Monday
Oct042010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Down and dirty authors
Natalie Hanman, the new editor of Comment is Free, wants authors of CiF articles to get down and dirty in the comments threads with the punters.
Quite right too.
And I would have joined in with the people who commented on my CiF article the other day, if only the Graun didn't have my comments premoderated.
I wonder if they will make the connection?
Reader Comments (46)
In case Natalie should ever look at this thread, perhaps she should consider that casting people into the outer darkness (i. e banning them from CiF) for failing to toe the AGW line is hardly a way to stimulate informed debate.
I know that I am not alone and that many others who post here have been banned without any justification or explanation for writing on that topic.
I could, of course, reappear at CiF under a psuedonym, but do not feel inclined to hide my opinions or identity.
It sounds like the kind of thing I see at work every day. Management goes through the throws of discussing issues with the plebs...but the reality is they will do what ever they want.
Same thing here...this woman makes all the sounds of wanting to hold informed debate...yet at the end of the day they will still pre-moderate those that dissent, ban those who dont tow the line and just carry on as if nothing had happened. Yet when challenged they will be able to say "but we have engaged the masses to find out what they want".
Mailman
I liked this comment:
"If you want a better class of debate you need to employ a better class of moderation."
What is ......'CiF' ??
Me..... having to register with the left wing press to place a comment to an opinion piece; provides the true meaning to anathema.
Latimer Alder
I agree about not using a pseudonym. Perhaps some kind commenter here who hasn’t been banned would like to post at CiF that Andrew Montford, Latimer Alder and Geoff Chambers would be delighted to accept her invitation to an intelligent debate, but have been unfortunately detained at Her Moderator’s Pleasure.
Nope. It'll hit the irony/hypocrisy shunt and be grounded out.
In fairness they allowed a huge amount of comment on the 10:10 article (I am assuming that is CiF?) but if they had moderated that they would have been moderating their own supporters.
Actions speak louder than words. No pressure.
Trouble is, if you manage to get in with a comment, some snark-leech snags on and stalks you down the thread trying to head you into the rough.
Pharos
I’ve just got a particularly tenacious snark leech boojummed good and proper at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-campaign-events
Ten complaints, and ten posts deleted.
I have no problems with CIF. It always has delivered what it says. Gets rid of greasy spots.
Not so sure about the "comment is free" section of that once trustworthy organ of truth, big G. It's now become a sounding board to bounce mainstream opinions about "Big Science" as inviolate and axiomatic such that questioning becomes dissent.
When those that you once admired became those who took on the mantle of those whom you both once detested, what hope is left?
Geoff - poor old onthefence over at CIF seems to be having a pretty hard time of it, don't you think? You'd almost think there was some sort of campaign against him, wouldn't you?
A reprise ( a comment yesterday):
Interesting reaction by CiF moderators on the Guardian article concerning the now infamous 10:10 film.
This piece attracted nearly 900 comments. What is clear is that a large number of the commentators who supported the aims of the 10:10 campaign were very critical of the 10:10 campaign film. There was no need for sceptics to push hard on this one, this was an OG by the 10:10 and the Guardian. So what was the level and nature of the CiF moderation on this one article on which a majority of commentators, from both sides of the climate debate, were critical?
Of the 890 or so comments, 59 received the dreaded "This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted" by CiF moderators.
The breakdown:
Pro CAGW, 13 commentators had 14 comments removed.
CAGW sceptics, 29 commentators had 40 comments removed.
Unknown position on GAGW, 5 commentators had 5 comments removed.
When the Guardian editorial introduction for this article stated, "Here's a highly explosive short film, written by Richard Curtis, from our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign", can we then be surprised at the level and nature of CiF moderation in this instance?
For it is abundantly clear the CiF moderators were shooting the sceptical messenger and not the critical message!
Oct 4, 2010 at 2:29 PM | Mac
The follow-up Guardian article on the 10:10 film, dated 4th October, has over 100 comments and 4 CiF moderated deletions.
Pro-CAGW - 3
Anti-CAGW - 1
All three warmist commentators have a very long history in making comments on CiF. The one sceptical commentaor has only ever made three comments in total at CiF, and that person's VERY FIRST comment made was deleted.
Everyone shopuld take Natalie Hanman, the new editor of Comment is Free, own comments about her proposed stewardship of CiF with a very large pinch of salt.
Mac, Paul, Roy,
From my little experiment at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-campaign-events
it seems clear that a single self-appointed abuse-reporter (or self abuser for short) can wipe out any opposition, with the compliance of overworked, possibly undertrained moderators. Poor Onanonthefence got his yesterday. More often it’s sceptics. I’ll report the details of my experiment later, possibly at Harmless Sky.
"Pharos
I’ve just got a particularly tenacious snark leech boojummed good and proper at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-campaign-events
Ten complaints, and ten posts deleted."
Oct 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM | geoffchambers
And once again we have a comment displaying perfectly the utter hypocrisy demonstrated day in, day out on this website.
