Log In | Register
171 Comments
PrintOpen Questions for Tyler and the Community: Newsvine Moderation
News Type: Other — Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:42 PM EDT
advertisement
I'm in a meta mood, so sue me. In my last newsvine-centric article, I wanted to open up a dialogue on a possible overhaul of the reporting feature, regarding fallacious content, as seeded or written by various members of Newsvine. Tyler eventually stopped in to mention that, in his view, poor moderation is the root of many of Newsvine's growing pains.
Part of that, I think, is the uncertainty people feel about how to moderate appropriately, and within the confines of Newsvine's Code of Honor.
New users -- and even veteran Viners -- have questions about what is acceptable, and what isn't acceptable. We've never been provided a clear set of guidelines when it comes to policing our own content, and thus, I'm posting a series of questions, which have also been provided to Tyler, with the hope of getting some answers.
Tyler has mentioned, via email, that he'll respond to the questions, though he may have to avoid or tip-toe around the questions which point to specific situations. Hopefully he can find a way to answer them generally.
In the meantime, read the list, answer some or all of the questions, we can discuss our own thoughts and when I have a set of answers from Tyler, I'll post his responses alongside the questions:
- Worse moderator: One who moderates too strictly, or not at all?
Tough question, because, like every issue on the site, it depends. Not at all, I say. Someone who moderates too strictly ends up getting reported to me and the uproar usually forces them to reconsider their style. Here's a thread where - obviously – I think the mod's being too strict (and getting into arguments on purpose).
Here's a thread where the user's new, probably doesn't know the tools available, and clearly isn't contributing much anyway. It's near the Top of the Vine. Yuck. Hopefully, the 'not at all' issue is resolved regarding new users if and when we implement a redirect so newbies' first experiences with Newsvine aren't trying to handle a 500-comment MSNBC thread.
Too strictly at least means there's some moderation and participation. Users who just seed-and-run with MSNBC stuff and know better are borderline malicious. An active moderator is, I think, necessary for quality discussion here. Too strict is easier to rehab than inactive is to encourage.
- Setting up column-specific rules: How much leeway does a column owner ultimately have? I stumbled upon one recent comment which said, in effect, "posting links to other content without first asking permission will not stand, and thus your comment has been deleted." This link was 1) on topic and 2) the commenter was not excessively linking. Acceptable?
That's pretty lame. As moderator, you get to do what I do all the time: interpret the Code of Honor as you see fit. I've attempted to be as consistent as possible with regards to my interpretation and enforcement, but some of it is not up to interpretation. 4b, and c, and d:
- If a comment contains a personal attack or other gross Code of Honor or User Agreement violation, it may be deleted - regardless of the quality or nature of the rest of the comment. Users are welcome to re-post moderated comments without the offending portion(s).
- Do not delete comments based on disagreement; remove only comments that grossly violate the Code of Honor or the User Agreement.
- Comments that are grossly off-topic may be deleted. If the majority of the comment is on-topic, then the comment may not be deleted for being off-topic.
That 'posting links to other content' mandate isn't a CoH interpretation, so I'd say that moderator's overstepping their bounds.
- Deleting off-topic comments: Too heavy-handed? Only following a warning? Acceptable in some cases, not in others?
Follow the guidelines – generally, I'd say delete when completely and 'grossly' off-topic, just like the Code says. Warnings have their place when someone seems to be trying to hijack. If they post a few times half on-topic and half-off, then I'd warn the Viner. I think when you're handling a mammoth thread, say that it's getting out of hand and then start deleting the off-topic and no-content stuff, which will crop up.
If a specific comment's grossly off-topic [this one's full of acrimony, too] then delete the first comment – cut it off at the root.
Again, when someone's being egregious as a moderator, our community cries foul and I do something. Like in #1, I'd rather tell someone to ease up on the deleting throttle than pick my way through the wreckage of a flamewar. I say that as a moderator and a user. - I'm seeing more attempts at moderation by column owners. In your view, how much of what we're seeing is effective moderation, and how much is censorship? Is the determining factor as simple as: It's censorship if it happens to you, effective moderation if you do it to others -- or is there a line that can be drawn?
There's a line that can be drawn. It's the Code of Honor. A lot of the previous three answers answer this. Much like you should ask yourself "Am I contributing to the discussion?" before you post, you should ask yourself "Is this post taking away from the discussion?" before you delete. Not taking away from your position, argument, or ideology; the discussion.
- Bias/Abuse: Accusations of an organized mob-mentality coming from the left have persisted since the beta days: Are you seeing signs of abuse more heavily on one side of the aisle than the other? If so, or even if it's happening on both sides equally, is this an organized effort -- or are we simply seeing a large number of individuals misreporting on their own? Should those who cry bias remove their tinfoil hats, or keep them on?
Bloc flagging exists. It will probably exist forever on Newsvine. But here's the chain of communication: 'Mob' collapses comment for personal reasons, I get notified, I investigate, I reprimand. And I'll start ignoring users who over-report individually or in packs.
- Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed?
*Shudder* Link to the CoH in the first comment, quote 4b, c, and d, and keep it zero – make sure the 'comments on your Newsvine column' in the conversation tracker is zero. Delete the first violation you see and restate that the CoH will be enforced. And take it from there.
- Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?)
Yeah, you're obligated to keep the peace. I think that in certain instances, 'angry rhetoric' is fine. [Like what Adam says about Coldplay way the heck down the page.] But just because a moderator might desire a – ahem – more adversarial tone in their columns, doesn't mean they should be allowed to set up safe havens for people who just want to violate the CoH.
- Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
Please. Critiquing the source is on-topic. If you seed something from folderol.blogspot.com or whatever, you should expect your seed to be critiqued. Authors are also worth critiquing. At the same time, it's usually not the best way to raise questions about or invalidate something. If the author or source is, by your estimation, garbage, say that and then get to addressing the article itself, because it's probable you take issue with that, too. Ideally, the concerns about the author should be voiced, and then if the topic is worth debating, the discussion centers on the content. I think this happens most of the time anyway.
- Similar question, this time focused on column owners who post original content: What is fair game regarding the column owner / author? Can a person say: "The point you made seems a bit racist"? Can a person say: "This author has a history of only posting negative content when it comes to this topic, much of it factually questionable, and his/her views should be viewed in that light"? Are there circumstances in which evaluating an author personally is acceptable, based on the content of an article that person has posted?
We went through this with a couple of Jazzman's apparently notorious articles where he included his race in the title. If you make your personal demographic part of your argument, Viners have a right to question it. It doesn't give you license to insult or harass them, but questioning someone's identity is relevant – but only if the person in question brings it up first. And again, you should voice the concerns and then get to discussing the topic even faster than with seeds from questionable sources, because user history on Newsvine is, most of the time, very easy to access. Saying 'The point you made comes off as racist' is totally different than 'You're a racist'. Check the recommended guidelines – the acceptable way to approach other users is right there.
- What constitutes a "no value" comment?
A 'No value' comment is something short and pointless like 'lol' or something way off-topic like this.
- What constitutes an "inflammatory" comment?
An 'inflammatory' comment is just an insult or a diatribe like this or something that contributes a little but takes away a lot – like this. Here's a comment that's both no value and inflammatory, although it's not wrecking the discussion.
- How do you feel about seeing column owners use your name (Tyler's name) as a weapon? Comments such as: "I've reported your comment to Tyler for possible suspension of your account." More generally, is the Code of Honor being abused in an offensive-strike fashion?
I don't know if it's being abused frequently, but STOP DOING IT. Please. I have never seen someone write, "I told Tyler, you're probably going to get _____" and felt it was necessary [or on-topic, usually], much less seen it improve the situation. Say that they're violating the CoH – that's fine, but there's no need to tell the thread that you called the mod. Much of what I do is reactive; if I'm suspending you, there's a good chance it's because the tools we have for reporting CoH violators work well. I don't need to be used as a threat; referencing which part of the Code the user's violating should be good enough.
- Regarding CONVIS: What sort of distribution of "points" is best, when looking at the visualization for a lengthy comment thread? Should the column owner always sit on the top?
The column owner sure shouldn't be at the bottom. I'm usually near the top of my CONVIS', but not always. I haven't attempted to balance a 1600-comment thread, so 'the top' is probably an unreasonable every-time expectation.
- You clip an awful lot of meta articles: Do you see a way to more prominently feature this content in order to give new users the benefit of seeing the community behind Newsvine -- but which won't simultaneously clog up the news sections of the front page? How important is meta to the health of Newsvine, in your view?
Meta's important. People giving a hoot about what happens here has fueled the site's success and development. There are a lot of ideas worth considering in the discussion below. I often direct new users to Newsvine Help and Newsvine Community as good starting points. I'm not sure if we need a whole 'Meta' section – as I see it now, meta articles still get plenty of exposure and attention [although I'm obviously biased], and right now, you have to be passionate and pretty thorough for one to take off. A 'Meta' section would probably lower the signal-to-noise ratio for something that I consider very important to have thoughtful, quality missives about.
Thanks, Tyler!
53 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Brian Ford's Column
- Groups: Cyber Ettiquite, Invisible Viners, MetaVine, Newsvine Community, Newsvine Help, Old viners, Sweeter Fennel
- Regions: none
 | A Newsvine Interview With Lawrence Lessig, Author of REMIX: Making Art And Commerce Thrive In The Hybrid Economy | Scott (Scoop) Butki | Fri Oct 31 | 24 |
| Life As A Pumpkin Ghost; It Isn't Being Orange (Not to Mention Invisible) | Scott (Scoop) Butki | Fri Oct 31 | 12 |
- Public Discussion (171)
- Cyber Ettiquite
- Invisible Viners
- MetaVine
- Newsvine Community
- Newsvine Help
- Old viners
- Sweeter Fennel
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
84
47
11
{"commentId":3745499,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I'm debating whether or not I want to answer the questions, or whether I want to wait and respond to your answers, and Tyler's answers once we get them.
{"commentId":3745499,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:43 PM EDT{"commentId":3745747,"authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
What, no bunnies?
{"commentId":3745747,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":3746697,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
I should be able to get to these soon. I'll send you whatever I have tonight. So, uh, stay tuned!
{"commentId":3746697,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3746421,"authorDomain":"barbara474"}
I am waiting with baited breath for the answer to #6. While blogging late one night, I seeded a very controversial and racial article. It was a horrendous experience.
{"commentId":3746421,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"barbara474"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:28 PM EDT{"commentId":3746500,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
You clip an awful lot of meta articles: Do you see a way to more prominently feature this content in order to give new users the benefit of seeing the community behind Newsvine -- but which won't simultaneously clog up the news sections of the front page? How important is meta to the health of Newsvine, in your view
Meta Portal. (!!!) There's an idea I'd like very much. Alongside Politics/Entertainment/Tech/World News give Meta its own area to play in. Anything self-described as "Meta" in that drop-down menu would automatically not post to the front page, but would go to its own portal like every other category does anyway.
{"commentId":3746500,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 5 votes
#3 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:32 PM EDT{"commentId":3747362,"authorDomain":"sgreenway"}
I could dig a meta section. I already spend plenty of time here on the community page, but it's not really a dedicated meta.
BTW: Who broke the Top Seeds section on the front page? It was fine yesterday, but today all sorts of random seeds are showing up there, many with no votes/comments.
{"commentId":3747362,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"sgreenway"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3748153,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
We need "News" "Social" or "Meta" as article types. We've all been saying it for years now and the staff has always more or less agreed. I'm puzzled as to why it hasn't happened.
{"commentId":3748153,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3749269,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3751977,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
BTW: Who broke the Top Seeds section on the front page? It was fine yesterday, but today all sorts of random seeds are showing up there, many with no votes/comments.
