Tuesday
Jan252011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill References (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: Bishop Hill and Comment Moderation
Reader Comments (46)
Are things really getting worse or are you moderating more? Are you more concerned as your work and effort become more involved and well known? No disrespect intended. Just curious.
Trolls with theire stupid comments bring out the worst in people. Best just to ignore them.
As Roman M posted at CA re young Louise:
Phil,
I don't prefer the definition of trolling above. It seems too restrictive and not so subtle. This comment and your comment could possibly fall under the trolling category.
Kevin
The question is a fair one. I don't know. I've always tried to delete namecalling and rudeness. When the site is busy things can quickly get out of hand.
Speaking of name calling, where did we get to on "deniers" etc? Are we ok calling ecoloonies ecoloonies? How about calling them scammers instead?
Or indeed "decline-hiders"?
Sorry to be a bit school-marmish here, but we really should heed the good bishop's call for civility.
It would be a huge shame if rudeness were to increase his workload to such an extent that he were to follow Jeff Id. I'm sure we don't want to see this blog close, same as tAV, just because we think manners don't matter on a blog.
Btw - if that were to happen, rest assured that I'll personally haunt the guilty parties and turn their sleep into living nightmares!!!!
;-)
If the argument is sound there is no need for name calling, if its a troll that is undertaking Seagull management then ignore it.
On a subject as important as this i think derogatory terms often do apply to the proponents of propaganda that could harm the nation, but we should always give deference to the bishop's requests.
Translation of Andrew Montford's post:
"It's Burns Night. I live in rural Scotland. Behave yourselves, as I personally shall be quaffing inadvisable amounts of high-grade whisky, and smaller amounts of even more inadvisable parts of an animal."
Just wait and see his editorial line tomorrow morning as well. I suspect that fools will not find they are suffered gladly. Until he perks up with a bit of Irn Bru anyway.
[BH adds: While it's true to say that tomorrow's postings are lined up and ready to go, as an Englishman I can pass on the haggis with a clear conscience]
Bishop
I agree. Name calling and rudeness are unnecessary and unhelpful. I'll do what I can to comply.
Thanks.
The 100,000 litres of water per Haggis should dilute the fire water.
Cmdocker - If you have a freshly shot young one then it doesn't need as much hydration. It's the old leathery ones which you really have to boil like that.
ZedsDeadBed - Your friend has a different recipe.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/24/christmas.famine
I've almost given up on your blog, Your Grace. Very occasionally, you're still useful as a source of links to things that are happening elsewhere but your own content has become witless, bitter, self-promoting and stuck in the past. The comments on your blog are even worse. Ignorance and ignorant tribalism now dominate. Your blog has (like WUWT before it) become a moron-magnet, a tedious suburb of Delingpolia.
Only one thing can save you now: a Marshall Plan.
And here it is.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6fp93xm
If you want to be a player again, what you need is more Fun and less Whinging; more Funny and less Earnest; more Ironic and less Literal; etc.
(Strangely, Marshall was unable to come up with an ideological opposite to 'freedom'. Can any of your moronic commenters help him?)
Vinny Burgoo
Left the pub early today lad. Should have stayed your usual time and just had a good nap.
I must congratulate the good Bishop on being at the head of the CCC notification parade.
I signed up to see if there were any other useful sites I was missing and all I keep getting is Bishop Hill!!
Think I will be unsubscribing - the good sites obviously speak for themselves!
Here you go, Vinny, it's "control", and it runs through CAGW lobbyists like Blackpool through rock. Now do as the good Bishop says, and cut the abuse, or go away.
It's Paul Nurse's birthday today. There's not a lot of people as knows that.
Bishop
I strongly object to my comment on the Sissons article being sniped as shown below
[Snip - namecalling]
1. I did NOT go off topic
2. I did NOT call anyone any particular names
My post said that Sissons confirmed what we all suspected about Harrabin being pressured by green activists and that BBC editorial policy was being set over dinner tables in Hampstead - again as we all suspected.
I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with those comments. There was no foul language, personal abuse or derogatory comments of any kind - even about Harrabin.
Absolutely out of order.
My Phil don't snip people's comments, Bishop bloody Hill. 'e just peer reviews 'em. Heh, heh, heh.
MactheKnife
Without the original text, I can't respond to you here. I have had to snip more comments tonight than I have done in the previous six years of this blog, so it's possible I cut the wrong comment or something. If so, apologies.
I suppose that there are some persistent offenders with multiple IDs - it's certainly the case on other blogs and I think it's not unreasonable to collect their spewings and source IP addresses for the most egregious repeat offenders - to at least make them use a proxy or something and then flag that against the user ID?
