Moderating-a-thon
In the past few days the comment threads at TPM EC have been moderated quite aggresively by the TPM Staff. One more than one occasion, regular posters have had their posts deleted or been admonished to "keep it civil" when referring anatomically to the Clintons, or just spouting off with various profanities.
Is this site going to be PG-13 now? Have the editors recieved enough emails from prudes claiming they have been "chilled" by the aggressive posters at TPM EC? Reall, why the sea-change in the standards of moderating?
I always thought the great values of a community like TPM is it's free-flowing and fearless commenters. If someone is scared or offended by something they read on the intertubes, the intertubes themselves are the best place to make that feeling known, and make the cretin look bad at the same time. The answer is not censorship by "management", which is so anathema to the spirit of this site to begin with.
I fear that censoring and overly sensitive monitoring of threads will have a far greater chilling effect on the range of opinion here than a few off-color, offensive or absurd insults.
I am all for civility, but this is not a tea party. It's the the Wild West, Outer Space, the Frontier, all rolled into one. The most beautiful difference being that the internet allows all of us; the faint hearted, the shut-ins, the quiet, the cowardly, all of us can take part in the beauty and danger of the world and all its opinions from the safety of our keyboards. We're all adults here (mostly), let us handle it, and step in only when really necessary.
I would just hate to lose the unpredictable, irreverent and anti-authoritarian ethos that this site is famous for.





Having posted rarely, "I" apologize for my terrible writing style.
Hopefully my opinion comes through. Thanks for enduring.
November 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur, Mr. Dude!
November 21, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loved the post and I wholeheartedly concur. Thanks!
November 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three. I am terrible in watching p's and q's.
I will never use the 'abuse' button, which I think is a cowardly act. If I find something offensive, I would rather prefer to do it face-to-face... you get the idea. At least, the abuse should have a provision to show who HR'ed a post - a la kos.
All this PG-13 shite (will I be censored this ?) is getting to be annoying.
November 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me four.
November 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt it censoring initiated by management. Notice the "report abuse" button. I suspect it's being used. I myself have not made use of it - yet.
November 21, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe making that button so handy invites its use by those who are simply intolerant. Why do we need it on every comment? Anyone who feels legitimately abused/offended has always had access to the Report Abuse link at the bottom of the page.
November 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE SEE THIS CURRENT POST by Lila Shapiro of TPM regarding the Report Abuse button. They want our input, so please join the discussion!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/21/report_abuse_button/
November 21, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's a toss-up. Till now we've been forced to accept annoyance and what I'd term harassment to the point of stalking. So, I love the button as a potential deterrent. I'd rather see it as deterrence myself. But I'm guessing at time management been plagued with emails of complaint.
November 21, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP.
"Till now we've been forced to accept annoyance and what I'd term harassment to the point of stalking. "
How did you deal with your "stalker'? Did you email the mods? Confront the perp?
I'm thinking that it may be more effective if individuals in the community, take a more proactive approach of public confrontation of serial violaters. I will, although having dealt with the situation in RL, have a higher bar than some might when it comes to examples of online stalking.
But the psychotics do usually reveal themselves and need to be purged ASAP. No quarter.
November 22, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally I simply ignore that kind of thing in principle. "Don't feed trolls" and all that. But lately it had become enough of a problem for me that last weekend I termed it "stalking and harassment" (to myself) and mulled over what to do. But then the button arrived!
In the past, on occasions when I felt it was merited, I have sent emails to tpm. I've also put up at least one blog (later deleted once the problem was addressed) so that others could weigh in when someone was disrupting EC threads (or other behaviors in the way, way past). And often, I've found that by ignoring things and letting them simmer a bit, other TPM people feel impelled to take issue with what's happened. So in general I'd say this kind of thing has resolved itself in a variety of ways.
What's different now, I think, is the "following" feature. And I've only just concluded that may be the way a disruptive individual could keep track of when or where someone has posted - in other places, not just their own blog. (It's clear from the other thread I'm not the only one who's experienced this.)
