where did weeble's comments go?
By Weeble
November 09 2007
I know what happened to them. I have the evidence. Email me and I'll tell you
more about it.
I never before believed the reports of moderation abuse here
where comments were supposedly left visible to the author, but made invisible to
everyone else. I now know that it is sadly true. I have seen it with my own eyes.
I have printed it to PDF. And since I don't believe such a thing would be happening
without PJ's knowledge and consent, if not at her directive, I have lost all respect
for PJ. She may be a good journalist and have good information, but the moral character
she has projected I now know to have been a fraud.
I may have been rash at
times, but never a troll. If there were objections to my posts, they should have
either been deleted completely or I should have been notified why they were deemed
objectionable. To be deceived in such a manner as this is inexcusable.
I
consider Groklaw and the community built around the site to be valuable enough for
me to stick around. However, I will not waste the time and effort to participate
in a significant way knowing that my posts are subject to a deceitful camouflage
if I dare to speak my mind.
This article and comments will be printed to
PDF for the record as soon as this is posted. If you don't like what I have to say,
PJ, be honest, tell me so and tell me why. Don't play deceitful games. And if you
continue to do so, please do not pretend that you are taking a moral high road when
you are not.
Extremely disappointed and disheartened,
Weeble (grokweeble
SHIFT-2 gmail PERIOD com)
---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or
Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Click the "Weeble" link for Copying Permissions
and Contact Info.)
07:12 PM EST
Weeble was unjustly deleted
By Carla Schroder
November 10 2007
Some of you folks are assuming that Weeble did something
wrong, or worse,
writing him off as acceptable collateral
damage. Haven't you learned anything
from Groklaw? Don't
assume- look for evidence. If you don't have evidence, then
you have his reputation. If you don't know his reputation,
then you don't
know anything.
I read his original comments, and I watched them disappear
within minutes of being posted. His comments were along the
lines of "where's
marbux, and what does he think about
this"? Just like several other people who
did not get
deleted. Nothing against the TOS, nothing even mildly
controversial.
I am a longtime PJ and Groklaw supporter, and I'm not
ready to assume malice.
I have heard the stories about
stealthy, unfair moderation on Groklaw, and I
wrote them
off as unhappy trolls. But now that I've seen it with my
own
eyes, it has me wondering.
PJ often says "we work these things out in the
open." Well,
here's something that needs working out!
12:24 AM EST
where did weeble's comments go?
By PJ
November 10 2007
I haven't been online for hours. I've been working on
the transcript of the 341
meeting. But it's no secret
that we have a system whereby other moderators
can flag a comment for me to decide on one way or
another when I next have a
minute. I want that
system so I can overrule if someone has gone into
a questionable
area.
In your case, looking at it, I'm not going to
restore the comments,
because of some
issues I prefer not to discuss in public that
you are unknowingly
risking making a lot worse.
You are free to leave if you wish. But you could
have
instead written to me and discussed this privately
don't you think? But
you are free to be yourself,
and so am I. Do as you wish.
01:06 AM EST
Weeble was unjustly deleted
By PJ
November 10 2007
Carla, this is the second time you've attacked me
publicly. The last time
it was when I criticized
Linspire for its proprietary blobs.
Was I right
or was I right that time?
: )
So a little modesty, please.
So I'm slaving away on a transcript, so
everyone will have something to read,
and I come
back to find this unnecessary unkindness. Why
didn't you email
me, instead of forming a posse?
Don't do this on Groklaw, please. If there
are things that happen that you don't immediately understand, please give me
the
benefit of the doubt
that there may just be a reason. Or email me.
Sometimes it's a reason I can't discuss in public, for legal reasons or just
because it's because I'm
trying to treat someone with a measure of kindness.
Some things can't happen in public without hurting
people that may be in
a delicate state.
But by now, I think I've earned the
right to enough
respect that people should give
me the benefit of the doubt. I've demonstrated
good
judgment so far, haven't I?
01:37 AM EST
A matter of opinion.
By Anonymous
November 10 2007
"But by now, I think I've earned the right to enough respect that people
should
give me the benefit of the doubt."
I for one do not trust you.
08:18 AM EST
A matter of opinion.
By PJ
November 10 2007
Then leave. Seriously. I don't force you to
read here. If your only purpose
is to
disrupt and make ad hominem comments, then
that is your remedy and also
mine.
Fair warning.
