2009.05.29
'A fetid soup of blather'
"I have enjoyed the occasional well-crafted submission, but they are usually drowned in a fetid soup of blather equivalent to standing in the middle of a room as a dozen boorish people shout inanities at one another."
That's one talk show host's view of unmoderated online comments. He says it would be like him going on the radio, "sharing a news story and then allowing the first 20 random callers to rant for 30 seconds each, without the slightest filter for coherence or civility"
His solution: "Comments sections deserve to survive only in an atmosphere of accommodating, responsible supervision."
I don't think we've ever reached the "fetid soup of blather" level on our comment section, though we do some have some level of moderation. What do you think would make online comments better, or do you think they're fine the way they are?
RSS feed 
I honestly like them the way they are. The level of moderating seems to keep things in check pretty well, and the debate that goes on is usually informative, if not entertaining. It rarely degrades to blather, and seems to get controlled pretty quickly when it does. Perhaps the only improvement would be requiring a site registration in order to post, but that's a fairly minor thing to do and probably wouldn't result in anything really changing.
Comment by Other John — May 29, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
The level of discourse is determined by the moderator. Moderators tend to be more accepting of courseness if it follows their beliefs. Conservative moderators will allow things from conservatives that they will not allow from liberals. Because they agree with the opinion, they will accept the tone. That's just natural behavior.
Lucianne Goldberg's blog attempted to handle this by not allowing posters to address each other directly. They had to stick to addressing the message rather than the messenger. In the end, she banned just about everyone in the blog.
Comment by Henry — May 29, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Having participated in both moderated and seemingly wild shoot outs of opinion, I much prefer the moderated forum like this one. I too support a registered user type of participation because I think it keeps things more civil and respectful when people know that they are known by the site moderator if not the "audience". I love the thread topics offered and I also love the open thread. My only peeve is the radical people who insist on pushing an agenda or cause as opposed to actually wanting dialogue or discussion. I do not go to sites I know espouse views I do not appreciate much less participate in the comments. I also know that my passion, impatience, affinity for my own opinion insure the need for a moderator if not a referee.
Ya think?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 29, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
There should be no rules or restrictions at all, and no moderators are needed. People should be allowed to express themselves any way they choose. No word ever physically harmed anyone. On the other hand, an 'ignore' feature should be available to everyone.
I think YouTube is the last unmoderated place whereyou can make almost any comment.
There. I just made your jobs easier while ensuring unrestricted flow of opinion to anyone who wants it.
Comment by DT — May 29, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Dan,
I used to be a moderator for America Online for years... and they did absolutely no pre-monitoring of comments for multiple reasons. It reeks of censorship in the commenter's view, but also pre-moderating comments legally can make you the "publisher" of said comment. If you irresponsibly allow a comment to slip through a filter that contains illegal material, you have less legal recourse if someone comes after you.
Personally, I think the commenting system on here is good and needs little change at this time. There is no cussing and no blatant disregard for other posters. While many of us probably privately or slightly publically dislike other posters for some political post or stance, at least we can all post our opinions, and that's a good thing.
Intelligent debate, I can definitely get behind. When it gets to be rhetoric, then it just becomes kind of pointless.
The only suggestion is one I made a while back, and thats the idea of a login system to protect from fraud and also could be tied into other features of the site.
Comment by scott — May 30, 2009 @ 2:39 am
His solution: "Comments sections deserve to survive only in an atmosphere of accommodating, responsible supervision."
Who was this? He makes blogs sound like a co-ed slumber party.
If a blog is owned by a particular entity - the Roanoke Times, AOL, etc., they are completely within their rights enforcing their own particular limits and restrictions. After all, no one is obligated to blog and being prevented from wallpapering the bandwidth with vulgarity, overt hostility, and cuss words hardly qualifies as a restriction on one's first amendment rights.
Trying to craft a post that adequately expresses our opinions while at the same time taking into account the influence of the moderators probably forces us to be more creative. Or maybe that's just me.
Comment by Kristen — May 30, 2009 @ 7:29 am
DT: the main reason there aren't many unmoderated places left where you can make almost any comment is because those sites became riddled with juvenile cursing, name-calling, and spam. I like the RTs moderation, for the most part, and they've had to filter my comments on more than one occasion.
I don't always agree with how they filter (if I say someone is acting like a something-or-another, it's not the same as saying they ARE that something-or-another), and as Henry said, there is always going to be a built in bias towards the view you agree with (like, it's okay say someone acted like a bully, or in an unprofessional manner if the RTEB agrees, but not to say someone acted like a ninny or a twit if the RTEB disagrees.)
Still, I'd rather the moderation go a little bit too far in that direction, as long as it's consistent, than there not be any moderation.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 30, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Rob,
The one reason sites feel they must moderate is legal liability. If someone goes across town and shoots somebody who made a post they didn't like, the sites don't want to be held responsible. This is another consequence of the crazy sue-happy environment we live in.
Otherwise, just have the iggy feature, so you don't have to look at spam or what you call juvenile comments.
Comment by DT — May 30, 2009 @ 9:41 am
DT: if the only moderation were the "iggy" feature, there are a number of regular posters I would have ignored long ago because of their stances on some issues. And that would have been a shame, because almost every one of those posters have at some time or another made a good point on another issue (or even on the one that I disagree with them on) that I would have missed. As well, I would have missed statements that they made that were either factually incorrect and needed correcting or statements that they made correcting something on which I was factually incorrect.
