Dear friends,
As promised, I am now sharing with you the reasons which prompted my decision to initiated a reform the comments section and the solutions I am thinking of. Most importantly, I ask for your input as this should be a community-wide discussion.
But first, sorry, I need to vent. There are a few things which I have mentioned in the past, but I feel that I need to get them off my chest even if this triggers yet another outcry of outraged protests.
Dealing with the left side of the Bell Curve:
Simply put – I am sick and tired of stupid people.
And I don’t mean “stupid” as in insult here, I mean it in the sense of people with evidently low-intelligence. I am especially frustrated with those who never read what it says, but who somehow read ‘into’ what they think a text says. This might be the result of being, well, stupid, or a lack of education in logical thinking, or both. But these are the folks who when you write “most Bolsheviks were Jews” conclude that “most Jews were Bolsheviks“. Then they typically add something like “in other words all Jews are evil” or “so what you are really saying is that Russians played no role in the Bolshevik revolution“. These people frustrate me to tears. I often feel like screaming at them from the top of my lungs “I wrote what I wrote because I wanted to write what I wrote!! If I wanted to write something else, I would have written something else!!” and then proceed to bash their faces into a pulp with a brick. Okay, I usually clam down in seconds, but yeah, this kind of people drive me crazy, they have been the bane of this blog since day 1 and by now I just want them to go away. Most of their “contributions” to any discussion are worthless sophomoric ad hominems, logical fallacies and straw man arguments anyway…
I want to this blog to be aimed at 1) adult 2) intelligent and 3) educated people (and I don’t mean “educated” in the sense of having some academic degree, God knows there are plenty of idiots out there with PhDs; I mean educated in the sense of “taught how to think logically”).
Dealing with narcissistic homosexuals
A much smaller group that the one above, they are, however, a much more tenacious group who truly and sincerely believe that they have to constantly preach for the “non-discrimination” and recognition of “homosexuality as a normal and healthy variation of human sexuality”. These are the folks who are deeply convinced that their sexual psychopathology is a sacred cow to which the entire universe has to bow in awe and admiration. Well, screw them (metaphorically, of course), I think that I am going to follow the example of the city of Moscow and ban “gay pride parades” (in the comments section) for the next 100 years :-) And if somebody wants to think that this is an expression of my “homophobia” (i.e. fear or hatred for homosexuals), then that is their problem. These folks have abused my patience and it is high time for me to show them to the door.
Dealing with false categories such as “The Jews” or “The Muslims”
That is a big one. As I have mentioned recently, in some people – including often Jews themselves – the word “Jew” seems to trigger an instantaneous disconnection of the cerebral cortex combined with a simultaneous outburst of hateful rage. As a result, many simply shy away from ever mentioning the “J” word. I don’t think that this is the right approach. Jews have played a huge role in the 20th century, they still are playing a huge role internationally, and Jewish ideologies such as Zionism, Trotskyism, Neo-Conservatism or Rabbinical Talmudism (aka “Orthodox Judaism”) are still playing a major and extremely toxic role in modern politics. To ignore this would be crazy. Alas, there are also those who wish to blame anything and everything on “the Jews” as if such a category even existed. Saying “the Jews” is as stupid and ignorant as saying “the Muslims” or, for that matter, “the Christians”. These categories make no sense whatsoever other than, maybe, being “conceptual containers” for slogans and fallacies. They should not be used on the Saker blog.
Dealing with colors
Friends, there is no such thing as a White person. No such thing as a Black person either. Some of us have lighter and darker skins, that is true, but to use colors as cultural or, worse, racial markers is simply counter-factual. Of course, there are powerful political interests out there who want to frame the debate in terms of White vs Black, but why should we, intelligent educated adults, agree to this? Does it really make sense to take a Bayaka, a Tutsi, an Amhara, a Tamil and a Torres Strait Islander (all with very dark, black, skins) and call them “Blacks”?! How about an Icelander, a Slovak and a Portuguese?! So let me get something else off my chest: the only reason why the categories Black and White are so often used in the USA is because of an almost total lack of any other true cultural affiliation. If the so-called Blacks and Whites in the USA had kept their European and African cultures they would never have endorse any Black or White identities. This is, if anything, a tragedy, but we don’t have to start using these clearly meaningless categories simply because so many Americans are rootless. So (skin-)color based comments should not be used on the Saker blog.
