Nelson C, Commenter ov Teh Beast:

Can we ask Teresa to lock this thread? I don't want to hang around any more waiting for Evidence to post another non-sequiter, and I don't really want to let him sneak in the last word when we've all gone.

He who gets the last word loses, I reckon. It's the best words that count, and many of the things already posted here qualify, as detailed above.

I'm getting two different results: either a WordPress "Error establishing a database connection" message, or a slow to no load.

I think the server's been overloaded.

The BBC covered it in late March:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7307345.stm

Alarming.

Takuan,

I don't know if they're wannabe writers. There are probably many reasons to register an account and make a couple of drive-by posts. Maybe they don't like someone associated with the video, for instance.

I just think calling people "hangers on" in the comments section of someone else's blog is really funny.

I mean, if they want people to make their own stuff, maybe they should lead the way by starting their own blogs?

Wait, let me get this straight.

ProfOfLogic and CptNemo (both newly registered, presumably just for this thread) are complaining, in the comments on someone else's blog, that certain people aren't doing enough original work? That they're just hangers-on to other peoples' originality?

It just begs parody, doesn't it?

As far as the bulk of the self-identified "Commenter" subculture, well... "show me something" is all I ask. What have the vast majority of the "Commenters" accomplished (as opposed to, say 'Bloggers', fer instance?)..."Commenters" claim a contribution to the conversation, yet I ask at least some of them to show some gumption, instead of "not-me"isms.

or

It is not however, going to stop me laughing at those who participate in this cargo cult movement of emulating the motions of those who really can and do write things.

Takuan @378:

How about a cover based on just the wristband? I have a lot of black leather*, and I'm sure I could get the metal studs.

----
* in my bindery†
† where I bind books, lest anyone get the wrong idea

Greg...

Leave it? Please?

Guys, Technogirl is clearly feeling dogpiled, if she's starting to mince definitions on the word "rape". She's smarter than that.

Maybe we could all leave it to posterity to determine who was right and who was simply left?

Technogirl @320:

No is it the coffee kicking in along with my paranoia or am I sensing a disturbance in the Boing? Are we being infiltrated by fanboys from Teresa's blog defending the perceived Queen? More likely my paranoia... however ....

I was unaware that my participation on Making Light made me ineligible to use my account on BoingBoing.

This thread is about a matter that interests me greatly. You have some ideas that I've enjoyed discussing, and I intend to muse on them further. I don't know that I will come to agree with you, but I genuinely appreciate your input. If that hasn't come through, I do apologize.

I hope you have a good day at work.

Technogirl @317:

Am I allowed to comment on how the sites you cite work? Because I've spent enough time on both Slashdot and Digg to be able to point out that their comment threads aren't very interesting to read at all. The ratio of adolescent posturing to content at /. in particular bores me to tears.

Basically, the Boingers seem to prefer the sort of community that Teresa has a track record of building to the ones you list. That's their choice, of course, it being their blog. And their choices are working, I think, complete with the increasing pattern of posting song lyrics to set the mood (nice one, Takuan).

Xopher @314:
I could never invent a sock puppet like you.

Technogirl @311:
I was playing a little there, because Capn Barcode was actually correct.

Teresa's surname is Nielsen Hayden, derived from her original surname (Nielsen) and her husband's (Hayden). They both changed their names on marriage. Wikipedia has the info.

I wonder if the irritability comes less from the spelling and more from the lack of interest in who she is as a person. I know that when I engage with someone substantively, I try to find out how they like to be addressed and use that. (I have wondered what capitalisation you prefer here. Really, truly, about three hours ago, I was considering the matter.)

But I'm speaking for Teresa, who is of course perfectly capable of speaking for herself.

Technogirl @306:

Another area to consider as you sip your coffee: the direct control of trolls is only one part of moderation. It's the most visible one, particularly when the whole world seems like the underside of a bridge (as it does in this thread).

