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
“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. ”
-Not really. Denying race however is counter-factual.
“Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Ops, I disagree, that is not allowed!! I guess I am a “pest” or “stupid” or “troll” or imbecile” or “uneducated” or whatever.
Please no replies to this comment – please read what the Saker has posted below. Any reply will go to trash. Mod
Ops, I disagree, that is not allowed!! I guess I am a “pest” or “stupid” or “troll” or imbecile” or “uneducated” or whatever.
which part of the following do you not understand:
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.
Nevermind. since you ignored it that makes you either a rude troll, or an idiot, or both.
You pick!
:-P
The Saker
“Be much quicker in banning aggravating commentators.” Is the best you can do.
@ sackerson
Let guests delete comments and vet the comments?
A bit of programming:
Up votes and down votes.
1 vote per guest, per blog entry.
Any comment that receives eg. in excess of 10 down votes over a given period is aromatically deleted (time period prevents earlier posts from hitting the down vote threshold by merit of long up time).
Up votes don’t count, to prevent trolls sticking together.
5 (for example) deletes and the guest is banned.
Saves mods time. More work for less input by spreading the load.
Trolling is like road rage. You wouldn’t do it if you thought the person in front was your neighbor i.e. was someone you had some social responsibility towards, and who could stick you with your own bad behavior.
‘1 vote per guest’ should read ‘1 vote per visitor’. (Not enough guest commentators per blog entry sometimes.)
… ‘aromatically’ deleted should read ‘automatically’. Although I am not sure.
I wouldn’t even delete downvoted comments, just hide them, and give readers the option to unhide those, if they want.
I never contribute, but read a lot. I like the gold standard idea. Maybe have a point system apart of the God standard. One where the moderator gives points to the applicants posts. After enough points accumulate, they receive their Gold status.
Why not use disqus? It has all of those functions, easy to ban, you need to register, you can vote the comments, it has a huge user base so it will mean more people will find this site
Discus has in the past, and likely still does now, censor via technology, meaning if you have an incompatible OS or browser you’re locked out of being able to discuss. I know of this because it happened to me; and despite my complaints, criticisms and proof offered for my argument, Discus refused to acknowledge its wrongful behavior or do anything to deal with the actual problem. IMO, Discus like Google, needs to be sent to the scrap heap where the belong due to their immoral behavior and, in the case of Google, lawbreaking.
O Saker LatAm só aceita comentários via Google, Discus, etc.
Veja a pequeníssima quantidade de comentários postados.
Provavelmente, nós, del Sur, temos mais razões para não confiar nessas máquinas.
” IMO, Discus like Google, needs to be sent to the scrap heap ”
I agree.
I think the direction to go with comment management/improvement depends on whether you want to actually make it harder to comment, and thus to discourage the lazy or trollish.
In my town there are two independent newspapers (yes, really—quite unusual, that). One has an “open” comment system and the other uses Discus. THe former paper has many, many more comments and the threads are quite interesting. On one and the same story, containing virtually identical information, the “open” paper has 50 comments (the majority reasonable) versus just 13 comments for the Discus paper. This is quite consistent. I cannot wrap my brain around the Discus thing, esp. since Discus itself seems to have changed. thus, IMO, using Discus will be a disincentive to comment. That might be a desired outcome.
THe “gold” thing with other bells and whistles sounds complicated to me. And possibly actually unfair. Many people may have good intentions but sound stupid but not actually be trolls, or may occasionally make smart comments and occasionally stupid ones. What if a Gold makes a stupid comment??? Demoted? Also, it might encourage a “teacher’s pet” syndrome.
Would it perhaps be a small, incremental step in the right direction to require all commenters to register and provide a real name, etc. and ban the use of “Anonymous”? Plus, they have to use the same handle all the time.
This is how the Unz Review does it. I think it is disallowed to switch handles, and the handle you registered with comes up automatically when you click on “leave a comment” or “reply.” The software automatically recognizes one’s computer and one’s established handle pops up. Also, Unz has a few categories that I think certain users can click on, or activate, such as “Troll.” I think this is a feedback mechanism that established commenters can use. Not sure how this works but it might be worthwhile to ask Ron Unz.
Maybe try this first (ban anonymous and require registration) and see if it helps? By clarifying who is who (by banning “anonymous”), reducing undesirable types of comments because commenters can no longer hide, and also making it easier for moderators and other commenters to spot trends (when “anonymous” banned) by specific commenters and to take specific action according to the problem presented by a specific commenter. ?
This won’t eliminate all annoying types of comments—but I wonder whether that is possible . . . Human beings being only human . . . But it might allow judicious spot weeding and discipline of those with various types of obnoxious patterns.
Katherine
Good point on the Disqus user base giving The Saker visibility to more people.
Disqus is fine if you don’t mind waiting hours for it to load.
Please, don’t use Disqus. It has very serious privacy issues. The Disqus widget tracks users, even non-members, and even when not logged in. It records IP addresses, browser metadata, and sends this info to their server. It may be disclosed to third parties. All the comments will live in their database and could be censored without consent of The Saker. Also, their security was cracked in 2013 by a Swedish group named Researchgruppen, not merely intent on unmasking commenters, but the Swedes actually stalked people, went to their homes vigilante style, to harass them for making putatively racist, and otherwise offensive comments.
Even a little bit of web searching on Disqus turns up articles like this:
Is Disqus Killing Your Blog? Why (and How) I Pulled the Plug
Disqus and similar comments platforms are:
1. not visible if you use ad blockers, etc. (which we all should)
2 dredge information about posters from their posts, where they are posting and the character of their opinions for financial gain (sell to info agencies / ad companies).
Not good.
This is your site, your baby, you should what is in the best interests of the site, you personally, and the staff that support your work. The people that come here for content will continue to do so regardless. As far as all the various troll type actors go f…. They do not contribute anything meaningful or useful.
Whatever choices you make will not affect my coming here for the information. Do what you must.
Dear Saker,
Sorry to hear that idiots are aggravating you. I use mindfullness, meditation, and EFT to help me maintain composure amidst a complex and challenging world.
I appreciate moderated blogs. I support this one financially. I hardly ever leave comments. I appreciate the insights of your regular commenters.
This is your blog (and an excellent one). Do as you see fit. Post the rules for commenting right at the top of the comments section, underneath the “Leave a Reply”. Keep it simple – no memberships or registrations.
Have the moderators review all comments prior to posting, and let them delete any inappropriate comments, per the rules for commenting that you set forth. No need to inform authors of inappropriate comments that their comment was trashed.
Thanks for all you do to inform us and provide fresh insights into a complex world.
Stephen
I would pay special attention to the resolutions and laws being enacted after Charlottesville and beyond.
Trump even commented during his trip to England that the internet needs to be reset/fixed to address terrorist recruiting online. Or something to that effect.
The empire is building a context before embarking on selective censorship.
Modulating comments may hedge against that future, so perhaps that is a plus. But in all likelihood they will censor regardless of merit or fairness. Have some sort of digital net to catch the easy ones, at least.
It’s a creeping corporatism — everything will be under the ‘CEO’ and employee ‘misconduct’ will not be tolerated. Form follows values. How the free-discussion internet space survives is not clear. The days of internet innocence are fading. Only the Pharaoh can twitter freely!
Unfortunately the day of -relatively- anonymous commentary is going, going, gone. It has happened almost everwhere else, coinciding perfectly with the slow motion military coup now taking place in the United States.
Whatever the needs of your blog, so long as you are able to resist the pressure, the needs of your readers and commenters to speak freely should take precedence. A chill is in the air and it is impossible seperate yourself from it, or imagine a good ‘reason’ which can justify superceding the very high principle of people speaking freely, without second thoughts.
Until now this was your greatest strength, though diminished significantly by overmoderation.
I understand that truly anonymous free speech is now almost impossible due to the security state clamp down, but to abandon even just the principle marks another dark day for all of us.
I can vouch for that already. On FB. They say I’ve been getting
zucked’.
I’ve been posting too much content to expose the zionists many of them publicly available content and many of them from the MSM (after all their lies at times slip through the cracks) and I have been getting flagged. Far too many times warnings have been sent my way regarding ‘hate speech’
I think the days of free internet are truly over and the future generations might truly live the Orwellian life and fake freedom and thought crimes (if WWIII doesn’t destroy the internet completely)
The Saker,
Whilst, I don’t see the comments you or your moderators delete (which will be an aggravation to anyone who runs such a blog), I think you should be very careful, about making such changes. Over the 4 years I have been reading your blog, I think it has worked exceedingly well. You write, and allow others to submit the most profound articles. Your recent “letter to your Liberal friends” which I just read on SOTT as I missed it here, is bound to provoke very strong reactions, because most of your target audience (if they ever actually read it) are likely to completely hate it. People simply can’t stand being told the truth, or even having it suggested to them. Maybe if your blog had been running in 2003, and I gave my views about 9/11, I would immediately become a candidate to be banned, as I was in several places where I did.