Dealing with bona fide trolls and paid hasbara propagandists
They exist, no doubt about that, but they are, I think, still a minority, at least on this blog. When I coined the expression “Anglo-Zionist” I did get a lot of pressure from what I call “anti-anti-Semites” to stop using it, true. And then, for a year or so, I have been getting a deluge of emails accusing me of both being an anti-Semite and a “Jew lover” (as if loving anybody could ever be a bad thing!). I also got tons of emails from a category I call “offended Nazis” who felt that I was being unfair to the Nazis or that I was buying into Jewish propaganda. But now I think that both sides have more or less given up in total disgust, and that’s good. But yeah, they still resurface here on a regular basis and post their usual inanities. We need to do something to further discourage them.
Bottom line: I am sick and tired of all of them.
Now that I (finally!) got that off my chest, I want to stress something here: I posted the above solely to share with you my frustrations, to give you a context for my current thinking. I do not, repeat, NOT want to open the floor for a discussion of stupid people, homos, false categories, colors or trolls and propagandists. Again, let me repeat this, you are not invited to discuss any of that, not right here and not right now.
Right now I want to solely focus on the tough question of what to do about these problem.
My first inclination was to allow comments only by registered people. I would not demand that anybody reveal his/her real identity, but I would demand that anybody wanting to post a comment first create and username and a password before posting.
My webmaster, Herb, has advised me against it. Not only that, but I think that he might have come up with a much more elegant idea:
What if we created a “Gold membership” or something similar? Commentators would be given the option to apply for this status and, if accepted, it would give them the right to post comments without going through moderation. Not only that, but we could offer each visitor the option to view the comments section with either “show all comments” or “show only Gold member comments” activated. This way nobody would be forced to sign up for anything, but those commentators who provide the best and most interesting comments would be rewarded (and encouraged) by being given this special status: no moderation, instant publication and high “visibility”.
Let me immediately add that obtaining such a “Gold membership” status will not be automatic or even easy. I would be the only person deciding to grant/deny this status and it could be removable at any time. And to get it you would have to prove that you have a history of non-banned comments, but of quality non-banned comments.
Furthermore, there are a few problems with that concept which we need to discuss.
My deputy webmaster, Zapek, as warned of a potential problem “if a gold member replies to a non-gold comment, the context is lost“. To which Herb replied “could post a shadow comment acting as a placeholder for non-viewable comments … then it would be up to reader if he wants to switch to view all or just keep viewing gold comments“. Zapek then replied “For threaded conversations I don’t think there’s a solution at all. The question is if people are willing to see replies made to void. Personally I wouldn’t. An alternative would be to hide the empty comments (non-gold users who haven’t been replied to) but then it gets more complicated“.
So, bottom line, I personally like the idea a lot, but we are still in the initial stages of discussion and a lot of things need to be ironed out. So, please let us all know what you think about this idea.
Other possible options I might want to look into include:
- Completely or partially re-writing the moderation policy
- Be much quicker in banning aggravating commentators
Let me make something unambiguously clear: commenting here is not a “right” and I owe nobody anything. I see commentators as invited guest whose contribution is appreciated and add an immense value to this blog, but that means that I also want to make darn sure that my guest remain in good company. Frankly, the way I see it I have a substantial, but not huge, number of regular commentators whose contribution is superb and most appreciated. Then I have a very large number of commentators who rarely comment, but when they do their comments are always interesting to read and make good points. These irregular but good commentators should not get penalized in any way. And then there is a small group of highly driven and individuals who act like spoiled teenagers: ignorant, not very smart, but extremely arrogant and self-centered. These guys simply don’t belong here. What I need is a fair way to “separate the wheat from the chaff”.
