t like how one of your preferred moderators is doing the job, just remove them. No need for suspensions.

    ETA:if Guanoed posts becomeviewable only via a link after being moderated by the chosen moderator, what happens to to new posts when that moderator is off-duty?Do they stay visible?Or are they held in a private queue for the moderator until she or he comes on duty?And what if the moderator is away for vacation?

    See above.

    I poked around the WordPress developer documentation a bit over lunch. It looks relatively straightforward to hook into the code that displays a comment, check the database to see if one of the reader’s preferred moderators has flagged it, and display a link instead. Clicking on the link would change the element from hidden to displayed, inline, so the comment would appear as normal. That’s the kind of UI I envision.

    Are you or Keith (through you) planning to post in the summary thread?

    I will once I have the time to shrink my summary down to a manageable size.

  26. faded_Glory:
    Patrick,

    The problem with all this is that a post can contain both interesting points and abuse. Whatever method is used to shield people from reading certain posts, or certain posters, it risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    The same is true with the current moderation approach.

    A stricter moderation policy should lead to people moderating their attitude and language, if they place more value on participating in valuable discussions than on swinging their e-peens.

    I appreciate your point and I think it would be valid if everyone valued the same things. What if some people don’t mind bad language but instead would prefer not to have their feed cluttered up with crankery? There is no one size fits all criteria. Choose-your-own-moderator lets everyone make their own choices.

    Your goal also requires trusted moderators. We don’t have those.

    If a poster doesn’t want to moderate themselves it just shows that they think the shouting matches are more interesting/fun/satisfying/whatever than having serious discussions. In that case the site would clearly be better off without them.

    With CYOM you could choose moderators who agree with that view and never have to see the e-peens (thank you so much for that horrible image).

  27. faded_Glory:
    I just had an off the cuff idea. Imagine that posts do not display the username of the poster. Just a post number for reference, to assist in responding.

    Would that perhaps result in more focus on the message than on the messenger?

    That’s definitely out of the box thinking. I do think there is a place for purely anonymous communication. It’s called 4chan. They do exactly what you describe — everyone is anonymous and there is no persistence of identity between individual comments. If you haven’t visited that site, I cannot recommend against it strongly enough.

    Then again, you got “e-peen” stuck in my head, so by all means, check out 4chan!

  28. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    Responding to your ETAs:

    You wrote:

    ETA 2: I see you say no one can complain if they get to choose their own moderator. I assume that also means no one else can complain. IN that case, I agree that makes the private versus public moderation issue moot by eliminating complaints about moderation. In that case as well, I assume you agree that anyone that does nonetheless complain should be suspended until they agree not to.

    There’s no point in complaining, since each reader chooses their own personal moderators. If you don’t like one of your own personal moderators, you can replace him or her with someone else. And if you don’t like someone else’s choice of personal moderators, then tough. You don’t get to pick someone else’s moderators any more than you get to pick their friends. You also don’t get to pick whom they choose to Ignore. Same principle.

    As for suspensions, no. I think that’s a terrible idea. Why on earth would you want to suspend someone for commenting on someone else’s choice to Ignore, or someone else’s choice of personal moderators? There’s simply no need for suspension in either case. The proper response to those complaints is to point out that it’s up to the individual member whom they wish to Ignore, and whom they choose as their personal moderators.

    ETA: if Guanoed posts become viewable only via a link after being moderated by the chosen moderator, what happens to to new posts when that moderator is off-duty? Do they stay visible? Or are they held in a private queue for the moderator until she or he comes on duty? And what if the moderator is away for vacation?

    You’re misunderstanding. Under CYOM, all comments would be immediately visible. A comment would only be hidden from you once one of your personal moderators flagged it as guano. So no discussion would ever be impeded because people were waiting for one or more personal moderators to take action.

    The current scheme works the same way, in that respect. A comment is guanoed only after a moderator sees it and decides to move it. People are not waiting for moderators to approve every comment. The same would hold true for CYOM.

