John Stuart Mill and the Tragedy of the Commons
Col Sullivan asks:
What does a blog administrator do when someone contributes a post that the adminstrator is ashamed to have on a blog with which his name is associated?
I think it’s awfully polite to refer our twice-convicted denizen Cossio as merely “someone,” but he continues:
Like Mill, I believe there is value in the expression and refutation of falsehoods.
Indeed. But Mill presumed the ability to make a refutation of an opinion. That’s something I can influence.
Starting today CAAFlog sports a comment rating system:
Enough negative ratings and a comment will be hidden:
It’s an adjustable trigger that I’ve set low and will adjust as necessary.
Enjoy.
UPDATE: An anonymous comment finds irony in this, but the tragedy of the commons appears when society gives room for anarchy; and no, a benevolent dictatorship isn’t the answer. Generally, the heckler is going to have a better barometer anyway.
The ratings are a moving target – enough negatives and the text of a comment is hidden. However, the comment itself isn’t deleted. The time and author still appear in the list, with the text available with just a click. Besides, enough subsequent positive votes will reveal the hidden comment. That’s hardly a blacklist.
Implemented at the same time is the option to easily quote another comment:
I’m not sure I am on board with this. Are there measures in place to stop someone from “blacklisting” another? Can a lurker go back and click “thumbs down” repeatedly until the allegedly offensive post is hidden? And human nature, being what it is, will undoubtedly drive folks to see what the comment was that just had to be hidden.
Personally, I like an unfettered, free, and open marketplace of ideas. I might not like or agree with what CC has to say, but he often makes me think, which is not altogether lost on me. I think my “right” not to be offended is trumped by CC’s right to speak his mind. If I don’t like what he says, I can simply stop reading, no?
I vote for the Coventry treatment. Seems to be the most effective form of internet policing, IMHO.
I hope you realize the rich irony in your post title, given the amount of editorial hand-wringing on this minor issue. The right answer is to summarily remove truly offensive posts. The blogosphere commentariat takes care of, and already took care of in this instance, the rest.
A rating system? JSM post #1 hand-wrung over how to deal with offensive posts and erred appropriately by being cautious of removal. JSM post #2 now allows readers- exercising their own whimsy – to remove posts they individually don’t like.
Amazing: that this blog in a bout of hand wringing could go from being a public forum, to worrying publicly and excessively over how to exercise it’s editorial duties, to ultimately just leave those editorial decisions up to reader whim.
Wow. I imagine that my response will be less actually offensive than Cossio’s,, but will I get enough thumbs-down to survive?
I don’t read this blog for a Facebook level of interaction- brief, almost mindless- this is an “idea exchange,” a market of ideas. Please don’t impose your own tragedy of the commons by bringing knee jerk clicks to be able to ban the expression of ideas.
My humble suggestion: the fine editors here might stop the repeated error of devoting so much time bringing attention to truly offensive posts (including mine I assume). Delete them. Ignore them. But please, oh please- stop talking about them. That run the risk of- for pure self interest purposes (protecting the “goodness” of the blog) coopting the very, very noble purpose of this blog, and turning it into, say, a blog about Mr. Cossio’s. He’s already gotten far more attention than he deserves.
I think it is a good idea, though I could see someone giving a thumbs down and “blacklisting” someone. For example, this comment I am posting now.
I am under the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that you can only rate per comment per IP address. Therefore it would be hard to “blacklist” anyone. Let’s test that theory out on an older post brb…..
Yep. Therefore Late Bloomer, it would be hard for one person to go through the trouble of making three hits. It is one hit per post.
I like the idea, it is effective. Although you guys should bring back the ability for one to delete/edit their own post, etc.
I see that the trigger is set to a difference of three.
For example three thumbs down will hide a post, but if one “thumbs up” (one up, three down) the post reappears.
An interesting module.
Hmm…Already I see abuse. 3 people gave me a thumbs down in my last comment which really was not substantive. Maybe they were testing the new feature.
I find this an interesting experiment in heckler’s veto. Shouldn’t the blog administrators just exercise their good sense and ding posts they deem completely improper? It is a privately controlled forum. No one has a right to be posted on a blog. There are legitimate concerns about neither suppressing vigorous debate nor posting items that serve little purpose. When I see a post from Col Brownback, for example, I am reminded of the eyes that are on this blog. It seems that the post votes are likely to reduce to ” I don’t like this guy”. vs a reflection on the validity of the post. Perhaps the good judgment of the blog administrators would work well.
For a blog visited by so-called warriors, warfighters, or whatever moniker is currently used to describe a military member, there seems to be too many who need their kevlars and flak jackets when reading simple words on the computer screen. And I don’t buy that argument that “hey, some of us are still active duty and can be held accountable for some rogue comment posted here.” Any attorney worthy of his JD knows that none of the “editors” of this blog are going to get in trouble for some random comment, especially now that there’s a blog-trail of distancing themselves from such comments. Chill out. Don’t chill speech. If you don’t care for someone else’s speech content, speak louder, or simply ignore it. Thumbs? As W would say, “bring ‘em on!”
CAAFLOG has officially “jumped the shark.”
For what is worth, I am not a fan of the thumbs up, thumbs down. It is distracting and we could just delete the comments if Navarre and J’OC get out of control. Or Navarre and me. Or Navarre and anybody. . . .
Maybe part of the problem is the number of self-important blowhards that both contribute and manage this particular blog. I mean I can’t believe we’re seriously making this much of a case because Cossio’s blog comment hurt certain people’s delicate sensibilities.
