*nodding soberly*

What kills me is that any of this is treated in any forum (Time, The Stranger, etc.) as new. Your A-L list here covers it nicely, and this sort of wisdom has only been around since . . . Usenet.

You and I take all of this for granted, but why doesn't Time know this stuff? More to the point, how in the world could a writer for The Stranger (not exactly The Horn Book, mind) get to the point of writing on that blog *without* realizing all of this?

*sigh*

Posted July 25, 2008 4:28 PM by Tim Walker

I always worry that these articles are the slumbering beast wakening, realizing that the pesky Internet is too free, and bestirring itself to crush us.

Sigh.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:29 PM by Michael Roberts

Sure, but as soon as you think about hiring a moderator, the thought that immediately follows is -- wait, is moderation actually going to pay for itself? The answer could be "yes" or "no", but most organizations don't even know how to go about answering that question. So they just throw up unmoderated comments and hope for the best.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:29 PM by Evan Goer

Small boards that don't have the resources to have someone always awake can resort to having all comments, or comments from new posters, held for moderation. The failure to do so killed a martial arts forum of which I was very fond--it was completely overwhelmed by porn spammers.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:34 PM by Lila

I bow to Yog and his minions.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:40 PM by JulieB

Yes, I'm advocating city-states ruled by philosopher kings.

The chain of command in the Sysops' Lounge, however, is pure US Navy.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:45 PM by James D. Macdonald

Also, while abusive comments suck, there might be a reason why some of these sites remain unmoderated (besides laziness or cluelessness about the web).

Take YouTube, for instance. YouTube's comments are raw sewage, but as far as we know, they might very well be *useful* raw sewage as far as the company is concerned. I'd be surprised if YouTube hadn't already made this calculation -- that A) on average, those nasty comments are in fact increasing overall engagement with the site, and B) adding a moderation team might improve the quality of the comments, but would not increase shareholder value.

Posted July 25, 2008 4:47 PM by Evan Goer

I respect Yog and his minions.

However: cow snot?

Posted July 25, 2008 4:59 PM by SisterCoyote

Cow snot comes in four flavors: Chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, and natural.

Yog and his minions drink cow snot in the lounge, because after a tall, frosty glass of cow snot there's nothing worse that'll happen.

(We also have a cooler full of six-packs of testosterone. Toss back a Test and you're ready to go ten rounds with a cut-n-paste 'bot!)

Posted July 25, 2008 5:06 PM by James D. Macdonald

One wonders where Yog manufactures hir lightning bolts, and whether Yog goes for the Zeus or Thor standard.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:10 PM by Fragano Ledgister

On the subject of punctuation and spacing, I can actually deal with a lack of punctuation or spacing better than "eternal elipsifiers."

On more than one board, including the occasional browse into Usenet, I have observed folks whose every sentence, nay, every clause, is followed by a series of dots, at least three but sometimes ten to fifty. It's as if they doze off on the period key during typing or something.

It makes a thread completely unreadable, and I won't even duplicate it here for the sake of your sanity, Yog.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:13 PM by joelfinkle

Yog has sanity?

Posted July 25, 2008 5:15 PM by abi

I was talking to a clinical psychiatrist back in March who was saying that the eternal ellipsifiers were actually schitzophrenic: their punctuation was a direct representation of what was going on in their minds. They couldn't figure out how to end a sentence, because the next completely unrelated phrase had already presented itself to them, distracting them.

I'm not sure I buy it, because it seems too smug to call people who can't punctuate mentally ill, but it does go a way towards explaining.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:20 PM by Madeline F

Yog does not use lightning bolts.

Keep facing the monitor. Don't turn around. It'll be quick(er) that way.

Screaming doesn't help.

==========

When a thread goes septic the only things you can do are either 1) shut it down, 2) delete everything from the first septic post onward (including the peacemakers, the folks telling jokes, the voice-of-reason explainers), or 3) both.

"Delete" may include "move to a specially dedicated flame area". As long as the septic stuff is is out of the threads where reasonable people go.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:20 PM by James D. Macdonald

Yog knows the gate. Yog is the gate. Yog is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:20 PM by Jon Meltzer

There are people I know who to tend to overuse ellipsis.

Since they're writing porn fics, I wonder just what they're thinking of when they put that row of dots on the paper. Or, perhaps, I don't.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:21 PM by Dave Bell

There are people I know who to tend to overuse ellipsis.

Since they're writing porn fics, I wonder just what they're thinking of when they put that row of dots on the paper. Or, perhaps, I don't.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:22 PM by Dave Bell

abi #12: Are you not the Voice of Yog?

Posted July 25, 2008 5:23 PM by Fragano Ledgister

While Jim Macdonald is a moderator on this board, as is Abi, Yog Sysop is not a moderator here.

The lovely and talented Miss Teresa is the moderator, and she has her own rules.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:27 PM by James D. Macdonald

Fragano @18:
It beats being the Mouth of Sauron, but it's less fun than being the long arm of the law.

It don't give me no information about sanity, though.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:30 PM by abi

abi #20: Sanity is in the mind of the beholder. I nominate you for Square Leg Umpire.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:32 PM by Fragano Ledgister

My gaffe is blown; I am not the Voice of Yog, no matter how many goofy replies it gave me the opportunity to post.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:33 PM by abi

Is Yog from Yugga, on the rock Yuthla, by the river Yogh, in the land of Yagg?

Posted July 25, 2008 5:33 PM by Josh Jasper

abi @ 12: I hesitate to correct the moderator, but I believe the proper usage is "Yog can has sanity?"

Posted July 25, 2008 5:38 PM by John A Arkansawyer

The emblematic Thorazine is kept in buckets by the door of the sysops' lounge. When the minions come in from patrolling the threads, or when they're about to go out to do a sweep through the board, they grab a handful of Thorazine.

===========

Any gross punctuation abuse, I think, is a sign of insanity. Not the individual typo -- anyone can make a mistake -- but the consistent use of, say, fifty question marks. Or ending every sentence with an exclamation point.

Another thing to delete on sight (it falls under the category of "spam" even if it isn't advertising Natural Male Enhancements), is the cut-n-paste rant. You know the kind... take a key phrase from it, punch it into Google, and find that the exact same post has already appeared in 150 other comment threads at various newspapers.

Similarly, any off-topic post is allowed to stay only by the sheer grace of Yog. And in this election season, any post that mentions a candidate, if it's in a comment thread for a story that doesn't mention the election race, is off-topic. By definition.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:42 PM by James D. Macdonald

John @24:
That question translates to "Please can Yog have sanity?" It's a request.

Mine was a straightforward factual interrogative, with an undertone of surprise if the answer turns out to be affirmative.

If Yog doesn't have sanity, there is a whole world of interesting philosophizin' about whether that should be remedied.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:43 PM by abi

Dave Bell #17: There are people I know who to tend to overuse ellipsis.