  29. Patrick: Note something remarkable: The current discussion of CYOM would not even be happening if the moderators had had their way. They have suspended me for 30 days

    Well, it’s an incredibly dumb idea.

  30. Patrick:

    There’s no point in complaining, since each reader chooses their own personal moderators

    I’m afraid I have been laboring under a misapprehension.
    I thought the idea was that first Lizzie picks a pool of moderators she trusts to enforce the culture she wants, and then people get to pick which one of these they want us moderator.

    I now understand one can pick anyone to be one’s moderator. That does not strike me as aligned with how Lizzie has chosen moderators, but that’s really up to her.

    Suppose she OKed it. In that case, can a designated moderator refuse? They might believe they have enough people to look after already or perhaps because they think that moderating that particular person would be unpleasant for some reason. And if you cannot find a moderator who is willing to work with you, do you have to refrain from posting?

    If Lizzie did decide to go that route, I agree there are no issues with people arguing in some thread with their moderators about their moderation decisions. It would be nice to make that thread only visible to the concerned parties rather than have one common thread for all.

  31. Patrick:

    The current scheme works the same way, in that respect.A comment is guanoed only after a moderator sees it and decides to move it.People are not waiting for moderators to approve every comment.The same would hold true for CYOM.

    One difference I see is this: I think Lizzie and the moderators currently try to ensure that someone is available to moderate during times when most people post. But if only your personal moderator looked at your posts, then you would have to align your posting hours closely with the moderator’s working hours to avoid new posts sitting unmoderated longer than they do today.

    Also, who is responsible for finding a replacement if your moderator takes time off? Right now, Lizzie and her team do it.

  32. walto: Well, it’s an incredibly dumb idea.

    Didn’t your work in the insurance industry or its goverment overseers? Surely they offered management courses on brainstorming?
    To increase overall creativity of the group:

    Go for quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generate the bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.

    Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put ‘on hold’. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later ‘critical stage’ of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.

    Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions, wild ideas are encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking might give you better solutions.

    Combine and improve ideas:As suggested by the slogan “1+1=3”. It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

  33. walto: Well, it’s an incredibly dumb idea.

    I agree.

    I’ll note, however, that I am not objecting to the idea. It would allow me to relax and read the posts that interest me. It would remove my obligation to read all posts.

    I’m just wondering why anybody would volunteer to be a moderator under the CYOM scheme.

  34. BruceS: Didn’t your work in the insurance industry or its goverment overseers?Surely they offered management courses on brainstorming?
    To increase overall creativity of the group:

    Go for quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generate the bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.

    Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put ‘on hold’. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later ‘critical stage’ of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.

    Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions, wild ideas are encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking might give you better solutions.

    Combine and improve ideas:As suggested by the slogan “1+1=3”. It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

    I’m sorry, but there has to be a nugget of sense in a suggestion for it to be worth the trouble of brainstorming. There are costs as well as benefits to deliberation.

    I’ve already said, twice, I’ll take hotshoe and RB as my moderators. Now what? Then, I realized that maybe I have to pick among the three (or four if we include Alan) folks who’ve expressed a willingness to be a moderator. If I pick Vince, will I get a moderator or, um, Vince?

    It’s an “idea” with no redeemable features as far as I can tell. That it has garnered as much attention and wasted pixels/time as it has is further support for your own view that moderation decisions should be private.

  35. walto:
    It’s an “idea” with no redeemable features as far as I can tell.

    If, as I originally thought, Lizzie gets to pick the pool of moderators, then what is the difference from what we have now?. Presumably Lizzie thinks they all can do an equally good job of enforcing her culture for TSZ..

    If, as I understand now, anyone can be a one’s chosen moderator, then I agree it would seem a big change from the current purpose that Lizzie has assigned to moderation.

