Lessons Learned.
I didn't announce that I had taken the posts down when it happened because I didn't think I needed to. When the news came out, though, it became clear that a lot of people disagreed with my decision.
Some of our community here at Boing Boing, and elsewhere around the web, viewed the post takedown as a violation of an unwritten rule of blog etiquette. Many more were frustrated with us for taking so long to respond, and being vague when we finally did. You, our readers, were angry because we weren't communicating with you.
We're sorry we didn't communicate more quickly and clearly. We delayed posting in part because I (and we) were trying to avoid something I feared would become a petty, personal online fight that would violate the privacy of parties involved.
When it became clear this strategy wasn't fair to our community, we were in a poor position to respond: a few of the Boingers were on vacation in remote places with their families, making coordinated communication and action difficult.
Finally, when we did post a response that drew heated comments, we didn't have a way to coordinate with our moderators and join the conversation in a consistent way. We screwed up. And we're sorry.
I'm certainly not going to say I'm glad this whole thing happened, but we did learn a lot. The whole kerfuffle made us realize that the way we work together needs to evolve as we grow. Boing Boing is still the shared personal blog of multiple editors who work together asynchronously with almost no formal editorial process. That's the way Boing Boing began and I hope it doesn't change too much. Each of us has our own opinions and we may not agree with each other. We don't coordinate what we post, and until now, we didn't have a process or protocol for taking posts down.
In fact, it's not unusual for us to take down posts. For example, I might accidentally post something that Pesco hit on a week (or a year), before. So I nuke my post. Or Mark might make a quick post on some big topic, not knowing that Cory is working on a longer, more-informed piece. Very rarely, we also take posts down for personal reasons. It's an incredibly infrequent occurrence, but sometimes one of us feels strongly that it's the right thing to do.
We've learned, though, how much those decisions can impact each other and our readers. So in the extraordinary event that one of us feels compelled in the future to take down any of our past work for non-usual reasons, we've agreed that we'll talk to each other before acting. That way, we can weigh the decision very carefully as a group and consider all of the possible consequences. In the end though, the decision will be up to the person who made the posts. After all, it's his or her work.
But we also do believe that transparency is a desirable goal. So we're exploring a few ideas for providing information to our community when we take down posts for reasons above and beyond the norm (dupes, etc.). If you have thoughts on that, we'd love to hear them.
Thanks for your continued support. Now, let the happy mutation continue....
good faith,it's needed ALL around
I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site. It's your call.
To whom are you beholden? The Internet cranks?
Thank you.
I came here to say just what #2 said so eloquently. Hopefully though, this long drawn-out apology will appease those of you that find the greatest pleasure in coming to Boing Boing to bitch and moan about nonsense. Pick your battles people. Pick your battles...
long live xeni!!
It's your site, your blog, do what you want. I don't see why other people think you have to live by their arbitrary rules.
I'm another one who agrees with #2, MHains. *shrug* Except if you put up and then take down an excellent recipe.
As far as I was concerned, the issue was tango uniform from the get go - it's your blog, do as you wish. Nicely said, tho. No more needs to be.
While I have a prurient interest in any gossip about what the fall-out with the Other Party was all about, you are in no way beholden to the public to keep your posts up in perpetuity. There's no social contract promising all blogs to be immutable and inviolate. Disgruntled readers and commenters who believe such a promise has been made and violated can go read something else, or get used to disappointment.
The fire BB had come under can only be seen as a measure of its success; a non-issue blown completely out of proportion because you're popular. Most bloggers can delete their old posts all day long and nobody -- NOBODY -- cares. That makes them cranky and jealous, I suppose.
Wow, I just can't believe that people need to create a tempest in a tea-pot over something as innocuous as unpublishing (i.e. not deleting) some archived posts you felt were not longer appropriate for personal reasons on your own website.
I set older posts on my own livejournal to 'friends only' or even 'private' because they are valid for myself, but not necessarily something I want shared any longer. Of course, there is a huge leap between my tiny corner of LJ and bb.net, but the hardercore-than-though internet crowd ought to cut the BB editors some slack.
I would hate to see BB become a website known for arbitrary censorship and post facto retractions on a regular basis, but I'm going to trust Xeni's judgment and continue to not notice such unproblematic actions. Further, I recommend the rest of the internet learn to take it easy and pick your battles much more wisely - it would save the BB front page from having two long, overly dramatic, navel gazing posts appear on the frontpage in rapid succession (ie. violetblue) about something 99% of us have no knowledge of.
Removed posts?
Took down posts?
If nothing else, at least you've dropped the Orwellian 'unpublished'.
Good to hear more about this at last.
By the way, if I were you I would make sure to read this post, by a friend of mine:
http://www.websnark.com/archives/2008/07/sing_a_song_of.html
And take its advice to heart.
I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site. It's your call.
To whom are you beholden? The Internet cranks?
I know people (ok, a person) who feels poorly about your "unpublishing" of late, but I don't understand his point of view.
Keep up the work; I judge it good. :)
ditto #2
Apparently there's a fairly large contingent of readers who feel its their given right to be informed of every thing that goes on behind the scenes, as evidenced by the train wreck of the original thread. I don't get it either.
And lets not start up again with the "zomgz, "unpublished is ORWELLIAN!" stuff again, because its very very silly and inaccurate.
TimW @11, the word is still "unpublished" if you use Movable Type.
As I was just observing the other day, any word can be made to sound Orwellian. Orwell generated horror using plain standard English.
This once again proves that the best way to draw attention to something is to try to hide it.
On the one hand, I roll my eyes at the notion that this had any noticeable harmful effect on either the Internet or the world.
On the other, people do link in to BB, and the phenomenon of link rot is an irritating one. I can see why someone who'd linked in would be taken aback.
To a certain extent, I'd like to point out that link rot exists even at sites other than BoingBoing, and that if someone thinks a particular page should have more than momentary relevance they should take care of their own backups instead of expecting you to be an immutable resource for ever and ever amen.
But -- if you choose to do so -- then deletions at a later date might better be implemented as redirect pages to a post noting and explaining the deletion. Then nobody has those nasty 404s that threaten our civilization so direly, and you've been all open about your editorial decisions (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in your context) and everybody will hopefully be less unhappy about the situation.
But I'm still rolling my eyes at the amount of furor this caused. It cost me a perfectly good three days, too. I'm an idiot.
Thanks for the support, all. We're not thinking we have to live by anyone else's rules, but we want to make sure we do what we feel is the right thing. And what our community says really does matter to us, even if it's critical. Although, of course, positive reinforcement is always appreciated! Thanks again. : )
@timw, I think its' fair to say that we should have explained what we meant by "unpublish" in the initial post when we first posted it, but that term has been explained many, many times since. It's not an "Orwellian" neologism, it's the name of a button in movable type that allows you to remove a post from public view, or take it down, *without* deleting it. So if you want to republish, if you evaluate things and change your mind, you can later on. In this case, the original decision stands.
@Michael, maybe clever 404 pages (or informative ones!) would be helpful. Someone in the other thread posted some hilarious collections of good 404 page designs.
I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same
CHORUS
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
People came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
'n' over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise
CHORUS
lott-in-dah-dah-dah, lot-in-dah-dah-dah
Played them all the old songs, thought that's why they came
No one heard the music, we didn't look the same
I said hello to "Mary Lou", she belongs to me
When I sang a song about a honky-tonk, it was time to leave
CHORUS
lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah
Someone opened up a closet door and out stepped Johnny B. Goode
Playing guitar like a-ringin' a bell and lookin' like he should
If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck
But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck
CHORUS
lot-dah-dah-dah (lot-dah-dah-dah)
lot-in-dah-dah-dah
'n' it's all right now, learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself
Another vote with #2.
It's your writing and your private life. What you share is cool, and if at any point you stop wanting to share, frankly, I think it's your right.
Social conventions around this stuff are still evolving, but frankly I hope they move in a direction that has more respect for people's privacy than we saw through this whole episode.
@Michael (#18), Your idea is one we've talked about. Thanks for posting that. I agree that 404s suck. When I dig deep into the BB archives, I notice that a lot of our older "Links" go to 404s and that's a drag, especially when I want to add "Previously on BB" refs to new posts.
you know, i still don't agree with how this is handled - but i think there's a bigger lesson here to be learned: it's really easy to perceive that this was some sort of orchestrated smear, or cabal-esque decision, because there was a perfect vacuum for those theories to expand and thrive.
i can't say i believe any one party in all of this, or hold any in any higher or lower regard - but i think the personal experience that you've all had to go through in how this sort of negative opinion could flourish is an object lesson that should be remembered the next time you (being all of boingboing) decided to take any entity to task for withholding or omitting information... because really, the reasons could spring forth from a similar place.
however, as much i feel that you should take your lumps (which you guys have), the stickers i've been seeing slapped onto various newspaper boxes in SF with "Unpublished" in the boing boing font are just damned funny, in that "come on, this is getting silly" kind of way. i'd post a link to a snapshot, but it's my understanding hyperlinks are frowned upon in comments.
Takuan, we can always count on you for meaningful musical interludes. Thanks, bub. :)
Robotech @12, fine; that's a decent link.
In general, we're hoping readers will be parsimonious with links in this thread.
Together we stand, Xeni.
(Excuse me while I don my patented Evil Villain top hat with built-in monocle. There.)
In my own much smaller adventures in blogging, I discovered something valuable. I made a few unintentionally inflammatory posts and drove some people away. It turns out that their absence wasn't really a loss. The internet cranks do add something to the conversation, but they take away something, too.
This whole affair has driven away some people who you can easily afford to lose. If it wasn't this, it would be something else. In the process, you've learned something and brought the rest of the community just a little bit closer together. All in all, it's probably a win.
wholeheartedly ditto #2. totally.
@#25 sushispook, the experience has given me a greater fascination for larger incidents of conspiracy theory. I am now even more confident that well-trained attack gerbils did not bring down the twin towers with republican laser beams.
I would also like to point out that contrary to reports on some MySpace pages, there were ZERO Mossad agents in the building when these Boing Boig posts were unpublished.
ditto #2
@#28 Ken Snider is the best sysadmin in the world, and quite possibly one of the best humans in the world, too.
@Sushipook, you should post hyperlinks to those pictures. I am anxiously awaiting the day that I can joke about "unpublishing" without it being too flippant. But in the meantime, I'm glad someone else is doing it!
Gah, I can't even spell the name of my own blog. BING BONG. There.
Ken Snider rocks.
You gotta lotta class, pal.
SUSHISPOOK (@#25), Thanks for not posting links in the thread. However, I would like to see the stickers you mentioned! Very funny idea. Can you please email me the snapshot directly?
Who cares if you guys take stuff down? It's your blog, your material, your business what happens to it.
Besides, who goes digging through archives in the blog business anyway? All blog readers want is new material. Sad but true.
Xeni: Mossad? No kidding? How did I miss that one?
While Boing Boing's credibility may have been shaken, I can't really see this is a big deal. Maybe to some the ideals you've shared over the years now seem less sturdy, I'm not sure that's the only reason people come here anyway. Despite all this deleted post nonsense, Boing Boing is still a site I visit everyday. And everyday I find something entertaining, interesting, outrageous, hilarious, etc. No, you're deleting of posts is not going to stop me from reading.
NO WITNESSES! BANG! BANG! BANG BANG!!
TheWomanYouStole (@#41), Thank you. Means a lot.
Just keep up the good work, folks.
As for suggestions: Instead of unpublishing unfortunate posts, maybe just disemvowel them?
(Apologies if this was already suggested in the gargantuan TVBT post.)
Maybe you could redirect to a very unique 404 page featuring kittens and duckies?
Rock on Xeni.
I agree with the "your blog" and "eyerolling" comments. This whole thing was overinflated in the first place.
I'm glad it's over.
Well said #2. I just shook my head reading the "irate" complaints about it. It felt like they were trying to create drama where none existed.
TheWomanYouStole, it may be shaken but I trust it's not stirred.
I think this comes down to the difference between Art and Journalism. If this is Art, and it has been stated that it is, then the Artist has full control both creatively and otherwise. If it's Journalism then it must be evaluated with those standards, and unpublishing may or may not be the right thing to do. I think part of the problem here is that people are in conflict over the definitions of what this is. So I support the right of an Artist to do whatever they please with their own Art.
Just keep in mind when you guys eventually control our entire government, someone might be able to credibly accuse you of censorship.
You might wanna amend the Constitution beforehand. Unless someone is already taking care of that!