Pollution of blog comments by folk looking to deny reasonable debate or simply determined to annoy to the point of distraction should be resisted - A wall of shame ? A rating system?
It isn't easy... especially when you're a SWP target...
It might be that if it gets worse, the onerous task and defeat of a membership system might have to be applied, which would be a real shame - some folk have already walked away. It's a clear aim for some of the trolls.
Personally, I'd like a few mugshots and cv's
Mactheknife
I disagree.
This is the Bishop's site. We join in here according to his rules and even his whims. Anything he chooses to do on his site cannot be out of order (IM not so HO).
Like most of us who are human, the Bishop can make mistakes.
Bishop,
God love you for doing the difficult and thankless (at least among the quality) task of shedding some light into the ecological tyranny's darkness.
I have read, and will continue to read you for your (gentle) sarcasm and good sense on the issues and the people discussing them.
For my part, I find you very readable and also very pertinent on these issues.
Your are a beacon of truth in a (mostly) dark night of creeping government nannyism and distortion of science to justify stealing our freedoms and our prosperity.
I am sure that your work is difficult and seems overwhelming at times. It is very important. Few could do it as well. Keep fighting the good fight. Thank you!
Agree Andrew, there is no need for using personally abusive language, or names, in a discussion. I have a theory that people who behave like that are just like those who gesticulate/shout/blow horns at people from cars, it's a personality type. They behave like that because if they had enough courage they'd do that all the time to people they disagree with in face to face situations. The safety of the car or the blog post lets them live their fantasy as tough guys/gals who will insult people face to face. The missing link for me is why anyone would want to insult anyone else at all rather then deal with the issues.
Bish, as Winnie endlessly reminded others, KBO!
Don't take the criticisms too much to heart. Wounded animals, when cornered are vicious brutes.
You're clearly under attack at the moment. The pressure got to Jeff and there's blood in the water thats attracting the sharks!
Don't hesitate to use the blue-pencil. If you make the odd blue-on-blue then shrug your shoulders and KBO.
The ones who experience friendly-fire are more than grateful for the positive services you have rendered in the past and look forward to the future. Those that don't see it that way have plenty of other blogs to voice their opinions.
When three soldiers from the Royal Anglians were killed in Afghanistan by a mis-directed bomb a few years ago, the entire battlegroup thanked the USAF for the lives that they had saved and forgave them for a human mistake.
KBO Bishop. If they use words unsuitable to a family audience then kill the entire comment. If they attempt to hijack your thread then teach them that this is not allowed. You draw the line in the sand; they cross it and they have no voice on your forum.
It won't be easy to do at first. You are, at heart, a libertarian and censorship is not your default position.
Harden your heart. It will get easier and your continued presence is essential for some time yet!
Bishop - If the comments of "Vinny Burgoo" above are typical of the sort of thing you are talking about in your original post, I'm not surprised you are adopting a "slash and burn" policy with some comments. To enter someone's blog and immediately call the host "witless, bitter, self-promoting and stuck in the past" is the height of boorishness, the equivalent of entering another man's home in a foreign country and immediately insulting the host. This was a point Willis Eschenbach tried (unsuccessfully) to impress on a particularly obnoxious "sustainable energy law" professor who entered the "Open letter to Dr Trenberth" thread at WUWT with the comment "What a dishonest post." Needless to say, the lawyer paid no heed, merely varying his insult to "What an intellectually dishonest post" until after the third unsuccessful attempt to show him the error of his ways, Willis let him have it with both barrels. It was a memorable exchange.
As for name-calling, I dislike "Warmer" or "warmista" for AGW supporters, principally because it's imprecise and misleading. After all, few of us sceptics are "coolers" or "coolistas" since most of us agree that the earth is warming, and has been since we emerged from the Little Ice Age.
Great post Morpork.
I love this site and it's always my first port of call each day. I don't want to see His Grace's time wasted on moderation. Is it not time to enlist the help of one or two trusted posters and let them take some of the load where such moderation is necessary? It seems to work well for WUWT.
LC
I'm hoping that this is just a blip caused by all the news yesterday.
Bishop,
I bought your book some time ago and am presently reading it for a second time.
I enjoy your site immensely and read it each day, together with CA, WUWT and until very recently the Air Vent as well.
I join your other well wishers.
I sense that the tide is turning.
The scientific evidence supporting the NUL hypothese is rapidly mounting.
The climate cycle may also be turning - we will know as the year progresses.
There are cracks in the MSM and the political scene (but alas, not yet in Australia).
The True Believers, as I feel they should be called, are getting quite desperate.
You can see that in their arguements, which are now becoming absurd.
So some are taking desperate action.
You are very effective.
So you are under attack as never before.
Let me give you some advice from a very old man.