This Geoff Chambers character seems to be obsessed with the Guardian CIF, and the fact that he's been booted off it for, I would imagine, bad behaviour.
Most of you pretend that freedom to debate without censure, and open discussion, is sacrosanct. Yet here this guy is, openly boasting about managing to get comments deleted.
If this site had more integrity, then Andrew would have deleted the comment, or one would at least expect several posts condemning Geoff for his childish and petulant attitude to debate on another forum.
Geoff's comment was over 12 hours ago. The only mention of it, is a like minded poster, making a thinly-veiled allusion to Geoff's targetting of the individual whose posts have been deleted, no doubt snickering and giggling at Geoff's success whilst typing.
How you can all kid yourselves that you have an honourable attitude to climate change is beyond me. Passively condoning this behaviour, is still condoning it. And it means that your supposed standards apply only to those against you, and never to yourselves.
Geoff
"Ten complaints, and ten posts deleted"
Is warmist-baiting still legal? :-)
"The one sceptical commentaor has only ever made three comments in total at CiF, and that person's VERY FIRST comment made was deleted."
Oct 5, 2010 at 10:25 AM | Mac
Gee - I wonder if, rather than being a big conspiracy, it might be because that first comment broke the house rules?
Incidentally, what's with typing in capitals? It's the written equivalent of shouting and is considered rude. It's generally the preserve of the barmy, the obnoxious, and those without sufficient language skills to emphasise in other ways.
Just clicked on your Guardian extract
Most tipsy: Party-goers in Edinburgh will be throwing a "joycott" (a reverse boycott) at a local bar (Mercat on West Maitland Street) that agreed to put 20% of its extra revenues on 10/10/10 to making the bar more energy efficient. Attendees will try and drink as much as possible to raise money. We love the way 350.org describes the action as a "work party". Cheers!
That's 20% of "EXTRA" revenue ... so theoretically they are going to rake it in because it's a big event but they will keep 80% of the extra profit raised ofr themselves ... these people are so generous
Zed
As you're here, what's your view of the 10:10 film? If you are so outraged by a bit of foot/boot swapping on CiF, you must have an opinion.
"the written equivalent of shouting"
Only when Caps Lock is left on. Otherwise, it's a perfectly legitimate way of emphasising, especially in HTML, when other methods require code.
Zed
What is your view on the 10:10 film?
"Incidentally, what's with typing in capitals? It's the written equivalent of shouting and is considered rude. It's generally the preserve of the barmy, the obnoxious, and those without sufficient language skills to emphasise in other ways, " ZedsDeadBed.
Gee, and I thought that the capitalisation of one's name was a grammatical NoNo ........ No?!
"Only when Caps Lock is left on. Otherwise, it's a perfectly legitimate way of emphasising, especially in HTML, when other methods require code."
Oct 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM | James P
You're wrong. It's rude - go and read a grammar book or something. The main three reasons for doing it are the ones I have listed above.
"Zed
What is your view on the 10:10 film?"
Oct 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Mac
I've not seen it yet, is it good? It sounds like the kind of thing I'd enjoy. An Inconvenient Truth is broadly correct (a few gaffes), and I thought that was great.
Gee, I didn't know that CAPITALISATION was an offence against the planet.
If only I had a BIG RED BUTTON so I could do the decent thing.
@zed
I have no axe to grind with you but if you haven't viewed it then you should as it is a very poor effort at conveying a message and even if you personally are not disgusted you can surely understand how some people whether sceptical or accepting of AGW, would be somewhat shocked. In particular if they felt that their children were likely to be exposed to it at school or in a cinema.
As many pro AGW people on the Guardian (I read all 900 approx comments, it made inetersting reading) found it highly distasteful it has therefore been viewed by many. The ones who didn't find it distatsteful found it hard to see how it could benefit the cause and felt it was likely to play into the hands of the opposite camp (which it indeed has)
Steve
apologies for the typos LOL
Zeds
I simply complained that the comments were lies and diffamatory. The moderator agreed, and deleted them. Strictly interpreted by a zealous moderator, few comments would survive.
I have been told I deserve to die, be rogered over a table, or have voodoo pins stuck in me by warmist commentators at CiF. I was also accused of being party to a conspiracy involving the Marxists at SpikedOnline and Berlusconi’s PDL party. Like the victim of Onanonthefence, I prefer to leave these comments in place to show the argument for global warming in all its glory.
I tried CiF’s big red button to see how it works. It’s easy, and most satisfying. Don’t do it though. I’d be grateful is someone could transmit the weaknesses which I found in the Guardian’s comment system to Natalie Hanman, since I’m under an ASBO and not allowed to contact her.
ZedsDeadBed.
An Inconvenient Truth contains a few gaffes? Which of Al Gores fun film facts are you prepared to deny?
Has the Guardian yet acknowledged anything remotely, even slightly, teensyweensy, bit not quite sort of right about the Bob "fast hands" Ward, surprisingly quick response to the good Bish's article?
Once again, please try to keep the threads on topic.
Zed
"It's rude - go and read a grammar book or something."
So everyone's rude except you? How curious.