Oh, and I meant to say: I deeply admire the way you all have dealt with it. Especially you, Xeni. Some of those people were so nasty about it that I would have just dropped a note to TNH asking her to ban their IP address from ever commenting again, but you answered them forthrightly, even when they were just piling on, rather than making legitimate criticisms.
I don't think I could have done that.
There appears to be a state of surprise when a website goes from obscurity to widespread readership and its owners are now held to a standard of practice that the original bloggers never really imagined themselves to have signed up for. To the bloggers, it's still "their" site - and while techincally true in the property rights aspect of who owns the website, there is an overlooked effect that comes with reaching a level of success in both readership number and duration.
It's called the brand identity - and here, BB has developed its own brand identity and a level of public goodwill associated with it. This goodwill is expressed in the level of expectations that the public builds upon that brand. This level of expectation can act as stifling shackles to some. For example, if a personality such as Barack Obama were to start acting in porn movies, the public outcry would be huge. Yet, that would be well within his constitutional rights and within his personal prerogative to do so. So the conflict is not a legal one but one of responsibility toward a public good which the public has grown to expect.
So yeah, BB still owns its own sandbox and may do as it wishes. It hasn't broken any rules. It isn't the issue to question the legal rights of unpublishing an article. Rather, the reaction is a measure of the public disappointment upon discovering a set of events that falls short of the set of quality standards expected from BB.
The second part of what made this event more damaging is the way the aftermath was handled. Questions naturally arose but the response to this was to go on the attack. Moderators and BB contributors were liberal in the ad hominems toward those who wanted to understand the issue more fully. The issue could have been put to bed with much less noise had there been a better and swifter clarification of what happened.
While we will likely never find out why any of this even happened, I think the exercise is a good lesson in appreciating that a brand can have an identity independent of the personalities that created it and that it remains as fragile as ever no matter how much hard work goes into building it up and it doesn't take much to cause or permit damage to come to it.
Wait. What?
Some intertube grognards complained because you took down a post?
Who gives a flying--
It's your site, do what you want with it.
You do what you want. The sane ones among us won't mind a bit. If anything, you should unpublish a few more entries, just to see how high you can raise the incontinence level of the audience.
Ken who?
I love the term NUKE.
Ken means mountain in Chinese. To be firm and consistent is important, and I find BB to encapsulate both. I'm not Chinese, I'm a guy at a computer not knowing what's for lunch. Maybe I'll feast my eyes on Xeni for dessert.
I know this website is run by androids.
Peace.
David/Joel - i sent the graphic along to David's pesco address.
Maybe a "removed due to X" post replacing the original? If the post is removed due to more thorough coverage elsewhere, a link to that coverage would work.
If it's a retraction, just say that, maybe with a brief reason why.
If it's a "OMG, I was drunk when I wrote that!" reason, that would work too :)
#2 got it right imo!
Being relaxed about it all is important, and all writers/bloggers/artists need a healthy amount of relaxed space to help with the creative process. Don't let us stress you guys out! You do good work, and on the off-chance you screw something up, I figure you've earned plenty of breathing room in the first place. Much
=)
@rstevens, hahahahah. Hey shouldn't you be doing something else, like drawing?
I'm sure there are circumstances that would...necessitate the pulling of a post. (I won't waste anyone's time with my guesses.) But wouldn't most circumstances get by with just an update, maybe just a cursory one, to the post? I mostly agree with the ownership argument that most commenters have offered here ("Hey, it's your site! Do what you feel!"), but I couldn't help feeling a little shortchanged when I heard about this. BB has made its (much deserved) rep with an almost slavish commitment to openness and community, so it shouldn't expect to be judged by the same, ever-weakening standard to which other sites (and other media outlets) pay slippery lip service.
I don't even know what flap you're talking about. I vaguely remember some post about a deleted a few weeks (or months?) ago, shrugged, ignored it, and read on to more interesting topics.
Some people don't seem to have enough to worry about. Carry on, Xeni, et al.
Thanks Xeni. Well Said.
To those who say "I still don't understand why you have to explain yourself. It's your site."
If they just thumbed their noses at us rather than try to explain their actions I doubt this blog would have many readers. It is exactly this kind of openness that keeps people coming back.
I guess this is where I get attacked form both sides...
"But they weren't very open when they deleted the posts in the first place!"
And
"This is their blog and they can do as they please. If you don't like it go somewhere else."
Yawn.
I agree with TheUnusualSuspect (#44).
Imagine what it would be like to stumble upon the disemvoweled posts having no knowledge of the practice.
This isn't 'Nam Smokey! There are RULES!
Seriously though, this isn't government, it's an ONLINE JOURNAL. The contributors are not beholden to the readers at all. Their ball, their game. Don't like it? Go find another one.
2,4,6-
Why?
Because civility in the face of incivility is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of civility. Because "the internet cranks" and those who "find the greatest pleasure in coming to Boing Boing to bitch and moan about nonsense" were just the extreme edge of a deeper and more thoughtful concern about the nature of private media outlets, public blogs, and their evolution in the public square.
Finally: because it's obvious that Xeni et al are concerned about BoingBoing and are at the forefront of the aforementioned evolution and merging of private and public spaces. It's all well and good to ask "Why should they care what these idiots think?" but it's obvious that they do care and that they want to manage BB in a way that is consistent with their values.
Make no mistake, ultimately I agree with you. BB is a private enterprise, and they can do what they wish with it.
BB isn't beholden to anyone except its ownership, but I think it's the transparency of the process and concern enough to discuss that process which differentiates this particular private enterprise from many others, even if I disagree with the decisions made.
@#64GuySmiley, it's okay. He's with the band.
Still not a peep from the usual suspects on these subjects... so I'm sure I'm not alone in waiting to hear what Mark and Cory have to say.
"Xeni offed Ms. Blue in the library with a candlestick."
Unusual Suspect @44, it's a lot harder to restore a disemvowelled comment than an unpublished one. On the other hand, there's a certain amusement value in figuring out what it says.
@ #62: Being that defensive means you already know you're wrong. ;)
I get annoyed if my own thoughts get edited here, but nowhere is the phrase "It's their blog, they can do what they want." more appropriate than here.
If Xeni has personal issues for removing entries that fell of the front page eons ago, then it shouldn't matter to us.
ditto# 2
Holybuzz @60:
Absolutely. That's why it's what usually happens.Also, as long as Boing Boing is indexed by the Wayback Machine, there's a limit on how secret any change can be. The same goes for every other website they index. I keep thinking that someday someone's going to figure out how to generate diffs on the data at Wayback, and all the web's second thoughts will be laid bare.
Someone back there wrote:
"And lets not start up again with the "zomgz, "unpublished is ORWELLIAN!" stuff again, because its very very silly and inaccurate."
It is completely accurate. It was and is Orwellian. Just look at one of the posts Xeni unpublished - a 2005 post with images taken after the London subway bombing. In that post, Violet Blue is mentioned once because she pointed to another blog that carried images of the London bombing.
Removing an item like that because it tangentially mentions someone that Xeni has a personal dispute with is entirely Orwellian.
Fine, it's their blog, they can remove posts about the London subway bombing or a post about cutting edge anti-HIV ads that ran in France or whatever because they have personal disputes with people tangentially mentioned in the post. Just don't expect to have any credibility left when you pull that kind of nonsense.
You know right about now, I bet everyone in the Bush administration hates Scott McLellan with a passion. And yet they haven't gone through and scrubbed transcripts of press briefings he held because they no longer want to associate with him, and if they did we'd be outraged at that attempt to rewrite the WH history over that sort of dispute.
And apparently BB still doesn't get that basic understanding of what happened here.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you edit this post slightly and date it back a couple of weeks, and then pretend that it was your first comment on the matter? No? Okay, it's your blog.
Teresa @ 73:
This has already happened to the Obama campaign, more or less. Part of a 21st century "flip-flop" attack. The McCain campaign contracted with a service, but the principle is much the same.
Wait - Obama's doing porn now?
@67: Xeni speaks for me -- and I'm off for the weekend to celebrate my birthday. AFAIC, if one of my co-eds wants to delete some posts they made, it's jake with me.
#52 and #65 have it right.
It's not about BoingBoing not having every right to do what they want to with their blog. They do. It's their sandbox, and the people crying "censorship! censorship!" were dead wrong.
But as Sam Neill's character points out in Jurassic Park, what you can do and what you should do are not always going to be the same thing. People trust BoingBoing to be open, forthright, and transparent—if only because of all the times it criticizes other sites that are not open, forthright, and transparent. For BoingBoing to suddenly seem to be saying "Don't do as I do, do as I say" can leave a bad taste in people's mouths, and those people react harshly because you've just damaged a bit of their self-image.
For all of that, it would have been a tempest in a tea cup if subsequent mistakes hadn't compounded the matter.
I can't believe that people have and still are getting angry or in any way emotional over this (including the latest sad diatribe from #74). It's your blog, do whatever you want. The next time you post a picture of a carrot shaped like a potato, I won't question its reliability due to deleted posts in the past.
Happy Birthday Cory! Get drunk!
Well, if this is orwellian, I guess I've participated in Orwellian actions as well, as a person who has deleted things I've posted on the internet. And every other single person who has ever deleted anything they put on the internet, ever, has also participated in Orwellian actions.
Oh noes!
BDewhirst @67, I last spotted Cory putting up an entry about a contest where the prize is an Asus Eeee decorated by Donato Giancola. I expect he'll turn up in good time.
Folks seem to be confusing journalism with hosting space. And from that arises a second confusion of content ownership. BB "owns" their content. They can etch it into platinum plates thence to be eternity vault stored. Or they can treat their words like sand art to be intentionally dispersed at ritual's end. THEIR words THEIR fiat! OUR=guests comments exist here at the hosts discretion for the same rulesets. to my take-correct me if wrong- for example- THIS post is my copyright on reproducing IT elswhere but this "instance" of it is merely "hosted" by BB.Am I correct in that ? DO please comment!
I agree wholeheartedly with Lucifer (#52). It seems to me that most of the confusion and / or outrage stems from the fact that this blog doesn't resemble the blogs that most people are used to - that is, the line between traditional news media and blogs is becoming very blurred indeed. BoingBoing looks and feels like a whole lot more than just your friends' LiveJournals, and so, rightly or wrongly, the expectation of how you/it behave in an editorial sense is much different.
Also, for the casual reader, there is no practical difference between "unpublished" and deleted or otherwise disappeared.
Forgive me if I'm rehashing old arguments, but you *did* ask. ;)
@81...apparently its not just a large percentage of the voting population is so weak minded as to buy it hook, line and sinker.
I'm satisfied with the conclusion of this and eager for the whole spectacle to fade into the past.
Toward that end:
@74 Brian Carnell - You can lid that. It's over.
"I would also like to point out that contrary to reports on some MySpace pages, there were ZERO Mossad agents in the building when these Boing Boing posts were unpublished."
Are you sure? I hear those guys can be pretty sneaky...
@84 no one is saying it is censorship in the legal sense of that term. It is, however, completely contradictory to their state values and also extraordinarily petty given the posts that were taken down simply because the string "Violet Blue" appeared therein.
Boy Howdy I agreed with everyone until I got to #74. I agreed with him even more. Instead of deleting the whole post, which was very good, why not just snippet out a name?
Brian Carnell @74, I have no idea how you arrived at that reading; but if you want to go on in that fashion, the pertinent thread is still open, and it's still linked from the "Don't Miss" list.
Besides, the stalwarts there are still hoping it'll break 2000. It's up to 1775 comments as of this moment.
I love BB. You guys do a great job.
I applaud you, Xeni, for finally confronting this issue heads-on.
The reason that I think this turned from a non-issue, to a kerfluffle, to an imbroglio, is not the act of removing posts (or unpublishing), but the stated reasons for doing so.
If you're going to go as far as to say something has become un-wonderful (or to say even more unflattering things in the heat of the moment), then you need to accept responsibility for stating why that is so.
If you do not want to state why publicly, then you shouldn't publicly say something is un-wonderful.
What to do when asked why? I'm not sure (welcome to the new world of 21st century communication), perhaps even "private reasons" is enough. But to go as far as to say something has un-wonderfuled, and to further say you won't say more because of embarrassment for the other party (who herself has been quite open, from what I have seen)... that opens up a can of worms and makes the world think it is for reasons perhaps even worse than the truth.
In the end, it's probably a good problem to have, being popular enough that the blogosphere actually cares so much.
Also, for we bystanders/voyeurs, it's been an interesting drama to watch, at the very least.
this thread is for braiding down to a tapered point. Whoever wants to roll in Velvet Blue should go there. Hopefully both will be pinched off soon since I'm in severe danger of getting bored.
