Thursday
Dec232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill In which I ban a commenter
Dec 23, 2010 Blogs I can't recall ever banning a commenter before, but Macsporan just stepped over the limit.
There has to be a first time for everything I suppose.
Reader Comments (92)
Well, I certainly thought MacSporan went way beyond the pale when plagiarising my favourite line about burning witches in the "BBC FOIs Met" thread. Outrageous! Off with (his/her?) head
Seriously, though, can we know specifically what the ban was for, or was it for generally being a bit too dogmatic and troll-like? After all, you have posted this as an open thread.
If this is the same macsporan who posts on the Graun, I'm tempted to call Poe.
Must have reached a tipping point.....
Was a ban justified? We all complain about RC's pre-moderation policy, such that critical comment is removed. I wonder if you shouldn't allow such comments to coalesce into debating points; provided there are no insults of course.
Maybe this is one place where we needn't hear about deniers.
What did he do?
I told you zeds is much better.
As ThinkingScientist said: Seriously, though, can we know specifically what the ban was for, or was it for generally being a bit too dogmatic and troll-like? After all, you have posted this as an open thread.
Given the repeated antics of our favorite Truro Troll, who has brought down at least one thread, this one seems simply off his/her head a bit.
Not a good step, in my mind. Simple snipping would have been more effective.
I do not like a step towards Graunism. It is a slippery slope.
If it’s CIF's MacSporan their a serial insulter of others, who regards AGW sceptics as worse than Holocaust deniers, in their own words. Chances are it was just an attempt to cause disruption on here ,as things are not going well for the AGW supports on what they think is there home ground of the Guardian, their inclined to lash out and demands for the Guardian to restrict AGW sceptics views on CIF are getting shriller by the day.
I don't know, and at Christmas too.
I didn't see the offending post but am quite happy to trust His Grace's judgement. I doubt this is the start of a purge or a new hardline moderation regime. I mean, this isn't the Guardian or Wikipedia.
shub - if only the Truro Troll actually added anything to the discussion, I'd agree. As it is, all she posts is arrogant, tin-eared dismissal of sceptical views, blinkered denial of the various reverses the alarmist cause has suffered over the past few years, repeated restatement of 'argument from authority', even though those claimed authorities have long since been shown to have feet of clay, and (admittedly well judged) goads intended to push threads off track. When all is said and done, a troll is a troll and the best approach is to ignore them whatever they say.
Phil
By the way, I should add, I'm not in favour of banning: I think it can give a sort of legitimacy to the banee's gripes.
I'm with Don Pablo on this Bish.
Perhaps the snipping policy on WUWT may be a good one to emulate, whereby the 'snip' comment is followed by a few words why it's been snipped. It keeps the debate flowing without accusations of censorship. Transparency is our strongest weapon in this unfortunate battle; let's not lose it.
However, I do appreciate that this may create a bit more work for you. Maybe it's time to bring in a few trusted moderators?
A couple of visitors here yesterday evening appeared to be unfamiliar with the facts of the Hockey Stick debate as recounted in The Hockey Stick Illusion.
There was much parroting of disinformation but no indication of any real understanding of the actual issues. In fact both commenters came across as parodically ill-informed.
If they return, some of the following may be useful.
Keith Briffa’s definitive position statement for a start:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt
Now that’s the Lead Author of the Paleoclimate chapter of AR4 explaining what he really thinks. It is impossible not to wonder why his views – particularly that ‘the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago’ - didn’t make it into the final IPCC report.
Later in the same email Briffa goes on to say:
There you have it: the politicisation of climate science in a nutshell.
Last night’s visitors reminded me to tidy up my links. It’s helpful to be able to provide rapid and relevant responses to the information-deprived. Especially as the chances of them actually reading the HSI are about nil.
This page at Climate Audit provides an excellent resource, with numerous links to key articles and papers: http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Published papers by McIntyre and McKitrick dealing with the Hockey Stick:
* McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
(SI: http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/MM03)
* McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
(SI: ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750)
* McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
(SI: http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/MM05_EE)
Two presentations by McKitrick provide a good background to the Hockey Stick debate:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf (from 2005)
(Or try here: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf)
http://data.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf (most recent)
McIntyre post at Climate Audit providing analysis of the Wegman and North Reports:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
Wilfully desecrating a Bishop's offertory means excommunication.
