2011-06-08 05:47:38New Rules?


Ummm, this is way out there, and if people don't like the thought, so be it, but...

Did you see Chuck PRIVATE complaining on the "no consensus" thread, at length, about the enforcement of the Comments Policy and "suppressing dissent?"  With perhaps his own very first comment?

First, is he a sock puppet for one of the many that have complained about moderation of late?

Second, due to the large number of complaints of late, I think it might be time to change the policy.  Letting these people rant and rave until it finally becomes abusive enough to cull them detracts from the site.  In fact, allowing them to post even two comments detracts from the site.

The debates are fun (when the debaters are reasonable), and include information for people to learn from, but...

I personally think the Comments Policy should be ammended to say that comments may be deleted and posters banned at any time on the whim of the moderators.  There are no hard and fast rules and no restrictions on deleting posts and banning commenters... it's a very short leash.

WUWT and Nova don't play at all nice.  Their threads are completely devoid of dissent, and the posters there think it's because (a) Watts/Nova have no moderation policy and let everything come through, but people are just so nice there that it's not necessary, and (b) because they are right, no one has anything contradictory to post, so that's why there's no dissent (from the denial position).

Personally, I think the level of dialogue and animosity displayed by most of the denial posters on SkS right now is abyssmal, and dragging the site down, not up.  It maybe even keeping more reasonable people from posting.  It's most denial posters, and not even close to just "some"... really, I'm hard pressed to find anyone on the denial side, currently posting, who I would not like to see simply disappear... maybe apiratelooksat50, because while he is lost and hard to help, I think he actually has some doubts, and he is teaching his misunderstandings to high school students, so it's important to get to him.

Anyway, it's just my opinion.  End the moderation complaints right now, by simply and quietly deleting posts, left and right.  As long as someone sticks to the science, and does so with some degree of integrity (unlike Ken Lambert and BP, who stick to the science, but lie repeatedly and mis-state other poster's comments) then they stay.  The slightest transgression... zap.

2011-06-08 10:01:33
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

I agree with Bob on most points.  But the "whim" thing makes us sound fickle.  The reality is that moderation operates under fairly specific criteria.  Criteria which many posters routinely ignore.

SkS is becoming Vichy-Francified.  While we bend over backwards in the effort to be perceived as being nice and fair, the denialist faction has become emboldened and has begun to bring their turf into ours. 

It will get worse, left unchecked.

BTW, the vast majority of comments with moderation complaints typically get deleted outright.

But opening a can of whoopass on those who have earned it is just desserts.

2011-06-08 11:08:46Complaints about moderation
John Cook

If someone complains about moderation, delete the comments immediately. That's black and white. But a "whim policy" is not a good idea. Not just because it looks bad, I don't think it's the right way to go.
2011-06-08 11:42:48
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

I'm still in favor of "time outs" but recognize the programming onus that puts on John.