11:46 AM EST
Positive Credit Where Credit Is Due
By Weeble
November 10 2007
I'm glad to be able to make a positive comment about this little brouhaha.
Thank you, PJ, for restoring my first comment after having said that you
wouldn't restore either of them (the second appears to have been permanently
deleted now, and we'll discuss that privately). I consider that a step in the
right direction (olive branch, perhaps?) on your part.
---
You Never Know
What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Click the "Weeble"
link for Copying Permissions and Contact Info.)
02:20 PM EST
Positive Credit Where Credit Is Due
By PJ
November 10 2007
Thank you, but I don't wish to mislead. I did
remove both of your comments,
the only two I
saw. Evidently the first was restored by me
earlier than our
current conversation, in the
ordinary course. It's what the flagging makes
possible, that I can restore until I finally
decide to deep six a comment.
04:07 PM EST
Moderation mechanism was not a secret
By Anonymous
November 11
2007
It's amazing how people continue to get upset over a simple moderation
mechanism that was put into Geeklog by its developers. The "hide moderated comment
from everyone but poster" approach was introduced way back in April 2004.
"3) The ability for selected moderators to hide comments from public view. This is dependant on a new permission. These moderators are not allowed to delete comments. It basically creates two levels of moderators. Deleting is only allowed by the higher group of moderators.
In addition to this, the comments will be kept visible to the user who posted the comment either based on the IP (anon users) or the user id (logged in users). To prevent users from reposting the same comment after they notice it is hidden."
link to email archive [ http://eight.pairlist.net/pipermail/geeklog-devel/2004-April/001063.html
]
Notice what this says. The moderation mechanism was created for use by
a secondary level of moderators who would not have the ability to delete comments,
only mark them as hidden. Only the highest level of moderator, probably PJ herself
or a site administrator, could make a final decision about comment deletion. In
the meantime, it was considered a site efficiency-enhancing feature by the Geeklog
developer to allow the poster to continue seeing the moderated comment. Personally,
I fail to see any evil motives in this reasoning.
Claims by some that this
approach is somehow dishonest or unethical seem rather hollow to me. With the number
of posters to Groklaw, and PJ's intentions to keep it a moderated comment site,
it is obvious that people other than PJ must at times act as moderators. PJ recently
confirmed in a post that many of these helper moderators work by flagging questionable
posts (thereby hiding them from everyone but the poster) for later review by someone
(PJ) for final disposition.
In your post, you make this argument:
"If there were objections to my posts, they should have either been deleted completely or I should have been notified why they were deemed objectionable."
Both of these proposed policies would be unworkable on a site such as Groklaw.
It's already been pointed out that 2nd tier moderators do not have the power to
delete comments, nor do I think PJ wants to give them such power. I personally have
experienced cases where my comments were somewhat overzealously moderated, but then
later restored upon further review. Immediate deletion would make such reconsiderations
impossible. As for the second option, the prospect of implementing a policy requiring
moderators to communicate with all posters of moderated comments explaining the
reasons for moderation appear totally infeasible for a non-commercial site with
the traffic of Groklaw.
--bystander1313
03:38 AM EST
Lack of communication is the problem
By Altair_IV
November 11
2007
The problem is not in the existence of such a feature, it's that posters
don't
know that it exists and that it may be used on their posts. It may not
be
"secret", but it certainly isn't general knowledge (I certainly didn't
know about it until this thread came up).
Not only that, but when it is used,
it's not always obvious right away that the
moderation has taken place. A user
can continue for a long time completely
oblivious to the fact that his post is
hidden. When such action is finally
discovered, it feels like a betrayal. It's
the lack of communication and
feedback that's causing the hard feelings, much
more than the moderation
itself.
It's very easy to jump to a wrong conclusion
when you don't have adequate
information to base it on. If giving a full explanation
to the moderated user
is impractical, then at the very least some form of automatic
notification
should be put into place. A simple automated attachment along the
lines of
"This message has been placed into a moderation queue pending review
and is
currently invisible to others" would go a long way towards calming people.
Gee, now it's got me wondering if any of my posts have ever been modified
without my knowledge.