I've never known the Top Seeds section to just display the most active/voted stuff. I've always thought it was kind of a random "here's-a-seed" box.
{"commentId":3751977,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3752267,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Myk, isn't most meta either just opinion or other? Hell, you can probably write a meta "event" article too. If anything, there should be a meta category, so meta doesn't have to be jammed down the "technology" category. Take for example this meta article, what exactly does it have to with technology using non-convoluted reasoning?
Besides, other than when marking articles as opinion, event or other, does that actually effect anything?
{"commentId":3752267,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3752786,"authorDomain":"aine"}
The Technology section also gets jammed with pieces about Media and Journalism (and in the case of "new media" this is perhaps the only section it can go under)... there's just not a good fit elsewhere.
{"commentId":3752786,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3753429,"authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
We need "News" "Social" or "Meta" as article types.
What, in your mind, distinguishes social from meta?
Split the difference. Community.
{"commentId":3753429,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3753986,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
Social is blog entries and the like - stuff that goes into the community group, ostensibly. Essays about one's day, personal reflections about current events that are written for one's friends here in the community etc. Not altogether different from Blogger in that regard, I think - people do that stuff anyway but it's always kinda one foot in and one foot out. I'd feel better if we just had a category for it and people could go nuts, I think many here would appreciate it. I wouldn't, I hate that @!$%# (other people, other lives, bah) but I think it would add to Newsvine in a productive way.
Meta is serious discussion/argument about the state and/or infrastructure of newsvine. It's not written for friends, necessarily, but rather for and by people interested in consuming discussion about the way this place works. I feel like it's intrinsically different from Social.
{"commentId":3753986,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3755417,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3755495,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
fine, call it "News" "Newsvine" and "Blog" - everyone gets a blog that's not necessarily news.
{"commentId":3755495,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3758226,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
How about we just get rid of "blog" type stuff to begin with rather than encourage it. Yea, it might be done now, but not really all that often. Let's not encourage more of it. If you need to blog about your life, go get a freakin' LiveJournal account.
And again, I don't think Meta is an actual type of article, it's a category. Besides, no one has still explained what the actual difference between "event", "opinion" and "other" actually is in actual functionality. It's not like there is an "event" or "opinion" section of newsvine, because that's what categories are for, not types.
{"commentId":3758226,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3758365,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Yeah, I don't think anyone really even checks whether you're calling something an event or an opinion...
{"commentId":3758365,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3758385,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3760040,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
Other = Meta, Personal Blog Style Posts, Poems, Fiction
This is the most important part of Newsvine for me and I think for many others. I use groups, and checking on certain members to find it, but would like to have more ways.
{"commentId":3760040,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3765787,"authorDomain":"stacym"}
I don't think the blog style or meta posts are necessarily bad so long as they are off the front page. I think the ability to show our humanity to others goes along way in keeping a civil tone on the site, you are looked at as a person rather then a pundit. Even if I want to throttle someone over politics, I'll remember that they really like bunnies because of that comment or post they made, or something. It just seems back in the older days, when the crowd was smaller and we were a bit more personal, you didn't see so much of the hostility.
I suppose the same could be achieved if I could break away from politics and start hanging out in entertainment, though. But that's just too much to ask. ;)
{"commentId":3765787,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stacym"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3765878,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Not to mention that blog-type posts help us get to know each other, creating a better community. Just keep it off the front page.
{"commentId":3765878,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3775859,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Brian, I know what the definition difference is between "event", "opinion" and "other", but other than the top right of an article, what is the actual difference on newsvine itself? The homepage shows all three types, there aren't separate pages where these news types are segregated, I just see no difference in the actual functionality between the new types. What do they actually do?
Basically, if news types were removed completely, would that change anything at all about newsvine?
It just seems to me that at this point new types are trivial and kinda pointless.
{"commentId":3775859,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3781484,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3787429,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Does the algorithm really even matter all that much anymore? How many people browse newsvine primarily thought top of the vine, versus their watchlist or friend conversation tracker? I don't even have top of the vine on my homepage any more because it inevitably just because a second politics section.
{"commentId":3787429,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3788837,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3791563,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
How many people browse newsvine primarily [through] top of the vine
I'd say most of the people coming from MSNBC do.
{"commentId":3791563,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
{"commentId":3791891,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
How many people browse newsvine primarily thought top of the vine, versus their watchlist or friend conversation tracker?
All three are my primary sources. I randomly select specific items in the bottom tracker. Too many to wade through otherwise. I also detracked a lot of Groups I'm in simply because of volumes.
{"commentId":3791891,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3793284,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
[Tyler:] A ‘Meta’ section would probably lower the signal-to-noise ratio for something that I consider very important to have thoughtful, quality missives about.
That's a good point. We do tend to have a lot of people write "Liberal NV Keeps Deleting My Articles" from people whose deleted items consist of "atheists are idiots," and other such shenanigans-laced articles. But as Community Moderator and Official Face of Newsvine Administration, maybe the creation of any article placed in a Meta section could immediately alert you and Calvin, respectively? That way those types of articles could immediately meet their doom, and the others would still have a place to gain traction. Not to mention that if it's addressing an issue that needs to be raised, staff is instantly notified, and that if we're just flat-out wrong about something, staff can instantly say so.
That, or I'm just trying to make you work more on the weekends. Your choice.
{"commentId":3793284,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3808479,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
But as Community Moderator and Official Face of Newsvine Administration, maybe the creation of any article placed in a Meta section could immediately alert you and Calvin, respectively?
Right now, I'm instantly email-alerted on a lot of Newsvine-related tags, so that happens anyway.
I think if a Meta articles do gain quite a bit of traction as is, and almost all of the feedback I/we get through 'Site suggestion' on the Contact form, I think is, well, just a sweet or misguided site suggestion, not something that there should necessarily be a thread about.
So I yell at the tech team/respond to the user/delete the mail that suggests I should put my head in a place I can't physically put it.
At the moment - the 'I'm new and it's almost November' moment - I think that if we launched a Meta section, I'd want it to be after we've updated and better promoted our FAQ.
That should happen sooner than I you think.
{"commentId":3808479,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3809994,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
(Third try at this comment. @!$%#ing Bubblegum...)
At the moment - the 'I'm new and it's almost November' moment - I think that if we launched a Meta section, I'd want it to be after we've updated and better promoted our FAQ.
New mod, new rules. Makes perfect sense.
So while you're here, what do you think about having the ability to shut down comments for an author if an item has turned into an flaming war of Fire Marios and they refuse to moderate? Sometimes, just dropping a vat of water on the flamewars is all that willl stop them. This idea popped into my head just a minute ago, so I thought I'd let it out to be throroughly trashed.
{"commentId":3809994,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3810882,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
what do you think about having the ability to shut down comments for an author if an item has turned into an flaming war of Fire Marios and they refuse to moderate?
Elaborate a little. Just stop all comments on an article, or for a specific author's articles, or...
I'd have different positions depending.
{"commentId":3810882,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810969,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
On the out-of-hand article in question. We have a little checkbox indicating whether we are allowing comments, and if a thread degenerates beyond repair we can de-check it and commenting ceases. My thought here basically is that, since some users refuse to moderate, and since many of the worst seeds for this come from click-and-run MSNBC users, you might be able to nip it in the bud by closing comments on the offending piece.
{"commentId":3810969,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3812463,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
Now that IS a neat solution. So simple too. At a stroke it would reduce all the animosity that those MSNBC seeds generate, both within themselves as well as the wider community too.
Cannot see a problem with that. Just cannot.
{"commentId":3812463,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10380405,"authorDomain":"farmer"}
I have a wonderful idea! I know just how to solve the "meta" problem. Very easy. Simple. Right to the point. Let's make All of Newsvine the meta section. That way the whole world will be able to see what goes on with Newsvine members.
{"commentId":10380405,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"farmer"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10385342,"authorDomain":"CL1"}
That was what I thought also, but wouldn't want any of that to take up the front page, so maybe it should be in its own category?
{"commentId":10385342,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"CL1"}
{"commentId":3747063,"authorDomain":"jsbach"}
I hate bullying. I had volunteered as a moderator and it was on an MSNBC piece which consisted of everyone stating how they hated Catholics even though that wasn't even the point of the article. I am Catholic but by God, I made sure everyone had their a right to their opinions.
I know I have used this example before but it was after about 600 comments that I asked for help. Not one time did I ever threaten anyone with expulsion. I used the Newsvine Code of Honor and I used common sense. I am intelligent enough to know a bully when I read one and when I was out of my league on title of articles, I left that to the professionals.
I enjoyed being a moderator but only because I was able to let everyone have a chance to voice their opinions without repercussions. Even when the subject matter was critical and hateful of someone like me. I don't know how much more objective I could be.
Now, when I see a Newsviner bullying someone with their words, I do use Tyler as a threat. I ignore profanity if it used but if it is used against another viner, I mention the CoH. Nothing more. I guess I don't understand what's wrong with using Tyler or the Newsvine staff as a way to get people to calm down.
{"commentId":3747063,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"jsbach"}
- 4 votes
#4 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:04 PM EDT{"commentId":3750485,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
IMO, threatening to involve another person in your argument only fuels the conflict.
{"commentId":3750485,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3750538,"authorDomain":"jsbach"}
what do you mean?
{"commentId":3750538,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"jsbach"}
{"commentId":3750557,"authorDomain":"jsbach"}
Okay. I understand though I don't understand.
{"commentId":3750557,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"jsbach"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3750575,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
How would you feel if someone threatened to send a moderator on you because you were bad.
{"commentId":3750575,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3756255,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3760109,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
I don't say anything--just use the ! button if needed. "Inflammatory" to me means "trying to start a fight" and "no value" means "off topic or just ranting for rantings sake"
{"commentId":3760109,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3760236,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
People don't admit to being in the wrong so any kind of threat is going to be seen as an attack and is only going to inflame the situation. Acting like you're a part of his team is the same.
I remember one day in PE class, where the bullies took my bag and decided to toss/kick it around. Instead of running around the gym trying to get my bag from them, I walked away and sat on the bleachers. I took the fun out of it for them, because I didn't care what they did and you know what, it never happened again.
How is that so hard?
{"commentId":3760236,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3760364,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
ditto to what Angel said.
I'd expand on 'ranting for rantings sake' as an example of 'off topic' (although it would be nice to have that report list expanded to give us some more choices based on what is common on threads):
Several multiple consecutive comments, sometimes as response to the same comment by another, and continuing to do that ad infinitum throughout the thread. Classic behaviour of a troll. Yet the example I am thinking of does this consistently, is highly ranked and has a loyal following to keep voting his comments.
There will undoubtedly be other examples of such. Voting patterns must be obvious to staff so they should be able to see how the system gets gamed like this. Earlier this year, there seemed little evidence of a will to do something about it.
{"commentId":3760364,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3761915,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3762286,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
The point is, all they wanted was a reaction from me and when they didn't get it, taking my bag became pointless.
{"commentId":3762286,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3762409,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
IMHO, bullies want attention and will get it in the way they know how. Walking away, even at the expense of a object, takes away their air.
In a column, however, trolls can't be allowed to bully the other commentors--it's a whole different matter. I've found that "staring them down" so to speak doesn't work very often--they just get nastier because they feel attacked. A word about civility to all conversants works better. Yes, some trolls are just asking to be attacked, but attacking practically always brings on defense and more attacks.
{"commentId":3762409,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3763060,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
I agree trolls are different but you still don't have to respond to their actions. Simply report or delete, which ever is appropriate, and suggest the same to your commenters. Report, don't react because that's what they want.
