Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

BMG Bug or Editorial Decision?

By

A discussion thread with a significant number of comments was removed disappeared yesterday from Coakley ties her own hands, misleads public in Wilkerson Case. I noticed the removal yesterday (Sunday) evening, and noted its absence in two comments (here and here). The editors have so far not commented. I note that the diary is still active and has been recommended by eleven BMG participants — significantly including RogerLau, Mike Capuano’s campaign manager.

I’ve looked at the “comments” pages for sabutai, Christopher, Bean in the ‘Burbs, and myself. I have not seen any comments with more than one or two “zeros” — if a comment was removed because of the rating mechanism, I haven’t found it yet. Melora and kirth also report missing comments, I haven’t examined the “zero count” of any of those comments. If this removal was accidental it is, in my opinion, a significant problem. If it was intentional, it surely demands an explanation.

Bob, Charley, David — I respectfully request that you enlighten us as to what’s going on.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. However, I am also very curious.  If a comment was truly deleted by zero ratings that WOULD also have the effect of hiding all further replies to the offending comment, but even then it would be visible to those logged in, albeit with a “[hidden comment]” tag.  I just went back to my own comment list to try to open the comments of mine you refered to.  If I click on the title of the comment the page is blank, no comment and no replies.  I CAN view the comment, however, if I click on the rating average.

      • Here’s david’s response:

        <

        p>

        4. Not sure why this is a good idea.  We delete posts and comments that we think violate the site’s rules.  We don’t want to host that content on our site, so allowing users to still read it would not make sense.

        <

        p>This reasonable, what I’m suggesting is making it better integrated:

        <

        p>

        4) make moderator delete work like regular delete.  Right now it seems like something that got hacked into the system.  There’s all sorts of weird end-cases.  Like when you try to view one of your own comments that’s part of a thread that got deleted…

  2. Specifically, personal attacks against other BMGers, which is not allowed as a general principle.

    <

    p>Unfortunately, because of limitations in SoapBlox technology, when one comment is deleted so are all the other ones below it.

    <

    p>If things disappear it is almost always because of rules violations.

    <

    p>In general, if everyone could please keep comments substantive and not engage in personal attacks that would be much appreciated by the whole community.

        • …there were no direct replies to the comment Sabutai linked to above.  As I recall, BrooklineTom did add directly to the diary (as opposed to a reply to a comment) an additional comment below that one that listed all the comments sorted by poster that he found to have disappeared.  This comment was followed up by a couple of others pointing out that theirs had been deleted as well.  Certainly nothing offensive about any of that?!  Is this a new enforcement regime?  Previously it seems much worse has remained despite begging by some in the community to have them removed.  Plus what are the different criteria for hiding comments vs. removing entirely?

        • …and it’s your call about deleting some personal attacks and not others.  However, I noted the deletion of the questioning of this decision, leaving the impression that you didn’t merely dislike dissent, but wanted to deny that such questioning ever took place.  That’s what reminded me of the Ministry of Truth.  I appreciate your responses, and BrooklineTom’s decision to bring it up.

      • The editors felt that my posting the headers (harvested from profiles that are still live) of the deleted comments constituted an attempt on my part to republish deleted material. They therefore removed my comment detailing the 20-odd removed entries.

        <

        p>They emphasized that they REALLY do not want personal attacks on other BMG members to stay accessible — a posture that I welcome and whole-heartedly support.

        <

        p>It certainly was and is not my intent to preserve or republish objectionable material.

        • It’s still not what I would have done especially since you did not link the comments.  I absolutely agree about personal attacks and have zeroed for that reason in the past.  It just seems like it’s being more stictly enforced all of a sudden and caught us by surprise.

          • I agree. At the same time, it’s their site and they’re doing a lot right, so this one is their call.

            • Much appreciated, and as I already wrote directly to BT, apologies if the good went out with the bad. That was not the intention, but (a) the Soapblox platform is imperfect and (b) there is limited time in the day to read everything.