    In either of the above cases, there seem to be practical difficulties with workload and availability of chosen moderators that would need to be overcome.

    FWIW its worth, I think you are wrong about there being preconceived limits on brainstorming. (Hence “wild” in the above quote).

  36. BruceS,

    OK, what about Byer’s idea that we use angels and cherubs for moderators and pay them in flying pigs?

    ETA: And even if this WASN’T really Byer’s idea at all, I don’t see why we shouldn’t discuss it ad nauseam as if it were.

  37. BruceS: If, as I originally thought, Lizzie gets to pick the pool of moderators, then what is the difference from what we have now?

    I have no idea what this question means. What is the difference between what and what?

  38. Patrick:
    The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission.I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    The current scheme has exactly the same problem.Guanoing is all or nothing.A comment either gets moved or it doesn’t.

    You could, I suppose, allow personal moderators to mask portions of comments from view.But I think that’s unnecessary, and it conflicts with the site goal of not editing comments.

    Remember, every reader has the option, with one click, of viewing any comment that has been hidden from them by their personal moderators.So if they’re in the middle of an interesting discussion, they can easily view all of the comments without leaving the thread.They just have to click on the ones that were masked.

    The beauty of this scheme is that it gives control back to the readers, where it belongs.

    I normally scroll right past the endless stream of Patrick/Keiths posts but I will reply to this one because it addresses my concerns.

    Like you, I disagree with the current system of guano, but for reasons diametrically opposed to yours. Posts that contain verbal abuse of other posters should be removed out of sight of members altogether. People whose posts are being removed too frequently should be suspended, and if they persist, be banned. This is supposed to be a site for serious, informed and (hopefully) somewhat intellectual conversation – not a schoolyard.

    Control should not belong to the readers – it should belong to the writers. If they can’t control themselves, they should be moderated.

  39. Patrick:

    Your goal also requires trusted moderators.We don’t have those.

    They are not our moderators, they are Lizzie’s moderators. All that matters is if she trusts them. If she doesn’t, she can, and likely will, replace them. She hasn’t replaced the current moderators so we should conclude that they have her trust.

    You seem to think that this site is some sort of anarchist collective where the members can set the rules. It isn’t. It is a private site, paid for by Dr. Liddle. She has asked us for input on how the site ought to be run. We all have our ideas, but there is no need for us to to argue about them.

    I posted my summary for her to consider. I don’t know if you posted yours, but if you haven’t, I think you ought to. Then, we can all sit back and relax and let her come to a decision. In the meantime we can perhaps talk about interesting stuff like evolution, ID and related subjects. How’s that?

  40. walto: I have no idea what this question means. What is the difference between what and what?

    Replying to both your posts:
    My original understanding of CYOM:
    1. Lizzie chooses pool of moderators.
    2. People get to choose their own moderator from that pool.

    I now understand the proposal is say that people get to pick any other poster as their moderator. I am unclear on how that other poster agrees to be their moderator: Is it a private arrangement? Do people volunteer to be choosable?

    Regardless, I don’t see how such an approach could satisfy Lizzie’s presumed goal of having a set of rules consistently and fairly enforced by moderation. But perhaps Patrick/Keith have a counter for that.

    On angels as monitors: I am trying to understand and provide constructive criticism of a serious proposal by people whose intelligence I respect. I have found the exchange productive. I do suspect that at a certain point I will say that I disagree but the matter is not up to me.

    ETA: At that point, some may say that their position is “obviously” right. There is an interesting article in NYT magazine on the use of “obvious” (paywalled). Note: I am not making any claims about what any particular poster at TSZ may say. I just wanted an excuse to post a link to an article I found interesting and relevant.

  41. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    walto:

    Well, it’s an incredibly dumb idea.

    I keep asking you to tell us, specifically, what makes it a bad idea. You keep refusing. Why?

    Tell us what’s wrong — specifically — with CYOM.

  42. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    I now understand one can pick anyone to be one’s moderator.

