JayReilly mentioned this place (thank you) over on The Untrusted a day or two ago, which has prompted me to actually post something here.
One of the problems with the ease of creating places on the internet is that there is no longer any feeling of achievement or attachment to them once you have done so. You can have a blog up and running in about five minutes; after about ten, you have made your first post; after about half an hour, it is forgotten and abandoned and you are on to something new.
Anyway, I think this blog was started when there was a little parpy, squelchy uproar over on Comment is Free about the banning of LordSummerisle. CiF has these little episodes of outrage every now and again and the formula of the editors is always the same: let it blow itself out and all will be forgotten.
It is a policy which certainly works because Matt Seaton has, as far as I know, still not made any pronouncement about the fact that all the below the line contributors to CiF had noticed that the moderation had become fickle, malicious, politically and ideologically motivated, probably swayed and skewed by personal vendettas and byzantine and detached from its own guidelines in execution.
On the plus side, though, WADDYA (or Jaffa Cake Central, as it is called by HankScorpio) was still providing a forum for luvvies to back-slap and air-kiss and an arena for occasional idiot-baiting.
Comment is Free, from the viewpoint of the onlooker (oh, I forgot to mention, I was banned during the great Summerisle Siege and have never bothered going back) seems to be getting predictably and inevitably worse.
There are highlights, though. Sometimes, when a particularly imbecile article is doing spectacularly badly, Seaton will step into the fray to save the day and the reputation of The Guardian, or so he thinks.
From the sidelines, it looks like someone strutting into the room to parade their ignorance like a trail of soiled and smeared lavatory paper protruding from their trouser leg and clinging to their shoes.
This is Seaton's little star turn: displaying an aggressive social ineptness at the same time as breaking most of the community guidelines in one or two clumsy and meaningless sentences.
At the moment, occasionally checking on CiF is like watching a discarded bag of improbably-coloured boiled sweets melt into a soft, sticky clump in the sunshine. No bang and no whimper as they simply ooze and cling together in a welded knot of sickliness.
Anything more spectacular, though, would probably be like a small explosion in a marshmallow factory - all soft, inoffensive and unmemorable colours and the substance of a damp cloud mixed with the spittle and sputum of a right-on, outraged hissy-fit.
So, if anyone should read this and if they have also seen evidence that Matt Seaton ever managed to address the moderation scandal of Comment is Free, perhaps they could let me know.
Otherwise, it is probably safe to assume that the fantasy land of CiF has reverted to abusing and making fools of those who keep it propped up with free content and the mutually idiotic symbiosis continues.
PS The reason for not doing much here is that I am doing stuff elsewhere. More in due course.
The reason Matt Seaton hasn't ever managed to address the moderation scandal of Comment is Free is in his words:
ReplyDelete"we don't get involved in their day-to-day operational decisions."
Going back to the LordSummerisle suspension, SheepHerderr carefully analysed the trap that Georgina Henry and her people had fallen into in allowing editorial control of CiF and as such an important part of The Guardian to pass into the hands of the moderators, who in fairness have taken up the challenge with gusto. As such she and her people have efffectively washed their hands of any responsibility for upholding the principle of freedom of speech.
Sheepherderr, whose post was not surprisingly deleted, spoke of the relentless pursuit by members of the Untrusted community, of any poster on CiF who stood up to their bullying, and how when confronted with their own words that they'd freely posted on public websites, they went crying to the moderators, in the full knowledge that this would result in the banning and silencing of those about whom they complained.
Georgina Henry wrote on 16 March about LordSummerisle, "some posters fundamentally don't believe we have the right to moderate this site and make decisions about what is and isn't a breach of the talk policy."
Now were that the case I think she would have the support of many who now feel aggrieved at what is happening to CiF. But the "we" she talks about doesn't actually exist because it is "they", namely the moderators, who make the decisions quite independently of her and The Guardian's editorial staff. To quote Seaton, who I assume speaks on behalf of the paper's editorial staff on these matters:
"we don't get involved in their day-to-day operational decisions."
He might also have added, 'nor in their longer term decisions'.
I don't think the term "Kafkaesque" is inappropriate in describing what has happened to the management of CiF.
Tomper2 writing in response to Ms Henry's claim that LordSummerisle "knows the rules" is quite right when he says:
"I think a more likely explanation is that he doesn't know what the rules mean in practice because none of us really know what the rules mean in practice, like none of us knows how long is a piece of string."