              <

              p>As to more strictness, not at all. First, the editors don’t read everything on the site, and sometimes things slip through. Second, everyone has different appreciations, and sometimes things that seem harsh to some are just good fun to others. Third, we have no desire to make this place a sterile wasteland of excessive politeness. Full throated discussion, passion, teasing in good humor, etc. is fabulous. We call it “raillery” usually. But personal attacks have no place here — although there are lots of places that allow them elsewhere on the Internets — and get deleted whenever noticed. We want to energize the progressive community to the degree we can, and help it grow and be fun, not tear it apart.

              <

              p>Thanks to all beloved BMG commenters and let’s hope tomorrow’s vote is a great experience for everyone.  

    • Personally, I think that it is better to publicly criticize offenders than to privately criticize them and remove all evidence that they ever violated the rules, especially when you are blowing away an entire thread along with it. But if you are going to blow a thread, please at least be considerate enough to post a comment saying that you have done so.

      <

      p>Frankly, I think it is long past time that you dropped SoapBlox and adopted some other platform without these lame limitations.

      • My preference runs along the lines of your first paragraph. OTOH, it’s their site and their editorial policy has resulted in a great site.

        <

        p>I disagree with your conclusion, though. All the platforms I know have their own “lame limitations”. All in all, this one seems much better than most. At least we have a pretty good idea of its strengths and weaknesses. I’m all for exploring alternatives, but I’m not nearly ready to agree that the editors should drop SoapBlox.

      • But that might also make the whole issue bigger. Usually, personal attacks come from passion and a quick mouse click. So the vast majority of the time a delete and a polite personal note solves the problem permanently, which is the desired outcome. Plus, leaving a great void sort of serves as a reminder about the absolute waste of time that personal attacks and other rules violations produce. A sort of living memorial to its nihilism. Fundamentally, we want people to be as free as possible to have discussions here without being intimidated or stomped on for having different views. We want people with views that others find objectionable to be politely ignored, or debated as long as the protagonists have the desire to do so, not shouted down.

  3. by calling me a ‘one person sleaze machine’.  I didn’t mind as I stated in my reply. This is why, I’d rather that ad hominem stay with all the subsequent comments in context than have it deleted. Although I understand its not my call, its my preference. I think what you’re hearing from others is roughly the same.

    <

    p>Wjy not just edit out the offending phrase w/ XXXXX ?

        • by calling me a ‘one person XXXXXX XXXXXXX’.  I raise this because spiking a thread is easy to do by calling names which is why your current editorial practice sucks; it makes everyone else who comments down thread pay a price for it.

          <

          p>Although I understand its not my call, its my preference that you intervene with a lighter touch. I think what you’re hearing from others is roughly the same.

          <

          p>Why not just edit out the offending phrase w/ XXXXX  and drop the offender the warning?

          • I think this is a good time to let it go, Neil. It’s done, the community has had its say, and the decision is made. I think that Bob has already answered your question above (emphasis mine):

            Much appreciated, and as I already wrote directly to BT, apologies if the good went out with the bad. That was not the intention, but (a) the Soapblox platform is imperfect and (b) there is limited time in the day to read everything.

        • If I read him right, Neil has a fair point here. In theory, one could “intentionally foul” by launching a personal attack in a thread, thereby getting more valid discussion deleted.

          <

          p>Maybe not a big issue, but it is possible.

          <

          p>

          • but the solution would be to delete the comments and then if the offender continues to do this simply suspend the account of the offending rule breaker. So they get to derail legitimate comments once or twice but then they are gone.

          • Why would someone “spike” a post sympathetic to their candidate.  If this shows up more frequently, it might be a concern.  But haven’t seen it thus far…

          • The foul comment causes deletion of itself and answering comments, and answers to those comments, etc. If that’s the case, the intentional fouler would need precognition to be able to cause deletion of comments that had not yet been posted.  

          • Sorry BrooklineTom if you thought I wouldn’t let it drop after getting a clear answer.  I didn’t think the point I was making was recognized.

Archives