Please help me make that happen.
Every single time I asked our Community for help in the past you guys delivered, every time. I have no doubt that this time around you will also help me take the correct decision.
Please let me know what you think and what you suggest I do. Let’s give it a week or so until everybody has been given enough time to post his/her comments, does that sound like a reasonable plan?
I don’t want to take a “top->down”, unilateral, decision if I can avoid doing so. While I am the host here, morally this blog “belongs” to you all, the Saker Community, and want to make sure that you have your say.
Thanks a lot in advance, kind regards, cheers and hugs to all,
The Saker
For sure abusive language, uncivilised behaviour and threats must be castigated and exposed, which is the policy of the site anyway.
But I think that cutting out ‘inconvenient’ comments would deprive us of knowing how our ‘un-friends’ think, which would not advance our own thinking. Exposing their errors (many due to lack of accurate information, all too often aggravated by ideological biases) may shake their confidence and perhaps, perhaps, induce them to reform (although I won’t bet to much on that, many indeed being spoiled teenagers – or arrested teenagers: ignorant, not very smart, but extremely arrogant and self-centered). Cutting them out may reinforce their mistaken belief that they are right and delude them that they are ‘persecuted’ and give them ammunition to complain on other sites. We should not let them have the last word, for their own benefit. Many readers came to see this site as an educational one.
The actual format is working fine. I think that it is not a good idea to transform the community into an ‘esoteric’ one smacking of ‘secret society’.
Hi,
Just one idea -use 3 category for comments:
1. comments for deleting
2. comments from left side of bell curve, trolls and etc.
3. regular, qood comments
and:
a) if possible give the readers the options to see all the coments from category 2. and 3. or just the comments from category 3.
b) let all comments from category 2. and 3. be visible but for comments from category 2. ket them have let say gray background ( mark them somehow diferrent from catefory 3. )
b.1) same as b) , but use gray background only for parts of comment (good points let be normal )
Comments from category 2 sometimes (not often) have good points.
Sory for bad english.
Thanks for your blog , argumented analyses and good guest articles.
i checked back to remind myself of an impression i formed reading all the suggestions.
you receive tons of emails, and a deluge of same. only one comment even mentioned them.
is the email problem which frustrates you? necessarily linked to the blog of course.
but i’ve no idea how large the moderator’s trash bin is.
for myself the blog’s moderation policy works well for me jus as it is.
the few trolls that get through the system one can instinctively suspect,
but they are necessarily of some quality to get through.
i cannot suggest anything to relieve you of distressing emails and
i’m assuming that emails and blog moderation are really separate,
unless i am missing something.
i like the blog as it is thanks for having the patience and courage
to keep on keeping on.
other comments on other sites are extremely boring, mostly,
especially those with voting/thumbs up or down systems with
people/bots accusing others of up voting thier own comment.
and the one who suggested that peope reply to their own comments
to flood, disrupt and kill the thread. hasbra 10 identities comes to mind.
Anonymous on September 19, 2017 • at 10:20 pm UTC
I am sure crypto-elitism won’t serve anyone’s interests.
Yes. The drive to bestow categories like Gold this and Silver that, Platinum Member, Red Carpet Customer, VIP Pampering Class, Golden Perks, and so on… they smack of something. Class stratification must be inculcated from a tender age in the Rapacious System. Be proud of your stratum. Always seek to move one layer up. The deeper the multitude on which you sit, the cushier it gets for your delicate ass. Enjoy.
Well, I don’t like those titles either.
The increasing frequency of trolling and veiled attempts at misdirection would indicate that official nerves are being touched. It puts a load on the mods, but if there were few attempts at noise it would mean we are all in within acceptable parameters.
You nailed it there. Sometimes massive squealing can be fun to listen to. You know you must have touched a very sensitive fiber, you must have disturbed some deep-seated beliefs to elicit that kind of shrillness. Of course after a while you have to turn it off. But the squealers and the grumblers can be easily skipped when reading. Conversely, an absence of discontent suggests you are either regurgitating universal pieties, or your audience contains no members who disagree with you, which probably means that in your drive to disinfect and purify, you may have censored too much and driven away all dissidence.