You took down a number of posts for personal reasons that aren't appropriate to discuss in public.
I fail to understand why your post didn't end right there.
#85 Brian,you'll have to forgive me, but I'm not sure what your point is. There's a difference between Barack Obama removing some statements and BoingBoing deleting a blog post, for obvious reasons (Although I still support his right to change his stance on issues.)
Unless you're just saying his actions in that regard were Orwellian as well.
you go girl ! no problem. mutation continues.
Teresa wrote:
"Brian Carnell @74, I have no idea how you arrived at that reading; but if you want to go on in that fashion, the pertinent thread is still open, and it's still linked from the "Don't Miss" list.
Besides, the stalwarts there are still hoping it'll break 2000. It's up to 1775 comments as of this moment."
Um, I think you misspoke. What you meant to say was it is available *now*. Whether it continues to be available is apparently entirely up to how Xeni is feeling about her personal relationship with Violet Blue on any given day.
Which of course is the problem with this whole episode that you and the other "boingers" continue to be oblivious to.
SUSHISPOOK kindly sent me his photo of the "Unpublished" sticker spotted on a newspaper box in San Francisco. It's really well done. I'm going to break the rule and post a link to the image. Congrats to the person who made it, friend or foe. : )
@94...it was meant as insult..please disregard it... Maybe Teresa can unpublish it. ;)
#93: Because clearly that isn't enough for the Blog Post Internet Freedom Crusade, of course :p
Is there now a rule that there are no more links in comments?
I don't want to cramp anyone's style, but there is still a rule here about not mentioning presidential candidates in the comment threads of entries that don't mention them.
This thread has enough to talk about without dragging in presidential candidates -- or for that matter the Fourth Amendment, the serial comma, Macs vs. PCs, homoousios vs. homoiousios, or any other perpetual motion machine.
Thank you.
Teresa,
I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the post with the London subway bombing photos was available. It is not.
So this is BB today. A post with photos of the london subway bombing is disappeared because of a tangential reference to Violet Blue, while the huge-ass post about Violet Blue herself is on the "Don't Miss This!" list.
Yeah, *that* is a sensible editorial policy.
Brian
Marley9 @100: Not forbidden. In normal threads, the test is whether they're relevant. In this thread, we're asking readers to be parsimonious, but leaving it up to their judgement.
Er, sorry, I was just confused as to the link and reference to quote of mine and was trying to understand what he was saying. Didn't intend a threadjack, just clarification.
And Brian, I think you can afford to give Xeni a little more credit than that.
#49 - [re: journalism v. art] I think part of the problem here is that people are in conflict over the definitions of what this [BB] is.
I think most of the problem has been people who imagine themselves in public combat over what the definition of "is" is.
HPPY BRTHDY CRY DCTRW!!!!
Heh, if the violet blue post suddenly dissapeared from the "dont miss this!" list, don't you think people would be howling about that? :p
Same essence, you heretic!!!
Oh, bldy hll
IWOOD (@#65), Great comment. I make no claims that I've answered the "big questions" this whole episode has raised. But I'm glad the questions are being asked and I like (most of) the conversations that have been happening around them.
Talia wrote:
"And Brian, I think you can afford to give Xeni a little more credit than that. "
Talia, have you looked at the disappeared posts over in the Wayback archive? Seriously, just go look at this 2005 post on the London bombings that Xeni removed, check out where Violet Blue appears in that post and then come back and tell me I still need to give Xeni more credit.
@55(Orchestra Spy):
I am no android (yet), but I approve of you comparing me to one!
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
All that which cannot be disproved is true.
Therefore, solipsism is true.
Therefore, who cares if BB deletes some posts? It's all in your head anyway.
QED.
Sorry to be an HTTP pedant, be a 404 page is the wrong result - it should be an HTTP 410 Gone page - google 'http 410' for Mark Pilgrim's excellent tutorial, which mentions 'deleted blogposts' as a use case. That would make it easier to serve a special unicorns and kittens page to distinguish from the 404 one.
It would also make it clear that this wasn't an HTTP 447 error (again google 'http 447', as links are discouraged in this thread).
Brian,
There have been other controversial topics on BB before. Have you known them to dissapear? This is not about squelching discussion. It was about a personal difference leading to the desire to no longer want to support an individual.
Its obvious to any thinking person continuing the policity of deleting every VB reference ever would just lead to further chaos and bad feelings. No matter what you've decided about her ethics, this is somewhat a matter of common sense.
I want to second the idea above that you should just start deleting stuff willy-nilly. If nothing else, we'd get to watch this Brian Carnell fellow have an epileptic fit. :)
I think that the only reason that this became a big deal is the propensity of people to over react on the internet.
This should have been a non-issue, and in my mind, it still is.
Talia wrote:
"Well, if this is orwellian, I guess I've participated in Orwellian actions as well, as a person who has deleted things I've posted on the internet. And every other single person who has ever deleted anything they put on the internet, ever, has also participated in Orwellian actions."
BTW, I have to say I find that odd. I don't generally delete things on the Internet (I can only think of a single occasion where I deleted a single post I made at my blog because I realized it was seriously erroneous and would cause more harm by misinforming than by adding a correction). Believe me, I've said a lot of things on the Internet I wish I hadn't, but coming from a journalism background, I've always thought it was important to stand behind your words and own your errors.
I've certainly endorsed the views of people, for example, who I later disassociated with. But I can't ever remember thinking "gee, I should go back and delete all that stuff like it never happened." And I really don't remember ever thinking "I should take down this really long post because somewhere in there it mentions this person who I know longer like."
And I find it bizarre that people do think that way, but that's probably just my particular hangup.
OTOH, this whole episode was useful in that it showed us a side of BB I think many of us didn't realize was there. If you had asked me before this if BB would go back and removed posts like that London bombing picture thread, I'd have said no way. Retconning is something only comic book writers and sleazy businesses do.
Now I know better.
Tomorrow's ad hocratic forum-hosted policy debates today! Cheers from the future, Meme Coin-atrix.
Oren Beck @84:
Correct in most essentials, though "hosted" is not the right word. Boing Boing instantiates the conversation. We do moderate the conversation because we want there to be lots of good conversation on the site, and we believe that moderation is a necessary part of creating a place where that can happen.We can and do disemvowel or remove comments that are into being nasty, combative, or ennuyée for its own sake (see the moderation guidelines); but there's not much use to that if we don't also leave our readers feeling like they're respected and appreciated.
This is a very busy moment for me, but I'd love to talk about this at more length some other time.
One of the commentors above asked me what I think. I agree with what Xeni said here. I don't anything to add to it. She covered all the points I would have raised.
Aaron @116, have you met Takuan? You guys should get to know each other.
Kevin Marks @114, that's a good point. Thank you.
Brian Carnell, the VB thread is counting on readers like you to help them reach 2000 comments. Won't you please lend a hand?
It does seem fairly obvious that everyone has the right to do what they want with their own site. Free speech absolutely rocks. Likewise, everyone has the right to have an opinion about what you do on your own site. Free thought, likewise, rocks.
"Who cares what they say?" Anyone who doesn't want to live in an echo chamber. Are all opinions worthwhile? Nope. Part of the eternal struggle of human existence is figuring out how wide to open your mind, without wasting brain cells dealing with idiots.
Life is hard. Reducing it to easy slogans like "ignore 'em, it's your site" is, well, too easy.
And for what my opinion is worth, I think this post was exceedingly well written and engages the problem in a useful and productive way.
I've removed plenty of things. Things I've regretted. Yes its too late to remove those from public memory, but at least new viewers dont look and make assumptions.
As for showing another side of BB.. you mean, perhaps, the human side? :p I donno, you seem to be implying there was some sort of evil machinations going on, some sort of coverup, while I see it as just one person making a decision based on what they felt they needed personally.
@xeni you're right, back to drawing! i am almost free of the hegemonic oppression of the mainstream media. i failed at working a goatse into my last sunday newspaper strip though.
Sorry! I'll go away now. Didn't mean to further.. derail the conversation or whatever.
52
Lucifer (*wink*wink*wink*wink*), I don't agree with what you're saying now, and I didn't agree with it when Satan (*wink*wink*wink*wink*) said it earlier.
What you are proposing is that the Boingers should stop using their blog in a way that made them popular, because they are popular. I'd rather have them continue to be themselves and sometimes piss some people off (bonus if Brian Carnell is one of them) than become Brand Managers. Barf
Good Grief, of all the things for people to get worked up about, THIS is what they pick? How sad and ridiculous!
Xeni "et al", this is your blog, do what you will. We are just along for the ride, and I for one appreciate the work you and the BB Team do. Readers do not own you; you do not owe us anything.
Thank you for the years of useful, entertaining and enlightening information. I hope there will be years to come!
Happy Birthday Cory!
Pats on the back all round, BB.
Tho' I will remain unmollified until actual UNICORNS appear; kittens, puppies, and duckies are all very well, but...
Now, before you all blow up, I assure you that this comment is made in all seriousness.
How much of an issue would this have been, had it not been for "alleged" "purported" or "suggested" lesbian relationship. Not being male, but fully aware of the demographics of BB, I seriously wonder, if this was just some old schlep that Xeni Jardin knew, not a beautiful sexy blogger, would the hellfire that erupted here (and especially in the *mainstream* press, have been on the radar? We all know that other posts have been sent to the worm hole. But they are not getting ANY attention.
I wonder, I just wonder...
Brian @103: In all honesty, I think you must have a better imagination than I do, because you can imagine any of the Boingers doing something like this again, and I can't.
Talia? Why are you going away? I mean, you're not obliged to stay; but where did you get the idea that you're derailing the conversation?
I'm with #2 and others who've said it's yours, do with it as you please.
Citizens of Blogosphere - brush the crumbs off the keyboard, raise your favorite hand and repeat:
an emotional contract is not a contract; an agreement in your head is not an agreement; a salary paid in links is not a salary.
Now go watch some prOn! And if your favorite links are gone, do you complain to the LA Times? No! You find some more.
Go in peace.
So...it's just me who has no idea what this is about?
Brian @ 118 (and elsewhere), I find it curious that you feel entitled to try dictate what BB can and cannot do in the name of what BB is or should be.
What about personal freedom, privacy, and the general right to do what we want? Those are certainly important components of what BB is and yet that doesn't seem to matter to you. Xeni and Co aren't doing what you think they should so now they share traits with comic book writers (which is actually ok) and sleazy businesses? That's most assuredly not cool.
It's curious, but for all your concern with Orwellian plots and machinations, you're the one who's making the greatest effort to make people change their behaviors in the way that you personally feel is best. You've almost never deleted a blog post? Good for you, I've deleted a few and made some private. Does that mean that you have a right to tell others how to blog? Do I? Of course not, but you keep hammering away at it, trying to wear people down and bring them over to your point of view (which IMO is much more Orwellian than anything Xeni did).
I know you're doing it out of a desire to keep BB as the kind of entity that you imagined it to be, but I have to say, given the explanations offered by Xeni and the rest of the BB-ers, it seems like you've crossed a line beyond just sharing your opinions into really trying to badger people into falling into line.
Nice post. Thanks.
Clearly BB fans also take to heart the media transparency that BB seems to advocate. As both contributor and self-editor it is obviously tough to see the outside perspective when deep personal issues are involved.
I can certainly see the hope that quietly deleting history would make the issue disappear without notice or trauma, but to the BB audience BB isn't a "personal blog" but a news site of sorts, with a personal flair. Deleting history without notice seems like revisionist history--which I imagine it was, attempting to revise an editorial decision based on new information about the subject involved. From a personal perspective I totally understand it, from a "news" perspective it doesn't work--so I suppose it comes down to the difference between the way the blog owners saw the blog vs. audience expectations.
ah yes, the happy mutation, shall we...
PaulBowen @136, you're not alone. Not by a long shot. Sorry it's so mystifying. Will you take something very silly by way of apology?
If you really want some honest feedback, I would have to say boingboing would be a better place without xeni's contributions and *ahem* editing because of some personal issues.
There seems to be quite an imbalance in the quality and timeliness of her posts compared to the rest of the team.
Just my opinion and I'll leave it at that.
What this event means to me on a personal level: I now have to take a jaded and jaundiced view of everything I read on BB. That makes it almost like work.
SandJ @142: It's your choice either way. "Prove to me that I can trust you" is a mug's game.
I take it you've never in your life omitted to tell someone about something, thought nothing of it, and had it come back later to bite you on the ass? Most of us have. It helps keep us humble.
