Perhaps CiF should try listening to Matt Mullenweg, founder and boss of WordPress, the software which runs millions of blogs across the internet.
You know, someone who actually stands a chance of knowing what he is talking about, as opposed to an unknown cyclist from nowhere.
About a year ago, Mullenweg wrote a blog post about how to kill your online community. Again, it has to be pointed out that blogging - of which technology WordPress has always been a leader - is what made the internet social and interactive and predicated sites like CiF.
In terms of moderation, Mullenweg certainly advises against allowing a free-for-all, with its legal implications and tendency to annoy everyone into leaving. However, most arguments about CiF have never been to allow unmoderated commenting. They have simply been for the moderation to achieve both consistent and acceptable standards. Of course, according to Seaton (is he still there, by the way, or has his sideways slide taken him to wreak havoc in pastures new?) there is nothing wrong with moderation at CiF. He is right and hundreds and hundreds of people who comment are wrong.
Anyway, here are a couple of points from Matt Mullenweg, which should have such a familiar ring to the CiFerati that, when they read them, they will think they have become the clappers on the bells into which a puzzled Quasimodo is staring.
Be Famous! You’ll get thousands of comments on almost everything you post and make sure only to let through the most sycophantic and saccharine, don’t tolerate real conversation or debate. To spice it up every now and then opine on a known controversial subject like abortion and let your audience loose on each other like gladiators while you watch from the stands.
Make People Click Click Click. Ideally do 1-comment-per-page CNET-style and your pageviews will go through the roof, but if you can’t stomach that just make comments-per-page setting low or have some sort of complicated nesting scheme.
Treat Everyone the Same. If I’ve left hundreds of great comments over many years on your site, please make me wait in the moderation queue like some random stranger off Digg. Don’t let anyone know I’m a regular, or talk to me, or invite me to test out beta stuff, or pretty much anything that acknowledges my existence or shows any degree of trust.
Remember, though, if anyone from CiF Towers should catch sight of this: it is a list of what not to do!
You have to make this plain because otherwise, like New Labour thinking Nineteen Eighty-Four was a political instruction manual, the halfwits in charge of CiF will simply obey mindlessly, like they would follow whatever fashion or domestic advice is the article of faith du jour.
Since the last time my identity on CiF was exposed by that stalwart of free speech BeautifulBurnout which resulted in yet another ban for me, I've been posting as Licentialiquendi.
ReplyDeleteSo now that darling of CiF Ally Fogg has joined MrsB in the role of censor. Here he is today about me challenging his misuse of a report in The Sun of all rags, to back up his defence of allowing men accused of raping women to have anonymity:
"They are not case studies, they are newspaper reports. I linked to the first newspapers that came up from google, but if you don't believe The Sun, here's another."
""I'd like to link to a nice liberal lefty source like the Guardian, but as we both know (we've been here before, Bitey) the Guardian has a strict policy of never reporting cases of false rape allegations, even when they are proved beyond all reasonable doubt and lead to such horrific, fatal consequences."
Now there's only one reason for Mr Fogg identifying me and that's to prevent him being criticised. So let's hear no more from him about being a champion of liberty, as when his back's against the wall he'll be as dictatorial as those he claims to despise.
So why have moderators when the likes of AllyF will do the job for free?
For the history file:-
ReplyDeleteIf I worked Atomboy's link to Scorpio's archived CiF material correctly this (at page 163 of the 336 listed) seems to be the man's last "undisappeared" post before his banning:
"HankScorpio 13 Apr 09, 10:30pm
@Janissary - "Sounds like they were caught red-handed. Can't say I have any sympathy for them."
Hmm, interesting stuff from a soi-disant "liberal". Still, as some of us know, there's a world of difference between those who believe in political liberalism and those who believe in the Land Value Tax."
Sounds pretty inoffensive to be the 'final straw' don't it?
When I have some time I'll try for a count of the 'removed by a moderator' tally in the run up to the banning.
Regards Atomboy.
Copied from UT todays date:
ReplyDelete"I don't know if it's just my computer but the link that Atomboy provided for us on the 24th which accessed Hanks archived material no longer works??
If that is the Guardian closing the route off then it really is plain malice and the evidence was there that material still existed on the 24th May 2010
If it is a general lock out those of you that tried the link and know that Hank's work was there will hopefully record your recollection as evidence here or over on CiF moderation watch"
For the record:
ReplyDelete.. the Guard search engine was, as Swifty suspected, the fault in hiding Hank's and Monkeyfish's archived comments.
It's working again and thus they are now available again.