Thu 31 May 2007
This recent thread was too vitriolic — even for EphBlog!
Aidan asks:
In all seriousness, how difficult would a user moderated comment system be to implement? I’d love to see the regular poster zoo codified in this fashion (obviously on a scale of 1 -> Frank, where Frank would be ultimate karma).
1) A first issue is whether to allow anonymous comments at all. We could (like WSO or Ephtown) only permit comments under an individuals own name. I would vote against such a policy since we have many regular commentators (like ephmom and current eph) who are important members of the EphBlog community and who have reasons for being anonymous. A second option would be to allow anonymous comments, but only by regular (perhaps even registered in some way) pseudonymed individuals. ephmom can leave comments, but not someone just posting one time. I would vote against this as well (for now) since we get so much valuable information from such drive-by-comments. Consider this example is from our discussion about Coach White.
Your statement about senior coaches not being on Ralph’s side is incredibly misleading. A MAJORITY of the senior coaches voted to extend Ralph a 1 or 3 year contract affording him time for his masters degree. You are NOT talking to right coaches, or maybe you talked to an administrator. The vote was conducted using a secret ballot so they do not get to see how the votes came out, nor do they get to see Lisa Melendy’s final report submitted to the CAP. She does that independently, with her own pen.
Without anonymous comments, we don’t learn these things.
2) But we could allow all comments but be much more active in moderating them. I have given Evan Miller a lengthy rant on this topic, hoping that he will turn Ephtown into a discussion forum to beat all discussion forums. Time will tell what comes of that.
In the meantime, the key issue is volunteer energy. It would be great if there were one or two of five EphBlog readers who would be willing to “moderate” the comments. It would be easy to give them the power to edit/delete any comment that they found objectionable. I do that a bit myself, but my judgment may not be that good. Any volunteers? Also, readers should comment on what sorts of comments they think should be edited/deleted. Specific examples welcome!
3) Besides a simple moderation, I have day-dreams of a more Digg-like system which would allow reader judgments to highlight especially interesting/useful contributions to the debate. (Un)Fortunately, not all our fellow Ephs have time to read every comment. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way for us to highlight on the side bar the “best” (i.e., most recommended) comments of the last week? We could even have a volunteer or two (like the Daily Kos Rescue Rangers) who highlight particularly interesting comments or posts. Anyone with Wordpress experience on these topics should chime in.
Comments welcome, on this post especially.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:08 am
I don’t care what you do, but I’ll never sign up to be anything that sounds as lame as a “Daily Kos Rescue Ranger.”
May 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
David: You are letting today’s bloggers get away with murder relative to that for which you censored me about 3 years ago. Consequently I’m owed the right to extensively express myself herein profanely, obscenely, pornographicly and scatalogically - in addition to my common quotidian irreverence. The old elephant never forgets!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:59 am
How about Ephblog Bitch Slappers, Aidan?
Personally, I think only comments which are (a) blatantly and unambiguously defamatory / libelous, (b) requested to be removed by the subject of commentary, (c) spam or (d) contain extreme profanity should be deleted. Given Ephblog’s policy on (b), that stands as a pretty good check — most people who are the subject of negative commentary will probably hear about it eventually, and if they are unhappy, they can simply request removal of that commentary. But if, say Caroline C. doesn’t care about what some random internet dude with some kind of strange beef says about her, I don’t see why it needs to be taken down.
I do thing any commentary should at least be required to create some sort of name, fictional or otherise, other than anonymous. Still protects anonymity, but makes conversation a lot clearer to know who is responding to who. NO downside to that, certainly.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am
We don’t need to display everybody’s proper name to obtain some sense of accountability and responsibility. In my opinion, it would be sufficient to require registration (either of a real name or a pseudonym) under an email address. Users could (as they currently do) choose whether or not to display this email address in their post headings.
This system would both protect those who don’t want to be accountable to everyone (i.e. a college administration that is supposedly picayune enough to seek retribution - if you believe the anonymous poster on that thread) and give a way to open communication (at the very least) with message-board abusers.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
David, while you’re hopping around the dkosopedia, check out troll rating.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“Without anonymous comments, we don’t learn these things.”
