Moderation views

This comment on a thread about blogs, and moderation caught my eye...

"Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido's establishment, I'm surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste! "

I gave up reading the comments ;o)


Thir... er.. fourthed!

I still check the site as the introductory topics are still often well worth noting and can indeed be worthy 'scoops'.

The comments are however not worth a second's attention (I think the owner is recognising this as I recall a year end post about policing more effectively. Wise, as he is in danger of losing more moderate readers, and certainly potentially valuable contributors by the % of silly dross).

It's the curse of the moderator to walk the line between freedom of speech and policing time-wasters, wafflers, trolls and professional saboteurs 'fairly'.

What I value about this site to date is the majority of comments are often well considered (if a bit ripe and hence for me detracting from their potency, IMHO) and, crucially, based around well-support fact, with some great onward links. If I had a critique, it would be to lump those who do have decent views in 'groups' too easily just for having other views. 'Is see the beeboids are out', 'are you an antisemite?', etc. Ad hominems that weaken any other aspect, no matter how valuable, severely, at least when I read them. And, possibly why genuine debaters from other viewpoints may no linger as long as one might hope to see if the power of argument of opposing sides can be resolved. It takes guts to go into a Lion's Den of contrary views (CiF is a daily chore). I found David Gregory a bit faithful to the party line in the face of potent counters on occasion, but what on earth would one expect if he's prepared to own up to his allegiance... and paymasters? Plus he was usually arguing about science with at least a fair bit of justification as to background. I for one was sorry to lose him.

As I'm no IT expert I know this is a suggestion based in impractical fantasy land, but after suffering as a user and vicariously as a blog owner the travails of many sites, I was wondering if it were possible to run a two track side-by-side or perhaps colour coded traffic light style system.

It's still a compromise, but uses the power and expandability of the internet in ways Voltaire might see merit in.

All posts go up, and hence are not 'censored', but those that really seem to be contributing little (or detracting) could be either sidelined or at least flagged for folk to check, and indeed still engage with (I really don't like some sites that have all sorts of threads spinning off, but can see this working on the basis that if the first is not really doing much, anything subsequent, even reasoned rebuttals, are unlikely to go anywhere of much value, which is how trolls thrive), at their leisure.

The flagging could be down to the site owner/moderator, and/or tipped off or supported by site users in much the same way as any 'Report this comment/recommend' links are used on such as CiF. Only without the oblivion aspect to the former that such champions of press freedom (when it suits) as the BBC can impose.

I for one would value an amber or red hue when the owner and/or many others think things are not faithful to the site rules or mission, and then would have the option of skipping over easily... or checking the culprit out if still so disposed. I do it now anyway when certain names appear.

It's just a very top of mind thought. One designed to help any site that deals in heated issues, to try and keep temperatures down (or at least properly vented) and debate values maintained with site reputation free(er) from those who would seek to compromise it though pushing to discrediting extremes.

There are some fine minds as well as some savvy IT bods here, so I am simply interested in whether it's doable or indeed desirable.

Head ducks down behind parapet.

Newsnight