Monitor yourself very carefully.
If you are feeling the strees, slow down.
Take some time off to regroup if necessary.
Don't soldier on until you crash.
If necessary get a friend or associate to run things for a while.
It will be different but we will stick by you.
You are important to us and to the cause of truth, honour and science.
Bishop
I love your blog. It is absolutely not "stuck in the past". I enjoy the focus and the format. I read your book and was amazed at how interesting and meticulous it was. Same goes for your GWPF report.
All the negative comments could be viewed as a good sign. Negative attention is better than no attention. Activity is good. You need us and we need you. It's unfortunate that you need to waste time and energy on negative comments, but it also speaks to your success.
Keep up the good work and stay focused.
Seems I missed all the fun.
Ah, BBD, and you won't see it again in a million years, mate! There is no recording and no replay button on this.
OK. To re-cap the events.
Yesterday, on the eve of Australia Day (ahem!), the UK climate media had a day of convulsions and BH too suffered as a result.
From the colonies and from across the pond, a lot of dust could be seen rising from where the British Isles lie. The reason for that was the release of a doco and a parliamentary report in quick succession that caused the temperatures to quickly rise and fall on both sides.
BH was affected by flooding, and its main page ran like a mighty river. Trolls came in barging around the place like loose shipping containers. Emergency measures had to be taken so that propriety and dignity could be saved. Recovery is expected to take some time. Lessons shall be learned. Etcetera.
Overall it was a bad performance all round. From our host to our commenters to our trolls, nobody were themselves yesterday... or rather nobody who logs in from the UK. There, it was the worst of times.
To me, the only memorable comments came from Lord Beaverbrook, who related how he watched the Horizon doco with his young family: they compared the people that appeared to characters in Muppet show and had a jolly good time apparently.
sHx
Thanks for the review. After a little thought I have decided that I am glad business took me elsewhere for the last few days. I might have got sucked in (me and my temper) and not exactly covered myself in glory either.
@ Alan Bates
I'm sorry Alan but I stick by my comment that removing my post was "absolutely out of order". Since I started reading this blog and commenting on the threads (sometimes anyway), my posts have ALWAYS been civil and polite - even though I have to sometimes restrain my natural impulses. If there is a way to check this then please feel free to do so.
Yesterdays comment was little more than three sentences on the Sissons DM article. Unlike other comments I saw and some which are still up, mine was in no way offensive. So thats cleared that.
This blog invites comments, and from these there is much information shared by all. Until certain individuals (see - I dont even call them Trolls !!) started posting their vitriol there had been no problems. If my comment had in any way broken rules then fine take it down. But as I said above in NO WAY could any of the three sentences by classified as anything but innoccous. Now, Bishop said he may have made a mistake as he was trying to edit many posts - fair enough I except this explanation. However if you are saying that its Ok to take down any post, even if its on topic, non-inflamatory, polite and civil, then I'm afraid it will make Bish look like the CiF brigade.
Mac suggest you try posting on CA, Steve McIntyre has his rules and foibles and snips accordingly, takes some getting used to be you get to know whats ok and not, its a private blog and the owner whether its Bish or S Mac can do as they please. Thems the rules so live with it.
@ Breath of fresh air
Unfortunately BoFA you miss my point as did Alan Bates. If I had said something to the effect that Harrabin was a f****** T***, then fine snip away. But my first sentence said something like (from memory)..." The Sissons article in DM confirms what we have suspected in that Harrabin has been pressurised by the green lobby". The second comment was something to do with BBC editorial policy being formed around the dinner tables of Hampstead.
Now please dont tell me that those comments are offensive as the BBC and its bias towards the pro-AGW viewpoint has been debated on here many times, and whatsmore far worse comments on the Beeb, Harrabin and Black have passed without censure.
However as I pointed out Bish acknowledges that he was in snipping mode yesterday and some posts got the chop perhaps wrongly.
Mac
I don't remember reading any comments along those lines, so I guess I did mess up. Sorry about that.
Mac
I get your point. You didn't do anything wrong. Your snip was inadvertent. You're good. You got caught in the fray.
Mac
This does sound plausible.
Ref. Vinny Burgoo's vitriolic comment, I've been a "moronic" reader here for quite a while, on a daily basis, and your measured rant and his bile have moved me to become one of the "moronic commenters" he refers to. Such as he unwittingly reveal that you're worthy of attention, and need slapping down - you're damaging their "cause". That's a sure sign of success if ever there was one.
BTW - many thanks for your "scoop" on the Met Office advice to government - writing to the Quarmby team was inspired.
I think they are trying a Jeff ID on you.
Spam alert !!!!!!
Only guessing but my Russia is rusty ;)