I know that without the knowledge that moderation is going to happen, I would make many inflammatory statements that would turn off those people who might otherwise agree with me. I'm sure I would have made hateful comments towards (for example) Sandi, in the heat of the moment, that would have lost me someone I consider otherwise a friend (as much as we can be merely through a message board.) I disagree with Henry very often, but there is an enforced level of courtesy and civility between us that, were we to meet in person for some reason, we could at least look each other in the eye. I don't know that Henry would succumb to the temptation to say things to me along those lines without moderation, but I'm positive that I would. In fact, I have, but thankfully those statements were not allowed.
I don't think the Round Table moderation, as it exists, is onerous or in any way inhibits the expression of opinions and ideas. It merely forces you to use language and arguments that you don't have to be ashamed of later. I've seen the types of free-wheeling boards you talk about, and the signal-to-noise ratio is so out of whack there's very little reason to go to those sites.
An ignore feature isn't necessarily bad, and could have a place even in a moderated forum such as this one. The moderation employed here means I would have to use it only on very rare occasions.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 30, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Rob, so what you're saying is you need the moderates to save you from yourself. I don't need such a restriction.
Comment by DT — May 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Well said my friend Rob Miles. This is the best site I have ever participated on or visited. Some sites, I see the comments and just give up the thought of trying. Such is the beauty of the internet and the ugliness of the internet. RTEB has it right IMHO and I appreciate the moderators even as I am sure I sorely try them and I appreciate people like you, Kristen, Other John, HCS and others I would never have "met" otherwise.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 30, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
From my experience, some posters need protection while others do not. Those who need it tend to flock where they get it. The rest of us go where we can find a good debate even if it means being handcuffed a bit.
Comment by DT — May 30, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
The RT has their name on this blog and they own it. They can put up what they like and reject what they don't. Anyone who feels unfairly inhibited is naturally free to start their own blog.
Every site has their own Terms of Service. It's not unusual.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 8:00 am
DT: I imagine a lot of people here don't need the moderation, and could conduct themselves just fine in a "free wheeling" atmosphere. I know, from experience, that I cannot. I'm not saying every post of mine would be filled with immature cursing and name calling, but it only takes one or two.
I'm glad there are people like you who don't resort to those types of post. So it makes me wonder why you would want others to have the ability to post whatever they want, without moderation. You've seen what those sites become, and even with the ability to ignore the worst offenders, very little of merit ever gets discussed. Why do you want that here? If you don't need to use those tactics, and I assume you're intelligent enough to not want others to, why does it bother you that it's suppressed here?
It's not a free-speech issue; everyone is welcome to express their opinion here. So what is it, exactly, that bothers you about the moderation?
Comment by Rob Miles — May 31, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Sandi, I agree with all the names you mentioned, and I'm sure that you agree with me in appreciating Henry, Herb, Jack, and all the others that we so often disagree with. Even though I disagree with their opinions the majority of the time, I get more out of discussing the issues they bring up than I would if we all agreed on everything and didn't have anyone challenging our opinions. I hope they feel the same way.
I just doubt, based on my experience in other forums (even when I haven't been one of the culprits) that would be the case if there weren't the small amount of moderation that we have here.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 31, 2009 @ 8:58 am
Rob,
What bothers me about moderation is I like being able to express my ideas fully without censorship of moderators who disagree with me politically. I also don't mind if those who disagree with me are free to do the same. I can take it. No word has ever injured me.
I have never seen a site that permits near-total free expression, except for Youtube. The problem with Youtube is not immature or insulting comments; it's that it's so hard and takes so much time to find the comments, especially if thousands have been made. It's a format problem.
I would love to have a political forum that is no-holds-barred. As I say, conservatives don't need protection from moderators. Our arguments can withstand any test. It's the other folks who feel they need a helping hand.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 10:32 am
DT: in what way does the RT moderation keep you from being able to express your ideas fully? You're political opinions, whether the editors agree with them or not, are not being censored. Disagreements are common, and I too have no problem with the disagreements.
Since you have never seen the type of site (except for Youtube) that allows for the type of free expression that you want, I can confidently state that you have no idea what you are wishing for. If conservative arguments can withstand any test, why do you want a forum that guarantees those counter-arguments will get lost in a sea of childish behavior?
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would prefer that type of environment, unless they themselves are itching to engage in such behavior. It's a great way to take the focus off of your own arguments when they falter, so I suppose that could be a motivation.
Comment by Rob Miles — May 31, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Rob,
"DT: in what way does the RT moderation keep you from being able to express your ideas fully? You're political opinions, whether the editors agree with them or not, are not being censored."
Simple. They don't publish some of my posts.
"Since you have never seen the type of site (except for Youtube) that allows for the type of free expression that you want, I can confidently state that you have no idea what you are wishing for. If conservative arguments can withstand any test, why do you want a forum that guarantees those counter-arguments will get lost in a sea of childish behavior?"
Again, YouTube's problem isn't a sea of childish behavior; it's a format problem. If you could access responses to your posts easily, YouTube would be pretty good. Really, some of the leftwing sites have the best formatting. The ideal place would be a leftwing site with no censorship, but such a site doesn't exist because liberals wouldn't use them. They only go to heavily moderated sites where they can get protection. Like this one. Note how all the libs love it here.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
DT: I guess I'll just have to take your word for it that they don't publish some of your posts, and it's not because you engaged in the childish behavior we've been talking about.
You think this site is "heavily moderated"? You really have no idea what moderation is, DT. And I suspect you've never been to a "liberal" forum that practices the absolute censorship that I've seen at many conservative, especially religious, sites.
Perhaps the "libs love it here" because ideas get discussed. In my experience, liberal sites *may* moderate discussions for language and behavior, but all too often conservative sites moderate content.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 1, 2009 @ 7:21 am
What, precisely, DT do you think libs need "protection" from? Perhaps we're intimidated by your towering intellect?
Anyway...this blog is about 75-25 right-left. So someone certainly loves it here...do the math yourself.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 7:44 am