What this event means to me on a personal level: I haven't cried like this since my dog died. Everything tastes like ash, I haven't been able to have sex, and I have to avoid toy stores and grocery stores like the plague because if I see a bouncy ball I just start ripping everything from the shelves.
*peeks around the corner*
psst.....psssssssssssst.
had you forgotten all about the hubbabaloo? Yeah, well here we go again.
whatevers cool with me, as long as you call it a kerfluffle.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden@143: I think we've all done that at some point, more than once in my case.
My point was that I have to take a more critical view of BB - reducing some of the fun of reading. Granted, we should all be doing that anyway, but I don't like being reminded of it.
Aldasin @141, in a normal thread I wouldn't let that stand. Odds are you know that already, and it's why you posted that comment now. Permit me to express doubt that you'd ever have the nerve to speak to someone that way in person.
I know how you feel A Aaron, I too have remained celibate since the death of my dog.
Sorry, I still think BB screwed up royally on this one. This wasn't just removing one or two problematic posts. This was the complete erasure of a high profile blogger's entire past relationship to BB, 70-100 posts. These included, as #74 pointed out, some undisclosed number of posts in which the blogger in question was only tangentially mentioned.
The fact that they still exist in your unviewable archives, or on the Wayback Machine, doesn't change that they have been essentially removed from public view.
Why is this a problem? Because BoingBoing is, like it or not, a blog of record. It is one of the most widely read blogs on the Internet, and one of the most-linked to blogs as well. BoingBoing is seen as a leader in issues of Internet transparency and protection.
Because of the above, the way BoingBoing behaves sets a precedent for other, less high-profile blogs. I, for one, remain upset that the precedent you set is one of not protecting the integrity of your own archives. It doesn't mean I don't still love you all and read you daily. But I'm disappointed by your decisions in this whole VB incident, and uncomfortable with their ramifications elsewhere in the blogosphere.
Another Aaron @144, that's heartrendering.
If you have thoughts on that, we'd love to hear them..
Don't just 404 the links. Be transparent. Provide a page that can state the previous post here has eaten the bit bucket, but there used to be a post here. Doesn't need to carry the links even. Just something more transparent then a 404.
Damn. Takuan always gets off better lines than I do.
PeaceLove @150, the VB thread really needs a commenter of your high caliber to keep the conversation going.
Skep (@#138), I agree that a lot of this was about expectations. We learned a lot about what our community expects from us. Some people may see this blog as something very different than the way we do. It's interesting to think about the various perspectives, especially since we do think of BB as a community.
I, for one, welcome our Israeli Commando Orwellian overlords.
@#144 Another Aaron, please think of the Kittens.
@141 aldasin, I suspect your comment is more of the poo-flinging variety, and we'll let a little more of that stick to the walls of this particular thread than we normally would, so perturbed folks can get that out of their system.
But I'll take this opportunity to mention something I feel is of value.
One of the benefits of Boing Boing's creative commons license is that anyone who wishes can access (or not access) our content in particular ways, and remix to their heart's content for noncommercial uses.
There are some rather clever apps and webservices out there which make it possible to read an entirely Xeni-free version of Boing Boing, or [name your unfavorite author here], or automated ways to avoid posts that mention certain subjects and whatnot.
I think this is part of what being a "good citizen" publisher on the internet is, and it's why we've adopted this licensing method for all that we've done, including Boing Boing tv.
There's also this thing called the "space bar," which I find helpful when visiting websites that contain some things I may not want to pay attention to.
Cavalier @152, I'm reliably informed that it needs to be a 410, not a 404.
Kerfluffle.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pzVyO44trg7ys2C31Bt3pCw&hl=en
Not sure I saw this in the last thread, but it indexes the nixed posts.
If I may riff on a theme...
What this event means to me on a personal level:
"I was just thinking about all the words that that chalk represented, and how like those words are just dead you know? They're just dust, and what if that was like a poem or something? Poems are just dead. This is an urn I made from a...well, it was a fondue pot, but...it's an urn, with chalk dust from every classroom at Thomas Edison High School, except the science room. They lock the doors because it's got like formaldehyde and squid corpses. Why? I even wonder, like, the word "love". How many times has it been erased or deleted or burned...and there are some words that we should get rid of...like "gothtard."
-- Hope is Emo
@158: Gezundheit.
how about that Aldasin? I think you're a dipshit but you're still allowed to post here!
Xeni, this cannot be a real surprise. I don't know what prompted the original deletion, nor is that what prompts my response. However, in the middle of this love fest' I found myself impelled to interject an attempt at an answer to the question of why.
Boing Boing does not create content. Its editors often do create content; however, those works are mostly posted on other sites. Boing Boing generally does not add any meaningful analysis. Before there are outcries, I will admit that some post do, but those are atypical. Generally, Boing Boing leeches content, grabbing links from other linking sites. (With citation, but who goes to this middleman once we have the origin link?)
Boing Boing’s central business model is creating a community and feeding that community the content that it might find interesting. The editors act as the head of that community, attempting to persuade the readers for various causes that have caught their passion, articles that tickle their fancy, ideas that spur their imaginations. They have asked us to join them on their journey.
However, when you purposefully remove the availability of posts you effectively booted your readers out of that part of the club; taking your ball and going home. Normally, it’s OUR club, OUR community, with our preferences and inside jokes (steampunk! steampunk!). But to expect people not to howl when you show that we are all equal in this community though some are more equal than others is naive. It is true and you have every right to take you ball and go home. But let’s not pretend that this monster is not of your creation, eh doctor.
I do enjoy Boing Boing and read it frequently. However the lack of understanding the causes of a responsibility for this event leave me concerned. Especially with the success of Boing Boing’s attempt at persuasion.
Good luck.
Teresa@148 via - per your assessment of Aldasin @141 -
Let me get this straight for my and all of our future reference.
If a BoingBoing devotee has something to say, and you do not like it, you just "wouldn't let that stand." What do you mean by that?
The Policies should clearly state that any comment which expresses 'opinion' can be deleted by you.
Is this the way BB wants to treat its members? If so, please let us know.
I think we all would appreciate knowing exactly what your idea of free speech really is.
And further more...speech is not free. It costs a buck o' five.
If a reader does not like and editors comments, should they not be fully free to express this?
whaddya mean BB "does not create content"? You wouldn't know art if it sodomized you!
"rumpus" I think, "kerfuffle" lacks gravitas
Blingchees@164, I seem to recall that there is a code of conduct that applies to the comment section and has been in force for quite some time.
You might want to take a look at it for future reference. iirc, the gist of it is "stay on topic and discuss topics in a civil manner" you don't have to agree with everything that is said, but you have to keep things in the form of a discussion, not a personal attack or expletive filled rant.
It's nice to see that you've restored at least some of the posts that had nothing to do with her (like the William Gibson podcast, and some other podcasts). I don't know how much has been restored, if anything else has been at all. I do know that many of the deletions had nothing to do with VB, but still got deleted because of something stupid, like the "Older" and "Newer" links at the bottom of a post mentioning VB.
If you want devalue BB down to just a blog, it is inconsistent for you to call each other editors. It makes you just bloggers. But by doing all of that devaluing, it does make it clear how serious you guys take BB.
B-cheese, are you another with no inkling of manners?
"devaluing"? Another with a broad brush of "public opinion". Save it. I believe you are a noisy minority. Have your say, but don't even begin to suggest it speaks for all or even many.
Folks, just a friendly reminder that this thread isn't about moderation styles. Please take that to the moderation thread.
And NEGENTROPIC (@#163), I'm sorry that you see Mark, Xeni, Cory, and I as "content leeches." I think you're wrong. And I'd bet the vast majority of our readers do too.
Takuan 162: Hmm, I must disagree. I think 'jackhole' is the correct term here. Or maybe, given the level of conversation displayed by that individual, we should respond in kind and call hir a "doo-doo head."
I stand corrected Professor Xopher, yes "jackhole" is indeed more correct. With hints of sphinctertude.
Takuan, I am trying to engage and inform. I want to know what is going on here. I fail to see where in my post I did not display manners. Please explain your point. I just want to know exactly what TNH's, (or BB's in general) criteria are for deleting posts that express honest non offensive, non-vulgar, non-blatantly-attacking an editor or their posts. I am not saying I agree at all with what Aldasin said; in fact the contrary. I do however support their ability to express themselves.
So I ask you again, what point are you trying to make?
And Xeni Jardin say: poo-flinging variety? I love her posts, but do not understand her stance of BB here. You all put yourself out in the public eye, and I in no way mean with BB. But when someone expresses their non vulgar or offensive opinion, they are on thin ice?
BB invites all to comment. But dare they say anything less than flowery, then comment gone?
I call BS on this, and welcome all your thoughts. Too many trigger happy moderators do not make for a welcoming blog.
Well done, Xeni.
But the other thing that's desperately needed at this point is to kick Teresa Hayden's butt right out to the curb.
Teresa did nothing but repeatedly exacerbate the massive conflagaration going on in the comments by being combatative, snippy, rude, and in essence doing the precise opposite of what the verb "to moderate" means.
She didn't alleviate the effect, she didn't try to calm things down, she got into the thick of things and fought. And, moreover, fought nastily.
I'm sure she's a fine human being and an excellent 'Net citizen and blogger and writer and editor.
But as a moderator, she is bad. Really bad. And she needs to be shown the door.
Or else the next time a controversy erupts (and it being BoingBoing, merely by virtue of its celebrity it almost certainly will), you're going to get another bad-P.R. flamewar situation that isn't going to be calmed down by the person you hired to calm things down.
Also, for God's sake, quit the disemvoweling. It's a childish prank.
Now let's see how long this honest, nonprofane, but no-doubt-offensive-to-Teresa comment retains its vowels.
And I'm not surprised your boorishness is invisible to yourself. That is usually the root of it. Whether you genuinely cannot see or are pretending not see your snide, insulting tone does not matter. It will not be countenanced. You are not the first nor will you be the last to mistake kindness for weakness. Shut up and go away as far as I am concerned. You are not here with genuine good faith.
Wow, just wow.
I think the drama surrounding the removal of the posts is more exciting than why the posts were removed. Personal decisions in a public venue are open to criticism. And in 10 years will having removed or not removed the posts really have made that much of a difference? Not really.
Xeni, as you are well aware you have a status in the internet celebrity world. That makes you a public figure. Your actions and statements are subject to open comment. Even things you may wish were a bit more private. These are items I assume you are well aware of.
People become critical of censorship(perceived or real). And yet people also want privacy. That with a need to be vicarious makes for some interesting moments when another person does something we may not agree with or comprehend. The price of celebrity.
Does this mean you can't remove the pages of course not. You can do what you wish. Wisdom is what we acquire when intelligence and experience aren't at the same place. You acquired some wisdom. Maybe just some wisdom on dealing with your readership.
So in a couple of years let us know how this event affected you and maybe you will repost the pages, maybe not. But I would be curious as to the long term effect.
Come on, guys. There's no need for names — in this thread, especially.
and you,Mike Harris, what have you done to contribute in any way whatsoever? Just another loudmouth taking advantage of the free bar.
Right, Takuan! Because only people who love BoingBoing and think it blameless are right! And all others are demonspawn, your enemy, who need to be vilified and marched towards Hades! Keep that mind firmly closed and locked into all those opinions you hold — in today's climate, it will keep you safe, warm, and happy!
When I mostly pulled back from the big thread was when a troll asked if I thought I really had anything to add to the conversation. While I was busy reminding myself that I knew better than to feed trolls, I realized he had actually asked a very good question, so I slowed way down in my posting.
I did not need to shoot down every instance of everything I had already shot down until they stopped. If I had already made a point, and if my point had any validity, then the lame arguments that kept resurfacing would be recognized as such by those who are paying attention.
I urge people to follow my brilliant lead. If you've made your point in the big thread, consider it read and understood by the people who are paying attention.
And if you want to argue about moderation, go to the moderation thread.
MIKE HARRIS (@#175), In any other post, I'd kick your ass to the curb. Your behavior is very rude. And as I said in #171, this thread isn't about moderation. If you want to talk about moderation, go to the moderation policy thread.
Does anyone else get the impression that Understudy pictures himself as Old Kenobi or something..."You, my son, have acquired wisdom."
Wow, so, uh, who appointed you Daddy?