Following on from Don Pablo and Robinson, and being someone who has been heavily censored, edited etc at RC on the odd occasion I have posted there, I don't agree in principle with a ban or even with snipping (I find this incredibly frustrating when trying to develop an argument at RC and is what I particularly object to at RC, especially when its selective). However, my point in the first post was that I don't know what the crime was. I looked over some of the recent posts by MacSporan. They are boorish, ignorant and trollish. Perhaps something offensive was posted that had to be removed?
Referring (perhaps a little unfairly) to our host's Bill of Rights the phrase Habeus Corpous springs to mind. Unless the crime is either very offensive material or actionable in some way then I think the best policy is "Don't Feed the Troll", otherwise it's no better here than what we have complained about at RC and elsewhere. Personally I think the moral high ground is always worth claiming, but its not my blog and I may not have all the facts before me.
Moderation is an inevitable and integral component of having an open form on one's site. The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) that moderation policies are applied, issues raised should only ever be with regard to the level of moderation and/or the manipulation of the comment content. RC can moderate how they wish, as can the Graun, the Independent or Lucia at her Blackboard. The particular mode and method of moderation varies across the sites, and the site's reputation is as much founded on that policy as the journal entries themselves.
But moderation is occasionally demanded. Should malicious posters, posting links to malicious scripts be permitted? Should hate-speech be tolerated? Should we be subjected to the personal insults of anonymous slurry? Or should the liberty to post be tempered by freedom of others from abuse? Should BOTs be free to spam the site? Hey, it's a "free-enterprise" society after all, and some of those really do LOOK like Nike stuff!
As they say: all good things, in moderation.
I would like to congratulate The Bish on maintaining an open forum which attracts the standard of regular contributors that make the MacSporan ban the exception rather than (as many of us are familiar at RC for example) the rule.
Simon Hopkinson
Reasonable statement. Agree.
Simon Hopkinson: you have not said anything with which I would disagree but I repeat what I said above - this topic has been posted on an open thread but I don't know what the offense was to merit a ban for Macsporan. If it fitted one of the categories you stated I would agree with a ban, but as I already said (and this time spelt correctly) - Habeus Corpus.
Sad Bish, there should be no need; the policy is plain and easy.
But there you go, you have to keep the tenure to allow discourse if not there is no Bishop Hill.
I think the majority will agree, if not the whole, sometimes a ban suits a purpose.
No worries; let the facts tell the story.
At a guess it was on the 'Iain Stewart MWP' thread here:
Dec 23, 2010 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermacsporan
My vote, if I have one, goes with those who have so eloquently argued the case against banning MacSporan or anyone else (except, perhaps, for gross off-topic abusive behaviour).
Bishop Hill is an oasis of calm in the storm considering the fact that it has no pre-moderation policy. What you post is on the board instantly. It is remarkable that it has gone on so long without disruption by CAGW cultists. Quite likely they didn't know or care that BH was around until recently. The onus is on them to moderate their arguments to the standards of the home turf.
When skeptics try to post on pre-moderated CAGW blogs (Real Climate, Climate Progress, Tamino, etc), we have to bend the words and sentences to make the cut, and even then it is touch and go. (This comment didn't make it past the moderation the first time, but when I re-submitted it 12 hours later, it did. Different moderators? Got lost in spam?) The contrarians on this board (the CAGW cultists) must adapt or they will be mitigated.
Having said that I do not recollect any comment recently by a cultist that warrants a ban. I suggest to the good Bishop that his audience is ahead of him on this one.
BBD: I had a look at the post you referenced on the "Iain Stewart MWP" thread. It is boorish, ignorant and trollish but in my view would not be sufficient to justify a ban. Personally, I just ignore this stuff and skip to the next post. Don't Feed the Troll.
ThinkingScientist, I think it's worthy of its own open thread, and given that it really is such an exceptional occasion, I support everyone pitching in their feelings. Of course, at the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter if all of us disagreed fundamentally with The Bish's decision to ban, it's his blog and so ultimately it's his decision.
I've only been visiting for a year (and a bit - since Climategate) but in that time I've never known The Bish to act in a knee-jerk fashion over anything. I don't know the minutiae behind the ban but I'm confident that the decision was not made lightly. The fact that The Bish felt compelled to create a thread to mark the occasion does suggest that the event is exceptional.