First of all, you need to carefully consider, what exactly is the purpose of your blog. it certainly does not appear to be a case of preaching to the converted. I think you are incredibly brave doing it. This is something I have not had the courage to do myself, because it is an overwhelming responsibility and potentially dangerous. If I did have the courage to do it, I would leave comments open, and only delete illegal, personally aggressive, and those where the clear intention is to drown out other peoples views, by repetetive nonsense.
I intensely dislike the idea of a “Gold membership” as that will simply result in an elite closed clique. A blog such as this, should be somewhat equivalent to a single person walking into a pub or club. Often groups of people (sometimes the entire club) have formed a clique without even realising it. They may think they are welcoming and open to others, but that is often not the experience to someone who has been brave enough to just walk in alone.
Anyway, its your blog. Do with it what you like.
Tony
Well said Tony, I second your comment and especially regarding ‘gold membership’ a very negative move in my opinion as it will lead as you say directly to a closed discussion and collapse.
I read the MSM to get a picture of the angle they want to sell and what they dont want to sell, I turn to blogs to find alternative opinion, I read the comments to search for those absolute gems that enlighten. They are often few and far between but absolutely worth the effort of searching for. I can moderate myself and hopefully offend no one if i decide to add to the discussion. Basic guidelines and rules are fine and should be clearly stated and followed but most ‘intelligent people’ will refrain from abuse. Can guidelines be added in brief on the comment sheet as a reminder?
At least in an open environment you can filter those who have something worthwhile to say, those who have nothing to say and those that blindly follow the crowd. I do not see it as being any different than any other forum of debate whether that be in a bar with a few too many drinks, sober over a cup of coffee, at work, at home or any other place. You meet the good, the bad and the plain ugly everywhere and have to deal with it as best as you can, that is life, not everyone is blessed with ‘intelligence’ some of us have lost what little we had!
With respect to moderating against rigid guidelines; you may stifle debate and unintentionally reduce your audience. Rules are meant to be bent but not broken. Please consider the cultural differences of your audience, a comment may seem offensive or ‘unintelligent’ but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the author intended it to be. I understand the workload but if you are unsure about a comment why not request an explanation, is it possible to automate this in moderation?
Concerning ‘off topic posts’ surely one the most irritating to the author of the article who has dedicated many hours to the keyboard. I would view these as not necessarily negative and ungrateful to the author but as an indicator of audience interest and perhaps a topic of future debate.
Lastly dont outsource your moderation, keep it in house and under your control.
Thank you for allowing my comment
Gold membership will create a site of echo chamber. Not a place worth visit. Take out unruly posts, let the rest publish. Just like people with different shades of color, their views has a different shades too. They make the world. One will not progress, or have a open mind if one does not see the world full with difference, one can learn from them all, good or bad.
The saker is doing fine here, just try not to get too emotional, get bothered by them. You have a political blog, so all those trolls, rude remarks come after you. It is only natural.
I like your passion. But you need to not be bothered by it too much.
I like your view about the comments. Saker should simply delete the unwanted stuff… no question.
Leaving comments opened to anyone. The clique thing happens very easily and I’m wondering if it hasn’t happened with the Saker’s Blog.
Not easy to be fair but I don’t think there is a question of fairness here.
Saker wants a clean, intelligent Blog… It’s his Blog… He should monitor as he choose.
Kuddos for his courage and great TRUTH journalism.
I agree with the sentiments here, particularly those about Gold Membership.
I have some other suggestions which could work alone or in combination:
1. I would support letting offending posts through but obscuring offending comment from the post in a way similar to those redacted documents released to the public’s view with black shading over most of the text. That might get the point across well enough to stop people wasting their time and effort posting comments in a way they realise is a waste of their time and effort.
Alternatively you can just delete the offending text – you did that recently to a post of mine which had a sentence in that took an unnecessary snipe at Pepe Escobar. That made the point for me without fuss and allowed the rest of my comment through.
2. Make submitting a valid email address compulsory (it doesn’t appear to be so currently) so you can hold an inappropriate comment and issue a standard warning email to the sender asking for them to resubmit having read the T&C of posting, which you would provide a link to on the Saker website. If their re-post is inappropriate then enforce a total ban from this email address. This can, of course, be circumvented by using someone else’s email or creating another email address. I think people would soon tire of creating new email addresses only to have their comments blocked again. You would identify fictitious emails as they would bounce and force an immediate ban on that user..
3. Could you use an ISP tracking facility to identify the bad poster and block them that way?
As I don’t know what the Saker Community is capable of technically and in manpower terms, some of the above may be impossible but I hope it helps in the process of making a workable solution.
I agree 100% with the comment by Tony_0pmoc. Be careful overdoing moderation. The “Gold Membership” is a bad idea, it is just another “academic degree”. Good comments are good because of what is being said, not because of who said it.
I completely agree with Tony.
Tony, I very much enjoy your comments, and I agree with you more than I disagree, but I am going to object to a couple of your remarks in this one.
“I intensely dislike the idea of “Gold membership” as that will simply result in an elite closed club.”
First, The Saker did not ask for feedback on a general idea about Gold membership, but a very specific proposal which he suggested could be called “Gold membership” or something else. Secondly, that conclusion (about the closed club) needs something to back it up, otherwise this is just an insult or a snipe at The Saker and his blog — and should be edited out, IMO. Clever, heartfelt name-calling is still name-calling.
“A blog such as this, should be somewhat equivalent to a single person walking into a pub or club.”
Tony, The Saker gave us a detailed description of the challenges he faces because this blog is not a physical club or pub. So what are you suggesting? His honest comments about his experience managing this blog for many years should be discarded? Are we now going to critique whether his experience is acceptable or not based on our own ideals about how things should be? That doesn’t seem fair to The Saker at all. Especially when he invested the time to provide so much detail about what he is facing.
I’ve noticed that the general concept of the idea of a Gold membership as elitism has taken off – several comments have picked up on this. None of them actually refer to the specific idea which The Saker put forward for feedback (which he suggested may or may not be called Gold membership). Instead, the discussion turns to whether or not the blog can be accused of elitism. This is exactly one of the problems that The Saker is trying to address. In my opinion, these comments need to be rewritten so they are not simply insults (yes, in a clever or creative way) to The Saker.
(a) Saker asks for feedback and suggestions.
(b) People give feedback on some of his suggestions.
I can’t imagine how this feedback could be insulting.
Debating the general concept of whether “feedback” can be defined as “insult” I would see as an intellectual squabble (not sure what to call this). If a squabble isn’t accompanied by some additional comment on the specific issues in the post, I don’t think this type of thing should be posted. IMO.
How is one going to tag the sophisticated troll? One clever enough to abide by all the rules and yet be disruptive?
It is next to impossible because it takes a of of skill to pick them up early.
Furthermore how is anyone to cope with a troll of 160+ IQ?
It is difficult.
Let us hope such individuals have better things to do with their time.
This blog seems to do a good job of identifying trolls, sophisticated told not. Personally, I think all of us, in a way, can be considered trolls because we all have biases, areas of interest, and so on.
I think two bad habits with comments which could be disallowed are 1) insults – snipes – at The Saker (of any kind – be ruthless) and 2) intellectual squabble, which focus on nit-picking without reference to the subject at hand.
With the controversial Gold Membership — if the exact same idea was instead called The Pathetic Losers Club, would everyone still object? Are these objections virtue signalling? Or attempts at gotcha journalism?
S113 wrote:
“I’ve noticed that the general concept of the idea of a Gold membership as elitism has taken off – several comments have picked up on this. None of them actually refer to the specific idea which The Saker put forward for feedback (which he suggested may or may not be called Gold membership). Instead, the discussion turns to whether or not the blog can be accused of elitism. ”
Me: I don’t see that comments express a fear that the blog “can be accused” of elitism (i.e, by whom? that would be: other people’s views, but whose?). What I see is a concern that a Gold thing, regardless of what it is called, would tend to shut down contributors. My concern is that the Gold status would lead to a sort of ‘prejudging” of the value of comments not yet made. Christopher Hitchens started out great. Then he supported the Iraq War. So. Gold turned to Lead. It took awhile to see that he had changed . . . We all have to use our inborn judgment to assess the value of different people’s comments, seems to me—not prejudge those who are expected to “Gold spucken” (literally: spit Gold) every time they hit the keyboard.
Regarding “the specific idea which The Saker put forward for feedback, here is what the Saker wrote:
“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. ”
I don’t see the point of having a right to post comments without moderation. Is the point of this to save moderators’ time? In which case, it is not exactly a right, but more like creating a shortcut for blog admin. Fair enough. Just trying to understand the point of such a “right.” Second, to me “applying for this status” does sound like creating some kind of elite corps culled from the great unwashed. As for me, I would be embarrassed to “apply” for such “status.” Even if I were sure that I am one of the Goldspucker(innen)!! Which of course I am not! But I would be embarrassed to involve myself in—put myself forward for—such a thing. I would prefer to be shot down in public than to apply for special status and be turned down in private!
Actually, this would be a great psychological experiment that the Saker could run.
See who applies and then compare these people to their actual history of comments!
Fun!!! Lotsa laffs there, I bet . . .