Very good points.
I think the pearl /oyster metaphor is apt.
Some degree of friction is necessary to elicit the ‘pearls’. The sophistry of an educated troll has its uses, not least, exposure of tactics.
The quality of that friction is a judgment – call.
What I need is a fair way to “separate the wheat from the chaff”
Treat it as a Home issue. Guest is bound to respect the rules of the Home. If he does not like the rules, he is free to leave. What is fairer than this? Try and experiment, find out what works for those involved. Treat it as a work in progress. Degrade the issue to minimal attention level as it deserves and keep up the good work! That will get you somewhere and it will annoy the hell out of them besides.
Only concrete suggestion that i would like to offer is that you can not be allowed to comment without a name. Encourage their imagination and allow them to sharpen their skills, they might use them for something when their employers withdraw investments due to change of geopolitical landscape or when they wake up.
Thank you for allowing me to share your virtual Home, most enjoyable out here. If ever your path lead you toward Novi Sad Serbia i invite you to come and allow me to return the favor in real world. Take care, and i say again, keep up the good work!
Maybe there could be two comment threads for each article; one with a narrow discussion range and the other with a broad one. Inappropriate comments on the first list could be bumped to the second.
As a refinement of this idea, if it isn’t too much work have tabbed comments where clicking on a tab gives comments for a particular topic.
Also: when a comment is submitted, instead of the usual moderation message have brief restatement of commenting policy.
Dear The Saker,
one thing is very good – if your site is obsolete, you will never face this problems :)
My recommendation, if you will have chance to read it will be a little un-orthodox :)
The idea is as follows:
— this site and the discussion is all about education, getting information. this is difficult process and needs a little stering, that is why we have teachers.
I recommend to add to every problematic comment a moderator note explaining why this comment is not OK – e.g. – “this commenter did not read the thesis properly and is missing key point of discussion”
— and I will leave the comments with “Your rating ” added.
Key benefit will be, that people will start to learn from other people mistakes and the trolls army with their false ideas will very well work for us, as we will demask them in real life.
If we simply delete, we will lose the chance to learn their tactics, you know what I mean.
You will turn this big obsctacle into your strength – judo in practice :0)
best,
Martin
I guess I should say that I am nervous about anything that smacks of censorship. There are problematic comments. If “Russians speak to everyone” then they should be allowed in theory. In practice you want something that works in some sense. Is it worthwhile to engage with these comments in the limited form of allowing them to appear or in a more active way? I don’t know. The internet makes it hard to know what is going on with your interlocutors.
The basic problem with censorship is that we are all flawed and what we think is “nonsense” may be wrong. Who is right about everything? In a discussion there needs to be a certain amount of give and take and an allowance for error. At the same time at some point one draws a line with how much goofiness one endures.
The gold membership idea doesn’t sound very egalitarian.
Dear Saker,
I come tp your blog for your analysis, not the comments, but I glans at them from time to time, and I share your despair on the quality of some of it, but other comments have good insights and are helpful. To increase the quality would be helpful.
Here are my suggestion of how to improve them:
1. I think that you should not allow a discussion at all. Allow everyone a space limited comment, under the rules that you have sketched above. Only the author are then allowed one, brief answer to clarify, but discussion ends there.
2. Allow only one comment per user. If there are more than one, from the same, then the second must be validated by the moderator before published.
3. Require all who comments to register. The name is not interesting, I do not need to know your name, Saker will do just fine. Call me Lagopus (come fly with me, but don’t eat me, you crock-beaked predator).
What I would like to know is the allegiances and worldview of the commentator. Let the name have a link that pops a small window with the person’s self-description. Mine would look like this:
“Lagopus:
Norwegian, man, living in Norway
World view: Faithful, protestant Christian, aligned with historical Christianity.