The sad truth is that, while some "trolls" turn up here blissfully unaware of the truth of the severity of issues with climate science (and have swallowed the pro-AGW "deniarrrr", or "Big Oil Shill" memes, along with the line, the sinker and a rather expensive carbon-composite rod), others really are here in the full knowledge that the science is tentative or lacking at best, they are politically/ideologically motivated only, and are solely intent on causing disruption and upset. The former I can tolerate because there is an opportunity to enlighten and educate. The latter, however, I have little to no time for.
Simon Hopkinson: I don't like censorship but I do agree with policing for some of the extreme examples you gave such as malicious scripts or inflammatory or abusive language, although swearing is generally ok for me. I don't like not knowing the reason for the ban.
But its not my blog and I don't have all the facts before me so I can't judge whether the decision by the Bish is one with which I would agree or disagree. Hence my requests for a bit more detail.
Very Happy Christmas to you and your loved ones Bishop.
Your posts on the Jesus paper and Yamal opened my eyes to the reality of what climate science is really about and I converted many others with those same two articles. Big props to Mr McIntyre obviously, but your writing is somehow able to make the near-impenetrable compelling.
Thanks for all you've done. Seasons greetings to all your guests here too, even MacSporan and Gavin if they're reading this.
ThinkingScientist, I too would like more details! :o)
It's more out of morbid curiosity than anything, for me, given that it's in regard to the demise of a comment contributor. I have to concede that it's more "of interest to the public" than it is "in the interests of the public" to be made aware, so I (grudgingly) accept that it's entirely at The Bish's discretion if he reveals or conceals the specifics. My trust in The Bish isn't determined or affected by this. :o)
Unless it was seriously foul, I think it might have been better to let McSporan's comments continue to go through. His comments are so predictable and so intellectualy lazy that they serve as an ongoing reminder of how utterly beyond reason many of the worst CAGW cultists are, and so how pointless it is to hope to convince them of anything by rational argument. I think this is important to keep in mind.
There will never be a moment when the sceptic side actually "wins" the argument and the CAGW fundamentalists see the error of their ways. We are dealing with the sort of people who (truly) believe that, for example, they can write book reviews "debunking" the Bishop's book on Amazon.com, without having read a single word of it. When you point out the absurdity of this to them, they seem to believe using the terms "denier", "stupid", and "Big Oil" sufficiently often will win the argument.
McSporan served as a constant reminder of this, "exhibit A", if you will.
BBD,
That post you cite is possibly the reason, but as others have said, it's merely shallow and trollish -- however, it does implicitly denigrate our host. I got upset at an earlier post, in the tip-jar thread, which was ad hominem of a particularly offensive type. My own guess -- and we may not know unless we FoI the Bish ;) -- is that there was yet another post, not published, which went even further over the top, getting our host's Irish up.
That said, I agree that snipping is preferable to banning.
Thinking & Simon
You will need to wade through the last 48 maybe 72 hrs comments, sadly all of them, to see the development.
The Bishop's decision does not surprise me, it does worry me on two counts one I think it hurts the Bish and two it has probably produced a martyr. But if you want to have a discussion/debate on such an emotive debate there has to be a “chairman”, in this case it is the Bish, I am extremely disappointed that it came to this, but not as disappointed as I could have been.
Last comment from me on this:-
I know the Bish is popular but just ask yourself how you get 91 comments in no time on “Tip jar live again”
Drag through the comments and find this from Barry Woods:-
"Or have some people been sent on a mission..
I stil can't get a comment onto the Guardian....
George Monbiot's (of the Guardian), Campaign against Climate Chnage 's latest sceptic alerts email...
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
---------------------
Climate Change sceptic blog alerts
Wednesday, 22 December, 2010 15:36
From: "Campaign against Climate Change aggregator"
<xxxxxxcampaigncc.org>Add sender to Contacts
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Climate Change sceptic blog alerts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Hill: Tip jar live again
Posted: 22 Dec 2010 06:32 AM PST
...if anyone fancies it...
Bishop Hill: The Quarmby audit
Posted: 21 Dec 2010 12:26 PM PST
I am grateful to commenter "hmc" for pointing out that David Quarmby has also produced an audit on the country's response to the start of the cold weather a month or so ago. This includes some further interesting information about the Met Office's advice to government:
Dec 22, 2010 at 8:58 PM | Barry Woods2
Yes Bish, you got it right
A suggestion: Why not conduct a mock trial? His Lordship as the judge and prosecutor, Thinking Scientist and/or Don Pablo as defense attorney(s), and 12 volunteers from the regular chorus to be the jury. Present the evidence, counter with a rebuttal from the defense, closing arguments by the prosecution, and then the jury vote. Set a standard, say 75% (9 or more votes) for acquittal; less than 75%, the ban remains enforced. Stipulation: no real names of the parties involved can be publicly revealed on this Forum, and the voting by the individual jurors must be kept secret.