    Correct. We are adults here, and we are capable of choosing our own moderators, rather than having them imposed on us. That’s important, because it meets Lizzie’s goal of not wanting to control what people read.

    In that case, can a designated moderator refuse? They might believe they have enough people to look after already or perhaps because they think that moderating that particular person would be unpleasant for some reason.

    I’ve addressed that already. A personal moderator represents no one but themselves. They do not “look after” the people who choose them, nor do they work with them. There’s nothing unpleasant about moderating on behalf of an unpleasant person, because you don’t have to interact with that person at all. Each personal moderator — who after all is a normal member — does just one thing. They read TSZ no differently than they normally would, as a private member. There is no extra workload, except for one small exception: If they choose to, they can flag comments they deem to be guano, by their own standards. That’s it. That’s all they do. They don’t even have to think about the people who have chosen them as moderators.

    Once they flag a comment as guano, it no longer appears to the people who have chosen them.

    And if you cannot find a moderator who is willing to work with you, do you have to refrain from posting?

    No. As I’ve already explained, your personal moderators do not control what you post. They control what you read. And you can easily override that control by clicking on guanoed comments that you wish to view. Those comments will be expanded on your screen, just as comments are expanded when you take someone off Ignore.

    Also, your personal moderators do not work with you, as I explained above. Since they don’t work with you, they don’t need to be willing to work with you. You impose nothing on them by choosing them as moderators. They simply indicate, if they choose to do so, which comments they feel should be guanoed, by their own standards.

    If Lizzie did decide to go that route, I agree there are no issues with people arguing in some thread with their moderators about their moderation decisions.

    There’s no reason to argue with your moderators. If you don’t like what one of them has done, simply replace him or her.

  43. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    One difference I see is this: I think Lizzie and the moderators currently try to ensure that someone is available to moderate during times when most people post.

    Actually, no. They show up when they can, but there is no scheduling.

    But if only your personal moderator looked at your posts, then you would have to align your posting hours closely with the moderator’s working hours to avoid new posts sitting unmoderated longer than they do today.

    No, because your posts do not get held up waiting for moderator attention. Your personal moderators do not control what you post, only what you read. All posts appear immediately; it’s just that some will be hidden later once personal moderators have flagged them as guano.

    And remember: If for some odd reason you actually trust the current moderators, despite the abuses that have been exposed in this thread, you can pick them as your personal moderators. Moderator coverage will be no worse than before, and you can add additional moderators if you wish.

    Also, who is responsible for finding a replacement if your moderator takes time off?

    You are. Better still, appoint multiple moderators. In effect, they will cover for each other when one of them takes time off.

    And remember, it isn’t a crisis if you see some guano. That happens already, because guano remains until a moderator shows up and moves it.

    It’s not an emergency: “Oh my God, someone saw some guano! Fetch the smelling salts!”

    We are adults here. We can handle a little guano.

  44. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Neil:

    I’ll note, however, that I am not objecting to the idea. It would allow me to relax and read the posts that interest me. It would remove my obligation to read all posts.

    Yes. And as someone who has complained frequently about the workload, you should welcome that. You’ve even told us that you would be glad if you were removed as moderator:

    ALurker:

    Remove Alan and Neil as moderators.

    Neil:

    I would be okay with that. And I expect that Alan would, too. We would be happy to get our lives back.

    CYOM would give you what you say you want.

    However, given your egregious moderation abuses, it’s not clear to me that you can be trusted even as an admin.

    I’m just wondering why anybody would volunteer to be a moderator under the CYOM scheme.

    A better question is, why wouldn’t they? It’s extremely easy.

    As I explained to Bruce:

    A personal moderator represents no one but themselves. They do not “look after” the people who choose them, nor do they work with them. There’s nothing unpleasant about moderating on behalf of an unpleasant person, because you don’t have to interact with that person at all. Each personal moderator — who after all is a normal member — does just one thing. They read TSZ no differently than they normally would, as a private member. There is no extra workload, except for one small exception: If they choose to, they can flag comments they deem to be guano, by their own standards. That’s it. That’s all they do. They don’t even have to think about the people who have chosen them as moderators.