Katherine
I agree with Katherine and others that have pointed out that gold membership is a form of elitism, cliquish, and eventually a club of yes-men engaging in group think.
it’s your blog saker and you can do what you want: it is self regulating – if you choose to go with this gold member concept you will reduce the value of your blog and it will become part the crowd (over the long run) and those that disagree with this idea will long be gone -certainly they won’t provide you with any free content nor spend any of their valuable time critiquing a badly written article or correcting important misconceptions -or- supply you with on the ground level insight into regions you, your staff or members of the gold “clique” have no intimate knowledge of. If you don’t implement it, you will continue to attract subject matter experts of different regions and cultures and site will continue to be differentiated and leading the pack (it will also continue to be more chaotic for you and the moderators and difficult to manage – pick your poison). In this respect I am neutral (because it is self regulating).
However, it is you who will be blinding yourself if you surround yourself with like minded or sycophantic “privileged” gold members that can exclude others from providing info and views that are outside your scope of expertice or outside of your idea set. All cliquish hierarchies lead to corruption (look at the Catholic Church) and forcing people to comply with a certain geopolitical model or idea doctrine in order to be heard is exactly where this policy will lead: corruption (such as people lying about their views in order to slip in a different view) and a loss of respect for your blog over time. (As an aside, one of the things that stunned me about the Russian Orthodox Church -and grew my respect for the Orthodox Church- was that individual priests could publicily disagree with and even mock the views of the patriarch (if they they have theological objections) and still stay full members; contrast that to the dictatorship of the Catholic Church that would throw such a priest out).
There is something inherently wrong to give some people greater voice because of who they are as opposed to how good their ideas are at any given moment. Isn’t that what the MSM and the deep state does?
I think your current system, as imperfect as it is, is better than what you’re proposing (and I know this is not an easy thing to do).
I think you make an error in thinking that commenting is somehow a favor to us the commenters, it is not necessarily true: commenters are providing free content and insight to this site and sometimes they exceed the article writer in knowledge and insight. Think of the amount of time it takes to write an information filled comment. the comments section is filled with gems of knowledge, insight and non-linear concepts (there’s no knowledge more valuable than another man’s real world experience than conceptual articles) that attract as many people to this site as the main articles.
Best regards.
The Gold membership status thing already exists in a certain sense. There are some members that have a gravitas and their words as 10 Bears would say “have iron in them”. I think the solution though is just to shut down and remove bad actors- a sort of zero tolerance policy. This could be up to the discretion of the moderators. I used to comment at “The Hinky Report” which was basically a murder investigation type site with very high standards of behavior expected. I got kicked off of it for challenging some other commentator’s premises. It was a very minor infraction, but I guess the tone I used had an edge to it. I was very surprised. There was no appeal process, no quarter given whatsoever. I had simply ticked off the blog’s author and that was that. It wasn’t my words, it was my pushiness. I had to use a new user name to comment again but after that I was very careful with my tone. It was a very effective form of behaviour modification and made me realize that even if I think I’m right, nobody wants to deal with a jerk.
I like most of the ideas that you brought here in general, but I had to read twice the paragraph dealing with “shadow comment”, perhaps because English is not my mother tongue, but I think I see what you meant. If so, you have this scenario:
non gold user post a stupid comment, gold user replies but can flag it has “low quality post”, or “medium quality post”. He is not a moderator, he can’t ban the guy, and he can do an error, so the initial post AND his own reply are still visible if I want to see all comments, but both disapear if I want to see just gold users. If the initial post (from a non gold user) wasn’t good, why should I care about the reply he got? If the non gold post is not flagged as stupid, both appear even if I want to see gold users
Saker,
You stated your frustrations and then proposed a solution to those frustrations. For the record, I share in those frustrations. I think a better solution would be to state a goal that is being undercut by the behavior that causes these frustrations.
Purpose: To create a set of moderation rules that allow dignified, informative, and questioning discourse of the issues raised by the blog posts. Recognizing that no one set of moderation rules is going to allow the optimum discourse while minimizing nuisance posts, seeks instead to optimize the totality of the response.
Ask, “Did a particular set of comments illuminate or obscure.”
There may be times when stupid comments can be useful as they can be used to illuminate the commonality of discourse in this exceptional (sic) nation.
I favor the gold membership idea, and to allow gold members a certain amount of leeway in fixing thinking problems. I think gold members should always avoid ad hominems even when dealing with really stupid people. It is the idiotic ideas that need to be suppressed more than the people who provide them.
Add more moderators?
If you’re going to select golden individuals, give them (transparent) moderation power, as in “post flagged down by [name]”.
Or just give full moderation power to trusted people, subject to criteria.
I would definitely be against creating an elite club of cool people to emphasize in text (and so treat the rest as lower-grade/second-class/plebs relative to them). The Saker’s blue posts are an exception of course.
Also I think the Saker might want to consider using the moderators as sort of “door men”, letting in the “right” people and turning away the undesirables. The moderators would use their own discretion. And maybe the the Saker could allow the moderators to limit his exposure to comments and commentators that are undesirable. The best way to not be sick and tired of it all is not to read it anymore. Maybe the Saker could have his e-mail moderated too. He could read e-mails from trusted people and either not read unfamiliar e-mails or have them screened. And except for friends and those he trusts, why would anyone e-mail the Saker anyway? Isn’t that what the comments section is for? Maybe, if you really need to e-mail the Saker an introductory e-mail might be necessary first.
Saker,
Given some of the suggested paramters, I think this entire question is an intellectual sinkhole. Why? Because I think most of the people who read your site, and comment, seem to be relatively cognizant of what they are saying. That said, yeah, there will always be intruders, trolls, and the like, but spending time on trying to figure out who they are, I think, is a waste of time, energy, and cost. I would tend to give your real readers more credit. They can see a troll, a bot, an ignoramus probably from the first sentence. Once the intruders of less than honest intentions realize that we’re on to their game, they’ll probably slip away into the darkness from which they came. Let’s laugh at them, as you suggested much of Russia is doing today.
Cheers,
Steve
In my opinion courtesy and politness should be allowed whatever the point of view.
As you stated, logic should prevail.
Openly.
Banning content and posts based on what you could consider “idiocy” would ruin the interest and credibility of the blog.
The gold membership optional filter is not a bad idea.
However the risk would be to become lenient on moderation or alternately to be too restrictive with new gold members.
The biggest risk I foresee with the application of complex moderation policy is the time/resource spend to enforce it. Thus your ability to consistently and efficiently enforce it over time.
The simpler the best.
My 2 cents…
First of all, maybe you should make an entry point to the comment section where everyone would have to agree with terms of use in order to register; if one doesn’t-he won’t be able to post (maybe even read) comments.
Second, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make an option of + and – voting for each comment. Algorithm can easily be made which will simply count for each member’s votes on regular (monthly?) basis, and as much + votes one gets, his own future comments and votes of other’s comments will have more value. With that option you would take a lot of your back so the community itself would do your job as admin and would evaluate contribution of every single member.
Then, after couple of months, it would be a few minutes of work for you to decide what to do with those who have neutral/slightly negative count.
And last but not least, there could be an option for members with great ratings to directly ban discriminatory comments, or at least make them temporary invisible until your approval.
Good luck with this.
Let me give you two examples.
There’s a fellow in infosec named Bruce Schneier. His blog is VERY heavily moderated and I almost never see any name-calling or off-topic stuff. I’ve been banned there myself for discussing “off-topic” topics like gun control. The only people allowed by the moderators to post are people with considered opinions, for the most part. Of course, part of that is because the subject is technical and most “political” comments don’t occur because the owner’s posts are usually not political. Obviously that wouldn’t apply to this blog.
Another example is Colonel Pat Lang’s blog. This blog, which does frequently have “political” posts (albeit mostly about military matters such as the war in Syria), is also heavily moderated. Colonel Lang has “guest posts” frequently and his policy is to allow the guest poster to moderate comments to his own posts. I’ve had comments deleted (and “summarized” totally incorrectly) by a guest poster there because he couldn’t answer my criticism of his position.
Colonel Lang also has no hesitation about insulting, ridiculing, and dismissing people in harsh terms, although that doesn’t always lead to being banned. I’ve been “banned” there several times but he still keeps posting my comments IF he happens to either like them or at least not be pissed off at them.
Bottom line: The only way to keep comments that are unintelligent or unnecessarily hostile off a blog is to heavily moderate, including “off-topic” posts.
The Internet is a means by which anyone can say anything they want. This will INEVITABLY attract the stupid and the malicious. Because there are no consequences whatsoever from being so.
The only way to impose consequences is moderating and banning.
You could try the “voting” method, such as Slashdot (I think) pioneered. People who comment can up-vote or down-vote comments, and the readers can set a threshold below which they don’t see the comments. But the comments are still there and the readers can view them at any time if an issue of context exists. This system can and has been abused because anyone who is more or less the outlier in a set of opinions gets down-voted out of existence for most readers. Naturally this method requires heavy modification to the blog software if it is not already a feature.
Your “gold standard” method is basically the same thing except you control the voting. In the end it boils down to you personally moderating, except that once someone gets the “gold” you get to do less moderating on that person – until someone complains about that person, then you have to moderate that person again to verify. If you use the voting system, the readers decide the “gold standard” themselves, more or less.