Ideologically non-aligned, seeing strengths and weaknesses in all ideologies; believing in human reason based on common sense to solve challenges rather than political one-size-fit-all dogma.
Political view: European centrist, member of a political party and have held local/regional office for that party.
Concerned about the concentration of power on a few, unelected hands. Distrust mainstream media because of lack of neutrality and it is biased.
Do not believe in conspiracy theories, unless hard evidence is presented; no power, cabal or commission are able to move the events of the world without leaving trails. I believe that group thinking, political agitation, the elite’s usurpation of the democratic process, and the elite’s self-interests explains the recent, regrettable historical developments.
Other information: Married to a Russian woman and are thereby able to see through the bias against Russia in MSM.
Wish for a multipolar world were no nation can claim to be inexpendable or claim rights other do not have. Wish for that because the unipolar option seems more and more scary.
Have military experience and considers Norwegian membership in NATO a necessity for now.
Considers Putin the greatest Statesman of our time, but do not share his views on economic policy and some other issues. “
This is a what I would consider a minimum to put my comments in a perspective where they can be interpreted. I should expand on the description if I make comments on things that is not included. If a person makes comments about “the Jews”, then there should be something in the statement about Jews. No opinion should be the cause of banishment, but to obscure ones view should be, after due warning.
3. Please make some sort of ranking system and make it possible to sort comments according to it, an idiot-troll filter. You are free to rank as you please on your blog, but I would preferred if the ranking was based on the quality of the comments, not content, unless it violates the rules. MSM is censoring opinion, you should avoid doing that.
You could score the comments along these lines:
-Does it follow the rules: Comment removed/ Warning / Accepted (default)
-Is it on topic: Comment removed / Warning / Accepted (default)
-Does it contribute to the insight on the article’s topic: Neutral (default) / Added to the insight / Added much (To register opinion shoud be neutral, but it does not add anything, really.)
-Is it well written, well argued? Comment removed / Poor / Neutral (default) / Good / Excellent
Some sort of score system based on something like that should reveal who are Gold members and who are trolls or idiots. At least idiots deserve a limited number of chances to improve behavior. Let the comments be sorted on these points and/or the ranking of the commentator, rather than on when they were added. (This implies that there should be a time limitation for commenting as well).
A windy response, but the topic was intriguing.
Yours truly,
Lagopus.
Dear Saker,
First, an ideological response about the guests in your house. There is something about the blog as it stands that is refreshing and deeply civilised, and an open comments section has a lot to do with it. It gives the blog an aura of breadth and calm, as if it can absorb the full spectrum of humanity without being ruffled, as a good host should at a large house and garden party. It is in fact a great strength. Do you intend it this way? Is this something you want to continue?
From what you have written, you are clearly fed up with the louts falling into the rose beds and knocking vases off mantle pieces and have personally ruffled your hair in physically evicting them. It is not good that you have had to, first because it is bad form and you shouldn’t want to beat someones face in with a brick in front of other guests (!) and secondly, because it should not have got to this stage.
If you want to maintain an open and welcoming house, putting huge bouncers on the door and around the house with a very strict code to follow (gold membership), the party is over. You both show distrust of your guests, intimidate them and open yourself, certainly in the minds of your other guests, to filtering out all but your ideological friends. This private blog is, in the spirit of the internet, not a place for your of friends, but for groups of friends to meet and talk even to your exclusion.
A practical suggestion: The best kind of party vetting is by empowering social exclusion. Dickheads in the roses get ‘sent to Coventry’ by the other guests. Ask Herb and Zapek if it is possible to have an open comments section with up and down voting. If any post receives in excess of, for example, 10 down votes, their comment is automatically deleted by a piece of programming. 1 vote per visitor. Up votes make no difference. 5 (for example) such deletes and the user is deleted from the right to comment. Setting thresholds will take a little time, that is all.
Let your guests do the dirty work for you and your co-hosts (mods). Keep your doors open. Keep your mind on feeding your guests and oiling the discourse. Let good people the pleasure of sending rough bastards into the street. It will reduce your stress levels and work load.