And this is confirmed by this response from the moderators that I received after my own banning following a campaign by The Untrusted:
"You can appeal to us via this email address if you'd like us to take another look at your
case in the future, at a time when you feel you would be able to more closely adhere to house rules. However, the fact that you maintain you have never contravened our community standards illustrates that perhaps CiF is not the forum for you."
So while it's the case that there appears to be little control over moderation by CiF editorial staff, there are some pretty nasty people who on the one hand proclaim freedom of speech, but on the other connive with the moderators to silence those with whom they disagree.
And for those who think I'm exaggerating my claims about The Untrusted, here's the proof:
ReplyDeleteAndysays, now pounding the South West coastal path - 27 December, 2009
"Enough’s enough, BiteTheHand. You’re clearly too deluded to see that your banning from CiF was brought on by your own actions. You seem to be under the misapprehension that some sort of Untrusted cabel is behind your demise."
"No one here has sought to have you banned, even though a couple of us would have had every justification in doing so (and let’s not forget your attempts over the months to blacken many of the individuals here and indeed the whole Untrusted site with the CiF moderators). In the end, no one here really cares enough about you to go to the trouble."
scherfig, who since posting this has had his own bust up with his fomer Untrusted friends - 02 April, 2010
"I will defend you to the death against real ad homs. Don't conflate what I say with the likes of Bitey. (Bitethehand) I deleted a lot of his comments here a while back, and also (probably) got him banned from Cif as jiasa. I make no apologies for that - freedom of speech? Censorship? Fuck him."
And BeautifulBurnout, CiF's very own barrister, scourge of the UK Border Agency, the Immigration Tribunals and to her credit the BNP:
"I have no idea whether Scherfig was responsible for you being banned the first time - I certainly reported you myself after weeks of relentless attack on here."
Relentless? Please, a little realism. The reason you reported me was in your own words:
"Now, if you want to accuse me of "duffing up" BTH, I stand guilty as charged. Thing is, he shouldn't pick personal fights with people based on misrepresentation, innuendo and smear and expect them to bend over and drop their trousers when he does. I have been done over like a kipper by him in the past and know that other people who post on here have too. I reserve the right to point out when he is talking shite on any forum of my choosing."
So misrepresentation, innuendo and smear, what some would consider to be the barrister's stock in trade, are now excuses to call on the censors to wield the big stick?
Oh and by the way, I've also been banned from posting on The Untrusted site several times, by its moderators.
ReplyDeleteI've posted on the Untrusted site for about a year now. And I am a regular reader on an almost daily basis.
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge no one has been banned from the site. Technically it's simply not possible to ban anyone from posting on what is an open public site.
Hi Bitey. Just to clarify, as I know you like to deal in facts. I have certainly deleted some offensive posts of yours on UT, but you are not banned (as Deano says that's not technically possible)- and you're still posting there aren't you? I've not had a 'bust up', and they are not 'former' friends - no past tense. And finally, I unfortunately do not have the power to ban you from Cif - you managed that all by yourself. While reporting several of your vile comments as jiasa I did inform the moderators that you were an already banned poster using a new name. I like to think that Cif took that small contribution of mine into account when they deleted your account as jiasa. However, I had no part in getting you deleted as delingha (that was you, right?) or any of your other names. You're pretty hard to miss when you revert to type, as you invariably do. If people report your posts on Cif, perhaps you should ask yourself what you are doing to cause this, instead of whining about freedom of speech and playing the victim. Although delusion and terminal stupidity are hard things to cure, so no doubt you will continue indefintitely with this unhealthy cycle you are locked into. I pity you.
ReplyDeleteOi Bitey, just because I’m
ReplyDelete“now pounding the South West coastal path”,
doesn’t mean I’m not watching you and that you can quote me to support your nonsensical campaign to install yourself as a martyr to free-speech.
As I said before
“In the end, no one really cares”.