As for Boing Boing shuddering in its boots over another flame war in the future....umm, are you kidding? You know how many hits these things generate? You probably just paid Xeni's water bill.
actually Joel, there is. So long as the vandals and character assassins think generosity is a license to practice their evil little ways, it is the right of any fair-minded person to call them on it in the same terms. If they can't stand devowelling or deletion, then let them stand up to what they dish out. If they can.
@175 Mike Harris...
'But the other thing that's desperately needed at this point is to kick Teresa Hayden's butt right out to the curb.'
'...But as a moderator, she is bad. Really bad.'
Praise Hayzeus. Its just a matter of time before the BB'ers see this too. Maybe they already do....
Why is Takkkyuan allowed to call people a dipshit, but critical posts about anyone in the BB world should be disemvoweled or deleted?
Mike Ris 175: Your comment here is made of fail. I doubt it will be disemvowelled, though if I had the keys to the disemvoweller I'd certainly crank it right up.
If you're trying to disguise the fact that you're on a personal vendetta against Miss Teresa, ur doin it rong.
Guess you guys really haven't learned anything, David, if untempered criticism is automatically translated as "rude behavior."
Teresa did a crappy moderation job. That might be "rude" (oh dearie me, where's my fan, I've got the vapors?!), but it's factual.
If you want to continue to fund her paycheck, be my guest ... it'll be your website that explodes next time a controversy rains down. And it'll be your website that continues to generate resentment and lose credibility when comments are disemvoweled or "disappeared" because of the emotional moment-to-moment whims of an exacerbator, not a moderator.
It's a little disconcerting to see that so much remains unresolved as to whether things would have been handled any differently despite the present benefit of hindsight. The nuance between being sorry for the act or sorry for being caught remains unclear. While the post is lengthy and merely reiterates what is already known and what will remain unknown, I don't see a comprehensive policy or analysis of where the mistakes were made, and how things would be handled in the future, if any differently, as a result of what has happened. I was a little disappointed to hear old world excuses (everyone was geographically remote from each other so we couldn't get a meeting of the minds about things) in regards to the use of a medium where geographical location of contributors is nearly irrelevant. It all still seems a bit fluffy to me - kind of like saying "Hey, this was a bummer and I sure hope it doesn't happen again. Let's move forward and forget about it huh?"
I don't think BB technically did anything *wrong* by unpublishing references because there isn't enough and will not be enough information to make a public judgment on that. However, even leaving out the core personal reasons that ignited the unpublishing, there needs to be an explanation that can clarify whether this was a one-time aberrant ad-hoc decision or whether this fits into the general scheme of standard procedure or if this issue is now closed or will give rise to some kind of process to prevent more of the same. Without those answers, there's a gap in what we can expect from BB going forward. There's a difference between having the flexibility to be quirky and lacking a consistency of conduct to render a source unreliable. I think that line was crossed once already and it's not clear if assurances are forthcoming that it won't be crossed again - and whether that's something everyone here is comfortable living with because everything is hunky dory as far as everyone's concerned.
I haven't following this "controversy" closely, and am, in fact, breaking the rules in that I have not read all of the above comments. However, I feel like I have to weigh in. I have a gut reaction to the idea that you guys are going to discuss unpublishing (deletions or whatever!) before doing them. This seems somehow more sinister to me. It seems that as long as you are removing your own work and not each others that perhaps a quick heads-up to the others should be all that is required. I know that you guys all respect one another, but any discussion of what should be removed seems to open the door to pressure to delete or not delete that could lead to censorship. Like I said, as long as no one is allowed to remove another person's posts, I think you have the right to edit/unpublish/delete/amend.... That being said, I do appreciate the bb policy of showing your edits.
There's one thing I just don't get about what's going on here. What is it about the removal of content from a blog that gets people all up on their hind legs?
This is minor. Find something significant to get puffed up about.
TAGETODM
Drink.
Uhm, I hate to break it to you Takun, but that may not have been "art" you were experiencing.
However, I think there was an element of truth to #165, BB doesn't do a lot of original reporting. There certainly is some, especially with BB TV, but all in all BB is mostly editorial comments on links to other web sites. The editorial choices and comments are "creating content," but of a different nature from content which is created from scratch--which the editors also do at BB.
Because folks who talk about moderation issues in places other than the moderation thread ARE dipshits. :)
Re: #171 David Pescovitz
Perhaps using the term "leeches" is bombastic. However, it is true that Boing Boing is not the central repository of content, the editor/authors or otherwise. Posts mostly consist of links. If that is your only complaint of my post though, then perhaps this ancillary support of my argument doesn't detract from my central thesis.
By the way, nice usage of argumentum ad populum. Might I suggest rebutting my argument with some facts the show my premise to be false, or perhaps where my logic is flawed?
For Xeni: my goal, though it might be as flawed as Mr. Pescovitz hopes it to be, is to provide some insight into the why. (I consider myself a member of this community too.) I am just trying to help out. Though I admit that my brand of support doesn't resemble Nicolas Chauvin's.
Thank God you were here, Mike Harris, to warn him with your wisdom though, right?
well Mike and cheesy-boy seem to have shot their bolt. How much ya wanna bet neither one will actually shut up but will instead keep repeating it ad nauseum until someone finally flushes their sorry, publicity seeking asses? Delete both these turds. No sin there.
@DragonVPM
I have read the policy three times. I see nowhere in it that says if your post is completely civil, but expressing an opionion, it will be 'moderated'
Can you point me to this part of the policy?
Stringcheese, in this thread posts that would ordinarily be deleted or disemvowelled are being allowed. The dipshit took advantage, so Takuan returned in kind.
art is what I say it is. Only a fool will argue with this. Running around telling others what they are doing is art or not....
@#185-Blingcheese
I completely agree about both parts. I've seen many posts critical to the powers-that-be get disenvoweled and accounts suspended. It's their prerogative to abuse the authority they do have certainly and quell any accusation to the matter.
Let's try to keep the comments on moderation in the moderation thread. I just posted a comment there: http://xrl.us/k7yp8
and take your sock puppets with you!
I think you meant "leaches." That is, they filter it from the soil of the internet. "Leeches" would be sucking it out like a leech, which is a bloodsucking parasite.
If you didn't mean to call our hosts bloodsucking parasites, saying so now would probably be good...and probably get your comment a more sympathetic hearing.
188 Lucifer
You didn't get the detailed audit and after-action report? I have my copy right here.
Oh, right. You're not on the Board.
I love disemvoweling; it's a challenge. As a natural smart ass, it forces me to cunningly hone the art of the bodkin. Any blustering oaf can swing a saber.
Takaun-
You can go around calling names and making yourself feel better.
Some of us are trying to engage in a discussion.
I am not sure what it is you are doing, but I challenge one editor to tell us how your comments are helpful.
Nay, why don't you tell us how...
'How much ya wanna bet neither one will actually shut up but will instead keep repeating it ad nauseum until someone finally flushes their sorry, publicity seeking asses? Delete both these turds.'
...is helping the discussion in any way. Please explain.
I must be mistaken...I was under the impression this entire discussion was about the moderation of BB....did I miss something here Mark?
#156 XENI
"There are some rather clever apps and webservices out there which make it possible to read an entirely Xeni-free version of Boing Boing, or [name your unfavorite author here], or automated ways to avoid posts that mention certain subjects and whatnot..."
If you so favor such clever apps Xeni, why couldn't you yourself use them to filter out the VB content on BB?
I'm not Mark, BlingCheese (#206), but I'll take a crack at a response: We were hoping to discuss ways to make deletions or changes more transparent; comments moderation is a separate topic.
It's nice that you've discovered the consequences of your actions. Maybe next year you'll act like a grown-up, do the right thing, and put the posts back.
So, thanks, xeni, for making your sex life glaringly public. It's been...stimulatihng.
Anybody else take a look at BLINGCHEESE's posting history?
ie, this is the only topic he/she has ever posted in?
Yup, sock puppet.
And Takaun is contributing to the conversation...he's pointing out that most of this is the work of trolls with an axe to grind.
@sumer88!
Up high!
_.-._
| | | |_
| | | | |
| | | | |
_ | '-._ |
\`\`-.'-._;
\ ' |
\ .` /
| |
NPBLSHD (@#209), Xeni didn't.
Wow, Ascii High five Moderated!
@AA
Because I just now, after reading this 'blog' for four years, decided to comment, am a sock puppet?
I got your sock right here...
Joel- Understood. Its a fine line, but understood indeed. Thanks for the info.
Yes, that means you're a sock puppet.
And I have both socks. Thankyou though.
Well, Summer88 sure doesn't understand the distinction between being the owner of a blog and being one of the readers.
Anyone want to explain it? You probably have to use one-syllable words.
@#206 posted by blingcheese: "....did I miss something here Mark?"
Yes. I'll repeat myself: Please discuss moderation in the moderation thread.
@Hagbard 129
quoting you: "you are proposing is that the Boingers should stop using their blog in a way that made them popular, because they are popular. I'd rather have them continue to be themselves and sometimes piss some people off"
I disagree. This controversy is in fact a departure from the behavior or formula that made BB popular. In fact, this behavior has hurt BB's popularity *because* it is not in line with what we have seen BB do in the past. Further, I think the deluge of criticism isn't so much as a call to punish/attack BB but to voice a heightened concern over the potential harmful direction it is heading in if arbitrary unpublishing gains traction as a valid tool. If anything, BB founders should feel good to see that people care enough about the integrity of this little communal entity that they have strong feelings about how it is being led and managed.
The act of unpublishing content based on unclear reasons is cause for worry - at least can we agree on that - especially if there are no assurances that it won't stop beyond this incident? That makes the internet cry.
oh and.. yeah winkwinkwinkwink... though that other dude Satan winkwinkwink never really made any clear and obvious violations (vulgar language, non-relevant discussion, spam), the plug was pulled.
Goodness...we should have done this hours ago.
Sumer88, Lucifer, and Negentropic are all puppets as well. Take a look at they're posting histories....
Durnit, make that "their."
Yes. I'll repeat myself: Please discuss moderation in the moderation thread.
Translation: "In this thread that is supposedly regarding our self-evaluation on how we handled the Violet Blue incident, please take any actual discussion on how one of our staff handled the Violet Blue incident to a thread that's nowhere near the main page and has the barest of page views or public attention. This thread should be dedicated to the issues to which we've addressed Xeni's faux-apologetic response."
BlingCheese @164: If that were the policy, the policy would say that. It isn't, it doesn't.
Why wouldn't I normally let a comment like that stand? For really obvious reasons that aren't personal to me.
I'm not going to have a fight with you. Sorry. If you've looked at the moderation guidelines, you already know the answers to your questions. If you want to know more, try Google. There's only one Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and I've done a fair amount of writing on this and related subjects.
Asserting in a thread like this that the deciding factor is whether a comment expresses an opinion is self-refuting. On the off chance that this thread doesn't provide enough examples for you, try the VB thread. It's large, and full of opinions.
Wow. Sure looks like Mike Ris is trying to figure out exactly where the line is...by pushing it until he gets banned.
I sure hope he crosses it soon.
And Lucifer, you just more or less confessed to being a sockpuppet for "Satan." Bans are on people, not posting names.
Burnchao @168, if you think the Boingers don't take things seriously, earnest bunch that they are, it does make it clear how well you read Boing Boing.
Blingcheese (again) @174, please don't harass the other commenters. If you "want to know exactly" what our policies are, go do your homework. You'll find it's much more productive than asking the same questions over and over again.
219 Lucifer
Thanks for responding. That other dude never gave me the time of day.
Right from the announcement that started TVB thread, I understood what happened to be a particular and unusual circumstance. It never occurred to me that BB would do such a thing lightly or casually, and after all the furor, I trust all the more that they would not; if for no other reason than it leaves them vulnerable to what I called a "denial of whuffie attack."
I really really don't think their honor and integrity deserved to be called into question, nor do I think them lame enough to need to be lectured about how to run their site.
PS I was watching when that other dude got bounced, and I cheered.
@ 163 negentropic: "Generally, Boing Boing leeches content..."
But we are pretty good at selecting interesting hosts, and the way our bodies undulate as we suck blood makes for a good show.
Mike Harris @175: You know, the Boingers have read that thread.
Okay, ewwww.
@ 222 Mike Harris:
Funny, but wrong!
I am aware the issue of blog ownership has been given as one justification as to why xeni can unpublish the postings. Just what BB has grown to become over the years is a whole seperate topic in itself..
This still does little to clarify issues revolving around transparency. In the spirit of what a lot the site (to me, anyway) stands for it all seems quite hypocritical.
If the 'community' didn't care, you simply wouldn't be dealing with such a heated debate over these actions.