---
Monsters from the id!!
m(_ _)m
09:00
AM EST
Lack of communication is the problem
By PJ
November 11 2007
It's not the fundamental problem, although it's the only problem you are thinking
about. Here's what you are not putting in the mix as you think about this issue:
Starting to get the picture? We have some readers who are perfectly lovely until
they get drunk or go off their meds, and a couple of them do that cyclicly. Now,
I could just ban them, but they are nice guys who have issues, and I'd rather let
them stay. So, let's say a guy gets drunk and combative, and he comes here to pick
a fight with some other commenter. It happens. Should I notify him that his stupid
donkey braying is in limbo? If I do, he'll surely do it some more and more and more.
What about the looney who posts porn comments about me and what he'd like to
do to me or what he imagines I'm doing to someone else? Shall we send him automatic
notices?
Oh, no, you say. Just delete. I am the only one currently who can.
Why? Because I want to give you nice guys every chance to participate, and what
if we get a volunteer with an agenda and he starts deleting stuff and I have no
way to even know it? And I can't be here 24/7. I can't even read all the comments
any more. If I did, I'd do nothing else. So personal notes are impossible. I can't
even answer all my email any more. I'm human. There are only so many hours in a
day.
See how complex? So whatever we do, it can't be automatic. So, what
else? The only actual solution would be if you guys who care about this a lot want
to collect enough money to hire someone to do this full time. If you do, I'll do
it. I can't pay for it. I can barely pay my bills. So if you want to do that, do
it somewhere else and then donate it as one donation for that purpose, and I'll
use it for that.
If you don't do that, there is no perfect solution. And
without wanting to insult anyone, what exactly have you complainers done for Groklaw
aside from leaving comments? I'm not saying your comments aren't treasured and valuable.
They are. But that isn't all Groklaw is about. How about transcribing? Is there
any reason why I had to spend three days doing this transcript editing?
You
want what you want, but you probably have never run a huge website like Groklaw,
and you have no idea how unworkable your solutions are in real life. And I'm going
to put Groklaw's survival and needs ahead of any person's personal taste or wishes,
because I have to. I always do my best to be fair and to consider what everyone
wants, but I also have to be realistic. And I'm the one on the hot seat, not you.
Sometimes I remove a comment that I know would lead to legal problems that the commenter
isn't intending and knows nothing about, but I do. If I ran Groklaw the way some
of you would like, we'd be taken down in no time. So the bottom line is this: these
are decisions I have to shoulder. I may not do them perfectly each and every time,
because for one thing I have to work mighty fast on everything, but I do my best.
If after you consider the whole picture, you don't wish to comment, don't. That's
your remedy. I'm open to realistic suggestions for improvement, but I have to not
implement the ones I know won't work.
12:17 PM EST
Lack of communication is the problem
By PJ
November 11 2007
Actually, on further reflection, I mean I am in the
hottest seat, in that
I am trying to keep Groklaw legal
and on the Internet. I don't mean you are not
on the
hot seat for your comments. You are. And sometimes
I protect you too.
Some will say, well, why have any moderation? Let's just
let it all be done
in public. We had that conversation
in 2004. Some set up a rival site to do exactly
that.
You know what happened? They ended up moderating, because
they had to.
They thought moderation by commenters
would work just swell, so that they set
that up. It
failed miserably, degenerating in record time into
comopeting
factions modding each other up and down in
ridiculous patterns.
The site
basically died. Well, it's at least in a
coma.
That whole push turned
out to be led by a guy who
turned out to be a SCO supporter. Go figure. And
periodically similar efforts are launched here. There
is no way to have a site
on the Internet any more
without some form of moderation. So which one?
None
of them are perfect that I've heard about, and
I've looked carefully.
So, imperfect is as good as it gets. And frankly,
Groklaw is one of the only
places on the Internet
where people have serious conversations without
flame
wars and other flotsam and jetsam that destroys
conversations on other sites
or makes it hard to
wade through. I'm proud of that. I consider it
one of
Groklaw's real achievements. And it's going
to stay as it is unless someone can
devise something
superior to my best judgment call. That's what it
boils down
to, isn't it?
Who would you trust more? A bunch of nameless
moderators?
Who?
See? It's easy to see problems, and you can
micromanage all the
time, like the stupid
endless procedural discussions I see on Wikipedia,
but I don't have time for that, and final call is
mine. That's it. It's my site.
So I get final
say.
02:20 PM EST
Could you clarify?
By Anonymous
November 11 2007
"That whole
push turned out to be led by a guy who
turned out to be a SCO supporter."
Who dat den?
07:01 PM EST
Could you clarify?
By PJ
November 11 2007
DDT
07:10
PM EST
Copyright 2007