Ellipsidosis can lead to bangophilia, which is a much more severe and overt form of the problem.... What I have trouble restraining myself from complaining about is the hideously outdated practice of typing two spaces after a period!!!

Support the Male Answer Syndrome Telethon.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:46 PM by Earl Cooley III

#22 Abi: "My gaffe is blown; I am not the Voice of Yog, no matter how many goofy replies it gave me the opportunity to post."

You are not of the Body?

Posted July 25, 2008 5:49 PM by Dimitrios

Dimitrios @28:

No, but I am an Archon. Don't tell the Lawgivers.

Posted July 25, 2008 5:52 PM by abi

Festival! Festival!

Posted July 25, 2008 6:01 PM by Jon Meltzer

The poster who constantly 'reports' other posters should be banned.

Never hard delete.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:04 PM by Lisa Spangenberg

Hmmm....about the one constant of Time magazine that you count on is that when something makes their pages, the phenomenon has peaked. It's eerie.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:05 PM by Steve C.

Earl @ #27, it may be outdated to put two spaces after periods, question marks and colons, but it's ingrained habit taught by repetition (in my case by the long-suffering Miss Mokosh my junior year of high school).

(Wouldn't a high school typing teacher by definition be long-suffering?)

Posted July 25, 2008 6:08 PM by Linkmeister

Earl Cooley III @ 27:

What I have trouble restraining myself from complaining about is the hideously outdated practice of typing two spaces after a period!!!

Oh ghods. I've tried very hard to train myself out of that, but back when I learned to type and then, a couple of years later, I worked as a newspaper proofreader (AP stylebook), two spaces after a period was the requirement. So, apologies in advance if I slip and irritate you with that one.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:12 PM by glinda

I not only type two spaces after a period: I LIKE IT! I LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS!!!! BWAHAHAHAH!

'Course, html takes 'em back out. But *I* know I typed them!

Posted July 25, 2008 6:17 PM by Xopher

Earl @ 27, I learned to type two spaces after a period, in elementary school -- on a computer. I'm in my mid-twenties; I don't know when they stopped teaching that. It's still an ingrained habit; most things just quietly remove the second space now, so I don't have to worry about it. I know I've always done it here. I think the extra space gets stripped out. I'm doing it in this comment; let's see if it looks different from, say, glinda's.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:18 PM by Caroline

Don't worry, glinda.  Unless you go out of your way to type   and a space after each period, html, she fix for you.  I have done so in this paragraph to show how it looks.

Don't worry, glinda. Unless you go out of your way to type   and a space after each period, html, she fix for you. I have not done so in this paragraph to show how it looks.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:20 PM by Xopher

The two-spaces-following-sentence-end was an easy habit for me to lose. Dunno why. I'd been doing it for years. Then I read it should be restricted to monospaced fonts, and shed it like a used skin.

[insert appropriate quaking in the presence of, and/or offerings to, Yog and minions]

Posted July 25, 2008 6:23 PM by pericat

John A Arkansawyer @24

You beat me to it!

Posted July 25, 2008 6:25 PM by dcb

I think I disagree with Jim to a large extent. If one thing has become abundantly clear over the last few weeks it is that there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all moderation. Moderation needs to be tailored to the forum and to the kind of community that you are trying to foster.

Things like

c) Moderation is a subjective art, and the moderator is always right.

are great if what you're going for is a place where you and your friends (with "friends" defined very loosely) can hang out and engage in conversation without being bothered by much, but it's an awful, awful way to go if you're trying to foster a broader sense of inclusive community.

Ditto with

e) The minions speak with the voice of Yog. Yog backs his minions up.

Backing people up even if they're in the wrong is not the way to foster a broad community, it's the way to foster a tight nit but narrow community. It's also not a good way to behave in general, but the stakes are so low when we're talking about blog moderation that any comparison I could make would rightly be seen as over the top. Yog backs his minions up in borderline cases; Yog better not back his minions up if they're blatantly misbehaving. In that case, Yog needs to fire them and get a better class of minion.

And, lastly,

a) Sure, there’s freedom of speech. Anyone who wants it can go start their own blog. On Yog’s board, Yog’s whim is law

Once again, great if you want to foster a tight-knit but narrow community of you and your like-minded friends. Not so great otherwise. Certainly I tend to avoid places where things are deleted on a whim, and so do a lot of other people.

The big point I'm trying to make is what I said at the beginning; there is no such thing as universal laws of moderation beyond obvious things having to do with blatant spamming or whatever. Everything else depends on what you're trying to achieve, and Jim's rules as presented here would work well for accomplishing some things and work not at all for accomplishing certain other, equally valid, things.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:25 PM by David T. Bilek

Dave in # 40 wrote:

I think I disagree with Jim to a large extent. If one thing has become abundantly clear over the last few weeks it is that there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all moderation. Moderation needs to be tailored to the forum and to the kind of community that you are trying to foster.

Err . . . Dave?

Ever been a moderator? Ever modded a large forum?

Like one with over 20K of active members?

One of the reasons the Macdonald is right is that active moderation, of exactly the sort he's talking about, enables people to disagree safely and civilly.

And the kind of moderation Macdonald is describing is exactly the sort of moderation that makes a forum become an active, vibrant and living community.

Of course Macdonald isn't talking about backing up a moderator who does something stupid -- but there are ways of correcting that that don't involve public dissension, and, frankly, you don't mod people you don't trust and who don't have the nous to gain consensus.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:38 PM by Lisa Spangenberg

David @40:
A Yog that does not back his minions up will very shortly have no minions. Half of them will quit because they know they can be cut loose for doing anything risky (and trust me, many acts of moderation feel risky at the time). The other half will quit because they're tired of the backtalk from people who know they can just run to Yog for a second opinion.

And Yog won't have time to appoint any new minions, because he'll be busy double-checking everything, at the request of the tattle tales.

Yog should choose trustworthy minions, and be in close enough touch with them (and the threads) to know if a minion is going sour or going off the rails. That is a matter for a nice cold glass of cow snot in the lounge, not for the public stage.

(Note that this is also a key skill of child-rearing. Start contradicting each other and the rug rats will forum-shop you to death.)

Posted July 25, 2008 6:40 PM by abi

abi #12: "Yog has sanity?"

Of course Yog has sanity. It is those who have looked upon Yog who do not have sanity.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:45 PM by ed g.

Is Yog of no earthly color?

Posted July 25, 2008 6:49 PM by Xopher

Further thoughts on Yog . . .

The one time I didn't just go with Yog's opinion re: a jerk / troll PITA, was all it took for me.

There are people who when they tell you a member/poster is Seriously Bad News, you should just take their word for it.

You'll have to listen later, and you can save a world of trouble by starting out right.