Personally if I ran a blog, I would disable comments. If anyone wanted to comment on something I wrote, they could post on their blog or someone’s blog and send me a link. If I wanted to respond, I would respond on my blog. In the end, that is the only way to control the situation.
“Personally if I ran a blog, I would disable comments.”
Sometimes I get “enriched” more from comments than from certain post itself. That would also destroy the community, which Saker is apparently trying to create here. And no matter who thinks what about the whole concept of community itself…
Oh, I agree…The comments on many blogs are better than the author’s posts.
Bruce Schneier’s blog is an example. His posts are usually very short. The comments tend to be much more interesting.
But if you want to control Internet trolls, banning comments – or heavily moderating them – is the only way. It’s either community or chaos, you can’t have both. A lot of sites have gone down in flames after being taken over by the trolls.
That is a great idea, I also enjoy comments as much as the article itself. A suggestion: the comment box to be opened in a new page, perhaps a new tab also, not in the same as everything else as it is now. In that dedicated and small “comment here” page, a header with few, very few but direct and constantly visible guidelines, so to take the commenter a little out of the scenario and think before commenting. In the article page you can leave the comments themselves, the comments-counter and a button to open that new page to comment. Thanks for taking the time to think in fairness and quality.
What if you didn’t do anything? What bad thing would happen if you just let the stupid have their say?
Would it dilute your message? Not to the “Gold” level readership. They know stupid non-critical thinking when they read it. I have occasionally seen some comments chastised by “Gold” members and then squabbles break out but they fizzle out pretty quickly when the Gold member realises there’s no point in continuing. If you want to see some stupid comments go read the Saker’s articles at the UNZ review. Then compare to the comments at the Vineyard and you can see the high quality you get here. Maybe stupid comments is just the price of doing business. If you don’t want stupid comments, you’re gonna have to be a gate keeper.
Dealing with untermensch .. Ie. The human race.
I think your blog is fine the way it is. Because the danger is that you just end up with a bunch of sycophants. Which is why this comment will never appear, and why I won’t get a gold membership, and I am writing this now knowing what you will do to my ability to ever comment again.
You already have a pretty tame bunch, there does not seem to be any real fighting which is quite remarkable.
What you need is simply better moderators, or as herb suggests, a registration process.
You can easily lock threads and post a capping comment of your own if necessary. This ia all part of gardening.
Be like Putin: Don’t over-react.
I agree, don´t over-react. This comment section is absolutely one of the best. And as someone mentioned above, I also like to read the comments. Never seen something really stupid here. For example, go and look comment sections of RT or Jerusalem Post or…well, you know. I must add to this that I understand your point, but IMHO there´s no real need to changes you are proposing. Besides, I love to watch how you destroy those “narcissistic homosexuals” by your sharp tongue. That´s treatment those folks are not used to. Who knows? Maybe that treatment will cure them. God bless you, my friend.
This blog permits contrary opinions to those of the Saker, provided they are well-founded, logical, and pertinent. It is not a blog that features ideological screeds. These are easy to identify, and the moderators should be competent to identify them. Even easier to identify are the sort of nasty, unintelligent, vitriolic comments made by the kind of people Saker has in mind when he reacts with anger and frustration.
So, on the whole I would vote for the simplest and most straightforward solution, which I think is the one Saker mentions as options–both of them:
1.Completely or partially re-writing the moderation policy.
2. Be much quicker in banning aggravating commentators
#1 It is your game and you can set the rules however
#2. Gold membership is an interesting concept because that is in effect introducing, I think, the concept of the dedicated study group into the Cafe especially as you try not to use that as a way of falling into total censorship.
#3. I am concern about the Cafe because there is much creative banging around and riffing. The dour types seem to avoid the poetic muse and general irreverence ( within limits ) that sometimes bounces off the walls amidst clatter and chatter.
#4. re:The treacherous trap of posting causing an inflation of self importance: that is a hard one especially I would think for Herb and the other moderators who have to deal with it. Sometimes when I get carried away in manic frenzy, he will post a kind reminder : ” you are posting too often” which is much appreciated.
#5 Using the Cafe as an daily diary entry for someone’s personal life is probably part of the treacherous trap, but then is that a tolerable irritant or not? Some people come on and post 4 entries and then disappear for awhile.
#6. I may be wrong on this but I watched South Front develop over 3 years into a new kind of News Form for the Internet . It is so effective and unique. Perhaps this same impulse is at play here too.
dear Saker,
I generally only read here, but I have a couple of comments on the “gold membership” (GM) option…
I am afraid that standard comments and GM comments would mix in a bad way, so that people would be inclined to move to GM comments only. Summing this to standard “spam”, I am afraid GM could become predominant.This could bring to a progressive closure of the group. Or maybe not, depending also on your policy of when “promoting” people to GM. I would be careful of this, real freedom of speech is rare and precious on the internet, and sometimes a strong comment can be useful, even if not completely polite.
Hues are difficult to judge, while currently each reader can approve or shake his head on any not too idiot/violent/offensive comment by using his own judgement, the GM system could push people to use your head instead of his/her/its own. It’s true that using one’s own brain is a personal responsibility, however the “format” is important. If I believe in your judgement, intelligence and wisdom, I can easily be pushed on your positions without realising it, if only because I read most of the time comments confirming your point of view.
In any case, I think your mental sanity is more important than any policy on comments! :)
Sorry for the probably bad English, as always thanks for your effort of keeping alive this site!
Hello Saker,
I understand that you want to reduce the workload of the moderators while keeping the discussion unhindered by idiots. One way to do it is close to what you refer as gold membership.
You can easily let gold members to view all the comments once they are posted without moderation (with a switch for them turn on or off). Then, if a gold member replies to a unmoderated comment that would automatically be published to be viewed by all.
Similarly, there could be a button to rate the comments that is visible to gold members. If a comment gets, say, 3 up ratings by gold members before publishing, they they could also be automatically published.
But, the gold membership should not be visible on the comments section in my view, as is hiding non-gold-member comments: that would create an unnecessary segregation of your readership
K.
There is a problem with user-rating of posts. I participate on The Motley Fool that has many message boards and the participants can recommend, or not, posts. And if a participant gets a high recommendation/posts ratio, he gets a colored star. Yet people manage to log in multiple ways and recommend their own posts many times. They have tried to figure out how to cure this problem, viewed as cheating, and have had discussions over many years and not really solved it very well.
I fear similar problems would occur here.
User-rating of posts is problematic for the reasons you mention, but the interesting angle in kemerd’s suggestion is to only allow gold members to do ratings. That way, there would be an approved group of people to generate the ratings, and that could make the moderators’ task a bit easier.
My thoughts:
– If you decide to only allow comments by registration then even though I like Disqus I hope that you find a registration service that is not developed and controlled in the West. My impression is that there are Russian developed services. If you start with the premise that all software in the West has NSA, etc., backdoors you will be 99% correct. I don’t care about possible Russian backdoors – I don’t live there.
– Your idea of Gold membership is interesting. You might start everyone at that level but when anyone violates the rules then downgrade them. Eventually comment management would get to a steady state effort, probably less than your current effort.
– The option of only seeing Gold membership comments is an excellent idea. I kind of do that myself by always looking for comments from users that I know will make intelligent comments.
– Consider a one time appeal from a user bounced from Gold membership. Even an intelligent person can forget the rules when eclipsed by passion for the issue.
I note that Tom of ICH has had to institute registration by those desiring to comment due to issues similar to yours. I’m one of your infrequent commentators, and it wouldn’t be any hassle for me to register. But as such, whatever you decide to do will likely be fine with me.
Another thing I find useful is comments rating. The reader can then list by best-rated if there is a long comments thread, and read just the top 4 or 5 to get the gist of it.
I am sure you will hate this because if the danger of external influence, and because it is technologically more intricate.
I think your best bet is to give pests a 2-week ban. After the third one of these they are banned for good. And to cap posts with your own comment. Its more effort than just concentrating on writing the next article, but then the upshot is that you get a lot back from the commenters also.
saker,
if a comment is stupid and inane revealing qualities which do do not contribute to the
otherwise excellent and insightful comments here,auslander and larchmont for example,just mark them with
a coloured hashtag for example and we can ignore them or read them and understand the
reasons for their notoriety.a good bottle of wine is enhanced in the memory being interspersed by the dreadful.
HI there,
Maybe If readers of the blog could flag or score the comments section in term what is good comment, bad comment , unappropriate comment. Then you could write some kind of script to rang those flags and scores and very soon good ranking comments will be visible and bad ones eventualy deleted.
Saker, I think it is petty intellectualized squabbling, full of sniping, that you are trying to eliminate – as opposed to thoughtful debate on the substance of the issues in an article. Also, you expect that any debate remains respectful, within guidelines, even if it’s emotionally heated. If this is a correct conclusion, I would recommend clarifying a “snipe”, or “squabble” in contrast with what you consider to be a substantive argument, or response.
Personally I don’t see Gold membership as elitist. Or creating a clique. Or a group of sycophants.