I guess many of us are at fault for "Feeding the Trolls". I, for one, promise that from now on I will simply ignore their comments as they seem to bore very easily and vanish.
I am on pre-moderation on the Guardian (!). The Bishop is. I am sure almost all of us here knows the corrosive effects of 'moderation', censorship and banning.
That is why this type of a thing should give us reason, for a pause for thought.
Many threads recently were being hijacked and being led down the same lane. "Don't feed the troll" - simply doesn't work. Someone or the other will respond - it is but natural.
Purely off-topic stereotypical posts about communism and oil from a commenter are deserving of action.
zeds' posts, for example, and atleast in some instances, pick on one or the other point from a single commenter and repeatedly insist on 'clarification' or 'proof' thereby derailing the thread. In this respect, there is a difference between macsporan and zed.
For people from two diametrically opposite worldviews to engage, there has to be some form of compromise - in terms of having a conversation. If you dont want to have a conversation, why come here at all?
@DrCrinum - the idea of the judge also being the prosecutor seems to stack the cards slightly...
And there are 15 in a Scottish jury.
;-)
There is a comment in the "Acton and UEA in the pillory" (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/23/acton-and-uea-in-the-pillory.html) thread by Richard Drake that is in response to a macsporan comment. However there is no macsporan comment there so I assume it has been removed. Here is what Richard Drake said in response to the removed post.
I guess I should not be surprised that the patrons of a sceptic blog would take nothing on faith, but gentlemen, do you truly doubt the wisdom of an action our generous host has found necessary only once?
Banning, merely, narrows the geographical scope of the Troll.
Snipping, surgically applied, stops it from multiplying.
Snipping>banning!
O/T
The Independent has trawled something up to explain the snow...
Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists
What I love about these things is that can trot anything out AFTER the event. With people defending the CAGW position then always predict what will happen after it has happened - "it is consistent with..."
I leave to commenter thomasgoodey:
Because it is a postdiction, not a prediction, of course. Did they tell us in 2007 that the winters were going to get harsher? No.
These guys are like the Fillyloo bird that flies backwards - they can only see where we've been, not where we are going!
j ferguson, I'm with you on this one.
Anyone who wants to criticize our host on banning ONE commentator should be asked this:
What is your favourite blog? How many commentators have they banned?
As a matter of fact, the Bishop should adopt a motto: "Banned one, and still counting!"
Being a crotchety old curmudgeon, I do lose my temper with some of the more obnoxious trolls and show it. ZDB as certainly received some very sharp barbs from me, and I have notice that she ( a popularly and democratically elected consensus) does not respond. She appears afraid of me, which I am not proud of, but accept as part of my shouting at her. She knows that I also have teeth as well as a very deep growl. However, I have never asked that she be banned, although I have told her to go take her meds more than once.
And I am not the only one to snap at her.
In time she has become something of a fixture, much like a stray dog barking in the back yard -- an irritation for sure, but even a stray dog has a right to live.
Like ThinkingScientist I am a bit confused as to what great sin McSporan is guilty. Perhaps that stray dog got into the house and went on the floor. . Perhaps the Bishop wiped the mess up, but I do not see what ever it was
Still, there are other issues beyond guilt or innocence. The question of HOW you execute the sentence comes to mind. Simply banning a name is ineffective as new names can be picked quickly. The suggestion of "moderators" to help the Bishop is anathema to me. It is going down the same slippery slope as the Graun.
No, if anything the only thing that should be ban is banning. It is a disease far worse than the one it is supposed to cure.
No, I propose that we continue as before. I really, really like the openness of BH and the infinite (well almost) patience that the Bishop has shown. That is what makes this blog such fun for me, and interesting. I did not come here to hear others repeat what I say, but to suggest other views -- you know, make me think. I did not come for GroupThink a la Graun.
As for a polite vocabulary, I agree that it is called for as several others suggest. I do not think "deniers", and other pejorative words are appropriate and should not be permitted. But that is as far as I would go.
Of course, coddling the crotchety curmudgeons, young and old alike, who wish to snap at someone breaking the rules should be permitted. That would be far more democratic and less likely to go down that slippery slope.