Posted July 25, 2008 6:52 PM by Lisa Spangenberg

I use two spaces AND lots of ellipses. I am the punctuation offender! I don't think I'm schizophrenic though, just... indecisive?

Posted July 25, 2008 6:52 PM by EClaire

"It's all right, that's in every contract. That's what they call a sanity clause."
"You can't fool me, there ain't no sanity clause."

Posted July 25, 2008 6:58 PM by Serge

Xopher #44: "Is Yog of no earthly color?"

Yup. And I'm pretty sure the tuneless infernal piping of hideous flutes figures in as well.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:00 PM by ed g.

I not only type two spaces after a period: I LIKE IT! I LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS!!!! BWAHAHAHAH!

'Course, html takes 'em back out. But *I* know I typed them!

I am hugging you so hard right now, Xopher. I feel this combination of comfort and and dismay re: the standard browser collapsing of adjascent spaces -- on the one hand, I'm free to willfully double-space after sentence termination without worrying about being pestered for it; on the other hand, it makes me a poor activist if folks have to View Source to see the truth.

Ever been a moderator? Ever modded a large forum?

Well, I have and do; for what that's worth, I agree to a degree with all of David's exceptions, though I figure that to a degree Jim's list was an exercise in style, and thus likely glossed some points that would need beefing up in a practical (and probably Yog-less) guide.

What's meant by "Yog backs his minions up" is clearly a matter of interpretation -- if it's clear to all that an unspoken "unless they do something dumb" disclaimer obtains, great, but again with the beefing up for practicality. I've seen Yogs back up dumb, dumb stuff before, and it's as a bad as a Yog who throws his minions to the fire at the first turn. Somewhere in between, in the salty lands of compromise, surely...

And the moderator is always the moderator, and always has the final call, but the moderator is sometimes wrong and needs to be willing to go to the film. Otherwise, the moderator isn't someone worth putting one's self in a position to be moderated by. Like Lisa said: never hard delete. That's not just a db issue, it's a moderator fallibility issue as well.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:09 PM by Josh Millard

I agree in principle with deleting abusive and off-topic posts. I am just curious about how that applies on a large scale when you want to encourage different opinions and you might be unclear on how something is related, if you see what I mean.

The upcoming election might be very related to the topic, depending on the candidates' relevant stances. As long as it's not degenerating into obvious abuse (and it's not cut-and-paste), I'd rather see it stay and keep people talking.

While the basic common sense makes sense, I worry about giving pencil-pushers from Old School Media lists like this, lest a Yog-subordinate start overquashing legitimately dissenting opinions, and lest people run afoul of G, J, and K early in their time on the net and be left to wander forever in the outer darkness for the sin of being n00bs, no appeal, no reprieve.

I've been known to end every sentence with a bang, when the post was five sentences long and I was excited about the subject. I have friends who think in ellipses, because they think of their casual writing as "stream of consciousness." It's a bit irritating, but it doesn't impede comprehension, and they often have intelligent things to say.

Also, I like double-spacing after a period. Computer type-setting hasn't learned how to space things out intelligently after sentences yet, which is the necessary leap before we can get rid of the classic double-space, which lets me see when sentences STOP. It's not as dead an issue as y'all seem to think.

In short, yes, take control of your boards. But try not to turn into elitist pricks* in the process; you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the grammatical bathwater.

* I use this term acknowledging that I have sometimes caught myself being an elitist prick and therefore try to call it in both myself and others.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:09 PM by Gement

I've just come across a ye olde speaker. Someone who types out 'ye' and other quaint little pseudo-celtic words.

Can they go in with the anti-punctuation crowd, the ellipsis abusers and the people who seem to think cryptic answers are actually helpful?

Posted July 25, 2008 7:20 PM by Ananke Jones

Teresa's remarks here, since I just dug out the link for another site.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:24 PM by Randolph

Ananke @51:
the anti-punctuation crowd, the ellipsis abusers and the people who seem to think cryptic answers are actually helpful

...that depends...it is a matter between you and your shadow...

(I am afraid that I can't both skip all punctuation and overuse ellipses. Sorry about that.)

Posted July 25, 2008 7:29 PM by abi

Ananke Jones @ 51 writes:

I've just come across a ye olde speaker. Someone who types out 'ye' and other quaint little pseudo-celtic words.

Consign them to the outer darkness of AOL's public forums.

Ye is typographer for a thorn + e, or "the".

If said sinner uses double pp as in ye olde shoppe

OR

If said sinner claims any of the foregoing are Celtic then the individual must perform penance -- I suggest reading Lebor Gabala in its entirety, in the Irish Texts Society edition.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:29 PM by Lisa Spangenberg

One of the real problems we have here is that many web sites are turning into criminal hangouts. I was reading a recent /. discussion on spammers doing jail time, and it was obvious that some of the posters were writing about jail from personal experience. Now, the random creepiness we see is bad enough--these are wannabees--but the threats are crossing the line into assault and this isn't taken seriously by the police. Moderation is an excellent defense, but we also need some serious attention to net.crime, which does much more harm than, for instance, people buying pot.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:30 PM by Randolph

Lisa: Ever been a moderator? Ever modded a large forum? Like one with over 20K of active members?

First, I disagree with the idea that you have to have been a moderator of a huge community to have ideas about the role and effects of moderation. I've also never been President of the United States, but I can tell you when somebody is screwing it up. I've never run a multi-billion dollar company but I know how Enron screwed the pooch.

But if that's your thing I refer you to Josh Millard at #49, who has been a moderator of a large forum with tens of thousands of members and seems to mostly agree. Only he would be able to say how many of those thousands are "active". Speaking for myself, I've been a moderator but not of a forum of this size.

Have you been a moderator of a community with many thousands of active members?

In any case, I agree with Josh's caveat with regard to backing up your mods that it depends on what you mean by "Yog backs up his minions". Like I said, if that means you back up your moderators on close calls then I agree with it as would any right-thinking person. But if it means that you back up your moderators even when they are being abusive, rude jerks then I strongly disagree with it. And I've seen moderators be very inappropriate before and when the head mods won't rein them in it makes a very toxic atmosphere.

Which brings me back to my point; these are not universal rules. They require far too many caveats, and even then they don't apply to communities that aspire to be broad-based and inclusive of a wide range of opinions and styles of interaction. Communities such as those require a much lighter touch.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:43 PM by David T. Bilek

Oh, and here's is Ms. Alvarez-Bell's quit post. The comments threat, er, thread indeed contains some mean material.

Posted July 25, 2008 7:49 PM by Randolph

The Mod(erator) Squad

Posted July 25, 2008 8:07 PM by Serge

If someone starts off as a spammer, troll, or flamer, he is a spammer, troll, or flamer forever and is liable to instant deletion/banning with no recourse and no appeal.

