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.
This is Lizzie’s site, so hers is the opinion that matters.
Neil,
Patrick isn’t asking for a vote. He wants to know why you, SophistiCat, Walt, and hotshoe are calling for more moderation.
As he said:
Are you trying to protect readers, control writers, or both? If readers were able to “protect” themselves from certain commenters if they chose to do so, would you be satisfied with that, or do you insist on having the power to censor?
I’m not calling for more moderation. Rather, as a moderator, I am trying to live up to my responsibilities to keep this the kind of discussion site that Lizzie wanted. That’s why her opinion is the one that counts.
If I were not a moderator here, I would already be ignoring posts that don’t interest me, and ignoring posters that rarely have anything thoughtful to say. I don’t need any new software functionality for that.
Neil,
I see you are still avoiding the question, which was:
Neil,
Did someone ask you to cast blame?
You started moving both appropriate and inappropriate comments to Guano. Lizzie has made it clear that Guano is for comments that violate the rules. It is not a repository for whatever comments you happen to feel like moving there.
That’s right. Walt posted “flames” for at least 25 minutes while I waited for him to finish. My only post during that time was a request that his comments NOT be moved to Guano. You even moved that very request to Guano, as if it violated the rules!
Yes, you invented a new rule instead of applying the ones that were already available to you, including the rule that permits you to move comments to Guano if they are in violation of Lizzie’s clearly articulated criteria. You overstepped your authority and censored two commenters instead of applying Lizzie’s rules.
Taking responsibility means, among other things, answering questions about your moderation decisions. That’s exactly what the Moderation Issues thread is for. I asked you why my comments were Guano’ed, and you dodged the question:
That is evading responsibility, not taking it. Now, more than three days later, you still haven’t explained why you moved my comments, despite being asked by both Patrick and me. You are still evading responsibility.
No, it means taking responsbility for enforcing Lizzie’s rules, not your own; taking responsibility for explaining your moderation decisions, when asked; and taking responsibility for reversing your moderation decisions when you make a mistake. None of that requires you to submit to “trial by a kangaroo court.”
Lizzie’s rules tell you exactly what to do in such a situation. If a comment violates the rules, move it to Guano. Otherwise, leave it alone.
Why didn’t you just follow the rules? Lizzie laid them out very clearly.
Unlike you, Lizzie doesn’t censor commenters (other than Joe G, who is permanently banned for posting links to porn). Given that Lizzie doesn’t censor, why did you think she would approve of your impulsive decision to censor?
Temporarily preventing someone from posting yields exactly the same result as deleting comments they have already posted. In both cases, they have to post their thoughts later, when the discussion has already moved on. It’s clearly censorship, and it’s why Lizzie moves comments to Guano rather than putting commenters in moderation and allowing their comments to languish in the moderation queue.
Comments that violate the rules can be moved to Guano. Comments that don’t violate the rules cannot be moved to Guano. You screwed up by moving some non-violating comments to Guano. Take responsibility for your error and move them back, or else justify your moderation decision by explaining how those two comments violate Lizzie’s rules.
Whether you or anyone else thinks they were “thoughtful contributions” is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether or not they violated the rules. If they didn’t, then move them back. If you think they did, then explain why. That is exactly what the Moderation Issues thread is for.
My guess is that it’s because you know they’re accurate. You did exceed your authority; you did invent and enforce a new rule without consulting Lizzie; you did censor two commenters; and you did move comments to Guano that were not in violation of the rules.
Kieths, your recent post to William is about him rather tharn about the topic.
Petrushka is referring to this comment.
If someone’s refusal to answer questions can’t be pointed out, then we’re in trouble. Another good argument for minimal moderation, rather than moderating at the drop of a hat.
It’s exactly what I was getting at when I wrote this comment.
I agree with the petrushka who wrote this:
In other words, my complaint is about William’s comments and the fact that he isn’t answering questions. I am not saying that he always refuses to answer questions, nor that he always adopts that MO. In fact, he was doing really well for a couple of days, prompting me to write:
Wasn’t TSZ born partly because of UD’s zealous moderation?
I think less moderation is better. A full and frank exchange makes for a good read. I also think that “cooling off periods” meta-breaks the “presume posters are posting in good faith” rule.