Atomboy:
I'd agree whole-heartedly with what you've written above, except when you say
"all the below the line contributors to CiF had noticed that the moderation had BECOME fickle, malicious, politically and ideologically motivated, probably swayed and skewed by personal vendettas and byzantine and detached from its own guidelines in execution"
Surely many of us ATLers and ex-ATLers noticed this about (at least) a year ago? CiF isn't really about genuine debate, it's about generating page hits and providing some spurious support for NewGuardian’s cosy little world view.
scherfig:
Glad to see that reports of "bust-ups" and "former friends" have been greatly exaggerated ;-)
Now I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this if someone's got a different explanation, but after posting several times on The Untrusted Site, I received a red warning notice indicating that my posts wouldn't be accepted. This has been repeated with a number of different user names. Furthermore the 'problem' seems to be specific to my usual IP address. See this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloggertipsandtricks.com/2006/10/how-to-ban-person-from-your-blog-or.html
Anyway since I've been posting as Bitethehand the problem seems to have gone away and of course there are ways around it.
Scherfig, you say:
"If people report your posts on Cif, perhaps you should ask yourself what you are doing to cause this, instead of whining about freedom of speech and playing the victim."
"Whining about freedom of speech" - an interesting way of putting it with which I'm sure the moderators would agree.
No people report my posts - or at least the one person who has at last admitted to doing so, because they don't like their own points of view being exposed as somewhat lacking in credibility.
BeautifulBurnout, writing as a kind of ad hoc moderator's assistant:
ReplyDelete"The only time I ever report one of your posts is when you are attacking me and other people."
How amusing that she says without any hint of chagrin that she appoints herself as judge of who and what can be allowed on CiF.
And actually I very vary rarely attack people I attack their arguments - about a fifth of the time and the rest I inform.
But forgive me for thinking this exchange of ideas is what CiF is all about. Strange how I could be so mistaken for so long.
Your new approach - "Freedom of speech does not include freedom to libel people" interested me sufficiently to examine my previous posts.
The last time you accused me of libelling someone it was Victoria Sharkey of MediVisas, when you posted:
"For once I am afraid that I am going to use the Report Abuse button on your ass (although many's the time I have resisted temptation in the past) because you are libelling this woman".
But you failed to provide any evidence for that when asked and now you'll have a hard job doing the same for yourself.
And I won't be posting this on WDYWTTA as you suggested, - I'll only be banned again - but I might just post it here:
http://cifmoderationwatch.blogspot.com/
So here it is.
No people report my posts - or at least the one person who has at last admitted to doing so, because they don't like their own points of view being exposed as somewhat lacking in credibility.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can't speak for anyone else, Bitey, but that certainly wasn't why I reported you, although if it helps you to believe that, please carry on. Anyway, I'm glad to see that your victim mentality and unshakeable sense of righteousness is bearing up well under the heinous persecution you are suffering for daring to tell the truth. Keep on fighting the good fight!
Hi, Andy, hope you're well.
scherfig:
ReplyDelete"Well, I can't speak for anyone else, Bitey, but that certainly wasn't why I reported you, although if it helps you to believe that, please carry on..... I like to think that Cif took that small contribution of mine into account when they deleted your account as jiasa."
Well thanks for that honesty scherfig and I'm going to look at my posts as jiasa to see which one's you might have felt were sufficiently abusive, dishonest, libellous etc to warrant such action on your part.
I've found an interesting post of mine as jiasa from 13 February, Chinese New Year's Eve. This was the culmination of a long exchange with a number of posters including manyellens, WheatFromChaff and BeautifulBurnout, who threatened:
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't want to blamed for getting you banned again".
(which of course she did)
To which I replied:
"Is that an admission of guilt?"
Mrs B had accused UK Government officers of the criminal activity of shredding evidence, something she later tried to dismiss as "a throwaway line", to which I responded:
'Now I'm confused as suddenly you turn in an instant from being CiF's leading authority on all matters legal, to claiming you're little more than an anonymous poster who wants to crack a few risque jokes about the legal system.
"But earlier on this thread you were castigating Trickyuno, Goldmine, Psalmist, Fireships, svistz, lokischild and weaselmeister on points of law and chiding them for their ignorance and contempt of them. But now you want everyone to assume you're just a "throwaway line" merchant."
And I suspect this is what really got up her nose and in all probability reporting me once more to the moderators.
More about this alliance between The Untrusted and the moderators later I expect.
Psalmist.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing as important as feeling important.
Burnout knows about that and terminal hypocrisy.
Psalmist is no more, gone the way of many identities before.
ReplyDeleteThis time for questioning La Reeds right to regale all and sundry with either her own opinion or maybe the Guardian's, who knows under the almighty "G".
Also for calling full time Cif arse licker Ally F "a part time woman."
I think this guy is just waiting until Cif give him a job as volunteer bog cleaner.
Still what's in an ID?