Given that moderators and submitters are likely to have personalities, the solution that works on news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is the exact opposite of this. Each post, regardless of who it's from, is examined in light of "does this fall within the charter or not?", removing any possibility of personal axe-grinding on the part of either mods or submitters.

...course, it occasionally means that the mods are charter-bound to approve the rare on-topic posts from folks who are otherwise complete snapperheads who should die in a fire, but that seems to be a small price to pay for a much stronger overall impression of fairness.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:13 PM by Huey

Maracas of justice.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:13 PM by Josh Millard

David T. Bilek @ #56:

Have you been a moderator of a community with many thousands of active members?

I'm generally staying out of this debate but, as a data point, yes. She has.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:21 PM by Scott H

David T Bilek @56:
communities that aspire to be broad-based and inclusive of a wide range of opinions and styles of interaction. Communities such as those require a much lighter touch.

Allow me to make the next pre-determined move in this ceremonial dance by pointing out that too light a touch in moderation does not lead to a community that includes a wide range of styles of interaction. Too light a touch, as has been discussed extensively before, leads to the shouters and the arguers taking over, and the quieter and less confrontational people leaving.

In short, I am not convinced that you get a broader conversation with a lighter touch. I think you get a different conversation, and that each community's moderators need to find the sweet spot for their particular group. But I object to the idea that a community that I, for instance, can bear to be in is somehow narrower than one I can't.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:22 PM by abi

Yog has sworn to use his power only for good.

For "delete" you can substitute "move" or "disemvowel."

During my tenure on GEnie, I banned a total of one person, and deleted no posts at all (though I moved a metric shitload of them). (A metric shitload is equal to 1.2 Imperial shitloads.)

Also, you can't take any Joe off the street and make him the moderator of a large forum any more than you can take any Joe off the street and make him the captain of a ship and expect happy results.

Nor should any media outlet take that little list, give it to one of their folks, and tell them "go, moderate." Rather, the media outlet should hire Yog. And his minions. For money.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:23 PM by James D. Macdonald

There's a clear business opportunity here that lines up nicely with the continuing availability of yogsminions.com.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:35 PM by Josh Millard

I've recently become an author on a space and astronomy blog, courtesy of the Houston Chronicle. While I certainly don't expect the level of toxic commentary of a political blog, I've seen from the sci.astro.amateur community on newsgroups that idiocy lurks everywhere. Comments on Chronicle user blogs can't be posted unless the commenter registers, so that cuts back on the potential garbage.

However, if a comment offends, out damned spot! mwa-ha-ha-ha!

Posted July 25, 2008 8:41 PM by Steve C.

Go, Yog!
Yog? Oy!

So much for palindromes.

Ellipses abusers have misunderstood the "don't overdo it" clause of the Three Dots of Irony. (It's an implicit clause, but the Laws are spelled out.) They think everything they say is ironic. They are wrong, and not even in an ironic way.

Another place I see constant ellipsing is in bad poetry, usually in commemoration of a tragedy, large or small. It's a way of getting a tone of voice into the words -- a whiny, sobbing, lachrymose tone of voice. And not at all ironic, either.

I had two spaces after a period drilled in. As soon as I learned it wasn't the current standard, I dropped it. Same with three spaces between two-letter state abbreviation and ZIP code.

I chewed out a boss once because they didn't back me up. I was enforcing the rules I was given, and as soon as somebody went over my head and appealed to my boss, they said they didn't have to obey the rules after all. After the dipstick had left, I went in and said I didn't appreciate having my legs cut out from under me.

ps: In the eight years or so since they were posted, the Laws of Irony I propounded have vanished, as has the front. As recently as four years ago, they were still the third hit for "Laws of Irony" on Google. Sic transit. This is sad. Not ironic, but just sad.

Posted July 25, 2008 8:46 PM by Kip W

abi @ 62... I am not convinced that you get a broader conversation with a lighter touch

Posted July 25, 2008 9:08 PM by Serge

Jon Meltzer @30: Festival! Festival!

I have an imaginary commercial made from that Star Trek episode, where the shout is 'Pledge drive! Pledge drive!'

Posted July 25, 2008 9:20 PM by Rob Rusick

David T. Bilek @ #56:

Have you been a moderator of a community with many thousands of active members?

Yep. In the past, where I was the sys admin, mod, and general VoA for upwards of 50K of undergrads in the humanities. And in the present for a smaller 20K or so site, and a teeny just being born community, and a couple places where we've got about 5k, and one with 8k of active members.

I pretty much learned about the care and feeding of online communities in a gradual progression from UseNet, to Genie/AOL/higher ed, to a large forum where I am an admin and have been mod and supermod.

I've started communities from the ground up, as well.

The thing is, you back up your mods because you trust them.

The First Rule of Modding is that you don't hire the people who want to mod.

You hire/mod the ones who are doing it anyway, quietly, politely, without a title or special access, as members of the community.

And you press gang 'em 'cause they don't really want the responsibility--but they do take it seriously.

And you give 'em a place where they can consult with peers and ask questions and for help and gain consensus.

The thing about the Macdonald's guidelines, is that they actually work. It's not theory. It works, it creates a civil atmosphere for dissent, and the community will grow and become self-sustaining... and by that time, you have enough mods/minions, and an informed and engaged community, so that Yog can take off from time to time.

Posted July 25, 2008 9:23 PM by Lisa Spangenberg

Communities with inexperienced mods: I was part of the Ms forum back in the day. That was a real target for the predictable sort of trolls and spammers, who did get deleted. What took it down in the end was a mod intern who really really liked a few of the posters and really really hated another group. Who left posts referring to 'jewboys' up after complaints, but deleted posts for containing the word fuck, sometimes. Eventually it imploded, after a few months of really strange moderating. The excuses were about having a variety of posters and a broad base, but what it really meant was a kind of oligarchy, but for a really odd value of 'elite'.

Posted July 25, 2008 9:24 PM by Ananke Jones

#62:

In short, I am not convinced that you get a broader conversation with a lighter touch. I think you get a different conversation, and that each community's moderators need to find the sweet spot for their particular group. But I object to the idea that a community that I, for instance, can bear to be in is somehow narrower than one I can't.

Given that some people won't stay around in the presence of some other people, no one community can contain everyone. Therefore, they shouldn't try. Different communities with different rules producing different sets of people that are comfortable and welcome in them increase the probability that any given person will find at least *some* communities that they, individually, are comfortable and welcome in.

If the Ubercommunity is defined as the union over all communities that exist at a given time, maximizing the size of each individual community does not, in general, maximize the Ubercommunity. Making individual communities more different from each other so they stretch out in different directions does.

One size does not fit all. One size may fit most; but if every store has only the one size that fits most, the few whom it does not fit shall be very perturbed.