Nobody here I would hope wants to limit the exchange of ideas. Moderation is always going to be contentious. There’s an argument that minority views get buried under pile-ons so maybe minority posters need a little moderation help. I’m always surprised at the (it seems to me) US American culture of confrontational debate that often creeps in to disputes. I think this may stem from the tradition of High School Debating and the idea that (especially) scientific concepts can be treated meaningfully in this way. I could be wrong though. 😉
And I keep pointing out that a guanoed comment can be reposted with rule-breaking material edited out preferably. Errors occur and can be corrected. Issues can be raised and discussed here. Anyway, I’m hopeful Lizzie may find time to pop in soon and clarify some points at issue.
I think Neil should start his own blog, then whatever rules he wants to make up he can apply as he likes.
Patrick,
An ignore/plonk filter would be useful, though not as useful as in more populous communities. There are a couple of other, larger communities where I post or just read, and I maintain extensive ignore lists there. I do that so that I spend less time sifting through dreck and more time reading what I like, and so that I don’t have to remember all the handles that I have at some point decided to filter out. However, there aren’t that many active participants at TSZ, and my memory is not overtaxed with the names that I don’t care to see. Adding this feature would automate what I am already doing anyway, but it wouldn’t change my experience here a great deal.
Would such a filter address my concerns about degradation of the community? No, it wouldn’t. Such a passive feature won’t have much or any effect on how discussions are conducted, who participates and who decides to leave.
keiths,
It’s not my job to respond to every single question anyone asks me. Some people insist that a question has not been answered no matter how many times you answer it. Some people ask inane, loaded, deceitful and deliberately provocative questions. Some people ask long lines of frankly stupid questions until the other person stops answering (which is the wise & adult thing to do in such a situation), for the deliberate purpose of getting them to stop, then harass that person about not answering their question, framing that harassment as if the other person is “afraid” to answer, or that their refusal to respond is “telling” (of some character or position flaw). Or, they might say something like:
Once again, it is not my responsibility to feed what I might personally consider to be hecklers, trolls or morons too stupid or entrenched in conformist thought to understand my position as explained to date (hence those that still think I’m some kind of Abrahamic theist), or to go down every rabbit-hole someone might erroneously, petulantly require, no matter how much they stamp their feet and demand I do so.
It’s also not my job to correct every misrepresentation or endlessly, repeatedly qualify the same things over and over when others continue to make utterly incorrect paraphrasings or inferences.
I try to have the most adult debates/conversations I can, and when I think I’m being deliberately provoked or misrepresented, or when I think the other person is simply incapable of remembering what I have said repeatedly or unable to grasp my admittedly idiosyncratic views, I stop trying to have a debate/conversation with them (although I might use a post of theirs to make a point or challenge others that think the same way).
keiths, when you say:
How can that be understood as anything other than you characterizing me as not debating in good faith? If you write a response as if I’m debating in good faith, then you must respond as if there is a good faith reason for me to not respond to a question (either I didn’t see it, or I think the question is in bad faith, or I think the person asking the question is hopelessly incompetent as far as the subject is concerned). Clearly, though, the implication of the above post of yours is that I am not arguing in good faith.
So, from now on, why don’t you obey both the spirit and the letter of the rules of this site and if you are going to respond to something I write, write your response in a way that assumes I am, in fact, arguing in good faith, and that if I don’t respond to one of your questions, you assume it is for a good faith reason (as described herein). Stop baiting me with the implication that I bail on conversations in bad faith because I won’t answer every trollish, rabbit-hole, incompetent, moronic, repetitive question someone asks me.
I’ve made that kind of complaint myself. Seeing it done by another makes me want to stop doing it. I see no harm in re-asking a question, but complaining is not attractive.
William,
You’re free to respond, or not to respond, to any question I ask. The choice is completely yours.
Likewise, readers are free to interpret your responses, or the lack thereof, in the way that makes most sense to them.
My questions were not “trollish” or “moronic”. Link, Link
They hit at the heart of your moral system, and your refusal to answer is revealing.
keiths:
petrushka:
That’s silly. To point out that someone hasn’t answered a question, despite being asked repeatedly, is a complaint, but it’s exactly the kind of complaint that belongs on a site called The Skeptical Zone.
SophistiCat, to Patrick:
Well, that answers Patrick’s question. You are focused on controlling what others write, not on protecting readers from what they don’t wish to see.
I’m not sure what your definition of a “passive” system is. What I’m suggesting is the use of a filter that is actively maintained by someone you choose as having similar tastes to yours. If you personally trust Neil, for example, you would only see messages that he actively approves. You could change filters at any time. I might use a completely different filter than you.
