politicartoons | Mod post

I'm not sure it makes sense to start nominating people to moderate without any concrete sense of what those people would want to do with their control over this community. I personally think that, apart from a sticky spam post from time to time, it's been running just fine, for the most part. I worry that just granting someone that kind of power might inspire some kind of knee-jerk need to reform the community in a way that it maybe doesn't need to be reformed.

For example - this community's cartoon- and humor-focus has been pushed a bit by posts that include only videos, that aren't ha-ha "funny," that maybe just feature images and commentary, or that don't have any image or video content at all (e.g., straight commentary, twitter posts). While that's clearly a departure from the community's stated purpose, I would consider it an "evolution," and one that serves an existing demand for casual conversation that is not well-served by LJ's other communities devoted to political conversations. I would hate to see a new moderator, compelled by a need to "do their job," decide that what this community needs is a reinvigorated commitment to its nominal purpose, and in so doing cutting off a stream of content that has kept it active as of late.

At the same time, certain of this community's members have gotten carried away with attacking or goading Jeff (and I name him in particular because it has been primarily about him), in a way that I think disserves the other members of this community. I wouldn't suggest that they be banned or punished, but I think it would be helpful to have someone around with at least some patina of authority, trying to get them to stick to comments that others might actually want to read and engage with.

I would, most of all, hope that we can avoid a devolution to the kind of behind-the-scenes politics and ostensibly rules-driven "enforcement" that has made certain other political communities stiflingly unpleasant places to participate. For whatever reason, online communities struggling with identity crises keep coming back to this notion that all we need is more and better rules, enforced consistently, and time and time again, I've just seen communities evaporate under that kind of scrutiny - especially on LJ. This place is littered with dead communities where the last Acts were defined by this kind of "re-commitment."

There need to be a bunch of people who can handle spam posts and spam comments. Even if it's made explicit that their *only* job is to handle spam, there should be at least two, preferably more, active people who are often available who can handle spam.

Why? Has there been an inundation of spam I haven't seen?

At least two posts and a couple of comments in the last week, that I found and reported. Some of them survived for more than a day. And I don't see ones that other people report, although I know at least a few got through.

We've had spam, and I find it really annoying, and I suspect that's the impetus that's leading Our Host here to ask for more mods.

Okay, so not an inundation then. Gotcha.

Enough to require cleanup, which nobody was doing.

And to be clear, I don't think there's so many that it would take two or more people. I think there should be two or more people so it gets cleaned up ASAP even if one mod is busy or unavailable.

I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, but I fail to see the need for such urgency unless it's truly to the point where the community breaks down without immediate attention. The sticky spam post that was just removed didn't seriously derail the community, and the odd comment every now and then seems easily ignored.

Any spam is too much spam. A zero-tolerance policy would be my first criteria for mod.

Sorry.

The question, in my view, isn't whether spam should be left sitting around indefinitely, but whether it's to the point in this community that its sitting unattended for a few hours or even - gasp! - a day or two seriously interrupts this community's operations. The post that sat here for a couple of days didn't stop other people from posting or commenting to other threads, and it even garnered a few (not particularly substantive) comments of its own.

That, to my mind, doesn't necessitate a serious re-vamp of this community's moderation, much less one that could introduce changes to the way non-spam conversations are conducted. (Weaselking's offer to weed out spam, for instance, would come with the real risk that he'd use his authority to police racist, sexist, or homophobic language, to which he's shown an unusually negative reaction in the past, despite his promises to the contrary.) My appreciation and enjoyment of this community hasn't been meaningfully impacted by the amount of spam I've seen.

I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but for some reason, no one seems to be offering any.

I'm slightly offended that you'd assume that, once I explicitly said I would only stop spam, I would use my hypothetical authority to stop non-spam.

You're right, I think racist, sexist, and homophobic content should not be permitted to thrive unchecked. You're right, I think enforcement of the rules against attack speech should be enforced more thoroughly. And? I've got a decade-long 18000-post history with this account and the accompanying incentive to *not* get my ass banned for abuse of power in a stupid way that I've specifically offered to not do. And since I know that my very Canadian attitude towards attack speech isn't popular, I'm willing to *not enforce it* in pursuit of *blocking the spam that's been in this community just about every time I've looked, for weeks*.

I don't care if I'm not picked. I just want someone around who *will* delete spam, and I'm volunteering to do that if nobody better can be found. Will you delete spam? I vote you! I will happily ping you and if the spam disappears in a reasonable time, I'm happy.

My appreciation and enjoyment of this community hasn't been meaningfully impacted by the amount of spam I've seen.

This is a position that is not universal.

I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but for some reason, no one seems to be offering any.

Of course we're offering them. "Spam sucks. Spam should never be displayed longer than is strictly necessary. It's a criminal failure of LJ that members can't report spam in communities. Communities with spam are unpleasant. Politicartoons allows spam to stand for days because there are no moderators. Therefore, the community requries more active moderators, for the purpose of eliminating spam and spammers".

Did you miss some or all of those?

Oh, and: Spam that persists unbanned and undeleted attracts spam.

I'm slightly offended that you'd assume that, once I explicitly said I would only stop spam, I would use my hypothetical authority to stop non-spam.

I've watched you dive into T_P and go into immediate meltdown mode over this issue. I don't think you're lying when you say you'd intend only to focus on spam, but I also don't think you're even-keeled enough to sustain that promise.

Of course we're offering [arguments.]

Yeah, okay. Let's see:

Spam sucks.

Evaluative judgment, granted for sake of argument.

Spam should never be displayed longer than is strictly necessary.

Normative assertion made in conclusory fashion. Why "never" and "strictly necessary"? All that the initial judgment seems to imply is that less spam is better than more spam.

It's a criminal failure of LJ that members can't report spam in communities.

Do you believe that exaggerations like "criminal failures" constitutes an "argument?" And what does this have to do with our approach to spam, absent an LJ-sponsored feature?

Communities with spam are unpleasant.

Just re-stating the initial judgment here.

Politicartoons allows spam to stand for days because there are no moderators.

That's true. So far, then, we know that: Spam sucks, and it's been allowed to stand "for days," which is generally worse than having that spam be removed more expediently.

Therefore, the community requries more active moderators, for the purpose of eliminating spam and spammers.

Unfortunately, this only follows if we grant that "spam should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," which - besides being an unsupported assertion - is puzzlingly vague.

My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments. My argument is just that it should be controlled (like any other content should be controlled) to the extent necessary to ensure that everyone (apart from those with an irrational aversion to spam) feels comfortable and enjoys participating in the community; and as I've noted, it doesn't seem like that spam post's being up for a couple of days seriously impeded this community's operations.

Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," whatever that's supposed to mean. That doesn't follow from anything, and it's not self-evident. So...?

I've watched you dive into T_P and go into immediate meltdown mode over this issue.

You've seen one T_P comment thread, ever.

I also don't think you're even-keeled enough to sustain that promise.

Fair. I think you're wrong, but, then, I would. I'm happy if people other than me will delete spam and ban spammers, I just want someone to do it. Again, do you volunteer? If you volunteer, I will happily support you.

Why "never" and "strictly necessary"? All that the initial judgment seems to imply is that less spam is better than more spam.

More "spam is never content, spam displaces content."

My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments.

And I think you're fundamentally missing how spam works, particularly how uncontested undeleted spam attracts more spam.

Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary,"

And from this I conclude that you have never had to deal with spam or spammers in any meaningful sense.

You're right. Apart from an occasional spam comment in my own journal, I haven't really dealt with "spam or spammers in any meaningful sense," and I certainly haven't experienced enough of it to know whether or how undeleted spam can trigger the infusion of more spam.

If you're right that the failure to immediately delete spam will lead to the infusion of more spam, then I'll grant that there is value to deleting it as quickly as possible. That's a dynamic I've never seen in operation, but again, like I've said, I've never had a front-row seat to it occurring.

Fair enough.

I do this kind of thing for a living, in my real job - particularly, in email administration. I've also had a very popular blog both on livejournal and off, and I've worked to deal with spam for both my and other people's blogs. I don't expect you to take my word for it in the abstract, but:

Assume I'm wrong when I say that undeleted spam attracts spam.

Assume I'm wrong when I say that most spam contains malware and is dangerous to click on for all but the best-protected users.

Even given those two assumptions: Is there any reason why the presence of spam is a *good* thing? Is there ever any reason to NOT delete spam ASAP?

In the mean time, I assert that spam is an inherent bad, and that spam attracts spam, and that spam is inherently dangerous. And I can argue those if you want,

Spam isn't a good thing. But if spam doesn't have the technical effects you say it has (and, to be clear, I'm taking your word for it), then the only question left is whether it's disrupting the community. We just haven't seen that happen here.

When you say that spam attracts spam - how does that work, exactly? Since you mention user-triggered malware, is the mechanism essentially that people follow spam in communities like this, which attracts more spam to this community? I'd previously taken you to be suggesting that its mere non-deletion was sufficient to attract further spam.

(no subject)

theweaselking.livejournal.com - 2014-09-07 04:01 (UTC) - Expand

Also: "unusually" negative reaction?

It's hard to imagine the reactions I've witnessed without picturing you foaming at the mouth.

I suspect your self-selected sample is nonrepresentative.

Yes, I'm sorry that I've failed to notice all of your subtle, non-tantrum-y examples of advocating against hate speech, which I should assume must exist despite my never having seen them. I should stalk you more assiduously.

I don't think

oslo was suggesting anything other than a zero-tolerance policy for spam. I think he was suggesting that spam cleanup was not an urgent need, which is something that reasonably people can disagree with and that he is wrong about.

To wit: I think he's saying that spam cleanup here is adequate (I disagree, since Wes' recent absence) and that he fears that making additional moderators may lead to unpleasant changes (and here I agree with him).

K.

Personally I think a cartoon community works best when its allowed to go pretty far off-topic. The idea that every post must be about political cartoons would kill the community.