    With a job that easy, why wouldn’t people volunteer?

  45. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    Bruce,

    If, as I originally thought, Lizzie gets to pick the pool of moderators, then what is the difference from what we have now?. Presumably Lizzie thinks they all can do an equally good job of enforcing her culture for TSZ..

    If, as I understand now, anyone can be a one’s chosen moderator, then I agree it would seem a big change from the current purpose that Lizzie has assigned to moderation.

    Remember, Lizzie has stated that she doesn’t want to control what people read. That’s all the moderators do — they control what people read, guanoing some comments and allowing others to remain. So by designating a pool of moderators, and forcing us to choose only from that pool, Lizzie would still be controlling what people read, albeit slightly less stringently.

    By letting people pick their own moderators — including no moderators at all, if they so choose — she would be giving control back to the readers, where it belongs.

    In either of the above cases, there seem to be practical difficulties with workload and availability of chosen moderators that would need to be overcome.

    As explained above, those would not be problems. The workload is close to nonexistent, and there is no requirement for moderators to read anything that they normally wouldn’t. Availability isn’t an issue, because comments appear immediately when they are posted, just as in the current scheme.

  46. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    walto,

    I’ve already said, twice, I’ll take hotshoe and RB as my moderators. Now what?

    And I’ll take Jennifer Lopez. Wait — she isn’t available? Oh noes! The proposal is hopelessly broken! We can’t have exactly the moderators we want!

    Come on, walto. You get to choose your moderators from among the registered members, just like everyone else. When they’re commenting (and moderating), you benefit from their presence. When they’re not, you don’t. If you want better coverage, pick more moderators.

  47. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    Like you, I disagree with the current system of guano, but for reasons diametrically opposed to yours. Posts that contain verbal abuse of other posters should be removed out of sight of members altogether. People whose posts are being removed too frequently should be suspended, and if they persist, be banned. This is supposed to be a site for serious, informed and (hopefully) somewhat intellectual conversation – not a schoolyard.

    You’re saying you want stricter moderation. I’ve already responded to that:

    A stricter moderation policy enforced by whom? Right now we have three corrupt moderators who are willing to abuse their privileges in order to silence someone against whom they hold a personal grudge. The current scheme at TSZ depends on having trustworthy moderators. The current moderators aren’t. Who do you propose we replace them with, and how do we find these people?

    One of the advantages of CYOM, as I pointed out above, is that it prevents such abuse:

    3. It solves the problem of moderator abuses. The moderators become admins, with limited powers. They can’t abuse powers that they don’t have.

    4. It becomes far easier to recruit admins. Admin responsibilities are far lighter than moderator duties. The policing function vanishes, so they aren’t subject to criticism for how they police others. Admins just have to keep the site running by doing routine work like fishing comments out of the spam queue. Their moderation duties are limited to notifying Lizzie in the rare event of potentially bannable offenses.

    The admins are restricted to admin duties, while moderation is farmed out to personal moderators chosen by each reader for him or herself.

    With CYOM, people who desire a stricter moderation policy can have it. They just need to select personal moderators who share their notion of proper strictness.

  48. The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.

    faded_Glory:

    Control should not belong to the readers – it should belong to the writers. If they can’t control themselves, they should be moderated.

    Lizzie has stated that she doesn’t want to control what people read, and she doesn’t want to control what people write. She also does not want guanoing to be used as a reprimand or a punishment, but merely as a housekeeping service. Please read her stated aims here.

    You’re obviously opposed to her aims. But remember, this is her website, not yours.

    I’m curious, though. Could you tell us precisely why you are opposed to the “choose your own moderators” proposal?

Leave a Reply