There could be whole offensive (to you) conversations taking place and you’d never even know about them.
Would this kind of mechanism address your concerns or will you only be happy with someone actively controlling what everyone can write and read?
Your opinion. When I do it, it seems perfectly reasonable. When I see others do it it seems whiny. I suppose it depends on the frequency. I would say once per thread is about right.
Please don’t use me as an example.
I have no interest in being a censor.
While I accept, per the site rules, that you wrote those words in good faith, I have trouble hearing them over the sounds of your recent actions.
Alan,
Yes, if the moderator explains why he feels the comment is in violation. You do that, but Neil has refused. For four days.
Not Neil’s errors, apparently.
Yes, and I’ve noticed that while you respond to moderation issues, Neil seems to think that if someone questions him, they are asking him to “submit to trial by a kangaroo court.”
Neil is happy to guano people’s comments and impose “cooling-off periods”, but if someone questions him, then he declares it a “kangaroo court” and declines to respond because it would not be “useful”.
It’s bizarre enough that Neil invented his own censorship rule without consulting Lizzie, but to apply it to someone whose two comments didn’t even belong in Guano is way over the line.
I note that you reserve the right to not answer questions that you view as “loaded” or “provocative”. “Inanity” is in the eye of the beholder, and your fourth category is a beautifully ironic breach of site rules.
Ignoring for the moment the tasty “I think the question is in bad faith”, it appears that you have created a new rule: assume others are “debating” in good faith, as opposed to “posting” in good faith. I believe you always “post” in good faith, that is, you believe(tm) what you write. However, you do have a history of refusing to respond to “loaded” questions, as you yourself noted above – that is all that is being pointed out. We are certainly free to draw, from your selective silence, our own conclusions about the strength of your arguments.
Yeah, complaining that “he won’t answer my question” is always unattractive behavior. Even if it’s motivated by a genuine desire to learn the answer to your question. Any child over the age of five knows that asking more than twice is a manipulative strategy, a power struggle; that sometimes grating repetition wears down the other persons so they give in and give you the answer you wanted, while sometimes (maybe more sweet a result) you can frame your opponent’s continued refusal of response into a win for yourself: “if they have to work so hard at avoiding me, that must mean I’m making them squirm because I’m so powerful here”.
Even when motivated by genuine curiosity, that behavior is rude and entitled. “My question is important; my question requires an answer, I deserve an answer; I have the right to complain about not getting an answer; I have the right no matter how bored / uncomfortable I make everyone else with my insistence; if they end up leaving because I’m hogging the discussion with my repetitive questions then that’s their problem not mine”.
I’d say it was childish behavior but really it’s not. Children do manipulate but they rarely use the repetitive-question strategy. Parents / teachers tell them to hush up and stop being so rude. Other kids ostracize them for being freaky. However, as an internet discussion strategy, it works … for some value of the word “works” … because the rest of us can’t say Hush Up. Stop being rude and ugly. Or else, if we do, we will get accused of censorship.
Well, it would be an “ironic breach” if William had mentioned any specific person here or any specific question from a poster here that he felt was inane, loaded, deceitful and/or deliberately provocative. But he clearly did no such thing. He clearly made a statement of fact that, in the world, some people exist who ask such questions. I don’t deny that those people do exist somewhere (perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere) — do you?
I do understand that, in the context of WJM “defending” himself from keiths’ complaint, you could infer he thinks at least one of those listed reasons-not-to-answer applies to keiths. IF not one of those, then what’s his excuse? Why not answer keiths? But that would only be your inference, not the words WJM actually wrote, and it’s a biased inference, not the most charitable one.
So, ironically, it is you after all who turns out to be treating WJM as if he didn’t post that in good faith, him speaking from our common human experience that we have all heard people being deceitful and/or deliberately provocative.
I say this as a person who doesn’t like William. I’m not on his side and I have no reason to defend him personally (nor do I figure he wants me to do so). I don’t even admire his ability to phrase his point carefully so that it’s not close to breaking a rule. That merely makes him better than me in that one area, and at least 90% of the posters here are better than me (as determined by Guano moves) so it’s nothing particularly admirable about WJM.
I just hate the sense of boorish entitlement I’m hearing in most threads responding to William’s answers (or lack of answers), and other similar interchanges. We can do better. I’m not exempting myself. There are a lot of people on this thread and this site recently who can do better.
I don’t want to see more aggressive moderation, and I definitely don’t want censorship.