I noted #156 XENI as I felt it was hollow suggesting others filter out content they don't want to see. Yet by unpublishing these posts she has taken away the whole community's access, simply because she herself no longer wants to see them.
I hope that wasn't too many sylables for you xopher. And another aron - just because i don't feel the need to comment every 5 seconds on every single bb post doesn't make me a puppet.
@ 187 Mike Harris:
"Teresa did a crappy moderation job. That might be "rude" (oh dearie me, where's my fan, I've got the vapors?!), but it's factual."
No. It's your opinion. It's not factual. My opinion is that she did a terrific job. If you would read the moderation post instead of trying to be cute, you'd learn why I think that.
Just as last time, the comments here are heavily censored.
No, the fact that this is the only topic you've ever commented on is what makes you a puppet. I wouldn't be surprised if all this hollering is being generated by one or two people using ten accounts.
Ok...
This thread has been highjacked by trolls who despite repeatedly being told that this is not the place to discuss this will not be persuaded to take it someplace else. Polite behavior and self respect would clearly dictate that they do so promptly.
I for one, find their behavior fascinating. Where else are you going to find such attention seeking behavior? I am not a zoologist, but I'm sure there is a case study in all of this primate behavior. Perhaps we could create a glass cage and have them permanently on display?
BB editors - you still post wonderful things. I for one, will continue to read and be amazed.
As for accusations of censorship, I urge everyone to note the existence of this thread, the thread on Violet Blue, and the moderation thread.
If anyone thinks that BB is afraid to air it's dirty laundry then they should think again.
If BB wanted to censor any of this, they could have just removed the entire disclosure. Instead people they have clearly disagreed with have been able to voice their opinions (as related to the topic at hand).
As to the deletions, I understand that no harm was intended, and furthermore, that no harm was done. But in the future, I am glad that their will be more transparency in regards to potentially controversial deletions.
Moderators - All the love in the world to you. You have a heck of a job and I for one will be infusing myself with libations in your name this very evening over at the local watering hole.
Thank you all at BB.
I do have to ask ...
(1) Xopher, is there a reason why I'm "Mike Ris"? I may be walking into something, but you've whetted my curiousity as to what joke lies underneath omitting the letters "HAR" ...
(2) Teresa, by "that thread", what are you referring to?
(3) Mark, "wrong" is a very thorough rebuttal. Thanks for that.
Also, just have to comment about how it's incredibly amusing to have dissent and disagreement characterized as ban-worthy offenses by a few heavy contributors to this thread. I'm aware it's not official BB mods doing it (well, aside from David's threat to kick me to the curb -- so perhaps it is), but it's nonetheless just so bare and unadulterated or unhidden, this antipathy and moreover this repeated use by them of the ad hominem, which appears to be the only arrow in their quiver, the one they just keep firing time after time. It's really quite funny after a while.
Let me guess. Your response is going to be, "Yo mama."
Boing Boing needs rules? gawd, isn't this the same type ppl that went off a long while ago because they found some "inaccuracies" in various posts? Those who shuddered at the thought of a site that requires critical thought and individual analysis to aid in proper digestion?
Boing Boing is rock n' roll mercury... the more you try to constrict it, the more it breaks up all around you into silvery beads, slips around and makes fluid escape (while lookin' wicked cool and reflective at the same time).
I, for one, welcome our new media overlords.
[cow now lobs aqua teen LED bomb into thread and runs]
Hagbard @181, you've been an ornament to this thread. Pulling back is not a bad idea. We're bound to get trolls romping. We certainly did last time. I have faith that it will create the same cumulative effect.
If you're feeling especially pious, consider offering up a prayer for the souls of all those who can't think of anything better to do on a midsummer Friday afternoon than coming here to troll this thread.
@232 Sumer88: "In the spirit of what a lot the site (to me, anyway) stands for it all seems quite hypocritical."
You're shooting blanks. One of the things I stand for is personal freedom. That includes the freedom to delete my own posts. I also stand for personal responsibility and that includes not screwing over my readers. I don't think we screwed over our readers here, and I haven't read any comments that convince me otherwise.
@ #237 posted by Mike Harris
Yo mama!!!
Actually, although the ad hominem is being used all over the place, the arrow that is really getting repeatedly shot by those people is just this dire threat/prediction, phrased in about 14 different ways thus far, that the dissent people are voicing to the party line is going to get them banned. "You're going to get banned." "Man, I can't wait for the BB folk to ban them." "These are trolls, they're gonna get banned." "Ignore those trolls, they're going to be banned." "Sockpuppets!"
It's the politics of namecalling and avoiding the actual argument — and for a blog that's been dedicated among other things to noting the immense excesses of the Bush regime, it's hilariously ironic to see its supporters employ the same tactics as Bush supporters have used these past eight years.
@237 Mike Harris "I'm aware it's not official BB mods doing it (well, aside from David's threat to kick me to the curb -- so perhaps it is)"
Just have to comment about how it's incredibly amusing to see that you were the first to suggest that Teresa be kicked to the curb, but when David says it to you, suddenly it's a threat.
Also, thanks for confirming my opinion of you and your moderative tendencies by employing the same terminology and ad hominem attacks, Teresa.
For someone who claims to be such a 'Net citizen, I'd think you'd not make the far too common mistake of calling anyone you disagree with a troll.
"... with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Intent's a factor. Just because Joe or Jane Schmoe doesn't agree with your opinions or deeply-held beliefs doesn't mean he or she is a troll. They've got to be purposefully doing it to get a rise out of you.
And if you think that all those who disagree with you are doing so only to evoke your ire, then things are far more delusional than I first thought.
#242 posted by Mike Harris:
Are you saying that you feel virtually waterboarded?!! I'm new to this thread; what did these bastards do to you?!!! I'm here to halp.
@243 Mark: Try again. "to have dissent and disagreement characterized as ban-worthy offenses by a few heavy contributors to this thread (I'm aware it's not ... "
In other words, David is indeed characterizing dissent and disagreement as ban-worthy offenses.
Darn it! Why did this pie fight have to happen on the afternoon when I'm cleaning and cooking for 2 - 3 dozen house guests* tomorrow?
I'll have to catch up on all of this Saturday night.
Just for that you get none of this awesome potato salad I just made. Nope. And not one frosty beer either.
(stalks off...)
Users of a forum I used to Mod.
@ 246 Mike Harris
I'm talking about how hilariously ironic and incredibly amusing it is that you can dish it out but can't take it.
Blingcheese again @185: because it's not true that "critical posts about anyone in the BB world should be disemvoweled or deleted." Also because Takuan's accumulated a great deal of credibility by frequently being funny, incisive, well-informed, and a good person to have around; and because he puts in a lot of quiet work plus a certain amount of noisy work helping moderate the site.
Teresa
Well, I suppose I could go back to doing my job.
At work.
Personally, I don't care about the gossip behind the action of deleting posts. That was never an issue. The issue was the deletion itself. Xeni's response that she and the other BB cohorts will talk about it more in the future is a weak stance that doesn't answer the core of the problem.
Frankly, I don't see why the posts had to be deleted anyway. It seems that the personal got entangled in the professional. The posts could have been left there gaining digital dust and nothing would have come of it.
Sure this is "your blog" but it moved beyond a just a personal blog a long time ago. It has a life of it's own now propelled forward more by it's readers than by it's authors. BB gadgets and BBTV are prime examples of this. They are ideas born by you but ultimately exist due to the interest or disinterest of your audience.
The deletions was also an idea born by you, but in contrast to BBgadgets ultimately it failed in the eye of the majority of your audience. You knew this would be an issue which is why it was done quietly.
A better reaction to all of this would have been "I'm sorry I'll reinstate the old posts and let's move on from all this." But instead what we get is "sorry not changing anything, but next time the BB cohorts will meet in secret before we delete posts."
By the way ... Teresa. David. Mark. Xopher. Aaron. Etc.
Got a question for you.
Put aside the argument, sorry, I mean, put aside the namecalling that I'm a "troll."
Put aside the ad hominem taunt that I have "nothing better to do" on a Friday.
Put aside the threats that I'm going to get banned soon.
Put aside the comments that I'm just one head of a hydra sockpuppet, so that you are many and I am one.
How 'bout the original premise, the one that so enraged you all? The one that's remained unaddressed?
I'd be really interested to hear one of you construct a solid, rational, non-ad hominem, well-written argument that Teresa's behavior in the threads at question fulfilled the actual definition of the verb "to moderate", that her overuse of disemvowellment and outright removal didn't worsen the controversy and keep anger and tempers up, and that her emotionally charged responses, taunts, and remarks didn't also worsen the controversy and keep anger and tempers up.
As it stands, you guys have been the trolls, not I. You've been the ones dipping into the worse debate techniques the 'Net has to offer. Of course, since when do trolls admit, even to themselves, that they are trolls?
#247 posted by ROSSINDETROIT:
[cow slowly sticks out hind hoof to the blinking aqua teen LED bomb and quietly clicks it off. gazes lovingly at the potato salad]
@ hagbard:
First you say:
"It never occurred to me that BB would do such a thing lightly or casually, and after all the furor, I trust all the more that they would not; if for no other reason than it leaves them vulnerable to what I called a "denial of whuffie attack."
----
ok, I can buy that. But then you say:
----
"I really really don't think their honor and integrity deserved to be called into question, nor do I think them lame enough to need to be lectured about how to run their site"
----
So in your second thesis, you say that people should not voice their concern over the harm done to BB's integrity over unpublishing incidents but in your first thesis, you say the public voicing of these concerns are the check and balances that would prevent further use of ad hoc unpublishing.
You're contradicting yourself. Either you say "please, people, remain vigilant as the first line of defense against any decline in the integrity and quality of BB by voicing your concerns loud and clear" or "BB is beyond reproach and their judgment infallible. People should remain quiet and simply enjoy the gifts that they bestow upon the world on a daily basis without question."
That Satan guy was a jerk. I hate him.
@252 Mike Harris:
I've told you twice that I gave you my reasons why I think Teresa did and does a bang-up job over on the moderation thread. Please look there. I sure hope you do, because I'm not going to tell you a fourth time.
Heya, Xopher (186). Can you believe this? As Archilochus said, the Fox knows many prayers. The Arouet knows only one prayer, but it's a goodie.
I'm talking about how hilariously ironic and incredibly amusing it is that you can dish it out but can't take it.
Me: "Teresa is assigned to the paid role of acting as someone who moderates the Boing Boing comments. She did so extremely badly and instead performs the opposite of her function. She needs to be fired."
Me (subject): Non-performance of a job function that caused detrimental effects to an online community.
David: "I do not like what you are saying and the manner in how you are saying it. Because I do not like the subject matter of what you are saying, were circumstances different, I would ban you."
David (subject): Threat of programmatically excluding possibility of opinion that differs from his own.
Using the same metaphor doesn't mean the same meaning is at play.
Sumer88:
Wow. It's astonishing, but you really DON'T get it.Someone suggested that Xeni be eliminated as a main poster. That was rude and stupid.
Xeni, with more politeness than I could have mustered, suggested that if they want to see Boing Boing without her posts, there are filters available.
By contrast, Xeni did not want her VB posts to be seen, because she did not want to promote VB or be associated with her. Note the words 'her VB posts' above. They were HERS.
If you still don't see the difference between 1. some idiot trying to dictate Xeni's removal from posting, diplomatically reinterpreted by Xeni as merely not wanting to see her posts, and 2. Xeni no longer wanting ANYONE to see her posts, then you're too obtuse for words. Unless, of course, you think any random jerk off the street should have the right to say that all Xeni's posts should be removed from BB, in which case there is no polite word for what I think of you.
Mike Harris 237: Ah, I was wondering if you'd noticed. I was beginning to think you really thought it was OK to omit the first half of someone's name, as you did to 'Nielsen Hayden' in your 175. I suppose it's possible you thought that 'Nielsen' was her middle name (it is not: her husband's name is Patrick Nielsen Hayden) and weren't being deliberately disrespectful. But given the tone of the rest of that comment, deliberate disrespect seemed the most plausible hypothesis.
#255: Your comments there aren't anything near an actual argument, Mark. They're just "Teresa being nasty to any commenters who disagree with us helps the place not degenerate into YouTube forums (*)". [(*) - Which are actually a lot better now that digg-style rating has come into play.]
As I said: logical, rationally based, well-written, solid argument. Not just a fancier version of "I think Teresa's cool."
If that's all you got, though, that's all you got.
Woohoo! It's a Friday afternoon troll party up in here! Did somebody say something about potato salad and beer? Takuan, put something on the turntables!!!