True, but without knowing who “anonymous” is, we have no basis to evaluate whether “these things” should be taken seriously.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think registration would discourage new commenters - I only started posting occasional comments because I saw something that I wanted to respond to, and it was as easy as writing a response and hitting submit. I probably wouldn’t have cared enough to go through all the work of registering. If an objective of this site is to grow its userbase, and not just become a place for the same ten or so people to argue with each other, then I don’t think requiring registration is a good idea yet.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I think we could probably allow users who felt like registering and had sufficient karma to police the comments through a troll rating system. Anonymous stuff could get hidden after, say, two troll flags. We keep the possibility of anonymity, but impose some semblance of moderation on comments by the regulars. Potential problems? Off-putting karmic elitism, and the fact that you can’t shut off the source of the trolling, only the comments themselves. But I think that if us regulars can keep ourselves on a leash and only troll-rate what needs to be troll-rated, the first shouldn’t be too big an issue…and the second is simply the price we pay for keeping things open.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
‘10 - good point. I definitely do the same thing when so moved. You’re right about the possible negative consequences for participation.
I still do think that registration is the best option. The problem is getting it to catch on. One way to do this would be to set up incentives to register.
With the current EphBlog setup, the only form of interactivity is posting responses. (Or being created as an author by David.) WIth this limited interactivity, the only way to make registration relatively attractive is to eliminate non-registered participation.
The other option, as people are sort of suggesting above, is to give registered users more options. One way to look at it (as Andrew and David seem to be pointing towards) is that registered users have more credibility on EphBlog, and therefore they should have some power to oppose or support the comments of other users.
So EphBlog could in the future have a two-tiered user structure - anonymous users could merely respond to posts, while registered users could post and flag other comments as good (the Digg-style system) or bad (troll ratings). Would this, in y’all’s opinions, represent a sufficient incentive to register, and an insufficient deterrant to random new users?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Censoring anonymous commentaries would preempt interesting discourse. It would appeal only to those gesticulating out of discomfort and to those longing for the complete and uniform seduction of the human mind.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
My guess is that an arithmetic increase in difficulty of participation would result in a geometric decrease in its volume.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Anonymous: Way to resort to Manichaeism (registration=totalitarianism, anonymous posters=the only font of freedom in a world ruled by thought-fascists) as opposed to constructive input.
Registration is problematic not because it allows moderators to restrict free discourse but because it would potentially restrict participation. Which, in turn, would limit the discourse by making it a nuisance to start posting on EphBlog.
But, on the other hand, I strongly believe that if people think that what they are saying is interesting and important, they will be willing to put their name to it. My suggestion stands, and my name’s Peter Nunns for those of you who didn’t know that already.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“Without anonymous comments, we don’t learn these things.”
That’s probably true, and on balance I think anonymous commentary promotes useful participation, but you also run the risk of somebody feeling more comfortable to slant the facts in order to satisfy an agenda. Some of the inside tips revealed on this blog have been proven to be incomplete or even blatantly false. Purely anonymous posters are also conveniently free from accountability, a luxury which some use to launch thoughts that range from baseless speculation to something close to libel.
There’s no perfect solution (all solutions either chill participation to some degree or run the risk of trolling, for lack of a better term), and I have little to add to Jeff’s good suggestions above, but I think David and the other Ephs that have taken ownership of this site might consider some sort of registration similar to what Jeff Z. suggests. Such a system would not chill the level of participation; similar registration systems have worked nicely for a number of political blogs. This would benefit Ephblog monitors by allowing them to pinpoint repeat troublemakers and defray frivolous commentary.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
What I object to most is profane and offensive language and comments, whether the poster’s name as affixed or not. (Richard Dunn on the Reinhardt thread comes to mind.) I am not in favor of censoring per se, but I think I and other anonymous posters have been referred to as “chicken shit” and worse just because I want to protect my own privacy and control potential consequences.