{"commentId":3763060,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3763310,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Ack, that was a horrible comment.
Trolls on the internet are only slightly different because of the number of people involved. They still want the attention, and for that, shouldn't be reacted to.
{"commentId":3763310,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3764655,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
I agree with you in most cases, Ben. I guess I was thinking about if it happens on my own articles--which it rarely does because I rarely seed/write about the types of articles that attract trolls. :-)
{"commentId":3764655,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3765693,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Yeah, I've only had to do it once. I don't get many comments, though.
{"commentId":3765693,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3770080,"authorDomain":"jsbach"}
Ben,
I don't understand your logic in not using Tyler or Calvin's name as a way to get a jerk to stop being a jerk. If someone threatens me with Tyler or Calvin, there must be a reason. Bullies don't give a rat's rear about CoH rules and regulations.
The bullies are successful in bullying because there is no proper moderation. I don't care how they feel if I use Tyler's name as a way to get them to stop. That's their problem, not mine. Yes, their goal is to get a reaction but it doesn't always work in your favor by ignoring them. Whether you ignore them or not, some keep going and going regardless of who is listening or ignoring them. Just because I report an abuse to Tyler doesn't mean I'm going to get what I would like to happen.
As one who comments, I look for assurances that everyone will remain civil to one another. As someone who reports a violator of the CoH, I expect a response from Newsvine. As a former moderator, I absolutely gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. I will continue to watch others and demand they act with civility.
{"commentId":3770080,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"jsbach"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3772589,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
To me it's the equivalent of yelling as loud as you can, "Hey! I can't handle this problem that I got myself into, can you come and solve it for me?!" Sure, there are the usual exceptions, but that is not effective moderating.
Why do we even need official moderators, if we're supposed to be self-policed? Having moderators, no matter how mild, is not self-policing.
{"commentId":3772589,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3772803,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Why do we even need official moderators, if we're supposed to be self-policed? Having moderators, no matter how mild, is not self-policing.
Well, would you be in favor of giving all Viners the power of suspending and banning other Viners? I don't think I would. Heh.
{"commentId":3772803,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3773578,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
I'm not totally opposed but I'm sure that it would be a staff nightmare.
{"commentId":3773578,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3808517,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
Bullies don't give a rat's rear about CoH rules and regulations.
So why should they care about the guy who enforces them? As moderator, I basically am the CoH, interpreted.
{"commentId":3808517,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3747549,"authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
What is "meta"
{"commentId":3747549,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:31 PM EDT{"commentId":3749193,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Meta : self-referential. In the case of newsvine, it's articles ABOUT newsvine or newsviners or the newsvine community. Us talking about ourselves and the site.
{"commentId":3749193,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3749228,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3751268,"authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
Thanks Aine and Brian :)
{"commentId":3751268,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:30 PM EDT{"commentId":3752552,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I'm bored:
Worse moderator: One who moderates too strictly, or not at all?
Too strictly, they're probably asses.Setting up column-specific rules: How much leeway does a column owner ultimately have? I stumbled upon one recent comment which said, in effect, "posting links to other content without first asking permission will not stand, and thus your comment has been deleted." This link was 1) on topic and 2) the commenter was not excessively linking. Acceptable?
Some leeway. A column owner should be able to allow some off-topic conversation if it's ok, but deleting all links is going too far. Linking is part of the internet, and it's how you avoid copyright infringement.Deleting off-topic comments: Too heavy-handed? Only following a warning? Acceptable in some cases, not in others?
I think there should be a warning first. But I think "off topic" needs a better definition too. Comments that disagree with you are not off topic.I'm seeing more attempts at moderation by column owners. In your view, how much of what we're seeing is effective moderation, and how much is censorship? Is the determining factor as simple as: It's censorship if it happens to you, effective moderation if you do it to others -- or is there a line that can be drawn?
I think the line is with the means of the comment. If the comment is being moderated for content, then that's just censorship, like those @!$%#s who delete any comment that doesn't agree with them because they are "off topic". However, if the comment is being deleted because of the way the comment is phrased, i.e. just a bunch of cursing with no real content, then that's moderation.Bias/Abuse: Accusations of an organized mob-mentality coming from the left have persisted since the beta days: Are you seeing signs of abuse more heavily on one side of the aisle than the other? If so, or even if it's happening on both sides equally, is this an organized effort -- or are we simply seeing a large number of individuals misreporting on their own? Should those who cry bias remove their tinfoil hats, or keep them on?
I definitely see a ton of signs of bias in group/community moderation, but I don't think it's abuse or organized (most of the time). I think it's merely self selection. Newsvine users in general have a biased view, and that naturally shows in community moderation.Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed?
I definitely think that most comment threads tend to evolve from how the column owner presents the seed, and comments themselves. Users who seed crap, change headlines to be inflammatory or "eye catching" and then go into attack mode with comments tend to spawn bad comment threads. Users who seed quality articles, use legitimate headlines and comment with positive intentions tend to generate worthwhile comment threads. So basically it gets down to what the intention of the seed was for, being inflammatory, generating page views, or sparking a quality discussion.Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?)
It should vary a little from column to column. Personally, I like to give sports articles and seeds more leeway with comments (though I've never really needed to) because I think the subject matter is more emotional (in a good way) and the idea is to let people let their guard down a little and just be themselves and support their teams. A little virtual chest pumping is good for the soul. Likewise in the entertainment section, many of the comments and discussions comes down to opinion and personal preference, and sometimes I just want to say that ColdPlay just @!$%#ing sucks.Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
I think that attacking the source is legitimate up to a point. Modern journalism hinges far too much on "anonymous sources", rumors and shear speculation, that the reputation of a source does play into how much trust we should put into what they claim to be "truth". Though I do agree with your clarification, there is a difference between calling an author a name, or saying that Fox News sucks and actually saying that the past three articles from this news source ended up being fabrications, or that this so called "bi-partisan" group is actually funded by partisan groups A, B and C.Similar question, this time focused on column owners who post original content: What is fair game regarding the column owner / author? Can a person say: "The point you made seems a bit racist"? Can a person say: "This author has a history of only posting negative content when it comes to this topic, much of it factually questionable, and his/her views should be viewed in that light"? Are there circumstances in which evaluating an author personally is acceptable, based on the content of an article that person has posted?
I think that once we post something on a public internet site, we become limited public figures. And therefor I do think it is ok to look at an author's history, draw conclusions, and then state them. It's not ok just to call names for names sake, but sometimes users do make racist comments. Sometimes users are racist. I say call a spade a spade. That's why I've also had some problems with certain users trying to get the term "anti-Semite" banned from newsvine. Yeah, the term is overused in many instances, but the thing is, it surely would surprise me if not a single member of newsvine's hundreds of thousands of users was not antisemitic, or that not a single antisemitic article was ever seeded.What constitutes a "no value" comment?
A comment that offers no thoughts or ideas. I also think that comments in the form of "that was a great article/seed" are also valueless. There's a vote button there for a reason, use it and then be silent if you don't have anything intelligent to add. Is a comment that says "that was great" really any better than a comment that says "that was crap"?What constitutes an "inflammatory" comment?
A comment that has no value, but is also meant to inflame, attack or insult. But the key is that I think an inflammatory comment should also have no value. Sometimes a comment that is inflammatory, but has value, is needed. Usually this is the case when the comment goes against a common taboo or attacks widely held notions. Sometimes the idea itself is just inflammatory, but still holds value. Think about the Larry Summers situation, when he commented about potential innate difference between men and women in regards to the field of science and engineering. The very idea was inflammatory to many, but the idea holds value, and there is no way it could have been presented any better.How do you feel about seeing column owners use your name (Tyler's name) as a weapon? Comments such as: "I've reported your comment to Tyler for possible suspension of your account." More generally, is the Code of Honor being abused in an offensive-strike fashion?
I think that hypothetical comment is an attack and an abuse. If you need to report something to Tyler, then do so, but assuming that you are right and they are wrong prior to Tyler's involvement is egotistical at best.Regarding CONVIS: What sort of distribution of "points" is best, when looking at the visualization for a lengthy comment thread? Should the column owner always sit on the top?
Sorry Tom, but boring. Next!You clip an awful lot of meta articles: Do you see a way to more prominently feature this content in order to give new users the benefit of seeing the community behind Newsvine -- but which won't simultaneously clog up the news sections of the front page? How important is meta to the health of Newsvine, in your view?
Make meta a category (like sports, entertainment, politics), it can be ignored by the homepage at first, but we can add a meta module to the homepage if we desire, like we can for the other main categories.
{"commentId":3752552,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 7 votes
#7 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:41 AM EDT{"commentId":3752669,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
sometimes I just want to say that ColdPlay just @!$%#ing sucks.
I just wanted you to know that I voted for your comment because of that little addendum. Also I agree with most of it, but mostly for this.
{"commentId":3752669,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3756013,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
I also think that comments in the form of "that was a great article/seed" are also valueless
I sometimes make comments like that. I'll see a great seed/article where I don't really have anything to say, but I want to draw attention to it. The only way I know to do that is to get it into comment trackers, and the only way to get it into comment trackers is to comment. I think that has value.
{"commentId":3756013,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":3756333,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
Yeah, I always make it a point to delete comments from people who look like they may catch up to me on Convis. It's been a very useful tool for my sense of power, prestige and all-around self-worth.
Thanks Tom! ;)
{"commentId":3756333,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3758700,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I'll see a great seed/article where I don't really have anything to say
But if the item was really great, wouldn't you have something interesting to say about it? My problem is usually when I see a boat load of people leaving comments like "this is great" but without anything else interesting or of value, the item in question really wasn't that great, but just happened to agree with them in a partisan way. Commenting "this is great" is a way to end the discussion because really, what do you say back to that if you disagree that isn't also valueless or inflammatory?
On to Brian now:
I have a list of regulars who simply post bull@!$%# commentary (YMMV) and then let the @!$%# hit the fan, never comment on their own stuff, threads get out of control, a day later, they post the same bull@!$%# commentary from another source, wash, rinse, repeat. I *hate* that.
First off, I want the blockquote button back!
Second, I don't really consider people like that to be lax in moderation, as I pointed out later on in my thoughts, users like that "moderate" like that on purpose. It's not a lack of moderation exactly, but a moderation strategy to be asses.
… a bunch of stuff we more or less agree on …
A bit off topic but, I *hate* it when I see a ton of well-reasoned comments which happen to disagree with the stance of an article, only to see the author of said article ignore those comments, in favor of responding to a worthless "great article!" comment with: "Thanks, it's nice to see that not everyone is out to get me..." I think authors need to grow a thicker skin, learn how to address criticism as well as they address worthless praise. I also hate when these same people let comments like "Great seed! Sorry you're seeing so much hate in the rest of the comments!" or worse yet when they agree with the comment. Sometimes you wish you could respond to that sort of thing in the way that the comment deserves to be responded to but, well, the CoH exists.
That's kinda the point I was getting at with calling "that was a great article" comments as valueless. Too often authors use them to validate an article or seed that is far from great, has many problems, or is just debatable. But then they get a few "that was great" comments from people who really just agree with the position, and then the author just goes on and assumes all the criticism is undeserved or coming from hate or some such nonsense. I've just gotten to see this more and more now and it's really annoying, because you really can't answer back to a "that was great" comment in a COH appropriate way, so they act as discussion killers.
To me, when I see a "that was great" comment, that's just saying to me that the user is a closed minded fool who agrees with whatever position the likely partisan article is espousing, but who doesn't actually want to attempt any higher level thinking and leave a comment that actually has value or adds to a conversation in any meaningful way.
