Comments on: Drunken Lullabies

By: 'Drew

'Drew — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:55:06 +0000

Consider this post by John Scalzi, who in turn links to Charles Stross’ posted moderation policy for his blog.
Stross’ blog is also hosted in England, so it’s governed by different rules than in the US.\

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=853

By: Punning Pundit

Punning Pundit — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:29:10 +0000

I think you’re right about the need to formulate an explicit policy. I’ll give it some thought tonight and send you and futile an Email about it by tomorrow afternoon.

By: Maniakes

Maniakes — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:09:17 +0000

I don’t particularly like compromise proposals like disemvowelling because they reduce the gravity of the decision to mute an offending comment. If a comment is offensive enough to warrant moderation, then go all the way and delete it (leaving a brief note stating why it was moderated away). If a comment is merely annoying, then ignore it.

Some degree of active comment moderation is necessary to keep public online discussions constructive — see the comment section in http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/ for an example of what happens when trolls grow out of control — but people who want to disagree constructively need assurances that we’re not going to miscategorize them. I’d like to see us come up with a published policy explaining what is and isn’t acceptable behavior here.

By: McKrnn

McKrnn — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:35:45 +0000

n sltn whch prsnts itslf is dsmvwlng “ffndig” cmmnts r stll thr, n f thr s trth, t wll shn thrgh. Bt n n wll strggl t rd sshl cmmnts. thnk ts gd cmprms. f thr s bttr d, pls lt m knw n th cmmnts…

By: HeruFeanor

HeruFeanor — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:35:02 +0000

I am somehow very amused by the conflagration of the concept of trolls with the classic example of yelling “Fire!” in a theater, as both fall under “Language which is solely intended to inflame and cause unrest”.

The comparison is actually quite apt, but I had never really seen the the concept of “troll” pushed into the non-virtual realm in that way.

By: Punning Pundit

Punning Pundit — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:28:44 +0000

One of the things I did not mention (which I should have) is that it takes 2 of us to turn the key on a disemvoweling. There is a comment below which had been disemvoweled, re-emvoweled, and then disemvowled once more– when the original objector decided that, yes, the comment was obnoxious and posted for the sake of obnoxiousness.

I do take these things fairly seriously. I don’t like the idea that i would _ever_ fetter someone’s speech. But I’ve seen a single troll destroy an entire forum for discussion. That’s a greater menace.

By: Kailara

Kailara — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:17:56 +0000

I think that any alteration of another person’s comments is a suppression of speech — especially where the modifications are specifically made with the intention to make it harder to read and critique the other point of view and they’re made solely on the basis of your own opinion that the other poster is “obnoxious”.

Not that your common sense with regard to what is obnoxious is necessarily off, but I think if you’re going to be really “fetishistic” about free speech, you need to allow all comments no matter how obnoxious they are.

However, it _is_ your blog, and therefore you’re entitled to set minimum standards for “decency” in comments. You can set a requirement that posters refrain from using certain profanity or racial epithets, and then if a commenter violates that rule you have the option of deleting the comment (or editing it) on the basis of violation of stated forum rules. You can request that the poster edit before you initiate such treatment if you like. Then they have an opportunity to revise and still be heard…but if they simply posted to be inflammatory then they will be deleted.

There are regulations on what is and is not considered within the bounds of free speech for exactly this purpose. Language which is solely intended to inflame and cause unrest was one of the first things deemed to not qualify as protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Forum moderators are following a long and time-honored tradition in that respect.