Personally I see no problem with anonymous posting, given the loose moderating system that has been suggested.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
My problem is with anonymous posters who do not give themselves a consistent “handle.” The commenter above me, for instance, appears as “Posted by: at May 31, 2007 09:57 PM.” By all means, be anonymous. However, it is much easier to refer to & than it is to refer to “9:57 PM anonymous.”
Also, it helps in a long discussion where there may be several anonymous posters, to be able to tell the anonymous posters apart, and to tell when an anonymous person has posted twice, so that you can see the thread of the discussion. You may not want to identify yourself as much as “ephmom” or “trackie,” but you can certainly call yourself “&” or “%” or “asdf” or “anonymous #1″ or something clever of your own choosing.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Diana, the Artemis of history. I love to hear about accountability for being anonymous. Yes, the facts are thus: honesty does not pay. Being subject to ad hominems, circular reasoning, hasty generalizations, missing the point, and the resort to coercion are but the beginning challenges of honesty in broadcasting. Imagine attempting to defend oneself from an overwhelming assault from the side of that empty cauldron of feline talons feeding upon one’s liver with abandon.
Western chivalry is dead. To attempt to address argumentation in honesty with one’s name is folly. These adversaries will attack until their quarry is led to abandonment. There is no such thing as a fair and level playing field.
Perhaps ’tis better to relax, refresh one’s beverage, and contemplate the stars.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:42 am
So, anonymous, if I get it straight, your premise is that Williams people (the clientele of this website) are so purposefully mendacious and hateful that it’s not actually possible to have a civilized discussion with us.
If that’s what you think, why on earth are you here?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:43 am
We are here as exemplary characters to provide discipline and form to the architecture that constitutes reasoned and civil argumentation.
We will not tolerate lower social developmental strategies that distort historical analysis and scholarship.
Onward and upward.
Long live the Republic.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:08 am
No wonder the real world eats you alive - you’re a psychicly soft, socially out-of-touch, pseudo-intellectual windbag!
June 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
And there’s game, set, and match to Frank.
My thought here is that registered users should be able to troll-rate stuff like, say, Anon@1:43 and get it hidden from the body of the comment thread…but, as in the DKos rules (see ‘troll rating’ at the dkosopedia), othr registered users could un-troll-rate the comment if they felt like it. Bumping should be easier than censoring, as in the DKos rules.
I think the regulars here are mature enough to read, internalize, and abide by common guidelines concerning troll ratings, and apply them without much caprice.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Frank:
Yes, you are the old truncated irreverent elephant that dribbles much less forgets.
Besides your being obscene, I will call upon you in your latter more porcine period you will find yourself in. And being the pachyderm you are, with a trunk nosed appendage swaggering for recognition, you will remember these scatalogical moments in which you dwell amidst the sordid recesses of your mind.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
Anonymous = Grant Farred? Could it be?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Anonymous: Are you some sort of a eugenicist? “We will not tolerate lower social developmental strategies…”
Also, the use of the royal we generally indicates delusions of grandeur. Just give it up, get your chilled beverage, and go somewhere else.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Or someone like Robert Shvern (or who likes Robert Shvern).
June 1st, 2007 at 11:26 am
(My comment at 11:23 was in reference to Jeff Z’s “Anonymous = Grant Farred?” Sorry for any confusion with the simultaneous postings.)