Efforts to track, nit-pick comments, and then badger someone - in an attempt to get a "rise" from them seem to be a new tactic for disrupting. And in the blog (noted here) posted by management to get feedback on this, I was more specific about my intention to first warn the individual (should it recur, which it might not - given advent of the button and the public airing of my concerns), and then to use the button after giving the warning.
Ideally, at this point, we need to be mindful that things are changing and consequences are readily available to report abuse. That leaves some worried about being reported - and I've already made comments that let people know where I stand - what is or is not acceptable. So, I've tried to reassure people in some cases and admit problems in others.
This is going to be a process of give and take and learning here. It's much better than hidden moderators, since every comment will initially appear. And anyone can weigh in at that point if they desire (by comment, email, or the button).
In general, problems seem to be isolated to certain individuals. It seems that certain people enjoy disrupting conversations. Or attacking others. Some of us ignore those people entirely. Others seem to relish taking them on - as if on behalf of all of us.
I'm still in favor of the button. As it's the fastest way to alert management. And I think things will work themselves out over time.
November 22, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
My objections to the button are that abuses of the option is inevitable. Much more worrisome, the responses by the deciders so far are entirely focused on "tone" or language that is deemed unPC according to some standard or another. Petty stuff for the most part.
I have no problem with those who take advantage of the option when they are serially harrassed or attacked and would not hesitate to use it in a case such as the out-of-control flame war that involved BillyG and his psycho stalker.
I was spoiled by participation on a forum run by an admin who was clear about the rules (3 strikes and you're out), issued public fair warnings that were specific as to offensive behaviors and terms of punishment imposed if warnings went unheeded.
When the perp was someone who others in the community liked for whatever reasons, it wasn't uncommon to see a member jump in to tell the warned one to cool it. That usually worked.
Above all, the consensus in the community was that the system was fair.
"I think things will work themselves out over time."
From your lips, TheraP........;>}
November 22, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things can always be abused. But at least we are having a discussion here. And as fate may have it, I did exercise my option this afternoon... judiciously, after fair warning.
We shall see...
November 22, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most recent of more than a few threads by the author on the topic over the years:
and none of the previous ones ever deviated from those basic principles.
On one much earlier thread by him on topic, which a can't find, with a gazillion comments, which he put up after the invasion of Lebanon, saying that discussions on the site had gotten too vitriolic for his taste, I recall he even brought up your "politics is not tea party" point in discussion with others. Someone said "if you can't take the heat you shouldn't be in the kitchen." And he said something along the lines that he wasn't so much into furnishing a hot kitchen space, or a bar room for brawling for that matter, but more of a coffee house.
November 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, I understand. But have you ever been to open mic night at a Coffee House, and had to endure 3 or 4 just awful and sometimes offensive performances before discovering an absolute gem?
This is like the idea in legal world that we would rather allow 1000 guilty folks to go free than put 1 innocent person in jail. I, for one, would rather let 1000 obnoxous posts go free than delete/edit/censor/moderate 1 insightful, if inartfully stated opinion.
November 21, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel we are all Lenny Bruce bravely facing off against hidebound censors. We are simply trying to keep things civil, since flaming gets nobody anywhere, except to empty the trivial content of some folks' spleens.
That said, I haven't found reason to use the abuse button since it was installed but we did have to get rid of a nearly psychotic troll very recently. I won't hesitate to ask for deletion of ugly stuff. If you have something important, useful, clever, or humorous to say, you won't have any problem.
We have to remember that opponents search blogs for hateful speech to paint all of us with that brush.
November 21, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you have something important, useful, clever, or humorous to say, you won't have any problem"
Will TPM be determining whether posts meet this criteria? Because that sounds awfully close to the Thought Police to me.
November 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they do, they have that right. The First Amendment doesn't apply to posts on privately-owned/operated forums. If people feel the moderation gets too harsh, they'll leave. Others might join. At the end of the day, whichever 'side' results in the highest userbase (and number of ad views) wins.
November 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Thought Police, but normal society. If you're at a loud party there are guys that get out of control. They get tossed, too.