@ #254 posted by "Lucifer"
Poster, I served with Lucifer, I knew Lucifer, Lucifer was a friend of mine. Poster, you are no Lucifer.
@257 Mike Harris: No, the *exact* same meaning is at play. You said Teresa needed to have her butt right out to the curb for being rude, and David said you should have you ass kicked out the curb for being rude (not for having a opinion he disagreed with).
You have wasted my time long enough. Everything you've said here has been wrong.
#258: That's absolutely freaking hilarious. You're providing me with enough humor to make me chuckle for the whole weekend. No, I hadn't processed that Nielsen wasn't her middle name but merely the first part of her surname. And to immediately leap to the premise that it was done to offend ... tell me, if I had miscapitalized her name as "Teresa nielsen Hayden", would you have been been referring to me as Mike harRis? Because of course, when dealing with someone who disagrees with you, every error is at heart a purposeful attack, right?
Mark, as I said: same analogy, entirely different meanings and settings. You can obviously disagree if you like; in fact, I'd have been surprised if anything I said convinced you.
As for "wasting your time", if you contact me via e-mail and provide me with an invoice for your time, I'll be happy to let you turn it over to a collection agency.
And, again, the mere flat response of "you're wrong" comes into play. Those rational arguments just seem not to be coming ...
Actually, wait a minute, I'm talking with a Boinger here. Before you get that invoice prepared, Mark: facetious.
There are a multitude of problems that have contributed to this situation.
First is the self-serving, doublespeaking, elitist culture that has obviously permeated BB. By this I mean the, "it's only censorship when *other* people do it" sort of mindset. Sure, they have their justifications ready but at the end of the day their unpublishing/deletion of posts or comments amount to stifling someone's opinion.
If you read up on many of the BBers you can see that they really feel they're 'above' the rest of us and so very intellectually superior. THEY know what's right, and that gives them the mandate to do ridiculous stuff like talk out of both sides of their mouths. Elitist bullshit abounds.
To be honest, it reminds me of the logic that caused countries to slide into Communism (yeah yeah I know, I'm filling an Internet flamewar stereotype here but hear me out the history lesson is relevant). Specifically, the powers-that-be would take an action, then come out with the, "But don't you agree...this is truly in your best interest, not that we're going to really explain how!" sort of rhetoric. Right before you take it up the ass.
Here the BBers are saying, "Yes we took away someone's voice but, you know it's not really censorship because I promise, we had our reasons! ...not that we are going to tell you what they were." What's being left unsaid here is that the reasons amount to some petty dirty-laundry and that they took the chicken-shit way out by deleting posts instead of dealing with it in a way that gave the other side a chance to make their case.
I firmly believe that the hiring of their know-it-all moderator, Theresa, is a poor choice but more of a symptom than a cause. Any blog with a truly anti-censorship stance would be loath to hire someone with her history.
I almost quit BB when they hired Theresa. Because of this, I'm blocking it at our router. Yes, it's censorship - but at least I fucking admit it.
Mike Harris 257:
No, of course it doesn't. If your ass is kicked to the curb it will not affect your livelihood (unless you're being paid to come here and diss Teresa, a possibility I really hadn't considered). So the "threat" against you is much milder than what you're proposing be done to Teresa.And you know, or should know, that opinion differing from David's, or anyone's, is not what gets a person banned here. If you do know that, you're just trolling by claiming otherwise over and over. If you honestly don't believe it...well, you need to reexamine the evidence.
Granted, there's really no polite way to express the sentiment that the Moderator should be fired, when the site owners have just told you they're quite pleased with her work. It's kind of like if I told you you should paint your living room a different color, and you tell me you like it how it is. If I then tell you I think you should paint it a different color even once more, I'm being rude no matter how politely I phrase it.
Lucifer
Can't you see I'm at work now?
PS You have still misunderstood me. I'm sorry I haven't made myself clearer.
MIKE HARRIS @#237, I didn't say I was going to exclude your opinion because you disagree with me. If you actually read the comments on other posts, you'd see that lots of people disagree with us. I'd like you to leave because you're a jerk. I frequently have people over to my house who disagree with me. But people who disagree with me and insult my family aren't welcome.
@137 wrote:
"Brian @ 118 (and elsewhere), I find it curious that you feel entitled to try dictate what BB can and cannot do in the name of what BB is or should be."
How could I possibly dictate anything to Mark, Cory, David, and Xeni? It's their blog and they can do anything they want. Heck, to some extent their right about revising the past.
John McCain purges his campaign website of any indication he ever opposed the Bush tax cuts. It's his site, he can do whatever he wants, and I pretty much expect that given he's a politician.
Barack Obama purges his campaign website of any indication he ever opposed the troop surge. It's his site, he can do whatever he wants, and I pretty much expect that given he's a politician.
Boing! Boing wants to purge its excellent post about the London subway bombing or this Doctorow post about a blogger imprisoned for not turning over a video to authorities, all because they incidentally mention VB, fine by me. It's their site and they can do whatever they want. But I was surprised. In fact the first time I heard about this I told a friend this would almost certainly be just an error, esp. since most of the posts deleted just incidentally mentioned VB rather than being about or by her.
Again, it was nice to see all the BBers endorse the removal of those fine posts for this very bizarre reason. It gives me and others important information on just how seriously BB posters take the site and how seriously the rest of us should take it.
Mike Harris 263: I thought it was a humorous way of making the point, yes. And I did think you did it on purpose.
Frankieshipley, you have exactly two posts in your posting history, or rather the same post on two threads. Multiposting is frowned upon here. You already posted that same text in the TVBT thread.
@258 wrote:
"By contrast, Xeni did not want her VB posts to be seen, because she did not want to promote VB or be associated with her. Note the words 'her VB posts' above. They were HERS."
That is simply not true. There were also posts by Pescovitz and Doctorow that she removed. I believe most of P's have been restored, but some of D's are still MIA.
#266 posted by frankieshipley:
You must have L33t hackorz skillz; how did you get through your blocked router to post here?
[cow still lovingly staring at potato salad with quick, darting glances at the beer]
It may have been a heated discussion Xeni, but you should be happy we didn't stick forks into you and plug you into a wall socket.
OOops...the missing CD post about the arrested blogger is here.
@270 Brian Carnell: "It gives me and others important information on just how seriously BB posters take the site and how seriously the rest of us should take it."
I hope you never took it seriously in the first place, Brian. I don't.
I like pie.
hagbard
I don't care that you're at work.
You're misunderstood because you're an unclear communicator.
I rule.
@XOPHER 271:
Yes I posted in the other thread by accident. The tab I thought I was posting in was this one. If a moderator wants to wack the other, they have my permission (not that they need it, but I'll give them the gift of knowing I won't pitch a fit).
If the above post gets wacked, well that would be disappointing.
FWIW, this is my first time posting to a BB thread by any name. I'm more of an internet-lurker-type personality until I hit my breaking point.
David and Mark,
and those of us that Teresa has banned for no good reason, what do we get to say here? Nothing. There is no review process for the banning she does nor did she or her moderators bother to warn before doing so.
I see behavior here far worse than the actually mild behavior I engaged in (calling for her and another moderator to be fired because of the lousy job they were doing) but I was banned and there is no review of these decisions.
So, you can say what a bang up job your staff is doing all you want but I know it isn't an honest assessment.
And, yes, I did exchange e-mail with a variety of parties on this (you were even cc'd) but, in the end, Teresa refused to discuss it and none of you "editors" ever said anything or added anything, except for Cory's original "WTF?" e-mail.
So I'm calling BS on the high moral tone here.
*pause*
You know what? I let you guys get under my skin.
Mostly because I wasn't prepared for it. I mean, you guys are Mark, Xeni, and David, for God's sake. As I've been reading BB for probably six, seven years now, I've always thought really well of you guys.
And to get into the wrassling match we've just had and have you guys put these tactics into play ...
Well, honestly, I just thought you were better than that.
*nods, smiling* Yeah, I know, that's one of the greatest cliche lines in existence. It's what I mean, though. When you think of people as Internet gods, you think of them as having the best qualities you admire, and a really good debator, is something I admire.
I'm going to leave now. And, yes, *smiling*, I know that semi-melodramatic announcements of departure are even more cliche than the "better than that" line. And one of the worser tactics for leaving an argument.
But my workday ended 45 minutes ago. And you're right, Mark: this is a waste of your time, my time, Xeni's time, what have you.
Because there's no purpose to this wordplay. You're just trying to outriff me, I'm just trying to outriff you, and neither of us are actually going to convince the other of any truths here and, really, that's the only good use of an Internet argument. I'm firmly convinced you guys are entirely in the wrong. You're firmly convinced that not only am I wrong but that I'm mounting the argument out of a malicious intent to hurt, offend and insult. Neither of us feel the tactics the other side is using are appropriate.
So, consider this me tipping over my king. The game's not worth it; I'm leaving your house, David; y'all win. (Geekref: "The only winning move is not to play.")
I can't say I respect any of you anymore. And I know the sentiment's completely mutual (except, well, that you most likely didn't even know me, so there wasn't any respect to be lost).
But nonetheless, as it pertains to just the general gestalt of it all, I don't wish any of you harm. In the grand scope of things, we're lucky if this is important to us — it means a lot more basic needs are taken care of.
No hard feelings. Have good lives.
#240 Mark Frauenfelder-
Thanks Mark, but I never said or meant to imply anyone was 'screwed over'. I've been following all of this since it all exploded and been trying to understand what the hell was going on. Your comments just now have completely cleared everything for me. There has been so many conflicting opinions and coverage, due maybe because it took time to get an official response from you all there, leaving people to make all sorts of speculations and judgments. The reasons why the posts were removed is bb's personal business. I guess it just took a lot of people by surprise the way that it happened.
I appreciate your view of personal freedom, but when there are also so many references on bb to the free software movement and also freedom of speech etc, you must be able to see why many in the bb community would assume that once something is posted up here, it will be available (as long as bb is around I guess?..) I really appreciate your comments, though only a few sentences it was so succinct - I wish that had been more clearly conveyed in other coverage on this issue.
In light of all this drama, my suggestion is maybe bb can put together something like a 'charter' or something (perhaps this is something seperate to the moderation policy?). Could be a neat way of actually spelling out for example what the site stands for... and could cover things like archiving etc.. Rather than let people assume, let people know where you stand on things.
I understand much of how bb got to where it has has been a learning by doing experience, so there will be things that pop up that hasn't necessarily had to be spelled out in the past. In terms of what all this means in relation to the greater blogsphere, it would be great to see bb set some kind of standard as a positive outcome from all this.
+
#236 Lightfoote-
Well said and amen
Mike Harris @242: The overwhelming impression I'm getting is that you really hate Teresa. Your first post on this thread is an impassioned plea for Teresa to be sacked. You later characterise this attack as a fact, which it clearly is not.
Now, if you can't see that attacking any of the staff of BB in a thread on BB is rude behaviour, or see why a certain level of politeness is a prerequisite for civilised conversation, then you really need to read some more Miss Manners.
Personally, I feel that you know perfectly well what effect what you wrote was going to have, and you just want to drag the entire thread down, perhaps to the point where the mods disemvowel or ban you. You know that that is a melodrama that has played out many many times on the internet. I just don't understand why you think nobody else has seen the plotline before.
I have bad news for you: the lurkers do not support you. All we see is you being obnoxious, and then being more obnoxious. Anyone got any popcorn?
@COWICIDE 273: Lame post. I meant 'will be blocking it'.
But yeah, my hax0r skillz *are* pretty l33t and I could manage a VPN tunnel with the best of them.
@COWICIDE 273: Lame post. I meant 'will be blocking it'.
But yeah, my hax0r skillz *are* pretty l33t and I could manage a VPN tunnel with the best of them.
Damn. Double post. Sorry 'bout that. Lurker-cum-noob-poster mistake.
Mark Frauenfelder wrote:
Surely you're not serious. So that post by Cory about the blogger who was jailed for failing to turn over a videotape was what, some sort of lark. Ah, First Amendment, freedom of the press...whatever...just something else to do on a Friday night.
I have to tell you, I took it seriously. Network neutrality, happy mutants, all of it. Reading the zine was a refreshing change and a pointer to possibilities I'd never thought of before. The blog really captured what I loved about the zine.
But retconning all that content because some link credits VB for suggesting it? Such a hidebound traditional way to do things. "Q: ZOMG we hate Violet Blue now what are going to do?" "A: Off with the posts."