I'm not going to say I'm not guilty of this, but if I do it, it's usually with someone who is clearly spamming Newsvine or trolling. I think that, in most cases, saying that you've reported something is okay -- because it sets boundaries -- but I don't think it's our job to threaten people with punishment
I kinda don't consider spammers to be people, so I don't care what anyone does to them. And in certain situations, I think it's also okay to tell a regular user who's been misbehaving that you reported them, when I think the line is crossed, is that end part assuming/threatening the account suspension. That's a power we don't have, so to bring it up is really just a threat and not helpful.
{"commentId":3758700,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3760382,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
But if the item was really great, wouldn't you have something interesting to say about it?
I agree with Perry O about the "this is great" comments. Sometimes there isn't time to go into a long comment, or the article/opinion stands for itself and I just want the tracker to pick up that I was there. I often would never see a seed/article by a newbie unless one of my friends had made such a comment on it.
{"commentId":3760382,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3763849,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
Likewise in the entertainment section, many of the comments and discussions comes down to opinion and personal preference, and sometimes I just want to say that ColdPlay just @!$%#ing sucks.
I would like Coldplay a lot more if they capped the 'P', honestly.
Also, Adam, way to steal my thunder. :) I'll be back with my responses 'shortly'.
{"commentId":3763849,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3765303,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
But if the item was really great, wouldn't you have something interesting to say about it?
Maybe for chatty people. Me? I'm what you call laconic. Taciturn even.
{"commentId":3765303,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3765857,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3766200,"authorDomain":"stacym"}
Honestly, Coldplay is getting into the realm of Creed suckitude for me. I'm so tired of them.
Sometimes there isn't time to go into a long comment, or the article/opinion stands for itself and I just want the tracker to pick up that I was there.
I do the same thing. There are times when I'll read a really good piece, and I want to respond, but need some time to think of what i actually want to add to the discussion. So I'll leave a brief comment like "nice article" so that it will show up in my tracker. And sometimes I'll comment so that it will show up in other people's trackers. And sometimes I just comment to let the person know I read it and appreciate the work.
I do see what you guys are getting at with the people that ignore all other comments but those though, that sort of behavior pretty much guarantees I won't be coming back to that column.
{"commentId":3766200,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stacym"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3766411,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
I second what Adam said in no. 7 above.
{"commentId":3766411,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3776055,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
and I just want the tracker to pick up that I was there.
There's a tracking button at the bottom of each article if you just want to track the conversation, because maybe you'll come back later and reply to someone else's comment.
If your purpose is to get the article in your friends' conversation tracker, think, do you really think that friends following you really want to see a bunch of "this is great" comments? If you want to help spread the article, then clip it to your column.
I would like Coldplay a lot more if they capped the 'P', honestly.
I'd like them better if they weren't trying so hard to be U2, or suck less.
Also, interesting how that one side comment sparked as much discussion as anything else I said…
And sometimes I just comment to let the person know I read it and appreciate the work.
I've kinda always felt that our votes should be public, so we could all see who voted and appreciated the work. But that seems to be a very minority opinion, so whatever.
{"commentId":3776055,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3776584,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Also, interesting how that one side comment sparked as much discussion as anything else I said…
LOL! You're welcome. I think I was expecting you to come down with "this is an example of #10" on mine, but then you didn't. Geez, I set you up and everything...
{"commentId":3776584,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3777100,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Trashing Coldplay never has no value ;-) Or maybe that should be: trashing Coldplay is value in and of itself.
{"commentId":3777100,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3781620,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3783149,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
Actually, I heard their latest single on the radio and it was not bad. I hated their last album, but maybe I will give this one a spin. If for no other reason than to see the look on Ryan's face if she walks in on me listening to Coldplay. ;)
{"commentId":3783149,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3787450,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
No problem Brian, I do what I can ;-)
{"commentId":3787450,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
{"commentId":3756864,"authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed?
I would watch for comments aimed directly at individuals that were of a flaming nature.
Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?)
I'm new but I think that one of the differences between viners is how we moderate our columns. Some viners won't get comments are participation if they over moderate while the same thing could happen for those who under moderate. I think a well written set of guidelines for those who honestly want to improve their moderation would be helpful but let viners moderate their columns and let them bear the consequences of that moderation. I say that also because there is very rarely only 1 place, article or seed to comment on a topic of interest.
Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
Commenting on a source should be fine. I consider some sources to have completely forfeited their claim to journalistic integrity and I know each viner has their own list. Let sources be questioned as their past performance is usually the reason for the questioning.
I feel the same to be true of viners and their columns. You should certainly be free to question based on past performance but I think if you do question the authenticity or accuracy then perhaps the best course is to not comment or vote on the article and thereby you help prevent it from being noticed or voted up the vine.
I'd also like to get some more details on what "no value" and "inflammatory" reports should be filed for.
{"commentId":3756864,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"RBellamy"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:43 AM EDT{"commentId":3758198,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
What constitutes a "no value" comment?
I really don't like the "no value" option (or "inflammatory" for that matter) because it's so damned vague. Most of the comments that make Newsvine what it is could technically be considered of no value to the article at hand, but without them, there would be no personality here. A better option would be something like "completely off-topic" or "a complete and utter waste of server space". For me, to something to fit the current no value definition, it has to be not only out-of-place in its article, but contributing nothing to the social atmosphere too. "I like turtles" in response to this article would count.
The same goes for "inflammatory". Give me "ad hominem", "hateful", "flame-baiting", and "sweeping generalization" instead.
{"commentId":3758198,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:38 AM EDT{"commentId":3758773,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I've always thought that the reporting options should reflect the COH. That way you just pick which items from the COH the article or comment violates and report it directly for that. I definitely agree that "no value" and "inflammatory" are a bit vague.
{"commentId":3758773,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3766088,"authorDomain":"stacym"}
I really don't like the "no value" option (or "inflammatory" for that matter) because it's so damned vague.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I don't really feel that this should be something that moderators handle at all, it should be left up to the column owner's discretion. I've read great discussions that have gone wildly off topic, some of the funniest threads I've read in a column start from some silly "no value" comment. So I don't really sweat that sort of thing on my column if people do that.
I kind of think the only thing that should really be moderated (by someone other then the column owner) is personal attacks and threats.
{"commentId":3766088,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stacym"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3766240,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3761266,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
What constitutes a "no value" comment?
If my view has already been covered in the thread and I've missed it, my apologies. I will sometimes leave a short comment on a thread where I simply have nothing much to add to the content or discussion. But,
- I want to track an evolving thread,
- If the columnist is a newbie, I want to encourage them for contributing,
- It is a newbie who may be unsure of effective moderation but has picked a sensitive topic and may need some soft support if the thread attracts some jerks.
I would hope that such examples (there are many who do similar) are not misjudged as adding little value. IMO, intent is not obvious on the web.
{"commentId":3761266,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 9 votes
#10 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:37 PM EDT{"commentId":3776102,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I disagree with you first point, because there is a tracking button at the bottom of every article/seed on newsvine that lets you track the thread without leaving a "no value" comment.
On you two last points, I think welcoming and encouraging a new user definitely holds value, so I have no problem with those. More power to you if that's your thing.
{"commentId":3776102,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3779068,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
You know what? I sometimes remember about tracking an article and therefore use that as a means of keeping in touch. But I often forget until after I've posted that inane "Hey, that's great" bit.:-)
More often, I'll leave something like that on seeds/articles by newbies specifically as a way to nurture a community spirit. I should stress that I'm not the only one who thinks like that. It is one of the earliest 'lessons' I learned from observing other established Viners when I first arrived. It made me feel welcome and included within a community. All I'm really doing is replicating what I see as good practice.
{"commentId":3779068,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3782195,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
I also usually check out someone's column if I've never heard of them before--so even if they've left a "Nice article" comment--I may go look at their column because they liked some article/seed that I was also interested in. I don't remember exactly, but I think commenting was encouraged at one time as a way to get yourself noticed around Newsvine. I realize that probably mean leaving substantive comments--but hey, sometimes there's just nothing heavy to say! :-)
{"commentId":3782195,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3783536,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
Angel & Raat ki,
The nice article comment (or some sort of minimal comment) is used in one of the ground-rules of the Invisible Viners group. Specifically, members of this group are asked to read the articles of other IVG members, and then to leave a comment, even if it is only minimal so the author knows they have been "seen." Of course more substantive comments are great, but the point in the IVG is to get feedback on our writings, and ultimately to get greater visibility. If someone get lots of "Kilroy was here" comments but few votes, then they know readers weren't particularly inspired by what they had written, but if they get nothing at all, no comments and no votes, then they know they just haven't been seen at all. Sadly, I am finding this concept is rather academic since it looks like the vast majority of IVG members simply use the group as nothing more than another outlet for their material, forgetting about their responsibility to read the articles of other members. There are some good members, very good members, but they are more the exception rather than the rule. Oh well... I can't say I wasn't warned this would happen.
The automated features of NV are the only things that can work REALLY well (like votes, abuse flags, and comment count), just because it is the only practical way to deal with the volume. I don't want to discount the self-policing, or moderating, or leading by example aspect of the Vine; it is VERY important, in fact it is an essential part of what makes the Vine such a great community, it is primarily what maintains civility and respect. I guess I am just saying that other rules that may be invented as group membership criteria are nearly impossible to enforce.
{"commentId":3783536,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3784360,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
Malamute Man,
If someone get lots of "Kilroy was here" comments but few votes, then they know readers weren't particularly inspired by what they had written, but if they get nothing at all, no comments and no votes, then they know they just haven't been seen at all.
You make an important point. Feedback is important and we all feel so much better when we get it. It is one thing to see that a comment one may have made gained a vote or to. Not saying that is not welcome because it is. But feedback by way of a comment is worth a lot more. Because it is a way of acknowledging existence of an individual person. Which we all are.
The reverse side of that is when people add comments to seeds/articles I might have posted. I alwasy acknowledge that and often feel foolish when I simply cannot say anything beyond "Thanks for your comment." The difference is not so much in how I feel or am perceived by others. It is in how that individual feels and how he/she perceives the response. It is simply being a good host in my view.
{"commentId":3784360,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3785627,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
I agree Raat. Some of this is just being polite--not necessarily following the tools that Newsvine has set up and I am not bothered by either the "good seed" or "Thanks for commenting" comments. I like to treat people here as if they were in the same room with me.
Malamute man--
One of the reasons I didn't join the Invisible Viners group was because I already do the things that are stipulated -- I don't feel a need for that particular group. I think that's what befriending other Viners is for.
Not that I think there shouldn't be a group, that's everyone's perogative to make groups--but there have been and still could be articles for new members to show/tell them how to get more notice to their columns.
For me, that is commenting on articles/seeds and asking to be friends with folks I'm interested in. I see being a good Viner as a reciprocal process--I check out what others are seeding/writing and I hope they'll do the same for me.
{"commentId":3785627,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3785771,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
I alwasy acknowledge that and often feel foolish when I simply cannot say anything beyond "Thanks for your comment."
I get that foolish feeling too... Sometimes I just can't think of anything else to say... and quite often I feel like I am just out of time and need to say something just to be polite, even though I would like to say more. For example, this is a GREAT article (I am not just saying that to be nice), and I would really like to jump into the discussion, and add my own answers to Brian's questions (which I hope to do eventually), but I just don't have the time right now... I have no doubt that answering these questions and looking at what other people have said will be very enlightening...
BTW Raat ki Raani, I have re-read your comment in my Shakespeare piece several times... I really do appreciate it!!!
{"commentId":3785771,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3761387,"authorDomain":"aine"}
- Worse moderator: One who moderates too strictly, or not at all? - One who moderates too strictly is worse, imho, because the community at large can, at minimum, report and collapse CoH-violating comments. Moderation that is too strict tends to stifle a free-flowing exchange of ideas, or presents a singular viewpoint.