Let the obnoxious troll run the risk of being verbally roasted. And should that fail SNIP! the bloody little bastard's language.
Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to you all. I know it is not politically correct, but that is nothing new for me :)
My view?
BH is a pub landlord. We treat the place like it is ours, some of us put our feet on the sofas every now and then, some pop in for a quick one, others stand at the bar as permanent fixtures.
It is BH's domain. If there are new visitors then there is a certain expectation on behaviour. Getting banned is right of a landlord.
What I do not want to see is one of those pubs where you walk in, a stranger, and everyone stops and stares. Or there is a set of bores at the bar, whom the landlord serves, but looks put out when you ask for anything, especially anything that is not usually asked for. "You are not from these parts are ya?" with that "Village of the Damned" look from everyone.
BH has created a lively interesting pub. I wish we have a few more "positive minded" AGW proponents walking in, but the CAGW supporters we have seem to lurk in the corner with one cheap shandy for the whole evening, listening to conversations. Then get up, sit at a chosen table picking an argument hoping to get the attention of everyone in the pub, or get thrown out as a badge of honour.
And he actually has a pretty good cricket team that goes out to bat into the CAGW debate...
A raise my class to BH and all his patrons, Christmas Greetings to you all...
Nicely said, Jiminy Cricket
Turning Tide said I'm not in favour of banning: I think it can give a sort of legitimacy to the banee's gripes.
Don't know, its a bit like being sent home from school for misbehavior. I was recently banned from Deltoid after a solid year as resident troll, where I earned my stripes.
Those ratbags are CAGW zealots and they thought me mentally challenged. Admittedly, I haven't been taking my green pills.
Trolls serve a purpose by creating a robust blog, otherwise we end up with a bunch of people shouting slogans in a small shed.
I was mortified recently when snipped at Watts (along with others in a UFO debate) which left me feeling empty, but it remains one of my favorite places to visit. It's a very big shed.
@DrCrinum “A suggestion: Why not conduct a mock trial? His Lordship as the judge and prosecutor, Thinking Scientist and/or Don Pablo as defense attorney(s), and 12 volunteers from the regular chorus to be the jury.”
This is a matter too serious for mockery. His Lordship has already judged and prosecuted but has left me thoroughly dissatisfied with the sentence.
If found guilty of willful trollery the punishment must be burning at the stake. The old fashioned genteel punishment of beheading, which I only recommend for Christmas bomb plotters and their ilk, is too merciful for such types.
Banning is prima facie evidence of being right.
Your Grace
Having read what I think was the offending comment I must say that, in concert with some above, this really should not warrant a banishing from these pages. I also speak as a 'pre-modded' gruniaud reader (among much else).
I have some experience in 'mindsets' and I feel that such contibutors serve very useful functions in the mindset that we operate against. The sheer irrationality can, on occasion, serve to clarify. How do we know black without knowing what white is?.
I respect the decision (not that I have much choice of course!) but equally respectfully ask that McSporran be freely permitted to vent in the vein observed. It certainly hasn't spurred me to reject BH as a most worthy contribution.
The caveat to the above would, naturally, be focused abuse or threats or revelation of personal data.
I've said my piece, here stand I.
It is a sad step, but I trust His Grace's judgement, as his blog has always been a place where discussion could take place, and good (albeit wicked) humour demonstrated. However, like in Parliament, sometimes the Speaker has to intervene to maintain order. I hope there will be no more bans, but that is dependent on how commenters behave, for it's in nobody's interest that the blog turns into Pravda, where only The Party Line is heard and dissent is forbidden.
it's your blog, bish.
seasons greetings to u and yours and all who contribute to your blog.
I've come into this discussion rather late. I do not like banning in general and would only support it in extremis; which this case may warrant. I try to post occasionally at RC, but never get through moderation. To me RC's policy is counter-productive, as all they are left with is a small coterie of self-appointed cheerleaders, a reputation for intolerance and a website of declining popularity.
This site has welcomed all and got a reputation for integrity. I prefer a policy of snipping offensive or off-topic posts. A reminder not to feed the trolls is welcome, but from time to time, even the most restrained of us can't avoid throwing them a few scraps. Self-restraint and the occasional reminder from our host to behave has usually worked in the past.
I bow to our good host's decision. I'm sure he has not made it lightly or on the spur of the moment, but following reasoned consideration.