Dear Saker,
as I do not know the fraction of comments that fall under the ban of the current moderation policy and for what particular reason, it is hard to judge the moderation effort and need for change. Given the overall high quality of comments here, I guess you and your moderators do an excellent job.
Unfortunately, there is no wheat without chaff and separating the two always requires some effort. Either this work is carried out by moderators a priori or by each reader a posteriori. As I trust people to recognize and ignore bs themselves, it might be sufficient to remove most of the chaff. I guess clearing 80% requires 20% effort as compared to 80% effort for the remainder.
Automated solutions such as registration and community voting have their issues too. There is a fair chance that community voting is taken over by bots. If negative community rating leads to a ban, an epic wave of bans might clear most commentators from this blog. If only accredited commentators are allowed to vote (i.e. with the gold status), the accreditation will require time and effort but might work in the short term. However, in the long run, the accreditation will create a filter bubble in my opinion.
Best regards,
Marcel
Saker, are you hurt or are you just sick and tired of stupidity? You say it’s all about the stupid. I went to Unz just now and read the comments for “A letter to my American friends”. There are some nasty, personal attacking, and abusive comments there. Are those the sort of comments that are of concern to you? If that’s the kind of stuff you’re dealing with on a daily basis, I’d be sick and tired too. Then I read the comments for the same article at the Vineyard and the comments are much better, tho, maybe the bad ones are taken out. My wife, who is a University Professor used to get physically sick for a week after reading the nasty comments that a very few students would make about her on her yearly student evaluation. It didn’t matter that she got numerous accolades and teaching awards, just a few nasty personal comments undid her. I finally convinced her just to stop reading the comments. After that the department head screened out all the nasty stuff before he gave the reports to faculty, because all it was doing was causing good employees to miss work. They were literally sick and tired. Maybe you feel a little bit the same?
I do not know if I would be qualified for “gold membership” or not.
I do post here once in a while. I try not to offend. I doubt I would win a “great contributor” award.
I do think something should be done about posts by “idiots” however defined. It seems to me the least intrusive solution would be to insist that all submitted posts be moderated (as they are now). I see only two problems; the first is, to me, minor and not needing a solution. That is the delay between when I submit a post and it passes moderation.
The second is the work-load on the moderators. They have to read every one and make a decision. And surely, once in a while, a submitter might disagree with a decision of a moderator. Sure, you could have an appeals process, etc., but I urge you not to do this. Participants should just realize that mistakes will sometimes happen and they have two options: stop participating in this site, or accept the situation as is.
The voting on comments would be a step backwards, many here remember the days when this was allowed and how it “worked”. I have to repeat myself, this is not a competition on who has the best ratings and who not. People should have to learn how to be courtous and polite, or at least have a sense of humor within their vitriolic reply.The world out there is harsh enough, why should we be the same here ? Isn’t this place a wonderful garden where we can meet,share and learn from each other – otherwise we shouldn’t came, why, to spit in and put the blame, surely on others, without a shame – that sort of behavior should be kept out on the street. And, remember, we are a multitude of different peoples here, each with his/her experience in this life, hence we are coming here to have a better understanding of events by learning and sharing. Yes, we are not acting on the streets, but let’s don’t make this place a street fighting place, lern to cool down before answering with anger.
Aren’t we fighting against those who culivate fear and destruction ?
@ ioan Sept. 19, at 7:19 pm UTC
Hear hear, I fully agree with ioan. I don’t comment very often, but I read this blog every day. I read it as much for the comments as I do the articles and opinion pieces themselves and I have learned a lot. It’s like going to your garden. You will find weeds there too, but you just throw the weeds and the spoiled stuff on the garbage heap. I’m sure we have all seen the comment sections on some other websites. This one is very civilized in comparison. How can you learn more about the issues at hand if you don’t hear from ‘the other side’ as well? Ignore the trolls.
Voting, rating and turning your your blog into an exclusive ‘gold members’ club would hurt it IMHO. There is enough competition on just about every level in our daily lives. Why have it here too?
Hello Saker,
It is your web site, and you decide what to do. There is a technical part, and a commercial part that goes hand to hand. Dealing with people, we can’t be always right. In some cases we have to solve problems more tactically than technically, and in most of the cases we have to be practical.
– take these five subtitles you put in bold and incorporate them into your mission statement.
– paste it accross the homepage so it is clearly visible to vistiors and would be commentors.
– screen out all which do not adhere.
best wishes, lb
I am one of the “commentators who rarely comment, but when they do their comments are always interesting to read and make good points.” (Hopefully.) I am the aerospace engineer who pops-up with analyses of the various aircraft crashes or take-downs from a technical side. I lurk a lot in the comments section because, frankly, the superb-level of commenters here is such that I learn new things every day. Far above my pay grade. Thanks, everyone!
I am a fond embracer of the KISS protocol, perhaps because I am (was) an engineer. The “law of unintended consequences” rears-up every time complexification occurs. I that regard, I am afraid that I would favor minimal Gold-style ‘stratification’ and maximum use of moderators. Simple human judgment is often the best solution.
I would make the suggestion that a summary-list be created for moderators, to make their job easier. Kind of a ‘collected wisdom’ page: “Joe” always has good commentary style; pass-through if busy. “Mabel” is a bit dicey; read her through. “Alex” is a rabble-rouser; read but probably edit or circular file. Etc. Human-based wisdom, shared for the general good.
Good luck with this complex endeavor…
Saker, I think there is a couple of easy criteria to at least lesson the troll content of some articles.
1. No ‘anonymous’ posters. Pick a handle and use it. If one gets caught with more than one user name, ban should be automatic. Registration is a judgement call but as has often been said, the ‘net is not anonymous and never has been and I see no danger of registration for any of us beyond what some of us are already in.
2. A word limit on a single post and if a poster tries to get around the limit by posting several posts continuing the same diatribe delete the continuation. A favorite tactic of serious trolls is to flood a thread with endless verbiage that discourages others to post.
3. No language allowed that one would not use within hearing of your grandmother. Yeah, I know, there’s always the grandmother who can make a $2 lady of easy virtue a kilometer away blush, but most anyone posting here would know the difference.
4. I have been absent from blog for the last weeks, actually the last two and some months, for a number of reasons. Suffice it to say this summer has been the one from Hades albeit with many good, however too fleeting, moments, but calm has returned to the family schloss for the moment, operative term being ‘for the moment’. Sigh. Shoot me now, please. However, I will have the time to contribute now.
Auslander:
1. No ‘anonymous’ posters. … the ‘net is not anonymous and never has been and I see no danger of registration for any of us beyond what some of us are already in.
Whilst the net never had been entirely anonymous it provides a certain level of it. Forcing to use people some nickname helps TPTB. If for example comments of the person with the nickname Auslander attracts the attention of authorities, they can easily search their copies of the comment section of Sakers web site. This would give them the ability at trying to analyze the personality of the user Auslander. If they decide that this specific person could be a threat to “National Security” all they had to do would be to check the allocated of the IP addresses to find the person who’s behind that nickname.
The nickname Anonymous on the other hand is used hundreds of times each day with different IP adresses. Finding a pattern and to trace back a comment to the origin would be more difficult.
Taking your “logic” to its conclusion, all commenters should be “Anonymous”.
See how silly that is.
Thought that is worth something has identity attached to it.
If you are so paranoid that you think someone will track you down, it colors your comments. With me, a callsign is anonymity enough.
I’m not terrified by government. They are tyrannies by definition. Of course, some are worse than others when it comes to restricting speech and free thought. But posting on this blog is hardly a concern to the tyranny of DC.
We simply have little impact on world affairs, politics or war and peace.
We are a bunch of people who express ourselves, offer some info, and sometimes debate an issue.
Why be paranoid?
This is a formidable but necessary task to undertake.
My only recommendation to you and to the moderators, who have to figure this out, is to stop posting comments made by “anonymous”.
Why not allowing the readers to vote that a comment’s worth? If a comment becomes overly negative or controversial it can be automatically hidden. ARS Technica has an excellent comment mechanism.
Hi Saker.
I totally support your intended GOLD membership proposal. While the devil is always in the detail, providing we all deal with facts and not personalities then pretty much everything is ok.
Discussion by its very nature is about disagreement or providing new information, lets all be grown ups about this and act accordingly. The GOLD membership i think is brilliant and i trust what you Saker are trying to do here.
Althought I have some disagreements with you Saker I support the idea. It seems a proper way to deal with the troll problem and to address the moderation. However it can only be productive if some more or less clear requirements are openly required for the golden memebership. I understand you want to keep the control of who is admited but without a clear standart either people who wish it will be unable to do as required and trolls will argue they are being excluded “unfairy”. So yes a basic set of requirements like participation, lenght of activity in the site and maybe even quality of the comments could be a good idea.