Maybe restricting Muslims from the military is not the right answer, but does that mean nobody can ask the question? I don’t think it would per se violate the 1st Amendment or Article VI. If adherence to a particular religion interferes with loyalty to the United States or fulfilling the oath of an officer, then perhaps the military is not the right place. There are people who seem to want to politically correct us out of thinking. The AP is actually reporting that Maj. Hasan’s fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “‘anti-American propaganda,’ but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.” Maybe if these officers were given the freedom to ask questions without fear of offending the sensitive among us, somebody would have taken a closer look at Maj. Hasan. But maybe it’s better to just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is A-OK.
Just because the answers are scary doesn’t mean we should shout out the questions. It also doesn’t require knee-jerk reactions and really stupid-looking thumbs on this blog.
Whoa,
Wait a minute anon, you don’t want to be called a racist. (Because certain Anons think “Muslim” is a race)
Seriously though. I made the same argument about McDonald an Rhodes about BO’s Birth Certificate. Yes, we have plenty of evidence to refute those allegations (that came out after we asked those questions), but if we hadn’t ask the question we would not know the answer. We would not know that people like Oily Taitz exist.
I take other issues as well. When the “911 conspiracy theorist/lunar landing is fake” wakos came out I looked at the evidence. I suspended disbelief. Sure the ideas are nutz now, but if these questions weren’t asked, we wouldn’t have the answer.
As the dust settles from the Hassan saga we know that he was MOST likely acting alone. We also know that there was an abundance of warning flags that were ignored. And we now will have an action plan on how we can curb this type of conduct in the future.
My beef was with people putting their heads in the sand and comparing this to Gray/Loving. They also reached out and pulled out the Abortion bombers as if that was relevant to what happened at Ft. Hood. Finally the biggest insult to me was the “well maybe he was harassed/didn’t want to go to Iraq”. The same mentality that examines a psycho murderer who’s mommy and daddy didn’t hug him enough growing up.
Finally the same people saying “what does him being a Muslim have anything to do with it?” are the same people who continually refer to my convictions for acts in 2004/2005 that would never seen the light of day outside the military and have really nothing to do with this issue.
I will not post about this issue anymore until new evidence/developments come out.
As far as the thumbs go, I’d say we should give them a chance and see how they work out. This isn’t Congress, if it turns out to be a bad Idea it can easily be reversed. I think they should have the edit/delete functions restored, or notify when a new comment is posted.
Well I said I’d go on sabbaticle, I meant it….That’s funny. I’m in Berwyn (Chicagoland) and I just hear a fighter jet fly very close to my home.
Oh duh Veteran’s Day Fly-By. I can’t wait to get my Free Meal from Applebees.
Thanks, I learned something from these posts — I never realized what jumping the shark means. Thank you Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
Anon 1648, I believe you are correct that military leaders and personnel frequently feel restrained OR required to do something out of political correctness or fear of being accused of racism or anti-woman, etc.
And so long as extremists from both sides govern the debate I don’t think the problem will be cured. The debate is supposed to occur somewhere in the center, but extremists drive debate away.
I know I might get flamed for this, but do the thumbs HAVE to be in Christmas colors? I’m so tired of rushing the season. For gods sake, what happened to thanksgiving?
In fairness to Cossio — gulp — he has a question about gaming the thumbs. He has a “duty” related question, so he’s still in Coventry.
(Current weather: 36°F | °C; Cloudy; Wind: N at 0 mph; Humidity: 100%)
From my same computer I was able to give him two thumbs on the same comment (I use my Blackberry as a modem while traveling), from my Blackberry another. I could not give him a fourth because my wife’s computer is networked with mine and I’m assuming (and Cossio likely can confirm) it’s the address of the router, not the individual computers that registers and so prevents a multiple answer from the same router.
Having experimented, I will go back to only giving one thumbs in the future.
And SDC you are soooo right!
I would suspect that for 3/4g “roaming” internet where the IP isn’t fixed you will obviously be able to give multiple thumbs. Also you could use proxies and game it that way. But I don’t think, except for experimental reasons, for this to be a big thing for us adults.
Some tweaking may be required, maybe lifting the number to more then three net thumb downs might be one.
I am sure Zack can easily change the GIFs used for the thumb icons. But why stop with color changes?
Instead of thumbs up, thumbs down we “Guilty “Not Guilty” (with my mug shot) or maybe some other symbols.
Sustained and overruled.
I thought the particular offender was sent to Coventry? those of us with simple sense understand the basic principal of not “wrestling with the a pig.”
Not a fan of the thumbs up/down. The rating scale seems more like a question of agreement or disagreement with the post rather than recognizing comments that are offensive. Consequently, a comment that gets enough disagreement is effectively censored by majority rules?
I actually like the thought of agreement/disagreement as a means of gauging support for perspectives offered in this post, particularly since there are many silent readers who choose not to participate in the blog. As for dealing with offense posts, if we must censor then let the rating be clear and allow us to check “offensive” to hide the comment.
BTW, aside from the “christmas” colors of the thumbs, they are also the very colors most conducive to color blindness. I suppose that matters little though since a black and white thumbs up or down retains its significant even without color.
Appears that the thumbs give away the source of certain anonymous posts. If you thumb one of them, then other thumbs are grayed out for other posters. Same IP address?
I don’t think its censorship, the person still has the option of clicking to see the rest of the post, In fact one of my post was “censored” but a person looked at it, and gave me a thumbs up, enough to bring it back to the for-front.
This just in:
Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter
WASHINGTON – A radical American imam on Yemen’s most wanted militant list who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero on his personal Web site Monday.
The posting on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.
Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.”
More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ot/us_fort_hood_muslims
RY may be on his way to the answer.
I thumbs for agree or disagree, but the comment is still viewable.
I different symbol for a post that is considered offensive, vituperative, or obscene.
http://www.1800blogger.com/word-press-voting-plugin/
That’s “holiday colors,” bucko. (Cue Bill O’Reilly rant in 5 … 4… 3 …)