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Take another look at the thread that sparked this one. The vitriol was not from anonymous posts; it was almost exclusively from one person, posting as “Richard Dunn” and attacking people he disagreed with in terms such as “little fuck” and “COWARD.” He focused not on the issue at hand, but on anonymity, “honor,” and testosterone. And so this thread continues off the track–suggesting that anonymity was to blame for the vitriol when an examination of the thread shows clearly it did not. (”Vitriol” is not the same thing as even-handed observations about the record of what people have done or said. Ditto observations about what we can learn from the comments of other posters.) Pseudonyms, including anonymity, are a long-standing and vital part of public dialogue for many legitimate reasons. Requiring registration or banning anonymity is simply a way to try to squelch criticism on topics that are of interest to a lot of people (or of intense interest to a few), as a survey of the number of comments on various threads will show. Eliminating this feature will only succeed in reducing ephblog to a boring, feel-good, non-discussion about the color of the paint in the new mailroom, etc. Let’s not pretend that Williams exists on some different planet where retaliation never raises its ugly head; manifestly this is not the case.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 am
Nonetheless, the banning of anonymity and use of screen names arguably would cause an increase in courage, responsibility and credibility (or conversely a decrease in cowardice, irresponsibility and misinformation). Personally I tend to discount the content of anonymous postings by a great deal - say about 80%. But who cares about the attitudes of others?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
I’d like to point out, once again, my suggestion above: Non-mandatory registration for those who want it, and incentives (limited moderation abilities) designed to get people to register. [I also agree with Diana - people should be required to put something down as a posting name, simply for clarity.]
That, I believe, addresses all the major fears expressed on this thread - the demonstrated “people posting trash” problem and the “registration will destroy the human spirit” bugbear.
And one more argument for my proposal: It hasn’t happened yet, fortunately, but under the current system a mean-spirited person could post under someone else’s name. I could, for example, post as “frank uible” or “Rob Shvern” without any restrictions. Optional registration would give regulars the ability to claim and protect their screen-name.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
If someone other than I in a post in my name favored Serbian nationalism, do you think it would irresponsibly lead to World War One? Or do we need the interposition of an assassination of an Archduke for that to happen? In any event would I be then held responsible for the War? If so, at least I get a footnote in the history books. At any rate I need to stop watching the History Channel so much.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Well, that all sounds rather unlikely, but you have to admit that it would be confusing.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Get with the times cuz. World War III is what we Serbian nationalists are shooting for. The Great War is so 1914.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Several times, in fact, though it has generally been of negligible consequence and been “dealt with.”
“Spoofing,” or “identity theft” (depending on how you look at it), can however quickly have very confusing, disorienting and destructive consequences, both for the “target” and anyone who assumes the statements (etc) to be made by the “impersonated.”
See Ethan’s blog (etc) for the most recent ‘public’ incident and consequences; some of the more “innovative” uses of such techniques at Williams still boggle my mind, and might (may) fill a few novels.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Personally I tend to discount the content of anonymous postings by a great deal …
…in just the way some people discount postings over the name Frank Uribe, or anyone else one might wish to choose. Readers are free to assess postings, or refuse to read them, or print them and put them on the wall for whatever reason(s) suits them. That is entirely irrelevant to a discussion that started out about vitriol–a trait of one seemingly non-anonymous poster–and immediately got off on a tangent.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Generally I prefer the method of people who stand and spout a vitriolic message over that of those who cower and speak genteely.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
That’s why Ben and Jerry’s makes all them flavors. Some people may even like cowardly and vitriolic together.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ken - my facts seem wrong, which is not surprising. But thanks for the information. I think my idea would fix such problems.
Look, Frank and unknown Frank-harrasser, can you please take it outside… oh, wait, you can’t - because the only personal information known about anonymous is that you’re what the Argentines would call a peloturo. Or, since that isn’t possible, could you at least talk about one of the proposed solutions?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
You have taken this thread to another level. From comment moderation to flaming female impersonation. Perhaps being germane to topic would be more appropriate.
Language is important as a medium of exchange. Using profanities and sexual innuendo is unnecessary. I appreciate the verbal exchanges, even if they appear to be outside of predictable pathways.
Whether the comments are anonymous or signed is insignificant if and when the discussions bear upon the subject matter in a discursive manner. Names do not authenticate nor verify statements. We have well known figures who speak out of context every day. Theses are perennially presented based on created assumptions with predetermined outcomes. In some cases, even accepted truths are later proven to be invalid.
If the purpose of these discussions is to control the dialogue, then by all means register your visitors. Control has always been the refuge of pathocrats. Particularly of those who assume the opposite. And mind you, names do not assume responsibility nor credibility. People can and often do lie openly.