I have merely expressed my opinion of certain posting styles. I really hate the win at any cost style. I don’t see any place on this particular site for the desire to win arguments. If you disagree with someone, say so, say why, and move on.
hotshoe,
Not by me, you won’t. Expressing an opinion is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. I encourage you to express your opinions, and I think you should be free to do so, even at my expense. I can defend myself and I don’t need any help from the moderators.
I’m with petrushka:
DNA_jock,
There is a 2nd rule to this site:
If I do not respond to a question or some other challenge, there is no post to respond to. Attempting to characterize my motivations for not doing so, or make insinuations or inviting others reach conclusions about me and my reasons for not posting is a blatant violation of the rules.
Also, referring to what one thinks why I have responded the way I respond, my motivations for doing so, or my posting habits is all about me – not the content of what I post. It is nothing but speculation about motivation, reasons, character, etc., usually in a manner that paints me out negatively.
Let’s look at a few examples of commentary/speculation/insult/derision/insinuation that is about the poster, which is clearly against the rules, that remain in the “Critique of Naturalism” thread:
keiths:
Allan Miller:
SeverskyP35:
keiths:
DNA_Jock
petrushka:
petrushka:
petrushka:
Allan Miller:
OMagain:
Neil Rickert:
I’m stopping because I’m just tired of quoting them.
petrushka,
I do too. Think how much more smoothly these discussions would go if commenters would simply acknowledge their mistakes and move on, rather than fighting at all costs to avoid admitting error.
William,
I’m reposting this earlier comment of mine because I think it’s relevant to your complaints:
William,
In light of the comment above, take a look at the statement of mine that you quoted:
What do you object to in that statement? You have told us that you don’t care whether your beliefs are true, as long as they “work” for you. I do think that those of us who care about the truth would be crazy to adopt your lax standards of evidence.
I am criticizing the ideas and attitudes that you have expressed in your comments. You tell us that you don’t care about truth; I think that’s crazy. You denigrate science as second-hand, while accepting first-hand experience as some kind of gold standard for evidence. I think you have it backwards and are being hopelessly lax.
I am not recommending that you be insitutionalized or saying that you are a crazy person. I am saying that some of your beliefs are crazy, and I am perfectly entitled to do so under the rules of this blog.
Again, the point of the “address the post, not the poster” rule is not to protect your ego or to insulate you from criticism. When you express an idea, belief, or attitude in a comment, it becomes fair game for discussion. How could it not, at a site called The Skeptical Zone?
Yes, exactly.
I hope you are kidding.
Everyone thinks he is right.
It is when you are right that you have to move on.
The lurkers can form their own judgements.
hotshoe,
You are wrong. Please re-read WJM’s entire post for the context (which I erroneously took as a given). Here’s his opening:
The inference that he’s talking about posters here seems pretty clear.
And I fail to see how the lack of specificity in his accusation lets him off the hook. Has the rule changed to “Assume that posters that you name are posting in good faith”?
If, after re-reading his post, you still think I made a biased inference about his intent, let me know. Then I’ll move on.
petrushka,
Not true. Often people know they are wrong but are loathe to admit it to their opponents or to the onlookers, out of pride.
I’ve even heard the admission of error described as “groveling”. Who wants to grovel? Someone who sees the acknowledgement of a mistake as tantamount to “groveling” will obviously go to great lengths to avoid it.
I agree, by and large. However, all I did was note that you reserve the right to not answer “loaded” questions, and note the unavoidable fact that readers will draw their own conclusions from your selective silence (about the strength of your arguments, nothing else).
I know this can feel like a pile-on, but you often seem to completely miss others’ points.
William, if this were my site, I’d have banned you long ago for boring me, even if that left everyone else bored for lack of your presence to argue with and to insult. But I like to think if I were a moderator at this site, as it is, with the rules it explicitely has, that I’d have the integrity to move those comments [and more you didn’t quote] to guano for breaking the “not the poster” rule which they do.
I see that everyone, or almost everyone, states that they are not in favor of more moderation. Okay, guys, that’s a fine statement, but do you notice that all y’all don’t currently force yourselves to comply with the letter of 2 simple little rules?
Much less with the spirit of the rules, not enumerated as a specific rule but part of the mission statement as I read it:
As I said before, I’m one of the worst guano-percentage commenters. So sorry, this is definitely a “do as I say, not as I do” request: Be better. Don’t skate so close to the edge of breaking the simple rule to address the post not your “opponent”. Stay out of the grey area. Stay on the good side. Be a hero. Represent the best of humanity with our secular experience.