Posted July 25, 2008 9:50 PM by Chris

Even newspaper types should have some experience with this problem. The late great Molly Ivins said that it was necessary as a reporter to have respect for your readers, and that to this end it was helpful not to read the letters page.

Posted July 25, 2008 10:16 PM by Thomas

Lisa: The thing about the Macdonald's guidelines, is that they actually work. It's not theory. It works

I didn't deny that it works; I said it isn't the only thing that works. That it isn't the one true way, and that it produces one particular sort of community. Other types of moderation produce other sorts of workable, interesting communities.

I feel like you're not engaging with what I'm saying at all. I didn't say that any of the "rules" were wrong, I said that they shouldn't be taken as universal or necessarily ideal depending on what outcome you want.

I agree that it is clear that the sort of moderation Jim was talking about works and produces a viable internet community. It's also clear that other kinds of moderation work and produce viable internet communities; I say it is clear because we see it happen.

I'm not sure how else to try and get my point across or how to be plainer; I'm saying that the style of moderation being discussed in the post works but it isn't the only thing that works or, depending on what you are looking for as a result, the thing most likely to produce the desired outcome. Saying "Jim's rules work!" doesn't really grapple with anything I'm saying because I'm not denying they work, I'm only contesting Jim's apparent presentation of them as some sort of universal axioms of moderation.

If they were universal, other styles of moderation would not work. Since other styles do work, they can't be universal.

Posted July 25, 2008 10:17 PM by David T. Bilek

Lisa Spangenberg @ 54

If they're clueful enough to use the correct Unicode characters: "þe", then I say we ought to keep them around. If nothing else, they'll probably make good piñatas.

abi @ 42

It looks to me like Jim is modelling Yog after a section CPO, who is ghod. Moreover, if se happens to be a Master Chief, se is allowed by law and tradition to be arbitrary in hir decisions a certain percentage of the time, up to and including reversing previous decisions. The trick is to do all this without violating the 11th Commandment.

Posted July 25, 2008 10:18 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

For "delete" you can substitute "move" or "disemvowel."

Ban a commenter, delete a comment, move a comment—certainly. Your site, your rules.

But where does the right to disemvowel come from, without a contract giving the site's owner permission to copy the writer's words in a form that does not always allow faithful reconstruction? Is the message I'm now typing mine, or do I surrender the copyright by hitting "post"? Disemvoweling is usually done by a moderator to a writing's first publication--you could disemvowel your copy of something on another site and argue fair use, that the disemvoweling reveals a truth about the original, but can "fair use" apply to an act that destroys the original text?

An example of the loss of meaning: You can't know whether someone wrote "historical" or "ahistorical" if the vowels are gone.

Posted July 25, 2008 10:35 PM by will shetterly

An example of the loss of meaning: You can't know whether someone wrote "historical" or "ahistorical" if the vowels are gone.

With sufficient context, even in disemvoweled form, you can. English has tremendous redundancy.

The other thing is this: If it's a post that I'm disemvoweling, I don't give a crap if someone can reconstruct if flawlessly or not.

It's actually easier for me to push the button and delete the post. So in that sense, disemvoweling is a mild sort of compliment--the acknowledgement that you might, possibly, someday say something worth hearing. Enough of a possibility for me to take the time to disemvowel instead of delete.

If you wanted an original copy -- keep it on your local hard drive. I can't touch that. All I can touch is the copy you left on my message board.

Posted July 25, 2008 11:31 PM by James D. Macdonald

I went and read the hail and farewell post, and I think the person who wrote it, knows exactly what's wrong; knew it was a problem when she started, and hoped (for good or ill) that she wasn't going to be subjected to it.

And I think it's something we've talked about, a lot (the recent thread wherein we were all meta about comments).

I'm sorry Slog isn't better run. I'm sorry she was hit so hard, with so much vile.

I think it's going to be a problem for everyone who posts in places like Slog.

And Time is blooming clueless if they don't think to try and find the other side of the coin (places like this), because it's a soluble problem, and all the solutions share traits in common.

(p.s. I just went and looked at some of the comments, and what struck me about it; apart from the immediate level of nasty in the first couple, was the feel of it. It was a high school clique in metastasis)

Posted July 25, 2008 11:55 PM by Terry Karney

I am a compulsive punctuation abuser -- stop me before I ellipsidize (?) .... again!

Posted July 26, 2008 12:10 AM by pat greene

Will #75, where does a newspaper's right to edit letters-to-the-editor come from?

Posted July 26, 2008 12:10 AM by Avram

Scott H., #61, that was David quoting Lisa who was replying to him.

I modded only about 2K people years ago, but it was on AOL, so their rules about language were stricter than mine. Otherwise, I spent a lot of time telling people to discuss ideas, not each other.

(Are we going to tell them who Yog is? It's kind of painful watching.)

Posted July 26, 2008 12:17 AM by Marilee

Avram, don't engage Will on this. He posted that here because he got disemvowelled for posting the same thing on BB via a sockpuppet when he was in timeout.

He'd like nothing better than to derail this whole conversation into talking about his absurd notion that blog owners don't have the right to edit comments—because of, of all things, copyright law.

Please DNFTT. I know he's friends with some of you in meatspace, but if you read the same comment from a stranger you'd see that he's trolling right now.

Posted July 26, 2008 12:18 AM by Xopher

Okay, now more seriously --

Terry, your analysis sounds about right. The cases (not just this one) where people have been driven out by blog comments do tend to have a whiff of the worst elements of adolescence. Of course, some of the commenters may themselves be adolescents, but it's a pretty sure bet they aren't all.

Posted July 26, 2008 12:24 AM by pat greene

Jim: With sufficient context, even in disemvoweled form, you can. English has tremendous redundancy.

The test here suggests not. When an abbreviation like "AI" disappears entirely, you have no clues to what's missing--the possibility of typos makes deciphering even trickier.

I don't give a crap if someone can reconstruct if flawlessly or not.

Sure. But where's the right to alter someone else's writing come from?

All I can touch is the copy you left on my message board.

Aren't comments on a message board expected to be originals, not copies? If they were copies, wouldn't they be spam? We're talking about what's expected of first publication, I think.

Avram: where does a newspaper's right to edit letters-to-the-editor come from?

Newspapers do not have a right to change or obscure the meaning of letters sent to them. To quote LOCs and comment on what's quoted, sure. To edit the letter faithfully, sure. But to lose or warp meaning? The common practice when that happens is to run a correction.

Posted July 26, 2008 12:33 AM by will shetterly

He posted that here because he got disemvowelled for posting the same thing on BB via a sockpuppet when he was in timeout.

That cunning sockpocket that I used was my own name. You're right that I'm still hoping for answers; questions of copyright and the web fascinate me.