But what about the positive aspects of moderation, such as pointing out interesting posts, encouraging good conversation, and preventing at risk posters from turning troll in the first place? These things can build a community that's troll-resistant, where the commenters themselves help police the conversation. As you point out, trolls outnumber moderators; the community can address that imbalance*. (Not every moderator appreciates backseat moderation, of course, but I happen to know that Teresa does.)

These positive moderation activities work best with personal engagement with the community, and cannot be done silently.

-----
* naturally, this does mean that the moderator then needs to ensure the community doesn't dogpile. But loyal commenters should be easier to turn from the dark side than angry trolls

Capn Barcode @303

And if it's not Nielson Hayden, then I'll have to ask for a flag on the play, or burn the ref in effigy or something

I am all but devastated to inform you that the surname in question is not Nielson Hayden, but rather Nielsen Hayden, a slight but perceptible difference from an otherwise well-reasoned and considered guess.

Must we therefore request said flag, or burn an effigy?

Cats Unite @290:

rape - to seize, enjoy hastily. To take by force....This sounds like disemvowelling; moderators (only moderators) gets a transient pleasure from doing it. They display the red bedsheets. They move on.

Cheapening the word rape to make a point, and doing it in gory detail to boot. What a compelling argument for more empathy you make.

Godwin next?

Technogirl @292 & 294:

Ah, that example. Very well; we will not discuss it, neither its strengths nor its weaknesses.

I was merely hoping for some new world to explore.

The requirements to be a moderator should be much like those for a politician, if you really love the job then you are probably ill suited for it.

I think it depends which part of the job you love. If you don't love the interpersonal interaction, untangling the threads of the discussion, finding and teasing apart the quarrels before they explode, then you should probably not be a moderator. If you love the power then no, maybe get an ant farm instead.

My Gods of Snarkiness mean that I have to go through three or four error messages before posting. I think we both need to make more puns.

Technogirl @284:

1. I had no intention of getting into a snark-fest with you, not even if you surpass Shakespeare in linguistic coinages (please feel free to try; I like new words). I nearly added a comment to the effect that the second part of 277 was not directed at you, but real life called me from the keyboard.

2. I still prefer to see worked examples of interpersonal theories in real life. People do amazing, surprising things, many of which demolish abstract theories of human interaction. Plato's Republic, for instance, never existed, nor ever could. (And if it did, I'd rather not live there.)

Lack of an example doesn't render an argument invalid, it just makes it abstract. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; principles and theories are often a sounder basis of action than pure expediency. But the combination of abstraction and a world-weary tone, as some others have adopted here, smacks of the armchair. At some point, I want to see some examples of these lovely ideas in action.

3. That's a perfectly valid opinion, but you don't need me to tell you that.

4. I was only briefly on Kuro5hin, but I have seen other communities fall apart, temporarily or permanently. Communities do that. There's a fair argument that the previous iteration of open commenting in BoingBoing was a community, one that melted down from lack of moderation.

I don't know, any more than you or anyone else does, what will happen here. I'm interested to find out. I suspect that if Teresa and the Boingers (Bootleg?) feel that the community is not growing in the direction they want it to, they'll consider some of the things suggested in this thread. I also suspect they'll listen more to practical suggestions than purely abstract ones, but I really have no idea.

I think the remainder of your post is an excellent statement of one approach to moderation. As I said before -- and this is more than just a "put up or shut up -- I'd be very interested in seeing a good example of such a community in action. I'm sorry you've taken my request in the vein of a challenge, because it's not meant that way in this case. I'd like to go look at one. I could learn a lot.

Cats Unite,

The closest thread I can find to match your description is from October of last year, about an author who unapologetically plagiarized a recently dead writer's book, then played the disability card to try to excuse her behavior. Her agent, meanwhile, made threats both financial and spiritual.

This didn't go down well in a group of writers, many of them disabled.

Tell me, do you think bringing rape analogies into this discussion is any better an idea?