This site is extremely valuable, unique in fact, as a source of:
1) great informative and intelligent articles
2) great comments
The latter naturally outnumber the former manyfold, a logical result of large volume of readership. The existence among them of some inane/silly/very rude or outright insane comments is to be expected, it comes with the territory. It is a Quixotic endeavor to charge in fury against the more benighted side of the Bell Curve. I agree with those who think that any reduction in the ease or in the freedom to comment, has a steep price. The current moderation policy seems to me already quite adequate even if it doesn’t filter out all the obvious junk. But much better to err on the side of leniency than on the side of unwarranted or whimsical censorship based on how well the Censor is feeling that day. It takes an experienced reader a few short seconds to decide whether a comment is worth reading or should be skipped. And what sounds like junk to me might be enjoyed as nuggets of high wisdom by other people.
Blatant ad hominems should be weeded out especially if they lack any argumentative content.
Other than that, censoring judgment should be passed with extreme caution and care. Things are fine the way they are. Giving more free rein to the Censors will inevitably result in more babies being flushed out with the bath water. Not a desirable outcome.
I arrived at the same conclusion.
I am sure crypto-elitism won’t serve anyone’s interests.
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.
It is up to the mods. There is no easy solution.
Many if not most of the problem comments come from replies to other comments. End the replies,and have everyone only allowed to make regular comments. The problem ones from those can be better moderated out.Yes you may lose commentators,but any other solution you come up with will also do that. And from what you wrote ,you welcome that,with the problem posters. So instead of looking for complicated,hard to figure out solutions. Go for the simple easy one, and the problem is half way or more solved.From what I see (from the posted comments ) a fairly large part of the commenting public comes under one or the other of the categories you listed.And that is without the “not posted” comments.So I can’t give exact percentages,”but its a bunch”.Since you know that yourself (I assume) and are willing ,happy indeed from your message,to lose that high a percentage of viewers. Then my advise is,wouldn’t it be simpler to not try for complicated answers.And instead go with the “KISS” principle.
“Many if not most of the problem comments come from replies to other comments.”
What is the basis for this observation?
I have seen many “replies” from Uncle Bob 1!
Part of the whole idea of a thread is that multiple dialogues can develop. I thought.
That was one of the features of “progress” that came with the new site, as opposed to the old blog setup.
Katherine
I will (hopefully) be performing a more comprehensive analysis, and will communicate to you at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way.
Here are my comments off the cuff:
High Level approach:
A. Create a scoring system for all of these things (at least the main ones ,or groupings to a manageable number, say or 5) that you see as detracting from the ‘spirit’, i.e. primary boundaries of the discussion.
B. Perhaps you could have contributors finish articles specifically outlining the recommended discussion direction (I could give you examples of this, which I feel certain you could take to a new level of baseline setting)
C. Within the parameters established by your final paragraph framing the discussion, create scoring, maybe customized for each article/framed discussion parameters of the 4-5 categories
D. Have the moderators use this scoring system, and actually complete a scorecard (eformat of course) for each comment, and a short comments section (this would be useful for audit purposes, again distinguishing your due diligence way above the industry-accepted norms; especially useful in judiciary proceedings, if anything ever came to that.
E. display comment score/display comments by score order, i.e.you get penalized in your display position if you have more hits against you, i.e. if a commenter of the first comment had ‘one hit’ against his comment, the comment would always only be the first in a subordinated section; so if some johnny-come-lately commented a week later, but it had no hits, it would be above the first comment which had a hit.
(I’ve never seen it done, and there is a technical requirement/challenge, but it might even make the task of moderating easier with a set of guidelines, anyways, potentially work effort neutral, add auditable, when push ever were to come to shove, if you perceive that as a benefit – it would be progressive (in the good sense of the word))
F. Of course there would be a bar set that would result in comments NOT being published, and even perhaps discretionary guidelines (still a potentially publishable comment, if overall score not too high), and immediate exclusion guidelines, (if you cross that line it is a simple – NO PUBLISH)
…available for further interactive elaborations…
I think I sugested it time ago: to use a forum conected to the blog. To comment you would have to go to the forum (and being registered; you stil can use fake e-mails, vpn’s, etc) and in the blog entry, at the end, best comments (“Gold”) should apear, those being chosen by rates made by the same forum-registered comunity. Is my humble opinion.
Cheers!
Hi the Saker,
What you want replies wise I can only think of one ”compromise” to try out. It does need some analysing though.
There are thousands of Internet Providers all over the planet. Each country gotten an IP adress range and them countries redirected a part of the IP adress range they gotten to their local internet providers. As far as I know, big time trolling come from same IP adress clusters (read internet provider(s) wintin a country(s) ).
Ofcourse I dont know if that is what happening to you the Saker. But if I was you, Id look into it. Focus in your first analisis on troll posts that gotten many replies relatively fast.
IF and its a big IF, you detect clusters of trolls via their IP and thus can block their post to say ”2nd rank comment”. Ofourse, honest persons can be post from within them IP ranges so I think you
should keep moderation on. Not for ok IP ranges but yes for ”dubious” IP ranges.
Regards,
Hugo
My dear Saker,
Kill the comment section entirely.
With respect,
PeaceAK
+1 to the Gold commenter idea. Please implement it.
What I care about is that it wastes my time reading the idiots drivel, so I will always read only the comments by Gold commenters.
Dear Saker,
I remember that the last time the comment section was redesigned and then re-redesigned, the voting system was quasi-uninanimously rejected. I didn’t like it then and I see the GM system as very reminiscent. In addition, I fear that it would be cumbersome in its implementation with many hidden traps.
I mostly prefer marginal and continuous improvements:
1. An implicit GM system. Pick a few commentators that you trust and publish them without moderation. Just keep it among yourselves. THEY will know that they are getting their comments accepted instantly, without resorting to a complicated system. And this way they will set the tone for commentary.
2. The Pavlovian approach: a troll or an idiot, as you say, invested several minutes in writing a comment that frustrates you. Just delete it with a click! No fuss, no muss, no explaining, no losing your own precious time. After a few times they see that their effort was fruitless and will instinctively modify their behaviour or leave. It’s your home and you get to decide who gets in. Do it with the minimal effort to you and the maximal to those that frustrate you.
3. As Auslander said, no more “Anonymous”. Pick a handle and stick to it. Personally, I am amazed that handles are not hijacked in the absence of a login procedure (kudos to the mods and admins), but if it works don’t fix it. Continue the same system with this modification. Everybody chooses a handle and faces the consequences of their actions.
4. Maybe off-topic… please post a list of html tags that are allowed. I remember the old system where, while typing, you could see the comment as it would appear.
Those “stupid” you’re venting about at the beginning at your text aren’t stupid at all – okay, maybe some of them. I’m pretty sure that several are deliberately misrepresenting whole articles, passages or certain sentences.
Oh man am with you, submarine in the desert ! I never knew that Russia had banned gay pride. Interesting and yet a very profound statement which I love and support 100 % as I do Mr. Putin. There is so much about Russia I learned from your book . Also all the facts about your church which I was also ignorant of and had me taken back a wee bit !Sorrowful times indeed, however, your book? MashaAllah ! I was very grateful indeed to see all the different formats you have made available for us to have …for FREE ! ThankYou and God Bless you ! Hi5 bro do not change your style at all , no one like the way you write then too bad, I am still glad we have that freedom to do so…so far so good !
Peace and Blessings !
Well my comments are not frequent or detailed, however it is nice to be able to chime in on a subject to express gratitude, or disagrement. This may or may not be welcomed at this point. you can let me know I suppose.
Lets not employ a popularity contest (up/down voting) to filter for quality, whichever one’s after. This is easily abused. More practical would be perhaps to ease the moderators work, and ease the readers use in one shot. Flagging appears more suiting, ie:
– Opinion/On point (naturally inclusive of disagreement)
– Factual/Research intensive/Value comments
– Thread/Conversation to follow on
– Off topic/Irrelevant
– Offensive/Insulting/Trolling
– Other categories
We could well pass only with opening up flagging for offensive comments. These comments would be prioritized for moderation (flag validation since the system can still be abused).
As with any interactive system, its users expect a preferably useful effect from its interaction, and if they’re kept waiting for the moderators validation alone they might not be motivated enough to participate…
Here’s what the The Saker site could offer in the meantime at the browser side (lowering server side resources): SORTING/COLOR CODING/HIDING comments by user’s own flag for his immediate benefit.
A reader could keep tabs on a thread and important discussions in comments for longer periods of time between visits.
This flagging could be “cookied” with a reasonable expiry date to remain useful and perhaps registered users could keep such flagging indefinitely tied to their user account.
Only their first flag would be served to moderators, eventual subsequent changes of heart would be only relevant to the reader.
Later automatically via a rational threshold, or The Saker himself could freeze the global user’s qualitative flag contributions onto the blog entry for everyone’s particular _filtering_ benefit. I underscore _filtering_ because the point would be to facilitate easier reading, straight out suppression of flagged comments would still be relegated to a user’s individual option.
We could start less ambitiously by Offensive/Insulting/Trolling flagging only, which should be relatively implementation friendly, and go from there.
Anyway there’s my suggestion.
Okay, now after completely reading your article I’ll chip in my two cents:
The idea with earning gold status isn’t that bad. The problem with viewing comments could be used in a slightly different way than proposed.