I'm not here to argue why I think disemvowelling is wrong. I can sum that up in a sentence: I think comments belong to the commenters, and blog owners should post them or reject them, as they please. I'm only here to understand why people think blog owners have a right to disemvowel other people's words.

Posted July 26, 2008 12:41 AM by will shetterly

Madeline @13:
I was talking to a clinical psychiatrist back in March who was saying that the eternal ellipsifiers were actually schitzophrenic: their punctuation was a direct representation of what was going on in their minds.

I have long wondered whether the capslock-crazies (who do it in hard copy, too) do so because they have to yell to be heard over the voices in their heads.

Almost as painful but not IMHO implicitly ban-worthy are the people -- in my experience usually young and female -- who use "lol" not less than once per paragraph, often once per sentence. I eventually figured out that what they're doing is *giggling* -- they're gigglers in RL, and their online speech is a faithful transcription of their air-speech.

Posted July 26, 2008 1:09 AM by Doctor Science

Mr. Shetterly has obviously not RTFA, the one at the top of this page.

Specifically, he appears to not have read Yog's Rule A. To whit: "a) Sure, there’s freedom of speech. Anyone who wants it can go start their own blog. On Yog’s board, Yog’s whim is law."

Surely this is not a hard rule to parse?

Posted July 26, 2008 1:53 AM by Wirelizard

Wirelizard, is Yog's Law greater than US Copyright Law? I mean, I wouldn't want to get in a fight between 'em, for both are mighty. But if Yog says Yog can do what Yog pleases with text submitted to Yog's blog, no writer should dare make a submission to any publisher. I'm no fan of modern copyright law, but so long as we live under capitalism, I'm grateful that copyright ensures that my prose, whether deathless or despicable, is mine, and can only be changed legally with my consent.

Posted July 26, 2008 2:20 AM by will shetterly

will shetterly @ 87

Copyright isn't absolute, like the rights given by the Constitution and its amendments. You can sign a contract with a publisher that gives away some or all of your rights as a creator, including the right to require consent for changes. And I believe that a "terms of use" agreement can constitute such a contract. In fact, some of the terms I've agreed to on various blogs and other sites do contain language regarding ownership and rights to edit postings.

Posted July 26, 2008 2:50 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Bruce, having site members tick a box at sign-up time consenting to a site's moderation policy would cover the legal aspect. At least, that's how I'd cast my I'm-not-a-lawyer-but-I-could-play-one-on-youtube vote.

[Resisting the urge to say they'll pry my vowels from my cold, dead fingers...]

Uh, apologies if I'm sounding like I'm sure about copyright and disemvowelling. I know I could be wrong. I just don't understand what aspect of copyright law permits it.

Posted July 26, 2008 3:20 AM by will shetterly

Back to the fact that Time magazine is only just getting around to commenting on, er, comments--

It really weirds me out that I inhabit this parallel universe (the Internet, and the awareness of its traditions) that is so far away from the culture of folks who never go online. The bizarre thing is that in many other respects I share a culture with the folks who write Time. But there's this huge disconnect there, and it just...weirds me the heck out. Gah! How can they *not get it*? And yet it's not that they're necessarily stupid or uneducated or bad people--just living in a different century....

(Only just now realizing trolls exist? Really??)

Posted July 26, 2008 3:31 AM by Nenya

Copyright is not a guarantee in perpetuity of the UN-ALTERED REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of one's words. Copyright law doesn't provide a guarantee against line noise or flood damage, for instance. If I thought there was ever, ever going to be a legitimate question as to whether a disemvoweled post was written that way by the author, I'd support a simple statement in the posting rules to the effect of "Posts may be altered after posting. If in doubt, ask a moderator and/or the original poster for clarification." But I don't see any reason to believe that there will be.

Posted July 26, 2008 4:24 AM by Bruce Baugh

I think I may also want to push the idea of "If you're not sure of the posting rules, ask, and if you don't want to ask, don't post", so as to encourage those inclined to suspicion to refrain from posting. Distrust corrupts communication; if you don't feel you can trust, don't post.

The rest of us can carry on.

Posted July 26, 2008 4:28 AM by Bruce Baugh

Carolina @ 36: I learned to type two spaces after a period, in elementary school -- on a computer. I'm in my mid-twenties; I don't know when they stopped teaching that.

I'd never heard of two spaces after a period before I got on Usenet, and I learned typing on actual typewriters (admittedly electronic ones) in the late 80s.

I'm pretty sure two spaces after a period has never been the style in Norway. Is it an American thing?

Posted July 26, 2008 4:28 AM by Roy G. Ovrebo

Will @75: Publish the originals on your own blog. Publish copies elsewhere.

Posted July 26, 2008 4:58 AM by insect_hooves

Bruce: Copyright is not a guarantee in perpetuity of the UN-ALTERED REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of one's words.

Sure. Once you've posted something, copyright allows it to be shared, selectively quoted, turned into pig latin, etc. -- anything that can be rationalized as fair use. Once you say something in public, you've got to expect any sort of response to it or use of it.

But should you expect your original statement to be altered by the person who controls the place of first publication? Without your clearly indicated consent, what gives the owner of a web site that right?

Posted July 26, 2008 4:59 AM by will shetterly

will, #89: oh, probably the same one that permits editing. you sound like a complete noob, btw, and i know you're not. i wish you'd stop.

Posted July 26, 2008 5:01 AM by Randolph

It's a long time since I've seen a physical copy of Time, but surely people send letters to the editor?

Surely anyone in the newspaper/magazine business has some idea of the loonies who send letters?

So why the surprise about what they get as comments on a blog?

Posted July 26, 2008 5:10 AM by Dave Bell

Also, this post wins as many internets as there are trolls under the Internet Bridge.

Posted July 26, 2008 5:25 AM by insect_hooves

Personally, two spaces after an end-of-sentence period is an EMACS-ism; many of the EMACS modes for text allow you to jump sentence-by-sentence and use dot-space-space (or dot-whitespace?-newline) as the delimiter.

Even though I don't use EMACS anymore, it's now hardwired into my brain. I could take it out, but see no point; either (a) I'm typing in a fixed-width font and it is actually useful, or (b) I'm typing in something that will do the intelligent thing (e.g. HTML).

Posted July 26, 2008 5:59 AM by Matthew Brown

The thing that puzzles me is how does copyright even enter into the discussion in the first place? It seems like a red herring. I would have thought that the right to disemvowel a blog comment comes from the fact that the moderator is either the owner of the blog, or is acting for the owner. And, it seems to me, the owner of the space gets to make all the rules. (The discussion of these issues at John Scalzi's blog struck me as very apposite on this point.)

(Okay, resuming lurking now.)