As far as I can see, the only alternative to heroic self restraint is more moderation (not more rules, just more moderation for the existing 2 rules). And everyone says they don’t want more moderation. What are you going to do?
If not, TSZ fails painfully to live up to our mission statement.
hotshoe,
Internet debates aren’t always attractive. Evading questions is unattractive, and pressing someone for an answer can be unattractive, too. Anyone who is nonplussed by “unattractive” exchanges should avoid the Internet generally and debate sites in particular.
Parent/child or teacher/student relations are a poor metaphor for what goes on at The Skeptical Zone. TSZ isn’t a family. It isn’t a classroom, though it can be educational. It isn’t a party in Walt’s living room, and it isn’t Sophisticat’s carpet.
It’s a place for discussing and debating controversial issues. If I were at a party with William, I wouldn’t be pressing him for answers. I’d change the subject to something less contentious, or find someone else to chat with. But this isn’t a party. If you and Walt think it is, then no wonder you are dissatisfied with the behavior of commenters! It’s your expectations that need adjustment.
You’re right. It isn’t childish to repeat a question, especially not when that question is central to the issue being discussed.
What is childish is when people don’t take responsibility for their statements, as when you made a big deal about how illogical Christopher Hitchens’ speech was, but couldn’t offer a single reason why when asked.
hotshoe,
If it ain’t broke, why fix it? There are active and interesting discussions happening on multiple threads right now, which is exactly as it should be.
If it hadn’t been for Neil’s censorship fiasco, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Walt would have vented for a while, and then it would have been over.
Personally, I believe censorship, like modern surgery, should be minimally invasive. Freedom of speech means hearing things that you might find irritating or offensive but the best response is to speak out against them. Get it off your chest. It feels a lot better. If you find the trolls becoming a nuisance just ignore them. They’ll soon go away And, let’s be honest, even at its worst this place is a haven of polite and civilized discourse compared with some blogs we can all think of.
Yep, I re-read it three times, and I still think you made an inference about his intent that you are not supposed to make, according to this site as I understand it. The problem is not that your inference is incorrect — it does look to me that you are correct in the conclusion without making too much of a leap about what William’s words suggest (that he intends keiths to be identified as one of the “some people” who make “inane, loaded, deceitful and deliberately provocative” posts). The problem is that when you follow the first rule to assume people are posting in good faith, then you must assume that William, in good faith, is making a (factual) observation about some people (in the world, in general) rather than assume that William, in bad faith, is only pretending to talk in generalities while secretly making a personal attack on keiths without actually naming him. “In good faith” and “pretending” are contradictory states. Choose one.
I believe there is a big difference according to the site rules between writing “That was a stupid thing you said” compared to “You’re stupid”. Even though, of course, saying something stupid is indeed evidence you were stupid, at least for the moment in which you said it. But, the rule is address the post not the poster.
And I believe there is a big difference according to the site rules between writing “Some people are too stupid to talk to” and “hotshoe is too stupid to talk to” (It’s okay, that’s hardly news to me; I have teenagers and am plenty used to persons thinking I’m too stupid to talk to.) It’s certainly possible that “some people are” and “hotshoe is” are intended to be exact equivalents; it’s certainly possible that I -being as smart as I really am – was intended to recognize the subtextual meaning of “some people” and absorb the insult by applying it directly to myself. Oh so clever! But the rule is assume the poster is writing in good faith. So, in good faith: “some people” should mean just what it says on the tin: “some people” – just a faceless nameless bunch of cookies. Maybe they’re gingerbread men 😛
Anyways, you’re right about it being time to move on. Thank you for being more sensible about this discussion than some of us.
hotshoe,
Aha! Now I understand. Thank you for the clarification. You are extending “assume good faith” to cover “assume posters are not breaking site rules if there is any interpretation of their posts, however unlikely, that does not break site rules”. I was restricting it to “assume honesty”. I rather like your extension, and I think I will try it out for size. It will be a challenge, though.
I also agree with you that whining is unappealing (I have teenagers too). Iff your interpretation is correct, and WJM was not addressing posters here, then I am left with only the irony of his complaining about insinuation to enjoy.
Maybe he will clarify.
A couple of points for the proponents of heavier moderation to consider:
1. Some of you seem to think that TSZ exists for the sake of the rules, rather than vice-versa. The goal of TSZ isn’t to force perfect compliance with the rules, nor to hunt down every single violating comment and Guano it immediately. Lizzie has always seemed to prefer erring on the side of under-enforcement, which I think is very wise.