Sorry Bish - I will return to the subject.
@geoff et al
I just posted this under the cunningly disguised pseudonym of AlderLatimer (my 'Don't tell him Pike!' moment), and so far it has not been detected nor deleted. I have even received a recommend from some wise reader - my first since excommunication under another name.
'This is a welcome initiative. Often we find writers giving their views, as if from their mountaintop, then disappearing back into their own little world of journalists and politicos or whatever their specialist niche is.
Next week they re-emerge to tell us 'what everybody else thinks'. But, by avoiding debate with those outside of the fishtank in which they live, they bring only the views of the cognoscenti..and then pretend that they represent the majority opinion.
A word on mdoeration and banning. Many friends, and some even closer than that have been placed on moderation or had their posting privileges withdrawn for no understandable reason. Apart, perhaps, from not agreeing with George M about global climate disruption.
Since the moderators seem to take these sanctions entirely arbitrarily and with no explanation offered ..nor even available, your pool of knowledgeable contributors on this important topic is diminishing daily. Like a salt pan drying in the sun, the concentration of one particular view increases as the number of opinions allowed decreases.
It would be a start at least if your moderators would give some indication of what offences they believe have been committed before using these sanctions.
Punishing a naughty child without explaining what it is that they have done wrong does not lead them into the paths of righteousness...it merely makes them resentful and wanting to fight back. Arbirtary use of the moderator's powers does not sit easily in a 'liberal' newspaper, nor in a section apparently called 'Comment is Free'.'
Quite agree, LA (or should that be AL?)
The only large-scale site I know where the moderators regularly engage is WUWT. It seems to work very well.
Latimer Alder
Your description of journalists’ behaviour is absolutely correct. Look at Adam Vaughan’s absurd request at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-activism
for us to “share our links with thoughtful reactions” to the 10/10 GorePic (no anger, no scepticism please. We’re open-minded at the Graun - up to a point). He’s willing to listen to what he wants to hear.
Agreed too that it would be nice to know what you’ve been banned for. My offence was “repeat problems with personal abuse”. True, I’ve had a lot of that, including being described as a “scumbag” and “bullshitter” by Monbiot (not personally - he was addressing all of us). Funny reason though.
If you want an explanation, ask the ever polite Sarah at
community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk
LatimerAlder
Just checked out your comment at the Hanman article and found just one comment with more recommends than yours. RapidEddie (5 October 2010 12:42AM) says:
“One type of comment that's particularly prone to deletion is the passionately argued demolition of an ATL article. If you invest a lot of time in such a post - marshalling facts, creating a coherent argument and fashioning it with language that is forceful but not abusive - only to find it go down the moderation plughole because it shows up the ATL contributor as an incoherent sham, then why bother? ... Bad moderation kills good debate.
... Please don't play the "the contributor/hack's background or actions are irrelevant to their argument" card....If Monbiot is talking about his travelling across the Atlantic to be on a Canadian radio show, it's fair enough to point out that he's previously said that transatlantic travel is as unacceptable as child abuse”.
With readers like this, there's hope yet for the Graun.
[snip - I've asked people to keep this on topic]
[snip - I've asked people to keep this on topic]
[snip - I've asked people to keep this on topic]
[snip - I've asked people to keep this on topic]
Zed
"if we don't cut CO2, then people are literally going to die"
Some evidence would be good. Demonstrable stuff, not modelled.
I’ve just reported on my CiF snark leech boojumming activities (see my post Oct 4, 2010, 11:00 PM) at
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=337
and informed the CiF moderators of the flaw in their system, whereby, if I openly accuse a commenter on a thread of lying, I get deleted, whereas if I secretly and anonymously report him for lying, he gets deleted, with no trial, no evidence, no comeback. The system is seriously flawed.
Geoff Chambers.
Do you not think you're a bit obsessed with the Guardian CIF? I can clearly see you're upset about being booted off it, but perhaps take up something to give you a little perspective?
You've said you're in your 50s, swimming may well be appropriate, going for long walks is good to. You may well enjoy golf - it's too full of Tories for me, but if you vote that way, you might fit right in. Alternatively, perhaps take up a more sedentary hobby. You could collect something, join a bridge club or do something creative.
You clearly have drive when you're focused on something, if you're able to throw your energies into one of the things I've suggested, then you may shortly look back on your CIF time as something of a storm in a teacup.
ZDB.
zed and geoff - just gotta say thanks for the chortles!!
"snark leech boojumming" needs to be in the next ed of OED
and zed's sage words should be incorporated into the house rules at CIF
Keep up the good work!
nby :-)
Thanks Zeds for the good advice. I’m afraid your guesses as to my character and interests contain more data infills than a GISS temperature map.
If you read my post, you’ll see that I can have far more influence (and fun) on CiF by diffaming people behind their backs anonymously than by making true comments on the thread, which risk being deleted and causing my own expulsion. But perhaps you knew that already.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a text from Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia” to prepare for tomorrow, and some erotic illustrations to “Orlando Furioso” to work on. The devil makes work ... you know how it goes.