Posted July 26, 2008 7:00 AM by Adrian Bedford

The two spaces thing...I haven't put any effort into dropping it, so I'm inconsistant now. The hand goes for two spaces and on the rare occasions when I think about it, I put in one. It does make absolute sense that it used to be the method taught to typists if it is the preferred style for a monospaced font, because that is after all what typewriters do. I suppose the continuation of the style in more modern typing classes is a disconnect. The people who write the books might or might not know anything about setting typeface, and the people actually teaching the classes very probably do not. (My typing teacher also taught shop.)

I learned to type by accident because the art class I wanted didn't fit into my schedule for two quarters in a row, so they stuck me (without asking) into typing. That is the finest example of "you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need," in my life. I was quite bitter at the time, but I loooove being able to type now.

Posted July 26, 2008 7:02 AM by R. M. Koske

#97, Dave Bell -

It seems to me that they're surprised not by the loonies but by the meanies and particularly the petty meanies. (Honestly, I don't get why they're mentioning the comments on the Gawker article. Those strike me as neither loony nor mean. They're jokes. The subject isn't a particularly horrible or sensitive story. I think we'd make exactly those same jokes here, given the chance.)

With a magazine, you probably do have the people who look at the author's picture and think "I'd hit that," or "Jeez, what a pig, go on a diet you ******!" but they won't actually dig out pen and paper to say so. A magazine probably does get the loonies who'll write an antisemetic rant anytime someone with a vaguely jewish last name has a story, but they don't have the people who will deride someone as fat or make sexual advances to them. At least, not anyone whose letter isn't obviously from someone not sane.

An internet writer is also more likely to see interacting with the commenters as a part of the job/fun/point. Instead of having the comments on their article screened by laziness and the mailroom (at least), they get the slush with all these petty additions.

We're not surprised because we know that internet commenting is a legal and more importantly *easy* way for immature and bored people to destroy something in the community and get noticed, and that they like it. But the Times never had to think about it when all there was was letters to the editor. I imagine if framed in those terms, they'd think it was obvious, too.

I agree with Nenya though. They seem *really* late to the party.

Posted July 26, 2008 7:18 AM by R. M. Koske

Sure. But where's the right to alter someone else's writing come from?

What part of "ancient ghod of chaos and evil" is unclear to you?

Posted July 26, 2008 7:39 AM by James D. Macdonald

Under copyright regimes that recognise authors moral rights, including the right to the integrity of the work, disemvowelling might well step over that line, given that it can alter the meaning of the text even if it doesn't always do so.

The Berne convention states:

"Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."

I don't believe the US copyright law explicitly recognises 'moral rights' in this sense though.

Posted July 26, 2008 8:01 AM by Phil Armstrong

There are times when the right response is along the lines of "This is ludicrous. If someone thinks they actually have a case, make it. But I refuse to waste time, energy, and emotion on this." Part of good moderation, as with good leadership in general, is knowing when to say that. I am not a moderator here, and do not intend to usurp moderator rights, but this claim of Will's is one of those times for me.

Will, if you genuinely think that disemvoweling is a violation of your copyright, stake the claim. Since you already know that our hosts aren't going to give it up, press a claim of copyright violation, stop posting to places that practice it, or both. But this is just panic-mongering. It's wrong to get people pointlessly worked up. Make the claim and act on it, or admit that you aren't willing to act on it, but don't be coy, or hypothetical, or waffling, or anything like that.

Are you serious about this or not? Proceed accordingly.

Posted July 26, 2008 8:28 AM by Bruce Baugh

(I admit it. Post #105 carries some temper. But it's honest temper: I have seen places I care about get really tied up in knots over what turned out to be utterly BS hypotheticals. I have been victim to it myself. I refuse to do it again. The right response to any such consideration, when it's not being done purely for the spirit of play, is "Stand by your claim and act accordingly, or admit that you don't, and withdraw it." There are way too many real grievances for people to feel one drop of concern over claims that their own makers won't stand by.)

Posted July 26, 2008 8:32 AM by Bruce Baugh

I was under the impression that anything posted online wasn't an 'original', simply because it exists in multiple copies simultaneously (local/cache/server/backup). Not to mention the participation in conversation aspect.

But yeah, derailing because you have to show how smart you are with 'possiblilities' and hypothetical INVASIONS OF YOUR RIGHTS!!!! are terribly disruptive, particularly when they are about something as complex as copyright.

Posted July 26, 2008 8:47 AM by Ananke Jones

While I'm at it...I have yet to meet a moderator of a successful venue who got worked up over someone simply saying, "Wait, I realized that I'm not comfortable with this. Let me back out, and I'll either talk about something else or move on." Personal tastes vary greatly, and psychological comfort is a real and important thing. There's nothing wrong with not liking a policy or its effects, and for that matter there's nothing wrong with well-raised questions.

All of that is vastly preferable almost all the time to unresolved threats that something is actually illegal or immoral. Those raise the stakes, because people ought to care about the law and about right and wrong. "This doesn't work for me" allows for peaceful coexistence in the larger world of multiple venues. Illegality and immorality allow for much less peaceful coexistence. And that peace is worth shattering only for the sake of real problems - thrashing without conviction is a form of trolling, and it is bad. It's good not to be bad.

Posted July 26, 2008 9:02 AM by Bruce Baugh

If Will sent me a street-mail letter, and I cut it into 1/4" strips, wove it into a mat, and pasted it to a lamp post, he might feel aggrieved, but his copyright wouldn't have been violated.

What gives me the right? Watch me do it.

The moderator is a despot on his board. A benevolent despot (it is to be hoped), but a despot none the less.

We know where mob rule gets us.

Posted July 26, 2008 9:04 AM by James D. Macdonald

In Re: the two spaces after a sentence.
What the hell? When did that go away? I have typed that way ever since High School, and I have never heard otherwise. I knew that it wasn't like that in Britain, but since when has it changed in the US?
Oh Man.
Now I feel all...epistemological crisis-y.
I hate when that happens.

Posted July 26, 2008 9:29 AM by JimR

I suspect there should be an M item to Yog's list:

m) Yog chooses his minions carefully not just for their agreement with his rules but also for their wisdom to know when to apply them deftly.

Posted July 26, 2008 9:39 AM by Connie H.

1) I still use two spaces after periods. It all depends, I think, on where and when you learned to type.

2) Being a military officer, I feel, is good preparation for being a moderator. There's an art to getting a bunch of stressed-out, sleep-deprived, heavily-armed teenagers to do what you want.

Leadership by example is the first and best tool in the toolbox of Yog and his minions.

Posted July 26, 2008 9:47 AM by James D. Macdonald

Will,

I think there are two disconnects going on in this conversation:

Firstly, I think there's a bit of an epistemological disconnect here. You seem to be thinking of "copyright" as a sort of moral principle of ownership by the author.

Your interlocutors, on the other hand, see copyright as having no existence or meaning outside of the specific laws and regulations covering intellectual properties. For them, your question boils down to "could I sue and win?" (In this view, all questions about copyright basically boil down to this question and the related one of "If someone sues me, would I win?")