Theo
What might work well for your comments section are relatively simple discussion guidelines as commonly used in mediation/facilitation. For example, keep your comments as brief as possible, be respectful of others, etc. Once your discussion guidelines are posted don’t allow any comment that doesn’t adhere to these guidelines.
Hello Saker
It is your site, and you decide what to do. My personal opinion is that no matter there are many things to do, and limitations, I would focus in two main issues:
First we have to be conforming with the law and regulations, so it is illegal to spread false information.
Second we are here to discuss, not to humiliate each other.
These things can be corrected very easy. “News RT” has solved this problem just deleting the message and displaying “This message was deleted”.
Would be good if people can vote, but this is just a suggestion, because there are many technicalities not possible for any web Site.
re -direct anons or ‘continue discussion-comment’ to your mibbit or something similar via a link or tab , as one can be truly anonymous there, then every once in a while “best of’ is selected as comment of the week, or a compendium /selection is selected and added to article or analysis?
But sorting out the chaff…even one person may have a golden nugget of a sentence in a paragraph of “maybe’.
There has to be a system that allows for growth of interaction with this website……our target is the entire world?
Occasionally you have to take out the trash. Given that the Israelis have so kindly published a manual on how to disrupt online discourse that you don’t agree with, I’m surprised that Saker’s moderation does so well separating the wheat from the chaff. It’s that commitment and dedication that makes Saker the most effective online anti imperialist source. Keep up the good work.
do you have a link to the manual … it would be good reading for the mods … herb
http://www.gilad.co.uk/…/jonathon-blakeley-a-guide-to-hasbara-trolls.html (Jonathon Blakeley: A guide to Hasbara trolls, November 22, 2011 / Gilad Atzmon)
https://platosguns.com/2015/08/25/a-guide-to-hasbara-trolls-jonathon-blakeleygilad-atzmon-blog/
Hello there. As a daily visitor to this blog who has never commented before, I will add my tupence worth on this occasion.
I spent my working life as a ‘webmaster’ and programmer. Not that it matters.
Your idea of gold status, and up/down votes and filtering comments are just headaches in the making.
If you have a problem with random idiots posting trash, demand registration with email verification. That will deter 90% of them and also allow your mods to block spammers.
Only allow commenting on recent/current blog posts. You can close commenting on older posts and thus reduce the workload of your mods.
Don’t let this issue distract you. It’s easily solved and not worth getting upset about.
Registration, moderation, and closing posts to further comments. They are my suggestions.
I second this, very good comment!
Hi The Saker
I’m sorry to hear that you’re sick and tired of the groups you mentioned. It’s gracious of you to consult the community before making changes.
I have a question about a Gold membership: How would you find out that someone isn’t stupid, a narcissistic homosexual, etc. before giving them a Gold membership?
I hope the question won’t qualify me as stupid.
You mentioned
1. Completely or partially re-writing the moderation policy; and
2. Be much quicker in banning aggravating commentators.
Could you tell us more about 1?
2 is certainly a good idea if it doesn’t make your webmasters, your moderators or you work too hard.
Keep up the good work and cheers!
Has Saker become a target for a PayPal drop unless he falls in line?
Saker – it strikes me that all that’s needed is a little bit more moderation to enforce any rules that you see fit and that the rules need to be clear and simple. The concensus so far seems in favour of a lighter touch and is broadly wary of censorship. That said it’s clear that you need “some” rules and that you (or any one person) doesn’t have the stamina to poiice everything single-handedly? The adage goes that we all have the world that we deserve. So maybe everyone needs to be encouraged to keep anyone especially aggressive or idiotic in line? But aren’t there also some long termers who have proven themselves trustworthy and who can share the burden of moderation? If everyone was allowed to report something they thought was particularly over the top then it would take the item to moderation – i.e. bring it to the attention of someone in control. If you are wary of concentrating power then limit what any single moderator can do – e.g. maybe two different mods have to agree on whether something is wrong and what action is appropriate – a warning comment, deletion, banning, etc? If this is truly a “community” (which it seems to be) then surely everyone has a role in helping?