Technogirl @270:
In my experience, moderators who make themselves "Superstars" shortly thereafter become oppressive dictators shortly before the community that they were moderating dissolves ...Timeframe for this has always been 2-6 months mins and max.

Teresa's own weblog, Making Light, has been running since 2001, under her active, visible and enthusiastic moderation. It's a lively, active and intellectually challenging community, supportive in bad times and funny most of the time.

more generally, to many people
Two assumptions I see repeatedly here:

1. Teresa is an inexperienced moderator, and it's helpful to give her advice (Answer: vide supra)

and with that, 1a. That advice is even better when given in a condescending tone (This makes me doubt the advisor's experience in interpersonal relationships: if you're trying to be a peer, talk like one, not like you're in charge here. Moderating the moderator is like topping from the bottom.)

and 2. That your style of moderation in your community would suit either Teresa's personality or the community here.

I would be very interested to see links to communities where all you other moderators are doing your stuff. I'd love to see you in action, so that I could judge the efficacy of your advice, and the consistency with which you yourself apply it.

As for me, for full disclosure, I am the most recent moderator and front page poster on Making Light. But I'm always interested in learning new things about moderation, from people who are genuinely interested in teaching it.

Jeblis @272 & 273:
it wasn't nearly as "septic" as the mod would have you believe, I was there

It was septic enough for the Boingers, apparently, which is the standard that they get to apply on their weblog. The fact that you were there participating in it, and don't see the problem now, might contribute to the way your current comments are being treated.

Perhaps this is a sign that this is not the right community for your particular style of comment? You may be wise, in that case, to leave. Best of luck in the wider internet.

econoclast @175:
I spent about twenty minutes looking through the comments the other day and easily found a number of hateful, rude, and downright insulting comments with no redeeming value that had not been moderated.

Did you click the little eyeball icon (the "lookitthat" button) beside any of these comments, to alert the moderators to a nest of trollish comments that they may have missed? Or did you immediately assume that they were deliberately left in place by Teh Eeevil Moderators?

And are these the same moderators that you would like to assume your good faith when you do something ambiguous?

Lazarus7 @141:
I happened to have refreshed just before and just after that comment was posted, and I never saw vowels there.

I strongly suspect that was self-disemvoweled.

You can't pick and choose the policies that you agree to -- if we could, then we would hand-write in our own wording/conditions on everything we agree to: mortgages, loans, contracts,

You can indeed pick and choose the policies that you agree to, if the other party in the contract agrees to it. The wording and conditions on a standard contract are just an administrative convenience.

Skip to the end if you're easily bored.

- o0o -

IANAL, but here is a quick and dirty contract law overview. A contract (which includes a contract for employment, for a mortgage, for a loan, for the sale or purchase of anything...) is made up of two parts: OFFER and ACCEPTANCE. The offer and acceptance must match, or you don't have a contract.

So in contractual terms, the State of California OFFERED her employment, said offer including the requirement that she sign the loyalty oath as phrased in the paperwork.

She declined, but OFFERED to be employed by the State including the signing of the modified loyalty oath.

Now, if it were an independent agent, the State could either decline (not employ her), or ACCEPT her revised offer.

As an arm of the government, however, there was a question whether it could make the OFFER that it did, since it seemed to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. In other words, there was a fair argument that the offer broke the law, no matter what happened regarding the acceptance.

She tested that, and it turned out not to be the case. So she ACCEPTED the OFFER as clarified by the document stapled to the oath. Bingo! Contract.

- o0o -

So if you scratch out $40,000 in the job offer letter and write in $50,000, you have made a new OFFER of an employment contract. The employer then has to ACCEPT that before you're owed the extra $10,000 per annum.

Troy @5:
It's true that one difference between a (true) liberal and a (true) conservative in American politics is that liberals tend to prefer a larger role for the government in public life. But both ends of the spectrum want appropriate, effective government.