The selection could be separated in three categories:
1. View all comments
2. View comments of “members” with gold status amongst themselves only.
3. View comments of “members” with gold status with everyone else (with gold status in black letters and “everyone else” in slightly brighter gray letters, the same applies for the usage of blue letters).
I’m sick and tired of you, Saker, homophobic nasty gatekeeping creepo
and yet you keep coming back. are you masochistic too? or maybe you are attracted to me and that attraction frustrates you, but you can’t resist my charms?
LOL
Look, I don’t harass you, so why don’t you bugger off somewhere else, preferably far away? Do me this sounds like a plan :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
I am not suggesting this as a model of running a blog, because over the last 10 years, I have followed Craig Murray’s blog, I have had my comments deleted numerous times, and have been banned numerous times. I generally disagree with most but not all of Craig Murray’s political views. I have been so infuriated with some of the contents of Craig Murray’s contributor’s comments, that I have literally, not only banned myself, but told the moderator (unix techie – but so was I – the best way of deleting me and banning me)
So far as I am aware – most of these people are still alive, and some of the comments were far better than the articles, and Craig Murray’s articles are generally awesome in their brilliance – even if I don’t always agree with them…
Occasionally a work of total magnificence will appear written by Craig Murray.
And yet there are only about – over the years – less than 50 – maybe 100 regular commentators..people who comment – yet most of us still come back and post again.
Craig Murray is being sued by The Editor of The Online Daily Mail for libel and Defamation. It is highly likely to bankrupt him…Since being fired by The British Government as Our Ambassador To Uzbekistan (for telling the truth about British Govenment complicity in Torture), so far as I am aware, he hasn’t had much of an income. Some people pay the price of telling The Truth.
From less than 100 regular commentators, over 4,000 people, the vast majority who have never made a comment, on his blog, have actually contributed over £75,000 for his Legal Defence.
We have sent him over £75,000 in order to Defend Free Speech even though many of us disagree with him. I don’t know about him – never met him – but I think that is completely phenomenal – though he will probably still lose..????? maybe not…we’ll see..
And he has opened up his blog – apparently without any moderation, and the quality of the comments has improved enormously.
Strange but true.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Tony
Since several years I read the Saker blog every day and usually I take a quick look at the comments but I posted short comments only twice.
Trying to eliminate stupidity is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon.
Albert Einstein
I believe that censorship is always wrong and counter-productive. Stupidity is part and parcel of life and trying to contain it requires a huge amount of time, energy and resources while positive outcome is scarce at best. Good luck with that.
A week ago in the Cafe I provided a link that explains the 911 demolitions with some speculations as to those involved.
Dmitri Khalezov delivers nearly five hours of credible (ex. Soviet Military nuclear expert) information.
Someone who watched the first and last hour of the YouTube video lecture decided to become an instant expert and made negative comments toward Khalezov and myself.
I do not have the time to spoon feed ignorant people who are resistant to learning and perhaps are purposely posting misleading information, to deflect/detour others from learning the truth.
Personally I would like to see the Cafe as a learning centre with a bit of fun here and there. Personal diaries full of ramblings should remain personal.
“Poetry” that appears to ramble with no purpose should require an explanation at least.
I recall the last time the Comments Section was overhauled – it must have taken the webmaster and the Saker many hours of tedious work, sifting through the many suggestions and then testing the changes, listening to further feedback – to arrive at the present format. Which works.
Besides, in addition to the hard working moderators, most readers use their own moderation system:
– the scroll button to zoom over ‘known’ (a high proportion are called anonymous) non value comments
– the eyes to find favourite high value comments
– the intellect to dismiss trolls and bottom feeders
I would perhaps tighten up on ‘anonymous’ – although I have accidentally hit the ‘post’ button before adding my name – which then becomes an ‘anon’ comment.
I feel that a Gold Membership would create more work and a clique.
So if it isn’t broken why waste time fixing it. You will never fix stupidity anyway.
Dear Saker, you have been through so much in the past weeks – take care and stay strong by focusing on what’s important – changing the comments section is not needed.
[In attempting to post this comment, my internet disconnected – so apologies if this appears twice.]
I don’t like the gold standard idea – having to qualify to comment at Sakers – hmm — its like favorites or so – do you really want that ?
I think the thing i loved about the Saker’s was the freedom – I could say what I wanted –
and I really enjoy the outbursts by Saker – those are very funny and exciting – I’m sure everyone feels that way .
The moderators are doing generally a great job with the control of undesirable comments – but the moderators’ turnover is or used to be – high — so the new ones always miss a few – trash ones that shouldn’t be trashed and let through ones that should be trashed.
Could you work on keeping the same moderators over a longer time ?
Ecce Homo
Dear Saker,
I understand your frustrations, but they are part and parcel of dealing everyday with human beings while running a blog open to all with a hefty reader comment section. I understand that at some point something must be done to improve the general intellectual level of your followers. But please do not make the solution worse than the problem. The Gold thing you suggest is bad, because it is heavy on administration and an open invitation to an extra layer of bureaucracy in your organisation. As a matter of fact, this solution, if sucessful, risks being a burden for your meager internal ressources.
So why don’t you follow the proverbial KISS principle : Keep things Simple and Stupid.
Right now, you have moderators who do read comments to moderate. Many times they have to come up with a sentence or two to explain their decision. Skip that. This is your blog and you have every right to publish or not what you want.
For my part, I read everything you write, but I rarely do comment on it. The reason is fairly simple, I start reading your comment section and after a short while I find out that whatever I wanted to say is already said in one way or another by other readers. I do not see the point of being redundant. Space is scarce and time is even more valuable.
Many times I stop reading comments after a few aggravating ones. I got pissed and skip the rest. II’ve got other things to do. But while scrolling through the comments, if a see a comment by let say Larchmonter 445, I make it mandatory to read it. The guy is good.
So here is what I suggest : establish a pecking order among your commenters.
1 . Color code the text of heir contributions. Green will be Good to Go. Orange will be passable. Red will almost read at your own risk. You can also add an additonal color. For example Black will be whatever comments have not been appraised yet, due to lack of time. Or shining Gold to whatever comment is exceptional.
2. In your readers comment section, sort and display comments by color and time . All the green first. Then the orange, than the red, etc.
3. Keep it simple to post a comment as it is now, but please ban the moniker ‘’ Anonymous ‘’ once and for all. Everyone should have a name of their own choosing, providing it is not already used.
This is my take. Hope it could help.
Having a lot of people who want to comment in more than the usual ‘tweet’ sized grunt is a very ***good*** thing, and doing anything to dissuade them would be ‘killing the goose that lays the golden eggs’.
As for advice- well the first thing is to ignore the facile “only the type of comment ***I*** write should be allowed”. This response truly does indicate a low IQ- but people successfully conditioned in Orwellian methods always think that their way of doing a thing is the only ‘right’ way of doing a thing.
Someone suggested banning ‘replies’ and that may be a good idea, for trolls- especially government paid trolls- love to use the ‘excuse’ of replying and then replying to their reply etc for thread dominance.
Registered people- votes on comments- no ‘anonymous’ posts- all very very bad ideas that you see on state approved outlets right before they ban all comments.
A limit on comment length- again the Deep State loves only allowing ‘trite’ ‘free speech’. The infamous Daily Mail is the prime example of this- where comments are allowed and remarkably ‘uncensored’ (for a zionist media outlet)- but the comments are purposely so short they are really no more than useless grunting.
Here’s the thing- run a successful blog with a healthy free comment section, and you’ll always have the need and responsibility to cull those comments you don’t like. There is no other (good) magic solution.
Only a simple mind thinks simple solutions exists, or craves such solutions- and the Deep State ***loves*** simple minds. I’ve seen, across the years, many good Internet discusion facilities go down the drain when PRS (problem-reaction-solution) attacks were successfully used against said resources. If people feel inclined to ‘put pen to paper’ so to speak- well that’s something a site like this would be insane to discourage. So ‘after the fact’ censorship is the only good solution- combined perhaps with ‘hiding’ replies to comments (so you have to click to see them).
PS two theatre actors are talking in a pub. One says to the other “damn, had a really bad time this morning- rowdy idiots no matter where I looked into the audience”. The other looked sad but didn’t say a word. His audience had been very well behaved, but then again it has only been three people large.
I have a little comment here. What is wrong about mentioning the color when it is not used in an abusive way. It has its descriptive meaning and sometimes it helps describe differences in human races… Although I have not ever needed to use color in my comments anywhere, I think we should celebrate differences rather than false equality represented in any type of written or spoken correctness… I understand, that behind the curtain, you have to go through a lot of stupidity and abuse when filtering the comments, but would not it be better to in general keep rather simple rules and let the discussion to deal with it? I do not have such an experience, so am not sure how I would react… Cheers!
One more thing. What would you do, if you throw a barbecue party and a fellow would start trolling and he would not be adding any value to the party mix. He would not be invited next time. So apply it here the same way and start ignoring those comments that do not add any value to the discussion. One of the important outcome of any blog is its comments/discussion section so when it is moderated too much, it will lose its spark…
In one movie an old man points his finger at a map while being ‘disciplined’ by Christian rectos for not regularly visiting the church.. Misters, he said, here live Christians, here Mohammedans, here Buddhists, etc… Every ones have their one god, but the truth is somewhere in the middle…
And this blog spark lies also in its commentators, even silly ones… Just do not get it toooooo personal. Cheers!