I liked the early comment of this being akin to a pub – with a group of regulars, but which welcomed visitors. I’d make the observation that in a pub it’s the ultimate responsibility of the manager (or their designated stand-in) to run the pub so that undesirables get thrown out. However, the manager’s responsibility is also to establish the culture of the pub so that there are always regulars present who reinforce that culture (which helps keep potential undesirables in line). There are a lot of decent, thinking people here, maybe they just need some encouragment to help keep the loons at bay?
Saker should be afraid of the Jews. I am. They control the money (PayPal) and the message (e.g., YouTube).
They will come for him unless he stops the comments. And he should and stay focused on his message with a rare Putin type comment at them.
To prevent “so what you really are saying is” type strawman nonsense just insist that they quote your words directly in quotes before they reply to them. That forces them to actually look at what you wrote not what they think you mean.
I don’t know how that could be implemented from a technical standpoint.
It is very interesting to take note of the subjects on which you received the barrage of “imbecilic” and “pesty” comments – Jewish question and the Nazi issue as per the allies understanding and not according to what many consider to be the facts.
Therefore I would say you might well choose your subjects in a more discriminating manner or open up these two questions to an interesting debate.
You don’t normally have such a powerful bashing response. It was the subject matter.
Anyway, be that as it may, your site is wonderful and thank you.
I’d like to nominate Auslander, Larchmonter, and Vot Tak as gold members … some comments are definitely more equal than others.
I usually read but don’t comment, because it is unfamiliar territory to me. Hence my nick. Have learned a lot here, however.
If I have to register with some Russian social media service, I won’t comment any more … think I have a Disqus ID around here someplace, haven’t used in forever. But yeah I can understand the need to keep controls outside the AZ web sphere. Sorry, I don’t really have any concrete suggestions.
I think that the Saker and his assistants do already a great job in trimming sections of comments that are offensive or intolerably obnoxious.
As one atom among thousand other atoms here are my thoughts on the issue:
1. Critical comments provide a useful measure of what we can call the “temper of the audience.” And when critics read what they don’t like, they inherently show that what they don’t like is worth reading,
2. To avoid the burden of extensive editing, I would suggest to publish a telegraphic summary of the “rules for commentators” at the end of each article and before the comment section. At least experiment with the idea and see if it makes any difference.
3. On the issue of white-black etc. “dialectical” semantic changes have shifted the meaning of “white” to “person of European background, usually white or at least whitish.” Continuing to use the label “white” help those forces who are waging war against Americans of European ethnic background. Not because they are “white” or “whitish,” but as carriers and symbols of values they wish destroyed.
Given that the blog promotes a debate among readers, counter-commentators often correct the errors of the original commentator who uses the labels improperly. I would attempt to rely on the counter-commentators to detect and redress an obvious misapplication of language.
4. On the “Jewish Question.” It is absolutely true. If you say “Jew” you are deemed ipso facto an “Anti Semite.” This often intimidates the many “Goys” who do not wish to hate anyone. But may I say that the responsibility rests on those Jews who like to read what they wish to read in anything one says – especially if they consider him/her an ‘enemy.’ It is equally observed that if a writer or commentator makes a statement pointing to an obvious Jewish intervention, influence or pressure in this or that issue, the counterparty, rather than confronting the issue, accuses the writer of being an “anti-Semite.” This is logically idiotic, but it reinforces the impression that the argument that triggered the ire of the Jew cannot be denied.
All this the world well knows. 450 members of Senate and Congress are living witnesses and evidence of the climate of fear of Jewish resentment. Solution? None. We could shut up, but the more we do (as proven by the 450 above) the more wars or positive chances of war we will have. I include in this the repeated and immeasurably idiotic US threats to Iran, N. Korea, as the most recent instances in a long train of pernicious arrogance. For it is impossible to ignore, in the concept of the “indispensable nation,” an efflorescence of the idea of the “chosen people.”