Not being able to nail positions not identifiable by name presents a problem, especially when you cannot identify your participant. Amazing.
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 am
QED: Content or presentation with which we disagree will be…has been…censored. Thanks for proving the point.
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 am
Anonymous:
If you read carefully, my position in this debate has evolved as a result of the input of other people. Although I initially argued for registration as a pre-requisite (rather than a control mechanism) to post here, others’ words about the potential chilling effect on new participation caused me to revise that view. I am currently recommending OPTIONAL registration. “Optional” is a word that means “not mandatory” or “subject to the individual discretion,” in case you couldn’t find it in your oft-thumbed thesaurus.
I don’t happen to think that online debate is a matter of “manliness” or “cowardice” brought on by ease of identifiability. (I happen to post under a very mild pseudonym.) Despite the fact that I am a Williams student, I have never met most of the people posting on this site. “Frank Uible” is as hypothetical an entity, to me, as someone posting as “anonymous”. I can’t judge either one of you by anything but your words on this forum.
[As to that, I may snidely suggest that if your position is unable to be "nailed", it's more likely a result of a central incoherence to your argument.]
My suggestions all respond to the central question of this thread, which I have read as “How can we change the membership structure of Ephblog to reduce abuse or promote good writing?” I have suggested, to state this again, that all visitors be given a choice when coming to the site:
1. Register, and gain limited moderation powers (and a protected username). By “limited” I mean the power to flag posts as either good (in which case they be spotlighted on a sidebar or something) or offensive (in which case their content would be hidden from view).
2. Don’t register, and continue to post here as you already are doing.
The only disadvantage to this system, in my point of view, is that it would have to be coded into the site. And that sort of thing is a pain. If you happen to have any criticisms to make of this proposal, other than your oft-stated “registration=totalitarianism” mantra, please bring them to my attention.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
As to that, I may snidely suggest that if your position is unable to be “nailed”, it’s more likely a result of a central incoherence to your argument.
Are you implying that you think all unsigned posts are from one person?
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The only argument in favor of that idea is that almost all of the unsigned posts display the same sort of internal incoherence, a sort of glorious mash-up of hetereogeneous ideas and fancy vocabulary.
But no, I wasn’t implying that. I put that in parentheses because it was a minor point, a sort of a joke. Answer the real question.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
It is highly amusing to read some responses by Noons, and others, to people about whom they know nothing (but imagine that they do). Example: are they aware that Morty uses EphBlog as a feedback mechanism and occasionally posts anonymously? Same with faculty members. I wonder whether Noons, to cite just one, would use phrases like “glorious mash-up of heterogeneous ideas and fancy vocabulary” if he/she knew how it sounds to the person being addressed. It has the makings of a Comedy Channel routine, for which thanks.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
anon@8:17PM:
I’m not trying to win a pissing match here, I am asking for feedback on a the suggestion that I have put forth.
In my point of view, one of the great things about the Internet is that it *should* liberate us from some of the usual unconscious restrictions on discussion. When an idea is put forward on text-based, semi-anonymous Internet forum (Ephblog, say), it has the almost unique opportunity to be judged on its qualities, rather than on the qualities (fat? thin? male? female? college president? high schooler? white? black? Asian? gay? straight? rich? poor?) of the person uttering it.
This, to my view, is an advantage. And, if you will notice, I have refrained from speculating about the identities of the anonymous posters (or poster, as it may be) on this thread. I am willing to look for intelligent commentary in any block of text, no matter how anonymous.
My suggestion (read above, and please give feedback) does not aim to change this.
As for the “glorious mash-up etc,” I will agree with you that it’s not the prettiest phrase I’ve ever turned. In fact, looking at it again, it’s overly florid. It tries to be bombastic without the simplicity of phrasing required to pull that off. Quite an embarrassing thing to have written, really. But it’s correct in essence, regardless of who it’s aimed at.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“At whom it is aimed” - Morty’s watching.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I suppose that it is the sort of English up with which he will not put.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:33 am
i liked that phrase. ironically mashed-up in its critique of mash-ups.