Light moderation means that some comments that might be in violation of the rules will remain un-Guano’ed. This is not a catastrophe or a crisis. It does not endanger the future of mankind. It does not bring the blog to a crashing halt, nor does it prevent useful discussions from continuing.
Also, to focus on the rules is counterproductive, even at a (usually) lightly moderated blog like TSZ. It tempts some people into playing the victim, leading them to spend their energy looking for their opponents’ rule violations instead of thinking through the issues and bolstering their arguments.
The primary goal of TSZ is discussion, not rule enforcement.
2. Is the prospect of un-Guano’ed comments really so dire? What would happen if Gregory’s taunts were left where he deposited them? (They sometimes are.) What would happen if Walt called me a ‘dickhead’, as he likes to do, and we just left his comment where he posted it? Would that really be so horrible?
What dire consequences do you think will ensue if we don’t beef up the moderation here? Are you being realistic?
One that has little or no influence on what discussions take place and how they are conducted and who participates and who withdraws.
I see, I misunderstood your proposal. I thought you were proposing personal ignore lists, like most forums have. The feature that you are proposing – of someone else selecting what you can see – is bizarre and senseless, in my opinion. It has all the drawbacks of ignore lists (their passive nature) with none of the benefits (personal choice).
You seem to be laboring under some abstract-theoretical considerations, trying to come up with a system that would be perfect in an ideal world. I am a pragmatist. I have seen different communities come into existence, thrive or wither or mutate into something different. I base my idea of good management on experience, rather than on oversimplified models of human behavior.
keiths,
Yes, I want to control what other people post (or rather, I want a system that exerts some control on what people post). Happy? You think you have won the debate by the use of offensive (in your mind) labels? Why don’t you call me a Fascist while you are at that and Godwin the discussion.
More trash, more acrimony, less interesting discussion, fewer interesting participants – all that is already happening.
Lizzie asked me to be an admin, I assumed, to help with housekeeping, updates, plugins, functionality. I reluctantly try to operate her minimal moderation policy when she is absent. I take the general consensus that moderation is only needed because commenters sometimes are unable to self-moderate.
I don’t have enough time to monitor the whole site 24 hours a day for rule violations so what about a suggestion. Some stuff (spam, porn, hate-speech) is easy to define but rule-breaking comments usually involve an “offended party” as well as an offender. Say admins stop moving posts except where there is a clear violation (see list above) and just respond to requests from the injured party. There will still be a judgement call as to whether a particular request is justified but borderline comments that don’t bother the person to whom they are addressed would stay. On the other hand, comments that are not spotted by admins would thus get moved.
Alternatively, play nice with each other!
I like it. I’ll start following your suggested policy immediately.
I think it’s a great idea, Alan. It gets away from “rules for the sake of rules” and focuses instead on cases in which people feel they have actually been harmed. People who don’t want or need to be protected by moderation can effectively opt out entirely. Others can do so selectively.
At the same time, it lightens the workload of you and the other admins and gives you more time to participate in discussions rather than policing them.
SophistiCat
Someone else selecting what you can see? Sounds a lot like moderation to me. It’s just that in Patrick’s scheme, you get to choose your moderator or opt out entirely.
“Address the post, not the poster.” 🙂
(Moderators: I’m kidding. Please do not move SophistiCat’s comment to Guano.)
Having someone else select what you can see is, as I understand it, exactly what you and others in favor of more intrusive moderation are asking for. If I’ve misunderstood you, I’m happy to read your clarification.
I find it odd that you think my proposal lacks the benefit of personal choice, since that is its core feature. You can choose the filter you like, I can choose the filter I like, and neither of us imposes his or her preferences on the other.
Quite the opposite, actually. I’m trying to understand what characteristics a system would have to have in order to address the preferences expressed by the participants in this thread.
I haven’t posited any particular model of human behavior, simplified or otherwise. I’m just trying to understand why the participants here have the preferences they do in order to, perhaps, come up with a system that addresses those preferences.
I’ve been in online discussions since the dial-up BBS and relatively early Usenet days. In my experience, intrusive moderation results in insular communities that often stagnate. One of the most vibrant, long lasting online fora I’ve ever seen was the completely unmoderated talk.origins Usenet group. Numerous mailing lists also demonstrate the benefits of a hands off approach.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why do you want to control what other people write rather than take responsibility for what you choose to see?