That doesn't mean that liberals approve of a government that wastes money, or takes our rights away, or creates a police state. That's as much a betrayal of liberalism as it is of conservativism.

Fight the real enemy: authoritarians of all stripes. People on both sides who want you to do what you're told and not think too hard. Don't let them distract you and sap your energy by pointing you at the "liberals".

Adding my congratulations to the enormous list...well done to all three of you!

The only advice I would give is to ignore all advice.

Takuan @104:

Keep that pot well hidden where you're sure
That it will not be found
And be careful not to 'turn on'
When the Scoutmaster's around
For he only will insist that it be shared.
Be prepared!

- Be Prepared, Tom Lehrer

BXRGUY @14:

If the label "Canadian" as an insult is because of Iraq, then is anyone being called "French"?

(Do I really want to know?)

Note to self - do parodies faster.

Nolly @5:

Here you go.

Refactoring Bob changed the line
if i !> x do to
if i < x do. Looked fine
When he ran a use case or two.

He checked the change in as "all tested,
Compiled and ready to ship!"
Though QA complained and protested,
The deadlines weren't subject to slip.

The system looked fine throughout beta
And Wired said its future was bright.
But then, with the userbase greater*,
A cluster of faults came to light.

The bug reports soon flooded in;
The system phoned home in distress.
Support found their patience wear thin,
Till management queried "the mess".

Retesting to track down the glitch
Was run, and it soon stood revealed:
The use case (i = x) which
Inadequate tests had concealed.

A fix was soon made and compiled
And users, their systems now patched,
Then found their results reconciled.
And thus was this code bug despatched.

----
* An evil rhyme, but it had to be done

Here's a picture. It's very, well, Shroud of Turin.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_04/humanskinRP2711_800x800.jpg

The skin looks like it was thinned a lot in the tanning process, and is probably quite brittle. Whoever buys it is going to have to get some professional help caring for it. On the other hand, it's already lasted a good long time, and the paper looks to be in worse condition than the outside.

The book has what's called a limp binding, by the way - the covers don't have wood inside them. It's a traditional way to bind with vellum, which was probably the closest thing to human hide the bookbinder had dealt with before this job.

It would feel like a sturdy trade paperback book if you picked it up.

Bookbinding in human skin has a long history. The skin of executed criminals was often used to bind accounts of their trials, particularly for notorious cases.

In France, there was a brief spike in the practice of human-skin binding after the Revolution. Germany also produced a few examples in the obvious time period, but by the 20th century it was generally considered a barbaric practice.

I understand that, although human skin is often compared to pigskin, it is more like bookcalf to work with. The examples of it I've seen (mostly from one William Burke, formerly of Edinburgh) certainly look more like calf than any other bookbinding leather.

TNH @58:
I've been thinking of it as the Lookitthat button.

The Oooh! button? Or would that be misconstrued?

Braxton Cook @233:

Aside from everything else, can I just say that that was a first class apology. I look forward to reading more of your comments, knowing you have the courage to realise when you were wrong and the grace to admit it in public.

I hope this doesn't sound condescending, because it is sincere. Well done.

I note that there is no mention of the age of the target individual.

The interesting case law will come when a minor challenges his/her parents' right to consent to subcutaneous RFID implantation on his/her behalf (particularly if they are the ones wanting the implantation).

Correction: based on a number of comments in a number of areas, I gather that much of the discussion is going on in private, on the members only message boards of the SFWA.

Michael @94:

I think Cory is in Japan, which makes a face to face meeting unlikely. I also gather he is at Worldcon, which probably cuts down on phone time.

(How do I know this? I, um, read it on his blog.)

I do agree that we're still in the talking past each other phase of things. But I am concerned that when the key parties begin talking to each other, it will be in private (their right, of course) and we will never hear the way the issues around this play out.

And as a reader and a fan, I'm interested in a public discussion of the issues this raises.