What would be Thought Police is rigid rules. There are none, here, only that it's not OK to directly insult people with obscene speech, in my view. I tolerate plenty.
What do you think you would need to say that would be censored? People showed up here and defended Bush, before the election season satrted in earnest. They did not get censored. People raise issues of voting-machine fraud, and don't get censored. People continually raise the question of 9/11 being an inside job. Ditto.
Just don't call people names that would get you in a fight if you were here in person. Don't exploit the advantage of being virtual. It's enough that you can be anonymous.
Don't get all dramatic about censorship. This is not that.
November 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not getting on a high horse about censorship at all, just don't want to dilute the discourse, at all. If that means having to read something offensive, that's fine. In a world of wars, famine and a $700 billion bailout (equally terrible, I would argue), a few F-bombs and ad hominen insults are no biggie.
November 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been here a while, and we don't jump on people for that. It's when it's a pattern.
And now the "we" is us sending a message, and Lila or Al does the deed. Back in the day we simply downrated, so that the comment was hidden, but only to non-registered users, which excluded Google spiders and protected us from the ugly crap showing up out in the world. I'd prefer that, but we have the button.
It's a bit like those walk buttons, which do nothing to change the light cycle but do light up the "Go" light, which would have stayed red otherwise. Not really a placebo, but not really useful either. We could always email Lila or Al, or Josh, and ask that someone who is being an asshole be made to go away.
Even with the ratings system of yore we had a couple of truly disgusting trolls persist until banned. But they don't ban posters for being annoying.
November 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still seems a bit stifling. But it isn't my site. Not sure it will be consistently applied, and I know it has already chilled the discourse. So I'm skeptical.
We'll see how it goes.
November 21, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT, but Tom, just wanted to give a thumbs up about the Chicago Symphony, that's awesome
=D
November 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well bleepin' said, there, Anewdude! You're bleepin' dead on bleepin' target.
We don't need excessive bleepin' and over bleepin' bearing censorship. After all, most of us are bleepin' adults who can bleepin' think for our bleepin' selves. We all know some bleepin' bleep who goes all ape-bleep and calls some bleeper a "bleep-tard" just out of the bleepin' blue. And sometimes our bleepin' passions run too bleepin' high and next thing you bleepin' know, all kinds of bleep comes pouring out of our bleepin' mouths. We bleepin' don't bleepin' mean it -- at least most of us poor bleepin' sods don't -- but, bleep, what the bleep? We can't bleepin' work it the bleep out?
At least if there's gonna be some bleepin' censorship, bleepin' spell out directly what the bleep is bleepable. Unlike bleepin' porn, we don't all bleepin' know the bleepin' bleep when we see it.
November 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I bleepin' forgot to bleepin' say that I bleepin' recommend this bleepin', flaming, bleepfest of a bleepin' post, because it's bleepin' great! Bleep!
Rec-bleepin'-o-mended!
November 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to frequent and comment at another blog before I found TPM. But after a few of my comments at Crooks and Liars were deleted I started to feel unwelcome and I have been at TPM ever since (which is good because TPM is much better than C&L).
I understand the need to edit some posts, but it sure is hard to keep the moderators honest. I would like it better if the user could hit a button to ignore certain posters.
November 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good suggestion. Much better to let us indvidually block users, rather than make some decision from on high that a particular comment has no value because it is "abusive". One of our favorite cranks, Billy Glad, was often abusive, but that didn't stop me from reading his rants, and learning a thing or two, before regaining my senses and disagreeing with absolutely everything he said.
November 21, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy was biting and sharp at times, but he was never like jacobfreeze. That poster was just plain potty-mouthed, almost Tourette's syndrome.
November 21, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all the time I've been commenting and posting on TPM, I have received exactly one email asking me to "tone it down". And, as many of you know, I have a tendency to express myself rather, ahem... enthusiastically at times. So I'm not too worried about any widespread censorship. And I welcome the opportunity to easily let the mods know anytime that weird gamer dude posts his link spam on the site.
November 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuckin' A!
November 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's 2 demerits.
You're headed for detention.