Saker – I disqualify myself: I couldn’t read your post. It was full of Ad Hominem remarks. And I couldn’t read the comments, There were too many.
My advice is to allow ALL ideas. Delete ALL Ad Hominem portions (or the totality) of a comment.
You’re searching for protocols. Keep it simple. Ad Hominem is the doorway of trolling by bad guys and the collapse of reason by good guys. Forbid it.
And after a while, review what’s left.
I’m confused, Grieved. The post above by Paul I would consider an ad hominem attack,with answer in kind – a personal attack upon as an individual. The points Saker made in the original piece are, it seems to me about subject matter, hot button issues that tend to send folk off into tirades.
You are such a sensible and thought provoking poster as a rule that I for one hunt for your comments. We may disagree with Saker on some of the issues he mentioned, but doing so ad infinitum only clogs the wheels of discussion that really needs to happen. But you may have picked up things I missed, as I will grant you mine was a quick read through. We only have so much time to spend here.
We are going to have to do some of the moderating ourselves as we read. Short threads I read every comment. Long ones I look for posters I respect. I often skip anonymous because i cant get a sequence to their posts.
And bless the moderators for weeding out the ad hominems at least. That, I agree with you, we don’t need.
@as if loving anybody could ever be a bad thing!
You definitely can’t love sin.
“Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way (or in other translation: “I gain understanding by thy commandments: therefore I have hated every way of unrighteousness”) Ps 118:104.
Truth in a universe of deceit generates lots of static.
Best to deal with it head-on … unencumbered by collective thought bubbles.
Saker
I’m not thrilled with either a gold membership for comment writers or the shadow post idea to allow choice of concealing some comments.
Years ago there was a great forum site called world crossing that made it easy for anyone to set up their own forum at the site. It was an excellent, workable site, but was bought up by someone else, then killed because they were not making enough money at it to cover costs, supposedly.
World crossing had a feature which allowed people to put those they didn’t want to bother with on an ignore list. The ignored person’s comments would then not show up to the one who put them on the list. But others, who didn’t ignore list them would see the comment as regular. There was an override button with each ignored comment so the lister could read it if they wanted.
What I found was that I ended up not using the ignore list because it caused confusion due to the “missing” comments and I usually ended up clicking the override button on them to figure out the missing context.
If the posts that don’t show up affect everyone, without an override button to see the missing context, that will make a sketchy and hard to follow comment trail.
On the gold membership idea, I’ve seen this put to practice, as well, though done informally. What I encountered was the “elite” group used their special status to dominate the site and bully the more casual commenters into either conforming to the elites views or leave.
That doesn’t mean that state of affairs would happen here. But from another perspective, giving certain people special status, and others an inferior status sends a message that some are better than others and commenters are treated as equals. This could easily dissuade people from commenting because they would perceive a clicky atmosphere and feel intimidated or prejudiced against.
“and commenters are treated as equals.”
and commenters are not treated as equals.
Yes i agree with vot tak.
Because i have seen this many times.
Give a man a even a little bit “power statut”, and there is a big chance that a subtil game of “domination” and “power influence” will occurred, if not by him, on the other part of the “force”… i mean frustration, and desir of recognition, or even just unconscious comparaison deals, who by itself is “trolling” the entire atmosphere of the Blog.
I think that If this solution of “gold membership” would be chosen, then it as to be made “invisible”. It as not to be visible who is gold member or not. This would be a pure practical and technical choice, but the “statut” should not be used to establish “social class” among the all the folks that are in the Saker boat.
“It as not to be visible who is gold member or not. This would be a pure practical and technical choice, ”
IMO that would be primarily a psychological choice. And that a better one, instead of a visible “military” ranking scheme. It gives the “gold” commenter inner freedom from the expectations of the others, always expecting some super-wise-knowledgeable-etc comments from “that high ranking guy/girl”. And it would also keep current psychological freedom of the common soldats to reply to a “comment captain, or even admiral”.
On the other hand (in case the “goldies” could ban others comments), if my couple of comments to a person XYZ hasn’t got through, I will start to think that XYZ is the “gold one”, who is blocking me personally. And I would even tend to challenge him openly about that, hoping that it would get through. Or I would write to the chief MOD, or Saker himself, to ask whether XYZ is blocking me by his own decisions (= he is the “goldie”).
Generally I’m not sure about this special status issue. But I’m for banning anons. Their excuse about privacy etc. is bullshit. Choosing a nickname gives the others some help to have a more complex idea about ones personality & integrity during time. And it also creates a healthy pressure on the commenters to keep their integrity. Of course anyone can switch nicknames for each post. But, I personally put more value to commenters, whose nickname I know (and can trace their history back – BTW, is that possible here to search past comments of certain nicknames?), or have associated with them certain possitive/interesting feelings, even while not agreeing with them.
I wish wisdom and providence for Saker and others taking part in the decision process!
Yes, this is the danger.
In my view, the ‘commentors corner’ is already a type of ‘gold standard’ – which works. I’ve never read one whose selection I didn’t agree with.
It just isn’t updated often enough.
Maybe the only real answer is to increase the number of moderators?
Or even make it a ‘gold’ standard by getting trusted commentators to mod for a an hour or so, perhaps in groups if there are enough?
Still think the only real ‘solution’ to protect ones health and sanity is regular time – outs.
Saker’s back – problems are likely exacerbated from exposure to all the toxicity.
Being rid of identity politics is for a future time: Perhaps. To close down opinions that are unpleasing will lead to a “hive mind” type community: Again perhaps.
Who are you writing for? People just like yourself? Why? Nothing to gain doing that. Surely those you rail at; the bigots, the ill informed, are the challenge?
Hi Saker,
Sure you will find a good solution.
Few remarks and ideas.
1 : Mercy : what ever banned people deserved to be banned. Think about a “mercy” door… to get back. Technically by a gradus of long or short term banned period. God is mercyfull… and the banned process can be a “school” process for certain soul. Remember what Gandalf answered to someone who wanted to kill Golum because he was too “bad” ? “Maybe one days he could help us all” (well don’t remember exactly the corrects words, but the idea ! haha !). And yes, at the end Golum did something very useful for ALL. And he did it because he was who he was.
You blog is a little world. You little world. You are God in your world !! :) Be a merciful God !
2 : Nationality. I thinks that there is a part “foreigner” from who (like me) english is not there language. So they might have a not so well formulated or grammatically correct arguments or comments. This should not disqualified. I would even like to see a little flag next to “registered” member… it would be nice to see who is from where. And it could help to understand the “point of view”, the angle, of the commentator, his ideas, his languages mistakes, and so one…
Well technically probably difficult to do (this idea just flew in my mind… so i let it goes).
береги себя!
Give us a thumbs up or thumbs down option, maybe just a set of Gold commenters would have this. People you select for this “extreme moderating”, to paraphrase someone with Gold hair and Cheetos skin.
Then over a month or so, the chaff will be chucked out of the Vineyard.
I guess it would require a cookie on our browser for such a feature to be reserved for some.
The most simple solution is you just dump the commenters you don’t like.
How many are there any way that bug you? Dump them. Boom!
Keep it simple.
Otherwise, the Vineyard becomes a commune, and interpretations of what is stupid or constitutes a violation become problematic.
Just dump those who bug you.
The moderation policy as it stands seems to work fine.
My suggestion is to take the five categories (or more if you wish) that you have mentioned and just mark the comments with an appropriate mark to indicate which category it comes under.
The readers can then respond as they see fit.
Similarly, you could also have a marking system of positive or interesting or informative comments. This way readers are alerted to the most interesting or informative comments. This would be useful, especially when there are lots of comments.
I am not in favour of bans and exclusions. Stupid, ignorant and useless comments are part of the burden of having an open discussion.
“Similarly, you could also have a marking system of positive or interesting or informative comments. This way readers are alerted to the most interesting or informative comments. This would be useful, especially when there are lots of comments.”
That was I believe very similar to the general idea of a certain Thomas Bowdler.
Pre-read stuff to pre-define how other readers should preceive it.
Such pre-markings would be distracting, annoying, and barriers to understanding, thus energy wasters.
Because once one has seen the markings, it becomes a secondary but unavoidable mental process to assess the validity of the markings. And if one disagrees, then there is the annoyance of having to expend mental energy on assessing someone else’s assessment.
Isn’t it enough to have another comment state: “Interesting points!” ?
Katherine
Saker,
Do you need more moderators, to make the task go more smoothly?
Gold Membership sounds like it would involve some technical work on the site, the intricacies of which could take time to sort out.
Stricter moderation would be easier from a technical standpoint: revise the policy and have your mods edit and/or simply trash any comments that pose a problem. But, it seems like the goal should be to make it simpler for your team too.
Overall, I am quite happy with the comments here, but I understand that the quality of the comments needs to come from a policy and process that isn’t too aggravating for you and your team.