- Setting up column-specific rules: How much leeway does a column owner ultimately have? I stumbled upon one recent comment which said, in effect, "posting links to other content without first asking permission will not stand, and thus your comment has been deleted." This link was 1) on topic and 2) the commenter was not excessively linking. Acceptable? - I tend to point people to: Comment Moderation and Your Column by Calvin Tang, which was written just after the site went public. In effect, what that article does is present a set of minimum guidelines for moderation. I think that columnists that set up column-specific rules could be making it too difficult for their readers to comment, and could drive readers away with all their personal idiosyncrasies about what they find acceptable/unacceptable.
- Deleting off-topic comments: Too heavy-handed? Only following a warning? Acceptable in some cases, not in others? - I'm in favor of flexibility, not heavy-handedness.
- I'm seeing more attempts at moderation by column owners. In your view, how much of what we're seeing is effective moderation, and how much is censorship? Is the determining factor as simple as: It's censorship if it happens to you, effective moderation if you do it to others -- or is there a line that can be drawn? - Again, I'd point them to that link in my reply to #2. If you're moderating based on ideology (political or religious affiliation, for example), then you're not properly doing your job as a moderator.
- Bias/Abuse: Accusations of an organized mob-mentality coming from the left have persisted since the beta days: Are you seeing signs of abuse more heavily on one side of the aisle than the other? If so, or even if it's happening on both sides equally, is this an organized effort -- or are we simply seeing a large number of individuals misreporting on their own? Should those who cry bias remove their tinfoil hats, or keep them on? - I've seen more of this in the past than I do the present, perhaps because of our efforts to educate the community about moderation (?). Or, maybe I now tend to avoid those columnists who are abusive towards their readers. As a liberal, I'm aware of my own bias, but tend to see this as more of a problem on the conservative side than the liberal side... they ARE resistant to change, you know? And then there's the fact that at least 2 groups were caught actually attacking certain Newsviners or their content - one group was reprimanded, the other group seemed to exist offsite and charges of "Antisemitism" were leveled against certain Viners, names were posted on an outside site, etc. So I think it happens, and I think it is abusive, and neither of those two groups were liberals.
- Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed? - This problem hasn't yet existed on my column. In fact, I tend to comment more on others' content than they do mine. But if this were to happen on my column, I would attempt to moderate the thread myself, and if I couldn't handle it, people who are tracking my comments would very likely step up to the plate and help me with moderation -- mainly because I've already established a reputation here as fair-minded when it comes to moderation.
- Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?) - In a sense, columnists are already obligated to moderate their columns under Newsvine guidelines, as well as the Code of Honor. Those are bare minimum standards, and some people still have difficulty moderating their columns. Should a columnist be allowed to ignore those standards? Only very rarely and only in certain circumstances (i.e. - The Arena of Death).
- Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
- Similar question, this time focused on column owners who post original content: What is fair game regarding the column owner / author? Can a person say: "The point you made seems a bit racist"? Can a person say: "This author has a history of only posting negative content when it comes to this topic, much of it factually questionable, and his/her views should be viewed in that light"? Are there circumstances in which evaluating an author personally is acceptable, based on the content of an article that person has posted? - Yes, I think questioning the source should be permitted and encouraged as a means of encouraging critical thinking skills. Some sources are simply NOT credible and I think it is okay to point that out, particularly in well-known cases. Debunking and fact checking are article-specific, but evaluating the credibility of a source, particularly over a long period of time, is a much-needed "reality check" that I think leads to "Get Smarter Here". :)
- What constitutes a "no value" comment? - A comment that adds little to the discussion, spam, regurgitates talking points without cited sources backing those points (especially things that have been debunked again and again), thread-jacking... stuff like that. I hesitate to provide a comprehensive list, because then that encourages the culprits to try other things and then they can justify their behavior and say things like "Well, that wasn't specifically prohibited."
- What constitutes an "inflammatory" comment? - A comment that seems to encourage a flame war, personal attacks, name-calling,... etc.
- How do you feel about seeing column owners use your name (Tyler's name) as a weapon? Comments such as: "I've reported your comment to Tyler for possible suspension of your account." More generally, is the Code of Honor being abused in an offensive-strike fashion? - I don't see any reason to invoke Tyler's name because, for all we know, there could be others moderating (like Calvin or Mike D.). I tend to quote and link to the CoH pretty often, although I don't think I'm abusing my ability to do so, and I do think Tyler could use all the help he can get, as far as that goes. As we saw with Emily, the job is simply too big for one person to handle on their own, and sometimes just citing the CoH will give people pause to consider their behavior and desist from continuing to violate the CoH.
- Regarding CONVIS: What sort of distribution of "points" is best, when looking at the visualization for a lengthy comment thread? Should the column owner always sit on the top? - I don't really find the CONVIS thing all that helpful or useful. It was developed while I was away, so I'm willing to admit that maybe I just haven't figured out the point of it yet.
- You clip an awful lot of meta articles: Do you see a way to more prominently feature this content in order to give new users the benefit of seeing the community behind Newsvine -- but which won't simultaneously clog up the news sections of the front page? How important is meta to the health of Newsvine, in your view? - Personally, I like "meta" although I don't like seeing it on the front page because it takes up space that could be better used for "newsworthy" content, keeping in mind that those front page slots are limited. I tend to look at the front page as a new user would, and I don't think "meta" represents the best face Newsvine could put forward on the site, particularly for new users. I'd rather see a box put permanently on the front page that links to groups that would be useful/helpful to new Viners, such as the Help Group and the Community group. I do think a separate section for "meta" is a great idea, too.
{"commentId":3761387,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 6 votes
#11 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:40 PM EDT{"commentId":3761802,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3762386,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3763120,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Except, the very nature of modules is that they can be turned on or off, depending on one's views on the necessity of said content.
That's why I mentioned a permanent box for the Help Group and the Community Group. If a box like that was permanent, it couldn't be turned off or removed.
And, yes, I agree that Tyler is a more effective moderator, I wasn't questioning his ability to handle the job... it's just that the site is now so large in terms of users, groups, and content (articles, comments, and seeds) that any person in the job of Community Moderator would need at least some assistance. Even Tyler has admitted that... I recall him saying something to that effect when the CoH Militia group was disbanded... that he wanted all of us to fill those shoes and to be of help to him.
{"commentId":3763120,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3764429,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Regarding CONVIS: What sort of distribution of "points" is best, when looking at the visualization for a lengthy comment thread? Should the column owner always sit on the top? - I don't really find the CONVIS thing all that helpful or useful. It was developed while I was away, so I'm willing to admit that maybe I just haven't figured out the point of it yet.
You aren't missing anything, Aine. I'm still under the impression that it's really silly. Not to mention that its points algorithm makes no sense, and half the time the visualization is broken too. Right now you and Myk are both showing 15 points for 4 comments averaging 2.5 votes. He's on the top line and you're on the bottom. ???
But I would definitely find it suspicious to go to a huge thread and notice the author is at the bottom of about eight lines on the ConVis. Other than that, I don't get it either.
{"commentId":3764429,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3764767,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3764834,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Right now you and Myk are both showing 15 points for 4 comments averaging 2.5 votes. He's on the top line and you're on the bottom. ???
Right. It makes little sense to me, and I've looked at that and looked at that, trying to figure it out. Does Myk have an invisible handicap (like in golf) that I'm not aware of but that I am up against in CONVIS? If so, I wonder what my handicap is?
{"commentId":3764834,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3766996,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
I think I just got the ConVis Mojo. I don't mean to do it - sometimes that little statistical analysis tool just "happens" to come to my office for some sort of business. Every once in a while I'm almost certain it follows me home, and I'm trying to figure out who carved "CV + MB" into my girlfriend's car hood...
hmm...
{"commentId":3766996,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3769904,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
Yeah Myk. We believe you.
:-)
{"commentId":3769904,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3776328,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
As a liberal, I'm aware of my own bias, but tend to see this as more of a problem on the conservative side than the liberal side...
I'd have to disagree. I think the problem is far more on the liberal side, mainly because there are far more liberals so it's easier for the bias to seep in. Again, I don't think it's organized, but it is systemic thanks to newsvine being a site used predominately by liberals. Think of it this way, if there were two comments that said "McCain is a @!$%#ing old tart" and "Obama is a @!$%#ing elitist" which one do you think will get collapsed first?
Except, the very nature of modules is that they can be turned on or off, depending on one's views on the necessity of said content.
That's why I mentioned a permanent box for the Help Group and the Community Group. If a box like that was permanent, it couldn't be turned off or removed.
Why do these need to be permanent? I like the idea of making it default for new users, but once you are no longer a new user, then feel free to get rid of the modules. I have no interest in seeing anything related to those groups on my frontpage, why should I have a permanent module there? Hell, most users aren't even members of those groups, not to mention that those groups are completely unofficial. I just see no need for them on the front page in any sort of irremovable fashion.
{"commentId":3776328,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3783817,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Why permanent? To encourage people like you to contribute useful/helpful content. So you've learned all there is to know about Newsvine? Good. Next step, teach the Sprouts.
{"commentId":3783817,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3787508,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
I'm not even in the groups, so why would I want a permanent box of groups I'm not in on my homepage?
And besides, I teach through example ;-)
{"commentId":3787508,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3809090,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
As we saw with Emily, the job is simply too big for one person to handle on their own,
I'm curious as to what you mean by 'as we saw with Emily'. I've avoided asking about her until now, because I really wanted to be my own moderator [I consult Calvin regarding precedents and you folks about current sentiments.]
I can't do it on my own. I can respond with the community's help on my own pretty well [so far].
{"commentId":3809090,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810207,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Here's the best I can tell (February '08-present is my perspective).
Newsvine was relatively tiny compared to now when MSNBC acquired it. The influx of new users became too much for Calvin to handle, and Emily was hired. The problem was, at least from my POV, after a few months, she didn't find the worst threads either at all or until they were too far gone for anyone to even attempt serious discourse on them. And when she did pop in to delete an asshatted comment or two, she often would do it silently. Late in her VineCareer™, one certain thread got really really heated, and she banned everyone taking part in it for 24 hours(?), including one Dennis McCann. He's got a sort of following for defending Islam, and was doing just that (which he got an RAV for).
I don't bring that example up to discuss it again. (God no.) It's just that--an example. It was like she never could find that balance that worked; it was either too light, or too heavy when we could find evidence of it. It was like staff hadn't even taken the time to read through stuff sometimes; they just punished everyone, regardless of their involvement. Now, I can't say how much she dealt with by way of reportage, and I can't say how much reportage she actually responded to, but it at least came to look like the job had outgrown a single moderator. Too much was missed, and too much was dealt with in a manner that smelled (at least to me) like a lack of caring, problems easily attributable to a huge and growing number of abuses. I (and others) reasoned that the job would be done much better, not with a different mod per se, but with more of them. "Six Emilys" was something I said pretty often on the CoHM group chat regarding what was needed.
Now ask an older Viner and they'll tell you how wrong I am. :-)
{"commentId":3810207,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810559,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Emily wasn't a very effective moderator and Tyler has totally blown her out of the water.
{"commentId":3810559,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810924,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
"Six Emilys" was something I said pretty often on the CoHM group chat regarding what was needed.
What do folks think now? Another me? Because I think we're a few tools away from me rarely having to work overtime.
However, if the community thinks we need four or five mes, then I'm a little further from the pulse of the Vine than I'd like to be.
Thanks for the kind words, Ben.