November 21, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE SEE THIS CURRENT POST by Lila Shapiro of TPM regarding the Report Abuse button. They want our input, so please join the discussion!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/21/report_abuse_button/
November 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments and the Rec's. I know Management is watching, and maybe will add some theory to this new policy as a result.
November 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can the author please elaborate on what he means by "referring anatomically to the Clintons?" I believe no example was provided.
November 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read and judge for yourself: the incident many are referring to starts here on Greg Sargent's "Source: Clinton Camp in Holding Pattern" (and continues through quite a bit of that thread.)
If you want to see recent moderation, or follow it in the future, put Andrew Golis, Lila Shapiro and Claire Wilcox on your following list, or check their recent comments on their user pages.
November 22, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I intend to do a follow on up to this post when I have the energy tomorrow, specifically addressing the Tena issue.
November 22, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm awake....
Shorter me tomorrow: that shit is bullshit.
November 22, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If you want to see recent moderation, or follow it in the future, put Andrew Golis, Lila Shapiro and Claire Wilcox on your following list, or check their recent comments on their user pages."
Excellent directions aa .
Those championing the use and invariable misuse of the abuse button should explore the current examples of "moderating" before signing on to the option.
The results will be far more stifling than the former pattern of awarding of unfair "zero" ratings that persisted despite continual reminders of their proper use. At least the community could uprate unfair ratings and identify posters who were serial abusers of the "0" option. No one could hide behind mods as a matter of course.
While everyone who admits to pushing the button will see their own actions as justified, I doubt that anyone can credibly claim that everyone else can be trusted not to abuse the system.
Not to mention the highly questionable assumption that warnings issued over the likes of statements referring to Hillary Clinton as a "wench" do in fact, represent of a violation of some sort of obscure standard.
Your earlier reference to the heated exchanges over Lebanon reminds me once again how much the discourse on threads related to Israel has mellowed since those days......
;>}
November 22, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
arta, please confirm or deny that the person whose message was deleted called Clinton a "c*nt". I'm not sure of that but it's what Andrew implies when he say (in the link you gave me) when he said someone linked Hillary to the part of the female anatomy.
November 22, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, the word used was "Clintoris" whis is the female equivilant to "The Clenis" which has it's own urban dictionary page - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clenis
November 22, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't help you there. As I said later on in a comment there, I didn't see it before it was deleted. From the conversation there, though, sounds to me it was something a little different than that.
Actually, I must say that I am a little uncomfortable with your fixation on what it was, and thought twice about answering your query here. Seems almost like you are trying to figure out some kind of ammunition to get back at someone. If so, that is exactly the kind of personal tit-for-tat behavior, adolescent personal revenge stuff or group therapy role play that I personally find a bore in discussion forums. Makes me think Andrew Golis made a wise choice in deleting. The point of good moderation is not punishment, but to know when a comment will feed bad responses and cause more people to talk trash and get personal in reaction. Trolls post things to get people to respond and degrade the discourse, and stopping that in its tracks is a good thing in my opinion. At least it's selfishly good for me, I don't end up wasting time reading garbage, following childish personal animosities between anonymous people who don't really know each other.
November 22, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
the above meant as a reply to truththseeker77 @ 7:49 AM
Would like to add an "on the other hand": it really didn't need to be done because most of those vehement Hillary haters from the primary who saw the Clintons as Obama enemy #1 are going to be fading away anyways/i>, either more gracefully exiting or changing their tune. The phony narrative driving them to post on topic is gone, they are going to start realizing that they spent many months getting all passionate and worked up about something that they just imagined, something that wasn't true, totally lost their sense of reality in an orgy of group think.
Should also add that Andrew gave the reason that it was demeaning to women, not because it was about a political figure or inflaming the conversation, and I know that low slurs against race, ethnicity, gender are something that really bug Josh Marshall--he has stated time and again he doesn't want that sort of comment on his site. For me, that wouldn't be a high priority, as those kind of slurs immediately reflect badly on the writer and I think most readers react with the appropriate behavior of disdain, but it's his site and his perogative.
November 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink