Good morning. Welcome to The Hiddens, an experimental series of diaries for (unofficial) discussion and reporting of moderation activity on Daily Kos. My name is T. Max Devlin, and I will be your facilitator.
[Update Note: From now on I will be using the character string '&&&' (three ampersands) to indicate the main additions in the update. Other than minor edits (which could still have major impact, only the last/final version is canonical) all new text will be below that point as marked. You can use the [Ctrl]-[F] feature of your browser to skip there.]
This series, and the debate itself which it (partially) embodies, continues to develop. I'd like to give a shout-out to Seneca Doane for yesterday's contribution to the discussion and nice things to say about The Hiddens in a diary discussing HOS policy and procedures in general, and in the case of Red State Ambassador, which we've also dealt with here. Our conclusions are similar, but please ignore the embarrassing comments by Yours Truly in the discussion threads. I'm considering adding a link list to other diaries discussing CM (community moderation), but to be honest I'd prefer if someone else did that, and just included me on their list. I can only juggle so many balls at a time. Currently, my limit seems to be one, and it doesn't look like I'm improving with practice.
Today's edition of The Hiddens is extra special. Sure, it's only a week old, so they're all still precious, but just as yesterday we dipped our toe in the waters of I/P trolling, today we seek to beard the lion in its den by confronting the "trivial" debate inherent in The Great Pie Fight which has been raging on DK for the last four years.
Four years. Has it really been that long since that young buck who impressed so many with his speech at the '04 convention moved to oppose the entrenched support for a former President's wife? Yes it has, four years and some months in fact. And since that time, at least half of the angry ridicule on this site has been directed not at conservatives but at our own. The id of not just the Democratic Party but the entire nation, and thanks to the wonders of America's exceptional position in the world, the fate of the planet. So it is no small surprise it has generated flame wars on an internet web site.
But I don't want to get too hung up on it. Although that is a strong component of why I've decided DK needs what help I can give it, that isn't the sole focus of the help I'm offering. Squelching the flames that will continue to re-ignite whenever someone complains that the President isn't showing leadership or is being insufficiently liberal is no more than a side-benefit to improving our posting policies and moderation practices. So let's get to it. I look forward to your comments, questions, suggestions, and tips. (On that note, I'd just say that if it comes down to a choice, I'd prefer recs on the tip jar to recs for the diary. I don't think this series is ready for prime time yet, so I am not anxious to get it on the rec list. If you'd like to follow the debate, add the tag "meta" to your stream. If you'd like to follow just this series, you can use the tag "meta meta". AFAIK, I'm the only one using that one.)
Here's a brief explanation of the format:
Incident: Identifier/snarky label
Incident notes: description (rec/hide/reply)
Diary notes: category or description
User notes: history or focus
HR notes: general
Disposition: pseudo-category Status: best guess
I'm going to skip over any additions to the "self-immolating former fatty TU" incident from yesterday ('Obese?' et. al,) and take a step back into the brambles of I/P debate. This was apparently a diary that upset some people:
Incident: 'Obama the new Arafat'
Incident notes: tip jar (3*/8/44**)
Diary notes: I/P, cross-post
User notes: "The American public & leadership is increasingly neutral or opposed to advancing Israel's cause."
HR notes: *Yours Truly uprate, **total diary comments (0 on tip jar)
Disposition: subject trolling Status: casual trolling
The diarist is a "repeat offender", apparently either a big fan of getting his tip jars hidden, or unable to figure out how to avoid it. Otherwise, innocuous.
And then the shit hits the fan, with some pointed and purposefully trivial trolling that touches on a sore spot for some Kossacks:
Incident: 'Graceful as always'
Incident notes: personal, moderation, trivial (0/18/5)
Diary notes: Just because Obamaphobia is subtle, doesn't mean it isn't there
User notes: defending a trolling friend, engaging in soap opera
HR notes: uprates were removed by poster's request
Disposition: HR abuse Status: 4.0 CM
Bringing up old grievances is, by design, disruptive. I am unsure whether the TU (because of course everyone involved is a TU) that got hidden was trying to make a point, or just had a lapse in judgment. I've invited them (and of course I invite everybody, involved or not) to discuss it in the comments of The Hidden, so I will publish today's first draft immediately in hopes that might happen. &&& I've also added to the discussion in thread. Until more TUs adopt my suggestion that they confine discussions about hidden comments to The Hiddens, I'm not going to forego the opportunity to give my two cents in-thread. My contribution may contain some useful historical context of dubious validity for those unfamiliar with the 'soap opera' designation in the user notes, above.
Moving on we have what I think I'll start calling a "defense troll". This is a Kossack who decides to buck PC convention, usually in a call for "personal responsibility". The 'Obese?' troll from the last several days is such a case, or at least started out that way. They are probably the most frequent cause of comment hiding. And it should be noted that, by definition if not by nature, they have nothing to do with site moderation, meaning intrusions based on subterfuge which should be banned. Properly handled defense trolling is the reason we have safe havens like IGTNT, BK, LGBT, and RKBA diaries. Improperly handled defense trolling is the reason those safe havens continue to find themselves under assault.
Incident: 'Personal responsibility'
Incident notes: defense troll (0/3/6)
Diary notes: LGBT
User notes: adequate followup
HR notes: Effective combination of HR and replies
Disposition: category Status: semi-iconic
The ensuing discussion illuminated some points about teenage sexuality and illustrated why a principle outing a student is unacceptable, while still hiding the offending commnet. The hidden comment did not present anything false or falsely, though its tone was supercilious in the way that most defense trolls are, but was uncontroversially a troll of the most offensive sort, unequivocally blaming the victim because 'she deserved it'. An argument can be made that finding that less offensive if the gender of the pronoun is different is sexist, but I'm enough of a biological reductionist to say otherwise.
Quickly before I forge ahead to the last few currently on the list, I want to make a note about that issue. I passed a point yesterday when I'd "caught up", and could (not that I necessarily will) try to focus on "real time". If The Hiddens is going to become a location and 'clearing house' for moderation discussions (please feel free to pimp any related diaries you may have or see, good or bad, in comments) the way I envision, it will be unremarkable that what is said here might impact the process I'm reporting on. I've tried to make a note whenever I am myself involved in moderation issues outside The Hiddens inside The Hiddens. Very recently someone questioned whether I can be objective. These are related points that I'd like to address.
Humans can't be objective. I'm not an exception. As I said in a comment in Seneca's diary, (I think,) I'm not claiming to be any Spock-like dispassionate ideal of Platonic virtue. So if being objective is called for, I may not seem to be the guy you want. But it isn't. Being objective isn't what makes a good moderator. Being fair is what makes a good moderator, and being reasonable, and being open-minded. But not so open your brain falls out, as Carl Sagan said so well. Most of the time when someone is claiming objectivity, or claiming to admire objectivity, it is a pose meant to allow them to impose their political will without opposition. It may be true, for example, that facts have a liberal bias, but it's only true if liberals have a factual bias.
I do see the role of The Hiddens to allow for an honest, open, above-board real time reaction to HR abuse. But I am hesitant to make that the central goal, because until a broader consensus is developed about the moderation policies themselves, nothing will come from attempts to coordinated attempts to enforce them except more pie fights. Once the pastry starts flying, everyone looks silly. So I'm quite comfortable limiting the amount of reactivity The Hiddens encourages.
But if I document messages on the hiddens in The Hiddens while they are still available for marking (rec or HR) then I'm inevitably going to have an impact on the things I'm observing simpy by observing them, even if I don't myself enter the fray. Any pretense I have of objectivity comes from my willingness to put my understanding in writings, not any conviction that they are inherently more accurate than anyone else's. When I interpret a situation and provide my assessment, I'm conscious my description is just one perspective, not necessarily any more accurate, let alone prevailing, than others'.
In an effort to keep things above-board, but not necessarily objective, I'm going to try to note when a hidden comment is still open for marking. Because of the general focus on analysis of rather than response to moderation activities, I don't know when my documentation of an incident will be published. And sometimes I might just not pay any attention to it. So bear that in mind, and be sure to check the hidden comments list yourself if you can.
And now, we return again to I/P country, for:
Incident: 'Club med (or 'I, for one, have no stake')
Incident notes: defense? PC? knee-jerk I/P trolling? knee-jerk HR abuse? (0/3/6)
Diary notes: I/P (anti-GOP)
User notes: TU, old timer
HR notes: uncontroversial, but followup thread questions HR (without uprate)
Disposition: bad form Status: ? open
To be perfectly honest, I thought the hidden comment was somewhat callous but also intended as humor.
And now the kind of incident that makes my job easy; a string of comments from the same thread in the same diary. Of course, my job is never easy; it took me five minutes just to decide whether this is a separate incident from the previous one, because it is on the same diary (and of course on the same topic, the I/P pie fight.)
Incident: 'Lebensraum'
Incident notes: multiple (5) comment trolling thread (0/35/19 combined)
Diary notes: I/P (anti-GOP)
User notes: TU, long timer, well respected
HR notes: good calls, adequate response, dedicated but casual trolling by a Kossack
Disposition: casual I/P troll Status: boring
This one highlights the question of balance between trolling and 'truth telling' which the moderation task demands that we consider. Socrates was a world-class gadfly. But he also got bony mojo for it, so to speak. The followup threads attempting to impose social moderation in addition to community moderation were unsurprisingly both criticized and defended.
Today's final update will have to wait while I read one of the diaries which interests me. More later.
More I/P:
Incident: 'Billion Dollar sparks'
Incident notes: Flat-out Rant (1/5/4)
Diary notes: I/P, could be trivial
User notes: does not diary, but good comment record
HR notes: might make a good diary, but would still get donuts
Disposition: rant Status: everyone has a breaking point
I've seen worse explative-soaked tirades, but it isn't a very fresh in the I/P milieu.
&&&
Things are getting hopping now that the weekend's upon us, so these will be briefly reported, though volumes could be written, at least on the first one:
Incident: 'GBCW-ish'
Incident notes: the fukushima of BK diaries (3/36/7, 4/15/6)
Diary notes: BK
User notes: TU hidden in own diary
HR notes: The LGBT factionalists and the BK factionalists have words, and it ain't pretty
Disposition: existential Status: breaking, open
If nothing else, this highlights the problem with my "in-thread discussion is distraction" approach/suggestion. It seems pretty obvious that hashing out this shit (I was going to say stuff, but let's not mince words) is the purpose of the thread, the diary, the site, and the Party.
It's a night for runs and sequels; there are two more incidents in the previous diary:
Incident: 'night riders'
Incident notes: AYCMAR? (2/15/5, 0/10/2)
Diary notes: BK ('GBCW-ish', above)
User notes: "I am not being a bully. Personally I dont think this guy has it all there, so I kinda feel bad for him. " From a previous close call in the thread.
HR notes: multiple uprated comments in the thread, unrelated to LGBT (above)
Disposition: shame Status: fugly, open
Incident: 'Waaaahmbulance'
Incident notes: Yet Another GBCW-ish (see above) (0/10/3, 0/7/4, 0/12/8)
Diary notes: BK ('GBCW-ish', above)
User notes: newbie
HR notes: Couldn't be trickier, repeated derision minimizing BK grievance
Disposition: recipes preferred Status: pitiful, open
This is the kind of behavior we're modeling for the newbies. Is ridiculing the diarist for being a whiner only appropriate if they're white, male, and middle class? Is it a coincidence we're mostly white, male, and middle class, and we're having these problems?
Now one that caught my eye quickly but turned out a little disappointing:
Incident: 'Clown rape'
Incident notes: multiple (5) comment trolling thread (0/23/12 - combined)
Diary notes: Reaction to 'Palin jokes' from yesterday
User notes: Return of Son of 'Obese?', dude is having a hard week
HR notes: Not as clear cut as it might seem
Disposition: opportunity troll Status: humor
Given the diary was written by somebody too sensitive to laugh at Grayson's "Palin jokes" diary from yesterday, the idea to joke about rape was not so smart. But if you were going to joke about rape, you could do worse.
And to wrap things up for now, another drop-in rant in an I/P diary:
Incident: 'I don't get it (or: understatement)'
Incident notes: confused philosophical 'its a desert' rant (1/8/10)
Diary notes: I/P, rant unrelated
User notes: TU
HR notes: Uprater also hidden for "I agree" comment (1/5/2)
Disposition: rant Status: atheist, open
Illustrates the conundrum of individual diaries. Either the diarist has some say in what is acceptable, or off-topic rants aren't really trolling. I'd like to see some discussion on this one.
That's it for tonight. The 'Obese clown' TU is still on fire, adding another three or four to the hiddens at post time. I won't be documenting those; we'll pick up when something new happens to start tomorrow's edition. No telling when I will be posting that, it could be there will be only one for the weekend which might not even appear until Monday. I will be posting something, though. A wrap-up/review for the week seems appropriate (though that will be brief, I'm kind of talked out on the subject) and I'd like to present some more complete suggested posting guidelines. Maybe you'll get lucky and I'll blow it off and play computer games instead, who knows?
Thanks for your time. See you in The Hiddens.