{"commentId":3810924,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3811009,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
I can't speak for everyone, but I think you're doing a really fine job. I've been pleasantly surprised early and often. While cloning yourself and making sure one of those versions is active 24/7 would make your life far easier, you've definitely been doing fine on your own too. Four or five of you would definitely be overkill.
{"commentId":3811009,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3811287,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
Nope. We don't need any more Tylers.
{"commentId":3811287,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3811295,"authorDomain":"aine"}
Yeah, what SteveHouse said. He explained it better than I could. And yes, Tyler, you are doing a much better job as Moderator, imho, and I have been pleasantly surprised to see you in threads where (in the past) no moderator had ventured before.
That's not to say, however, that there won't be times when a single moderator is overwhelmed... it happens... and it may happen more in the future as the site grows in terms of users and visibility/exposure on the internet.
{"commentId":3811295,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"aine"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3811316,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
I have a question, Tyler.
Is it against Newsvine policy to seed chain emails?
{"commentId":3811316,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3811401,"authorDomain":"redwolf"}
I count them as spam, so yes. I've only seen one that was asking for clarification because it couldn't be found on Snopes due to a crap site search engine.
The seeders of chain emails are far more likely to be clueless newbies than a malicious spammer.
{"commentId":3811401,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"redwolf"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3812567,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
What SteveHouse said.
Tyler - you encouraged me out of retirement. From what I've seen so far, I'm glad I listened.
{"commentId":3812567,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3822373,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
I have found Tyler's moderation to be consistently good and fair-minded. Emily's problem is that she simply didn't seem to "get" some of the job especially when it came to deciding what was "on-topic" and what was "off-topic" on threads where the author was moderating. I try and give some latitude in this area on my column but Emily had a blind spot when it came to either allowing deleted clearly off-topic posts to remain and vice versa refusing to restore other comments that were clearly on-topic but had been deleted by the author.
{"commentId":3822373,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3851105,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
That's not to say, however, that there won't be times when a single moderator is overwhelmed... it happens... and it may happen more in the future as the site grows in terms of users and visibility/exposure on the internet.
Like maybe this week? :) Sorry I didn't get back here earlier.
Is it against Newsvine policy to seed chain emails?
How do you seed a chain email, exactly? When I see someone putting a huge post into a page that isn't you or Teodoro Leon, and it looks suspiciously formatted, I Livesearch it and see if it's everywhere.
If so, I usually delete the comment and warn the user.
If someone's using the 'Write Article' function to publish something from their inbox, it's probably not from a credible source - and probably not credited.
I'd be hesitant to make an absolute ruling, but I think when it comes to political chain emails, they shouldn't be articles [or seeds?] almost every time. I could see a corny 'this heartwarming story happened' email having a place somewhere, maybe.
RW, glad you agree.
Tyler - you encouraged me out of retirement. From what I've seen so far, I'm glad I listened.
That's very affirming. Thanks.
{"commentId":3851105,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3860094,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
I apologize, to write up articles* with the text of chain emails.
{"commentId":3860094,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10369252,"authorDomain":"cookinmama"}
we need a tyler on the weekends, when spammers and trollls hit the vine and muck everything up.
{"commentId":10369252,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"cookinmama"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3766593,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
This Viner's Personal Opinion [hopefully closely in line with others]:
1. Worse moderator: One who moderates too strictly, or not at all?
Both, there needs to be a strong interest in being as fair and balanced as humanly possible [there will always be flaws, nobody is perfect].
2. Setting up column-specific rules: How much leeway does a column owner ultimately have? I stumbled upon one recent comment which said, in effect, "posting links to other content without first asking permission will not stand, and thus your comment has been deleted." This link was 1) on topic and 2) the commenter was not excessively linking. Acceptable?
As much as the community allows him/her. If an author is abusing her/her abilities as a moderator of their seed/article, the participants within that piece will call it out and contact the site's admins.
Deleting off-topic comments: Too heavy-handed? Only following a warning? Acceptable in some cases, not in others?
I personally found this difficult to employ within my own seeds/articles. On the one hand, it was perfectly reasonable to remove any obvious spam or alterior motives of having zero intention on discussing the article. On the other hand, discussion threads often go off-topic and with healthy discourse - even if not still on the matter addressed by the article. So, it has been tough discerning between the two without appearing to have some frame of bias. As of late I've given up removal of off-topic comments - unless it's spam or a direct violation of the "abuse" portions of the CoH. I'll simply address that a comment is veering off-topic and attempt to bring it back on if things are getting out of hand, just no deletions.
I'm seeing more attempts at moderation by column owners. In your view, how much of what we're seeing is effective moderation, and how much is censorship? Is the determining factor as simple as: It's censorship if it happens to you, effective moderation if you do it to others -- or is there a line that can be drawn?
I'm pleased to see more authors taking ownership of their articles and attempting to keep things civil. If the authors get out of hand with their moderating, I figure the site admins are always the "last call" to act as a third unbiased party and rule on that issue.
Bias/Abuse: Accusations of an organized mob-mentality coming from the left have persisted since the beta days: Are you seeing signs of abuse more heavily on one side of the aisle than the other? If so, or even if it's happening on both sides equally, is this an organized effort -- or are we simply seeing a large number of individuals misreporting on their own? Should those who cry bias remove their tinfoil hats, or keep them on?
I personally believe in regards to the political [and it appears most active] portion of this website, Conservatives are most certainly in the minority. I could be wrong. So, I completely understand why it is viewed that there is some type of "organized left clan out to get the minority group". With the CoH Militia disbanned, I'm not entirely positive how something like that could possibly occur - unless a new similar group has sprouted up. If even THAT is the case, I'm sure this site's admins wouldn't stand for it anyways. I may have not been a part of more heated/bloody articles where something like this took place, so I can't say for sure if this is or is not happening. (The CoH Militia is disbanned, right? I quit a bit ago because I was tired of people accusing me of "rallying your Obama-friendly crew to censor". It was my way of proving that I had no such intentions and that nothing of the sort was going on.)
Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed?
Inflammatory comments would be deleted on sight. Also, if someone found a comment to be offensive - I'd insure that the accused party elaborate that they had no intention of baiting. There's definitely a reason as to why I personally often avoid seeding or writing such articles, little to no interest in the hassle of steering the threads in a positive and healthy direction.
Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?)
They should be obligated to remove personal harassment/insult. Authors - upon seeding or writing an article - are imho promising to uphold the CoH and it states clearly that they are required to responsibly moderate their collumn.
Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
Questioning the source should definitely always be employed, also - the resources used by the author of the article in it's write-up. If not, we have Viners getting away with seeding some high schooler's blog where he opines about McCain not being tortured with no credible evidence whatsoever. Viners should be allowed to question misinformed rubbish of that sort, the credibility of the article - whether opinion or news event. For example, Woodward's articles obviously hold more water than that of Joe Schmoe on DailyKOS and Viners should be both free and encouraged to address that.
Similar question, this time focused on column owners who post original content: What is fair game regarding the column owner / author? Can a person say: "The point you made seems a bit racist"? Can a person say: "This author has a history of only posting negative content when it comes to this topic, much of it factually questionable, and his/her views should be viewed in that light"? Are there circumstances in which evaluating an author personally is acceptable, based on the content of an article that person has posted?
I believe there's a fine line here that is easy to cross. It should be acceptable that a Viner address the credibility of the author [the viner] so long as they have evidence [previous articles, comments by the viner] they wish to provide to support their argument. However, directly attacking the author by stating things like "you're an idiot" or "get a life" is crossing that fine line. You can question the validity of their article without launching personal inflammatory insults.
What constitutes a "no value" comment?
What constitutes an "inflammatory" comment?
I too wish for some further elaboration on these options.
How do you feel about seeing column owners use your name (Tyler's name) as a weapon? Comments such as: "I've reported your comment to Tyler for possible suspension of your account." More generally, is the Code of Honor being abused in an offensive-strike fashion?
I normally announce "I've contacted the site's admins to solve this problem" and as the other party continues to opine I simply state "we'll let the moderator decide". It's my way of cutting off the excalation. However, Tyler has recently informed me that it just seems to cause more trouble so to just simply inform him without announcement. Whatever the boss says! :)
{"commentId":3766593,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 7 votes
#12 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:14 PM EDT{"commentId":3773087,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
Right on Ms. Bliss! Very good comments. In moderating one's own threads one needs to be as hard on those with whom one might agree ideologically (indeed one should probably be harder) than with those whose views differ. I normally try to warn people first and that usually does the trick for the most part. The "off topic" business is a bit difficult to handle because there can be some considerable gray areas there and if one just starts deleting stuff in that regard willy nilly it normally doesn't solve anything except to get everyone pizzed off.
{"commentId":3773087,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3776087,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
Whew!!!
Glad to see this comment in here arcanebliss! It is a great article, and I was afraid I would have to boot it out of the IVG for an IVSCoH # 5 violation... but no prob...
;-) [wag wag wag wag]
{"commentId":3776087,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3809128,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
In moderating one's own threads one needs to be as hard on those with whom one might agree ideologically (indeed one should probably be harder) than with those whose views differ.
This. Seriously. When you allow trolls on your side, it makes your argument much weaker. It's hard to see that except from a distance, though.
{"commentId":3809128,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3810082,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
In moderating one's own threads one needs to be as hard on those with whom one might agree ideologically (indeed one should probably be harder) than with those whose views differ.
It seems to me the question should be whether the comment is trollish or a CoH violation, not whether I agree or disagree ideologically. If someone with a different view can make their case in a respectful truthful way, and even better yet, a compelling way, more power to them. Same thing applies to a person with whom I happen to agree. Whether I like their ideology or not, if they violate the CoH, then they need to be "moderated."
{"commentId":3810082,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3810156,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
You are correct, malamuteman. You shouldn't be more or less harder on a Viner due to their apparent ideological bias, all Viners need to be reprimanded equally and according to the severity of their error.
{"commentId":3810156,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":3810299,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
But, we're human. We're fallible, and we're biased. If someone hops onto your column and calls McCain a "grumpy old codger," whether you find this Inflammatory is greatly influenced by your own view of McCain (as well as your reading of the comment--is it humorous?). If someone calls Obama a "terrorist sympathizer," whether you find this Inflammatory is greatly influenced by your opinion on his relationships with Ayers, et al.
Would you find Conservative78439 calling Liberal335140 a fool for not paying attention to associations inflammatory? Are you more to the left, or more to the right? Or even neither? There's gonna be a really strong relationship there.
Not to nitpick. It's just that simply saying "we should moderate both sides evenly, regardless of ideology" (IMO) is a pipe dream that is nigh-impossible. We should, yes, but (IMO again) the best first step is acknowledging that we in all likelihood won't.
{"commentId":3810299,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3810360,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
calls McCain a "grumpy old codger," whether you find this Inflammatory is greatly influenced by your own view of McCain
Calling a candidate a grumpy old codger is inflammatory?
The same deal with calling a candidate a "terrorist sympathizer".
I wouldn't delete those comments, am I supposed to be deleting them?
...
{"commentId":3810360,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810437,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Okay, so grumpy old codger was a bad example. Surely you get the idea. Terrorist sympathizer, though, could certainly be contrued as jingoist or racist (terrorists->radical Islam->Arabs->Obama has a Semitic name, and a Muslim middle name) if you wanted it to.
I wouldn't delete them either, but this is beside the point. Maybe better examples would be in the same vain as the second, with people arguing about something. If you think someone is a huge idiot windbag, are you not less likely to see a comment calling them a light version of this inflammatory? (I'm mostly using "you" like "one" here, not referring to you or anyone in particular. I just hate "one might do this". Sounds repugnant.)
{"commentId":3810437,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3810477,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
Agreed Steve!