Of course, this is an epistemological argument that's been going on at least since Aristotle got kicked out of Plato's Academy. I come down with the Aristotelians here, but that's just my own personal bias.

Secondly, I think there's some conflation of the destruction of meaning as opposed to the alteration of meaning.

I think we all agree that a mod is well within their rights to make alterations that do not change the meaning. (Would changing the font the comments are displayed in violate copyright? clearly not.)

We also agree that the mod has a right to destroy meaning, on the principle that they can allow or disallow anything they want on the site they own. This even extends to selective destruction. For example, if I wrote a two-paragraph comment where the first paragraph was thoughtful and germane to the discussion and the second was a spittle-flecked rant about how George Soros and the Nazi financiers were plotting to destroy the world economy, then I think we can all agree that the mods would be well within their rights to delete the second paragraph and leave the first.

And we all agree that intentional alteration of meaning is a no-no. Changing "Barack Obama is not a Muslim" to "Barack Obama is ... a muslim" would be bad, possibly violating my copyright, and potentially running afoul of slander or libel laws if the alteration were public enough and vile enough, since it's placing words in my mouth.

But which of these is disemvowelling?

I just don't see much alteration of meaning in disemvowelling.

To the extent that the comment is still legible, there has been no alteration of meaning. To the extent parts of the comment become unreadable, there is destruction of meaning. The only alteration of meaning occurs when the disemvowelling produces ambiguity that can't be resolved by context. And even there, either there's a big alteration, in which case it should be clear to a careful reader which original meaning was intended, or there's a small alteration, ion which case, who cares? Especially given the fact that no alteration of meaning is intentional on the mod's part, I think the mod is well in the clear.

Posted July 26, 2008 10:18 AM by Chris W

The LA Times has blogs with comments. They say, right there above the comment box, that they moderate those comments, along with some other legal stuff, including the minimum age (13) for commenting. (They also use captchas, to keep out the spambots.)
Time has to be unusually clueless.

Posted July 26, 2008 10:26 AM by P J Evans

Chris W: You greatly misunderstand my view of copyright, at least. I regard it as a very serious and important matter. Authors have just claims on their texts; copyright law is the balance struck between those and the interests of others in the society. The underlying rights, the limits on them, and the way all of this juggles into law and practice matter a lot. It's my livelihood just like it is Will's and our hosts'.

What I'm asserting is that I recognize to valid authorial claim that text posted to a venue like this be protected by disemvoweling. I grant that it may be a surprise to newcomers, and that it's good to mention in posting rules. I assert that Will is making pointless trouble by continuing to object but continuing to participate in places where he knows it's an issue and knows that he's not anywhere close to changing the moderators' minds about it.

I think Will's original words are indeed protected by copyright, and that if he wants them preserved, he should maintain an archive of them. What I don't see is his right to have them forever unaltered by the moderators. Posting them of his own initiative to a venue with known rules and customs should be taken as acknowledgement that they may be altered. He can refuse the terms of the venue just as he can refuse a bad contract. But once engaged, nah, this is just shit-stirring.

Posted July 26, 2008 10:32 AM by Bruce Baugh

#83: The test here suggests not. When an abbreviation like "AI" disappears entirely, you have no clues to what's missing--the possibility of typos makes deciphering even trickier.

A ridiculous "test." What was the post before the disemvoweled one? What was the post after it? What was subject of the thread?

Redundancy still rules.

Posted July 26, 2008 10:45 AM by James D. Macdonald

Chris W #113:

ISTM that complete deletion or disemvowelment is much less of a concern than selective deletion, since that can also change the meaning of a post in radical ways. And in the midst of a disagreement, it's very possible for the deleted part to honestly not seem to be saying anything meaningful, as far as the moderator can see.

I see the issue here in terms of not wanting someone changing what you're saying to something that makes more sense to them, but less to you. In some contexts, that's valuable or even required (newspaper writers are constantly having their stories changed by editors). But probably not on a blog.

I have absolutely no idea (and only marginal interest in) how this interacts with copyright law. I'm interested in how it affects peoples' willingness to take part in the discussions going on, and the ability of the participants to build a community. I will post places (like Brad DeLong's site) where he deletes posts for apparently arbitrary reasons. I wouldn't post someplace where the moderators routinely edited/changed my posts in ways that altered their meaning.

The other thing I've seen a lot in failing online discussions is that the moderation becomes a major issue for discussion, with deletions of posts leading to flamewars about the deletions, leading to deletions of the posts about the deletions, leading to further flamewars.... That's an amazingly destructive cycle.

Here, we get a sort of alternative that seems to be a constructive cycle. We all discuss community rules and do a lot of informal community moderation ("don't feed the trolls"), but we don't seem to spend a lot of time flaming the moderators. Part of that seems to me to be that the moderators tend to be more tolerant than the community, which is what you want. To draw the meatspace analogy, it's easier to get shunned by your neighbors than it is to get arrested. Let your yard go to hell, and you'll feel the pressure from your neighbors long before the county sends someone out to demand that you clean up the trash and mow the grass.

Posted July 26, 2008 10:55 AM by albatross

I'm occasionally tempted, when someone is complaining that disemvoweling renders their posts unreadable, to email them a re-voweled copy. I refrain because I don't want to get that close to someone who is that angry.

Posted July 26, 2008 11:22 AM by R. M. Koske

I think lack of moderation is only half the problem. A blog also needs regulars: people who hang out on the site and follow ongoing threads. A community, basically, which tends to be a basic assumption when discussing blog moderation but which doesn't exist everywhere. The biggest reason Making Light attracts so few disruptive people is the community of smart regulars who engage with even the most dubious-looking people, argue back, expect responses, and politely dissect bad arguments. Trolls hate that.

My entirely subjective impression is that blogs grafted onto newspaper and magazine sites don't always have communities of regular commenters. People say their piece and move on. In a sense, everybody, good or bad, smart or stupid, is a drive-by. Susan Jacoby recently wrote a book called The Age of American Unreason. It has good parts but is often facepalmingly clueless, especially when dealing with the net. She seems to have derived her entire opinion of blogs from her participation on Washington Post and Newsweek blogs and their lackluster comments. In the midst of a sweeping condemnation of the blogosphere she accidentally hits on some truth: in a real conversation "identifiable people are held responsible for what they say and are even, on occasion, asked for facts to back up their opinions." Because Jacoby didn't bother to do any research, she assumes this never happens on the internet, but after moderation it's the second key difference between a good discussion site and a bad one.

Posted July 26, 2008 11:23 AM by Wesley

will 84: I'm only here to understand why people think blog owners have a right to disemvowel other people's words.

You're not here to understand anything. You're here to try to start a fight. You're a