Gold membership seems a bit elitist. In a way the trolls are a validation of what you are doing. More people come to the site for information and that is being noticed. Maybe update the moderation policy and possibly give the moderators more power to trash without referring to you? Be tougher on moderation and eventually the trouble makers will go elsewhere. They’ll whine on about censorship but who cares? If some want to air their views (and some comments are very long) they can set up their own blogs.
I think this is something that needs very careful consideration, which you clearly indicate.
I can’t imagine how depressing and frustrating it must be to deal with the tide of stupidity, aggression and mindless ‘reactions’ on a daily basis that comes oath the territory. It’s spiritually polluting if it is allowed to go unchecked,not to mention damaging to health..
And that’s without going into the threats (I’ve no doubt that happens too.)
The problem for an honest ‘injun’ blog in this era of near universal deceit is to keep the openness and high standard of commenting, without falling into the pit of censorship.
Could Herb come up with a filter that acts as a warning, rather than direct elimination?
Possibly coding your ‘red lines’?
These can then be queued by mods, making their work – and yours! – easier.
I want to see The Saker expand its audience, without losing quality – I’ve personally learned a lot from the comments section. I would like others to have that experience too. God knows, we need not only learn, but to unlearn much of what we in the West have been subjected to – total indoctrination.
I agree registration for commenting is restrictive and likely to change the character of the blog.
So perhaps this ‘gold standard’ is worth pursuing.
But I personally prefer a bespoke ‘Saker filter’.
The virtual kind.
Your blog – your rules. My two cents: i suggest change the moderation rules to incorporate your above points and quickly ban offending posters, perhaps in stages – 2 weeks, 4 weeks, forever. Gold member idea is good (though sadly i doubt any posts I make are interesting enough to make the grade – I would appreciate being able to read the more interesting/constructive comments more easily). I don’t agree that this step would turn the comments section into an Echo Chamber. Contrary points of view will still be allowed won’t they- just all the ad-hominem/identity politics crap will be removed (lessened). What’s not to love?
I think we should let people be idiots from time to time. I will be the first to admit that I have been an idiot occasionally.
Other than that, whatever policy you want to have is fine by me!!
You have to appreciate, English as a language tends to have certain nuances that non-English speakers might interpret differently. No matter how idiot proof an article was written, there’s bound to be some noise for the incoming comments box.
First suggestion requiring a registration is both a major hassle (for commenters) and ultimately ineffective vs all the above. Not only you need resources for moderation, you also need them for maintaining the registry. It creates an inherent IT security issue.
Gold membership idea is both un-scalable and un-maintainable. The scheme requires a 24/7 oversight to keep the checks and balances. It’s aways open to a trojan horse attempt.
My suggestion, keep it simple stupid (KISS).
Re-write the moderation policy and post an article to align everyone.
Then have 3 action choices for trash comments :
1) Moderate the offensive part and post it.
2) Tag it with a moderator negative/trash post mark and post it. Filtering is possible with this.
3) Not post it altogether.
Like it or not, all posts should be moderated imo, no exceptions.
Creating exclusions or express approvals opens the whole scheme to abuse.
P.S. Exactly why Russian law bans its active politicians from having a business interest, delineating both clearly to head off abuse from the conflict of interest.
Stick to your guns.
If you were not being effective you would not get trolled.
“But the moment eloquence or the language of debate enters, true reasoning becomes impossible. For the purpose of the debater is not to find the truth but to win the argument, and to this end he will often stray as far as possible from the real issues”
“Eloquence and debate are designed, not to decide issues, but to sway people, for this reason they lean heavily on appeals to emotion and prejudice, and make use of neat, clever, and sometimes humorous turns of phrase rather than profound analysis of ideas”
“Of all this Confucious was contemptuous”
Confucious by H. G. Creel 1913, Chapter “The Teacher”
https://arnielerma.quora.com/Some-advice-from-Confucious
PS: The most used fallacy is ad-hominem –
Confucious by H. G. Creel 1913, Chapter “The Teacher”