I was only saying that should be our objective, rather than shooting for being harder on my own side...
For the record... from my twisted liberal brain... "grumpy old codger" certainly isn't a nice thing to say, but it does have a grain of truth in it, but "terrorist sympathized" when applied to Obama is arguably slanderous.
{"commentId":3810477,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3810498,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
I will ask the Viner questions on what they meant with their comment prior to deleting it if the language is bordering on a form of prejudice. Otherwise, I have more encounters with Viners verbally attacking each other than showing blatant prejudice in their comments. I see more inflammatory language used towards the candidates on AP and MSNBC articles.
I don't delete comments that claim Obama is a terrorist, Muslim, radical, etc. because I feel it's up to the readers to question the accusations and report it as 'no value' or 'inflammatory' if and when it's unsupported by any factual evidence of such. Granted after questioning the author of the comment isn't revealed to be simply bigoted or racist.
My mother for a long time believed Obama was Muslim from the retarded chain emails she was sent by family members. She is by no means racist or bigoted, she simply bought into the emails, taking the information as fact.
{"commentId":3810498,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3810525,"authorDomain":"fredegrar"}
Calling a candidate a grumpy old codger is inflammatory?
The same deal with calling a candidate a "terrorist sympathizer".
I wouldn't delete those comments, am I supposed to be deleting them?
I wouldn't delete those comments either - unless Obama or McCain were participating in the thread themselves. There's probably a line somewhere though - if it was a blatantly racist or just absolutely repugnant comment in some fashion, meant to provoke...
{"commentId":3810525,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"fredegrar"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3810653,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Sounds like you have a pretty good system going there, AB. :)
{"commentId":3810653,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3811507,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
AB,
I don't delete comments that claim Obama is a terrorist, Muslim, radical, etc. because I feel it's up to the readers to question the accusations and report it as 'no value' or 'inflammatory' if and when it's unsupported by any factual evidence of such.
That makes a lot of sence... but here are a few questions...
- If the "community" doesn't do it's duty to call people on saying inaccurate things (maybe this never happens on an active topic)... THEN do YOU jump in and call the commenter on what they have said???
- Is there a point at which you say, "Wait a minute! This is OVER THE TOP! I am not even going to let the community have their say on this kind of garbage."
- I have seen comments in articles that were completely inappropriate. In fact I saw this only a few hours ago (not my article). Someone wrote a very touching article about really tough circumstances her life. Many people were offering support and problem solving ideas. Then some troll jumps into the conversation denigrating the writer as a whiner or something. The community immediately protested, but the toll persisted. What would you do in this case???
{"commentId":3811507,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3814675,"authorDomain":"barbara474"}
I am a neophyte and this conversation is quite 'above my current pay grade' but I had an experience that falls into the line of this conversation.
By the (unhappy in this case) circumstance of being the first to comment on an MSNBC 'top story' I became seed-moderator (sic) for an article about Blacks gaining ground in elected offices. It was an interesting experience, and I handled the ensuing commentary with the COH firmly in mind, deleting the expected (unfortunately) racial sewage. I hoped that I was doing the ethics of NV justice but I did not know.
At that time I also did not know about Tyler (sorry) or how to contact a Moderator when one needs help. So I muddled through and emailed NV staff to look over the seed and see if I was doing the right thing. Not a thing NV really has time for, I'm sure.{as a side-bar: is there a hotlink or button to request NV moderator assistance?}
Then I saw something start to evolve which became more pertinent than just the COH. I saw the peers on the thread police other peers in a direct but non-threatening manner. On those occasions where the situation was well handled by peers, I let the Viners deal with each other, stepping in only when the infraction was aggressive, not handled by the group or so foul that I could not let it be handled eventually.
I guess it worked out OK because I have not been 'beaten' for being a bad moderator, but I'm still not sure if the way I handled it was correct. I learned, and am still learning with the benefit of mentors and veterans. It would be of great assistance if I could use the experienced Viners on my online Friends list as backup. Is this advisable & appropriate or would it be a burden to them? I would appreciate any who can comment.
Regards
{"commentId":3814675,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"barbara474"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3817086,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
1. If the "community" doesn't do it's duty to call people on saying inaccurate things (maybe this never happens on an active topic)... THEN do YOU jump in and call the commenter on what they have said???
You know me. ;]
2. Is there a point at which you say, "Wait a minute! This is OVER THE TOP! I am not even going to let the community have their say on this kind of garbage."
Nope, but I do report the comment as "no value" in that case and dispute it.
3. I have seen comments in articles that were completely inappropriate. In fact I saw this only a few hours ago (not my article). Someone wrote a very touching article about really tough circumstances her life. Many people were offering support and problem solving ideas. Then some troll jumps into the conversation denigrating the writer as a whiner or something. The community immediately protested, but the toll persisted. What would you do in this case???
That comment can be deleted, the person was purposely being inflammatory and harassing the author.
{"commentId":3817086,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3826096,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
I will let anyone call a public figure anything they care to on my threads. Where I draw the line is when users start attacking either using such adjectives as "stupid", "idiotic" and the like. That doesn't mean, however, that if one chooses to make an intentionally inflammatory remark concerning a public figure that one should not expect some pretty heated pushback on the matter.
{"commentId":3826096,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3851234,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
So I muddled through and emailed NV staff to look over the seed and see if I was doing the right thing. Not a thing NV really has time for, I'm sure.{as a side-bar: is there a hotlink or button to request NV moderator assistance?}
I'm sorry I didn't get there. One of the very first things that needs to change is our Contact feature, which right now is here, and most easily accessed by clicking 'Report a Bug' on the green top bar.
It should not be called 'Report a Bug'. That's silly.
I get several of the forms from the drop-down box there.
Barbara, I'm happy you stuck around after what must have been a trying first experience.
{"commentId":3851234,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10369822,"authorDomain":"bad4"}
I will let anyone call a public figure anything they care to on my threads. Where I draw the line is when users start attacking either using such adjectives as "stupid", "idiotic" and the like.
I generally do the same (not as if I publish heated subjects, but have on occasion). However, if it is getting too heated, I might step in and try join in such a way as to cool it down a bit - such as questions of each of them to try to get them to make themselves clearer.
{"commentId":10369822,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"bad4"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3770320,"authorDomain":"jsbach"}
So, after all this discussion, what has been gained other than Arcanebliss asking legitimate questions followed by useful comments?
I sound miffed because I am miffed. This has turned in to another clique and anyone not part of or invited to, is either ignored or ignored further. It's no wonder people leave Newsvine. People like myself wish to help but because this has become a social circle, it is futile to make any attempt to make Newsvine better.
{"commentId":3770320,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"jsbach"}
- 5 votes
#13 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:23 PM EDT{"commentId":3773136,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
You hang in there. I think some of this stuff will settle down approximately one week from today.
{"commentId":3773136,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10378262,"authorDomain":"RuthyJObservations"}
Brian - Easy does it, Brother. Newsvine isn't perfect, and sometimes it seems like a "tangled vine" or "a swamp", but you gotta' admit, it is interesting, some of the time. Over time one gets to know who to read and who to ignore, and it gets more interesting then. One can actually have intelligent conversations, believe it or not. It took me about a year to figure this out, and now...well, yes it's better. hehheh GG
{"commentId":10378262,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"RuthyJObservations"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10378440,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3770834,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
jsbach,
From my understanding, Tyler is working on answering the questions. Anyone who catches sight of this article and wishes to participate is answering the questions as well so that we can share and brainstorm. Do you feel left out? I agree that this article isn't garnering the attention it deserves.
{"commentId":3770834,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 5 votes
#14 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:49 PM EDT{"commentId":3771777,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
I'll do my part and clip it. Definitely isn't getting enough different views.
{"commentId":3771777,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3772092,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Bah, come on, rules are for schmucks.
{"commentId":3772092,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3777974,"authorDomain":"coloradobubbie"}
thank you for outlining these questions. I am a new viner and i struggle with whats appropriate and inflamatory. my version of those two are so different than others, i wish the guideline could be a little more specific.
{"commentId":3777974,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"coloradobubbie"}
- 5 votes
#15 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:27 AM EDT{"commentId":3790985,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I have Tyler's answers and will post them into the article, and as a comment when I get home tonight.
I think those who are following this will 1) feel more informed about how to moderate and 2) be surprised at a couple of the answers.
{"commentId":3790985,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 6 votes
#16 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:20 PM EDT{"commentId":3791199,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
Way to make us anxious.
{"commentId":3791199,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3791278,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
No kidding. Dramatic much!
{"commentId":3791278,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3791904,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
Thanks Brian. For hosting this as well as the update.
{"commentId":3791904,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3792774,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3792831,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":3793048,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
scratch that
{"commentId":3793048,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3793095,"authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
Thanks Tyler. Those specific examples really help put context around your responses. Your suggested approach for 12 is one to watch. I think Brian has a point that some Viners may be using your name in an offensive strike fashion which obviously is counter productive (and still inflammatory?).
{"commentId":3793095,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"raatkiraani"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3793590,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
- Worse moderator: One who moderates too strictly, or not at all?
not at all - Setting up column-specific rules: How much leeway does a column owner ultimately have? I stumbled upon one recent comment which said, in effect, "posting links to other content without first asking permission will not stand, and thus your comment has been deleted." This link was 1) on topic and 2) the commenter was not excessively linking. Acceptable?
I think that should be the column owner’s prerogative; HOWEVER, that sort of rule would tend to drive me away from the column. - Deleting off-topic comments: Too heavy-handed? Only following a warning? Acceptable in some cases, not in others?
Same answer as # 2. - I'm seeing more attempts at moderation by column owners. In your view, how much of what we're seeing is effective moderation, and how much is censorship? Is the determining factor as simple as: It's censorship if it happens to you, effective moderation if you do it to others -- or is there a line that can be drawn?
Hmmm... Good point! Comment deletion for the reason that the author does not agree with the commenter is pretty bad form. Again, that would drive me away from participation in that discussion, and possibly from any discussion in articles by that author. - Bias/Abuse: Accusations of an organized mob-mentality coming from the left have persisted since the beta days: Are you seeing signs of abuse more heavily on one side of the aisle than the other? If so, or even if it's happening on both sides equally, is this an organized effort -- or are we simply seeing a large number of individuals misreporting on their own? Should those who cry bias remove their tinfoil hats, or keep them on?
I have seen plenty of situations where the lefties were ganging up on one or more righties, but not in an ORGANIZED way, and pretty much only for making abusive CoH violating comments. However, I have seen what looked like an organized effort by a group of righties to dominate a discussion. Maybe it is just my left biased brain, but that is what it looked like to me. I actually try to avoid those discussions these days. - Hypothetical: An article about Obama or McCain (or abortion or evolution, etc.) which is highly critical, hundreds of comments, spanning the sort of rhetoric we tend to see on controversial threads: How would you handle moderation from the outset, if it were *your* seed?
I have not actually tried this, so my answer is really just speculation. Delete extreme CoH violations without warning. Give one warning for mild or moderate CoH violations. One warning for significantly off-topic violations. To be honest, I don’t know that I would have the patience to read every single comment when there were hundreds. - Should moderation styles vary from column to column - or do you see a need for rules concerning proper moderation that all column owners would be expected to follow? (In other words: Should a user be allowed to accept name-calling, angry rhetoric, etc. on their own column if they wish to do so, or are they obligated to remove it?)
When we built our house, the GC said he insisted on keeping the site tidy, because if the subs saw a messy site they would be messy, but if it was tidy the subs would clean up their own mess. With that metaphor, I would say we should all make an effort to push-back against vitriol. Furthermore, in the interest of promoting real understanding between people of differing views, we should do everything possible to foster respect and empathy. - Attacking the source: I've seen at least one column owner who specifically claimed that attacking the source of an article would not be tolerated, and that such comments would be subject to deletion. Should the source of an article be fair game? Should credibility - or an offer of evidence of no credibility - be considered on-topic? (Note that I am not asking whether it's okay to call Ann Coulter "mannish" or other such names, simply whether her bias is a reasonable factor when discussing her content?)
Credibility of the source should be fair game. By the same token, anyone who wants to call the credibility of the source into question is also fair game, and the basis of their arguments about source credibility had better have some pretty good logic behind them. - Similar question, this time focused on column owners who post original content: What is fair game regarding the column owner / author? Can a person say: "The point you made seems a bit racist"? Can a person say: "This author has a history of only posting negative content when it comes to this topic, much of it factually questionable, and his/her views should be viewed in that light"? Are there circumstances in which evaluating an author personally is acceptable, based on the content of an article that person has posted?
This really depends on the basis of the argument that is being made against the author. However, I think it is kind of ridiculous for an author to say I am above questioning. What are they trying to accomplish is they are not will to have their ideas questioned??? - What constitutes a "no value" comment?
Like pornography, I can’t put it into words, but I know it when I see it. - What constitutes an "inflammatory" comment?
This could be a list a mile long. Nasty, hateful, attacks. A comment that is way off topic in an article that is very personal, possibly with sensitive emotional content (I’d call this desecration). Comments that have obviously false or misleading information... etc... etc... etc... - How do you feel about seeing column owners use your name (Tyler's name) as a weapon? Comments such as: "I've reported your comment to Tyler for possible suspension of your account." More generally, is the Code of Honor being abused in an offensive-strike fashion?
It is inappropriate to use Tyler or any other Newsvine staff as a threat. Calling someone on a CoH violation is legit. - Regarding CONVIS: What sort of distribution of "points" is best, when looking at the visualization for a lengthy comment thread? Should the column owner always sit on the top?
[I hope I understand this question.] It would be easier to answer this question if I could see the existing “points” algorithm and know what parameters are used. I think the points concept is kind of a neat idea, but I don’t pay as much attention to it as I did when I first joined NV. I am more interested in getting article votes and comments than comment votes and finding out where I stack up in the “Who’s leading the Conversation” pyramid. If the author is not leading the discussion, then they shouldn’t sit on top. - You clip an awful lot of meta articles: Do you see a way to more prominently feature this content in order to give new users the benefit of seeing the community behind Newsvine -- but which won't simultaneously clog up the news sections of the front page? How important is meta to the health of Newsvine, in your view?
As I see it, meta is the foundation of Newsvine. It is VERY important. If there isn’t enough attention given to meta, chaos will break out. Perhaps some sort of permanent button on the main pages that is just as prominent as “Top News” or “Politics” that said something like “How to use Newsvine” (too wordy, but you get the idea).
{"commentId":3793590,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 3 votes
#17 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:03 PM EDT{"commentId":3815681,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
So speaking of moderation, I haven't had to delete a comment in ages, but what do you know, today I just had the pleasure of deleting three, two for offering no value and one for being off topic.
{"commentId":3815681,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 1 vote
#18 - Sat Nov 1, 2008 3:15 AM EDT{"commentId":3822995,"authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
This week I deleted one comment that after checking out the commentor's column, I saw was a comment he spammed in every seed/article he went to. It was a prejudiced rant--but if it had been more on topic, I might have let it stand. However, I don't think I have to let spammed comments stay.
{"commentId":3822995,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"onlynow99"}
- 8 votes
#19 - Sat Nov 1, 2008 4:06 PM EDT{"commentId":3824634,"authorDomain":"KyanaBelle"}
However, I don't think I have to let spammed comments stay.
Neither do I. The earlier part of this week, someone who had signed their rather lengthy sermon "St. Ignatious" hit me in one thread at least 3 different times in just under a couple of hours. It was loosely related to the article about Obama reaching out to moderates of faith. This person was apparently spamming this same comment to every article that had any kind of connection to religion.
I usually don't seed religion articles because it invites the very worst kind of ugly from both left and right. I thought if I could keep the focus on the topic of Obama acknowledging the existence of moderate Evangelicals and how that would give that group a political voice apart from the more extreme demographic they are often lumped in to, I could keep it civil.
Naturally, someone started posting who was insistent upon dragging the thread into a discussion of religious doctrine. I had to ask her 3 or 4 times to stop going there and I explained why. I did moderate that one strictly because the topic was such a potential tinderbox that no reasonably productive discussion was going to occur if I didn't. What I really hate is losing all the comments that follow because one ass refuses to cooperate. I even considered turning the comments off overnight to keep things from getting out of hand but things did calm down enough that I chose not to do that. Still, when I checked in the next morning, there was doctrine lady again reposting the same stuff I had asked her not to post the night before. Most of the people I had to warn were quite cooperative and ended up contributing greatly to the topic once they knew I wasn't playing. Most even voiced their appreciation for not having to deal with the BS that usually accompanies articles concerning religion.
{"commentId":3824634,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"KyanaBelle"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3828939,"authorDomain":"fredegrar"}
I had one of my seeds hit by this person (who changes monikers frequently) twice. Deleted without a second thought. In my case, it wasn't a religious article at all, but about an Obama rally. Even if it tangentially related to the seed by way of Obama and the election, if it's spam, my take is it's either so general as to be meaningless, or hopelessly off-topic.
{"commentId":3828939,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"fredegrar"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3851313,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
However, I don't think I have to let spammed comments stay.
You don't.
The earlier part of this week, someone who had signed their rather lengthy sermon "St. Ignatious" hit me in one thread at least 3 different times in just under a couple of hours.
St. Ignacius, I think. The worst spammer of my tenure, he/she has registered near 15 accounts, despite being IP blocked. I am very close to wishing a person I have never met ill.
If anyone sees that long tirade, email me.
{"commentId":3851313,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":3851688,"authorDomain":"sgreenway"}
Ahh, the famous 'St. Ignatius of Loyola' spam, with a moniker of 'god****'. Glad to know they annoy you as much as they annoy myself.
{"commentId":3851688,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"sgreenway"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3832136,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
Tyler,
RE: #19 Isn't this sort of thing grounds for being banned altogether??? Is ANYTHING grounds for being banned altogether??? If so, what?
{"commentId":3832136,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 2 votes
#20 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 7:59 AM EST{"commentId":3832461,"authorDomain":"KyanaBelle"}
I believe this person has been banned. That is why they come in with different screen names - the previous screen name gets banned and they come in with a new one. Often you can tell it's the same person by syntax and misspellings. One came a few weeks ago and kept misspelling Palin's name as "Shara Pallin" - a dead give away that it was all the same comment spammer.
{"commentId":3832461,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"KyanaBelle"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3832695,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
Heh. That's child's play. I had my own "fan" club here for a day.
{"commentId":3832695,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":3834197,"authorDomain":"stevef"}
Bill,
EEGAD!!! What is with these people??? Do they get some sort of perverse pleasure out of these antics???
{"commentId":3834197,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevef"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":3835911,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
Damn, Bill. If I had my own fan club like you, I'd be sooo happy...
{"commentId":3835911,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3836931,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
Poor Nearing's fan club follows her around and collapses her comments + articles. Or at least was doing that the other month when jazz said she "brings out the beast" in him... Boy oh boy that was a rowdy time, the site's mods had a lot of work on their hands.
I've only recently begun to sprout haters. It's all in the job, I guess..
{"commentId":3836931,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":3839924,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
I always say there's no such thing as bad publicity unless it's reading one's obituary before its time. If one pursues political writing on Newsvine and doesn't regularly pizz off a goodly number of people one isn't doing his or her job. ;>)
{"commentId":3839924,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":3851470,"authorDomain":"tyler"}
RE: #19 Isn't this sort of thing grounds for being banned altogether??? Is ANYTHING grounds for being banned altogether??? If so, what?
Calling yourself, uh, what Bill linked.
If your only posts on the site are racist/misogynist/misandrist/homophobic/personal attacks.
Spammers, whether relentless self-seeders [I generally just warn people who only self-seed a few times], repeat offenders [folks who ignored the warning], or comment spammers.
If you're a repeat offender of the same counter-productive activity - say, race-baiting or harassing a particular user - and you get a 'final warning' - and then eff up again, of course, banned.
Posting personal information about another user might get you banned.
If I suspend/warn you and you email me calling me a ton of names, and I email you back politely to explain the CoH, and then you call me even more names, you're probably banned.
Damn, Bill. If I had my own fan club like you, I'd be sooo happy...
Careful what you wish for.
{"commentId":3851470,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"tyler"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10368588,"authorDomain":"CL1"}
Opinions:
1) ...somewhere in the middle for most; for the light-hearted, poetry, ect. - very little. Moderation should only be used for 'momentum' if lagging, for personal interest on a post, or to post warnings.
2) For the most part, I think the moderator should 'own' their column. It should be their choice if they want to be a [jerk] or not. Obviously, being highly opinionated, showing favoritism, over-deletion [censorship], annoying over-moderation, etc. will mean some or many will not visit your column. Your column; your rule.
3) Common-sense should apply. If the moderator feels the poster is off-topic, ask why he/she feels it is on-topic. The mod may agree looking at it from a different perspective. Otherwise, act accordingly and delete or give warning. I recently had a situation where the experience was hypocritical with the moderator having a heavy presence and was off-topic from the title. I saw that as a "clue" that it was 'OK' for everyone to do so. Also, another issue that causes frustration for me is when a poster [or moderator] has statements within their post that are somewhat relevant, but not exactly word for word following the title. For example, in an article about Michael Jackson's latest release with the film being the topic, if other areas of his life come up - should that be ok? It really isn't on-topic specifically, yet is still about the individual. That may be a poor example. My point is primarily that on or off-topic has a certain amount of grey area, doesn't it? The last point I want to make is that it is extremely easy to bring the topic back with just one post.
4) Delete if the comment is seriously taking away from the discussion.
5) Yes. a) Heavily and rude coming from the left. b) It is sometimes appearing organized. c) They can wear any kind of hat they want! (btw - I'm not on the R or L)
6) Any personal attack, name-calling, suggestions of lack of intellingence, reigious put-downs, etc. should be deleted.
7) Yes. I think styles should vary and still think the moderator should 'own the article'.
8) Yes. Critiquing the source is on-topic.
9) Essentially, everything is fair game. Critique your heart away and hope for the best! You might get deleted - c'est la vie!
14) Imo, no, a meta section isn't needed.
{"commentId":10368588,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"CL1"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:26 PM EDT{"commentId":10382480,"authorDomain":"homelessokc"}
Good article!lol...*&%(#&%
{"commentId":10382480,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"homelessokc"}
- 2 votes
#22 - Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:32 PM EDT{"commentId":10389952,"authorDomain":"fawnshore"}
I was so impressed with this article that I hereby declare (as an esteemed *ahem* RAV winner and treasured pillar of this community) that Brian Ford should be declared moderator and final arbiter of all things Newsvine. My only caveat is that I should be granted power to amend, embellish, rewrite and veto all that he writes or decides (a crude but effective system of checks and balance). On salary, of course.
Okay...honestly,I didn't really read the whole thing but after two paragraphs, my eyes started to glaze so I played "fetch the ball" with the cat and figured it was time just as well spent.
Anyhooooo...
I stand by my assertion that Newsvine should grant me a salary for some reason.
{"commentId":10389952,"threadId":"402147","contentId":"2049956","authorDomain":"fawnshore"}
- 3 votes
#23 - Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:43 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"402147","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