Brian "A Not So Happy Mutant Anymore" Carnell
@ #275 Brian:
Well, Someone went through the web-archive and created a site (here) with 407 "unpublished" posts. Using that, I found many that had nothing to do with violet blue (like the podcasts I brought up) that were deleted just for mentioning a different post that had VB in it (the second podcast had VB, so any podcast page that mentioned previous podcasts ended up deleted). You can find a ton of stuff that was senseless deleted in the attempt at hiding the past association with her.
Xeni made a perfectly good and reasonable apology, and I thank her for it. No matter what her exact reason for taking down the posts was, she's now gotten dragged through the virtual gutter over it. It's well past time to show a little compassion.
DItto for Teresa*. Whether she did a perfect job of moderation is beside the point. No human would have done a perfect job. What she did was an exceptionally good job of handling an exceptionally shitty situation.
There's still a useful discussion to be had about lessons learned.
May I ask those who haven't learned anything, and especially those with no intention of learning anything, to shut the fuck up?
*who I know slightly
#266 posted by frankieshipley , July 18, 2008 3:41 PM
#284 posted by frankieshipley , July 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Yes, yes...more importantly, do you have any potato salad? And, if you do, will you share it? I've already stolen a couple of beers and will work out a trade with you for potato salad.
__________________________________________
To all you assholes... (not anyone in particular, just those of you who in their own gut know they are assholes)
It's FRIDAY!!! Time for some fun in RL! Go to your local bar, party, etc. and complain about Boing Boing to real people!! I'm sure they'll give you their rapt attention! Have fun!
[hunger pangs hit every stomach - cow marches out for some damn potato salad and beer, yo!]
"beers, steers and queers --- yeee!!! haaaa!!!!" -Revolting Cocks
Mike Harris @281: Damn, what am I going to do with this popcorn?
John, some of us don't get a choice and don't get to move on. We've been excised from the community here after reading this blog since it started (Hell, I own *print* copies of the Boing Boing zine). How exactly we move on except deleting the bookmark for the site and not returning?
I except that this account will be deleted soon for self-admitted account duplication as a banned user.
First Ursula K. Le Guin gets the ax, and now Violet Blue ?
Please stop sneaking around. You know you'll get caught. Once you release something into the wilds of the internet, it's not yours anymore, it ours, and I think you should give us some respect.
Most of the time you do good, but not this time.
It's not cool to go back in time and alter or delete posts because you change your view.
It's not too much to want honesty, transparency, genuineness in our digital history.
I don't care what Violet Blue did or didn't do. I'm just giving it the way I see it.
I'll still read BoingBoing, but you lost some respect.
-mikesum32
Ross @190, that's an interesting question, given how common it is for websites to remove content without mentioning it to their users. I've been wondering whether it's related to the disproportionate sense of outrage and personal invalidation we sometimes see in people who've had one or two comments disemvowelled or removed by a moderator. You know how that goes: some take it in stride, most kvetch, and a few react as though we'd threatened the entire basis of their online existence.
I had a long conversation recently with someone who got extensively trashed online a year or two back, for no reason that anyone sane could see.
Per had traced the event back to its ignition point, and found that what set it off was per's blog post about a piece someone else had written. All it took was agreeing that there might be times when it was legitimate to take down comments, and blammo, the Wild Hunt was on its way.
It seems too easy to say they assume that if anyone can be shut out, they'll be shut out, and that if any information is withheld from general circulation, they'll be the ones who are out of the loop; but they do appear to believe that.
I don't have any satisfactory theories yet. I need a lot more data.
Look all the fainting couches BB keeps in these comment threads!
How many 'long time readers' are just so disappointed but still totally unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt and just move on.
Boingers, you don't answer to us, and please don't start now. As you were, rocking on.
@287 Brian Carnell:
I feel a great deal of empathy for Xeni, and don't fault her for what she did.
Boiling it down to "Q: ZOMG we hate Violet Blue now what are going to do?" "A: Off with the posts." is an insensitive, unfair, and inaccurate characterization. I wish you wouldn't do that because I know you are smarter and kinder than that.
I'd do the same as Xeni I were in her shoes and I might do the same at some time in the future, but not without consulting with the rest of the gang for their opinion first, and working in good faith to reach consensus. That's what we learned. I hope that's good enough for you.
Mdhatter, I'll move on when my account is restored. Until then, I'll just have to post on temp accounts if so inclined. If I'm lucky, the IP of this coffeehouse will get banned by the skilled technicians.
@ #276 Mark:
"I hope you never took it seriously in the first place, Brian. I don't."
Yeah, that's pretty much the source of the problem. Despite the presentation of BB as a respectable media (i.e., calling yourselves editors, etc...), you guys don't take your jobs seriously, and apparently never have.
But fine, you guys are just bloggers, nothing more. BoingBoing is just your MySpace or LiveJournal. We get it. We'll stop treating you as reliable media. You're just a blogger, we shouldn't expect you to behave in a professional or ethical manner. You've convinced us.
Blingcheese (again) @206: No. It's about how the Boingers handle unpublishing. Moderation is something else again.
@ 298 Burnchao:
Phew -- glad we cleared up that little misunderstanding!
frankieshipley, there's a universal law that whenever one complains about someone else's grammar, one will make a mistake of one's own. I think there must be something similar that applies whenever one boasts about one's l33t hax0r skillz. You really should be laughing at yourself by now.
#297 - You need a more fulfilling hobby, and a smaller sense of entitlement. I know who you are from your style, and you got banned for being a real jerk when I was trying (initially) to have an honest conversation with you. You drew me out, and are now singling me out... so you're clearly not here for that. So why are you still here? There are plenty of other sites to troll. Please go away, you little stinker.
@Burnchao - Despite the presentation of BB as a respectable media (i.e., calling yourselves editors, etc...), you guys don't take your jobs seriously, and apparently never have.
What are you, their boss? Stop it please, your inflated sense of entitlement is blocking out the sun and sucking the air from the room.
So, while being compared to leeches and Robert Mugabe and whatnot is all very exciting for a girls' ego, and all this discussion of potato salad and beer is making me hongry -- here's part of what I was hoping might happen in this thread:
How much detail, how much of an inktrail, do people actually want from blogs? Leave aside BoingBoing, even, or not, I am more thinking aloud about blogs in general.
For instance: Kottke, I believe (??), used to or still does have a style convention that involves striking out every single error or change, no matter what (think: even punctuation errors).
We here tend to strike out only the edits that substantively change the body of the post (think: errors or omissions).
Any changes we make are readily visible in the RSS feed. Any deletions or unpublishings -- in short, any takedowns of entire posts -- are discoverable through the Wayback Machine and other methods; we certainly don't try to hide that, or make anything "vanish."
How much detail do people really want? And what are some thoughtful ways to provide that, technically?
Lucifer @219, please don't embarrass yourself any further. We've known that you're a sockpuppet, and which banned user you are. We also know who you really are, not that we'd tell anyone.
It's been interesting watching you prose on about truth, transparency, responsible behavior, and honest opinions.
#298 posted by Burnchao:
Yeah man! I agree, bloggers ain't shit! The only thing less significant than a blogger is a troll on a blog... and that's really, really... insignificant.
Mike Harris @222: we're sorry the appropriate thread doesn't have a big enough audience to suit your ambitions, but it is where you should be posting.
Ace xeni - we're back on topic
The strike outs are pretty much a standard now.
Why not put a short note and link to the wayback machine instead of having a 404 error?
I've been staying out this here, but at the end of it I feel like I need to say something.
I've been on the Internet since Bush Sr was in the White House. I was a pretty heavy participant in the Usenet back in the days. I know what trolling is. I know what it looks like. I know that using "troll" as a noun is actually incorrect to describe someone who trolls.
Heck, I've done it myself.
So I look at the thousands of comments that have been written about all of this, and I'm kinda stumped at the "trolls" various writers are alluding to. Because I see there are a few, but I also see a lot of people with some very real concerns here being dismissed as "trolls." Or "non-readers." Or "cranks."
And it seems this easy dismissal, combined with the caustic moderation, has only fed this kerfluffle. It makes me think you're not willing to admit that maybe there is some truth to what's been said.
I mean, in a sense, you're responding to these comments with non sequiturs and name-calling. Isn't that what trolls do?
And it saddens me to see how poorly you've handled all of this. I mean, who's the "winner" in this mess? Yeah, exactly. She could just sit there and grin while you all stumbled through this mess. Meanwhile, you've been pilloried in the papers and on blogs around the world for all the mistakes listed in this post.
It's sad. I really liked reading you guys, but lately I feel like I'm listening to some band's rehashed new album wondering what the hell happened. All this kerfluffle was just the concert tour you phoned in on top of the bad album. Get back to being creative. Stop being so stretched between your thousand projects. Get interesting again.
And stop being so dismissive of anyone who opposes you as "trolls" or "cranks." Many of us read the blog from the beginning, some (not me) read the zine. I think we have the right to say that you've lost the plot and not get called a bunch of cranks or lumped in with a bunch of trolls.
@sumer88, that's one option, yes. Some also spoke of a sort of changelog that folks could subscribe to, sort of like a ringside seat into a trash can? Where all you see is the omitted or destroyed scraps. Even if only as a technical feat, and a kind of internet art project, that piqued my imagination.
Part of what we're discussing here is BB's internal editorial process (or lack thereof), and part of what we're discussing here is what info we share, and how we provide it, to our community/audience/readership/6 gajillion best friends.
What's this "kerfluffle" I keep hearing about? I thought it was "kerfuffle." Grammar police where are you! Teresaaaaaaaaaa!
If it's a kerfluffle, any person who keeps beating it to death and won't let it die is a kerfluffer.
How much detail, how much of an inktrail, do people actually want from blogs?
those UPDATES (in red) you usually use work fine, though it can be confusing when there's no "something was edited here" marking. I prefer strikethrough for short passages, and excision with a footnote for longer bits.
Case in point: The London boombing post (wayback link is above) that went away. It may have been a better call to excise that one line that was needing removal (for whatever the reason) and leave a footnote - "**paragraph removed by XJ, mm/dd/yy, reason:XOXO", or as much additional explanation as you care to give us.
I also really like the idea of the http 410 error page someone discussed above. It may require a very pretty unicorn to work as intended.
hai guyz, wuts goin on in here??
Xeni @ 304: It really depends on what the blog is for. If it's a news blog, then the exact original post needs to be discernible. For posts on Boing Boing that have the nature of a news item, that's a good standard.
Not every post comes to that standard.
I don't think you can write a good explicit detailed ruleset capable of being cranked through mechanically.
What I think can be done is at least two-fold.
First, in the event that you later change your mind, or have some other reason to show it, the original post must be preserved. I think that's a rule. Maybe changing a comma to a period or fixing a typo doesn't rise to that need, but it's an easy rule.
Second, whenever you want to change a post, articulate to yourself why you want to make the change. Ask what impact the change might have on a reader. Decide how much of the reason you've articulated you're willing to share. Then do so.
One quibble with your comment:
Not every change is going to be caught by the Wayback Machine. it's a pull, not a push, and it runs on its own schedule.
(Years ago, I thought there might be a business in providing an auditing service for publishers and others who wanted to provide an independent trail of what had gone onto a website, what was changed, and when.)
"Benefit of the doubt". That's a phrase that's been conspicuous by its absence in these poo-flinging threads.
About these threads that have been colaterally unpublished in the VB affair, the benefit of my doubt has it that Xeni used some automated tool to unpub all the threads mentioning VB without checking too closely, presumably because the incident inspiring the act was still a bit raw. Shrug, easy mistake to make. (It's probably redundant to mention that this is another good reason to discuss editorial actions with the rest of the editorial team, or at least one other BBer, but I'll throw it in here in case it isn't.)
Further, because I'm generally a forgiving person, my doubt's benefit points towards the idea that no-one has yet restored these posts because everybody on the editorial team thinks that someone else is going to do it. And because I trust that the BBers are intelligent, I'm not even going to make a suggestion about that. But I bet my pretty blue bonnet something will happen about that.
See, benefit of the doubt, million and one uses, do take internally.
I sure could use a unicorn chaser right about now.
Brian Carnell @ 97 (and elsewhere, and elsewhere, and elsewhere):
You wrote, "Whether it continues to be available is apparently entirely up to how Xeni is feeling about her personal relationship with Violet Blue on any given day."
Yeah. And, um, what's wrong with that?
You do not have the right to go back and re-read every post ever written on BB, and no one at BB has the obligation to maintain every post ever written for your personal perusal.
Do you know exactly and precisely what happened between them? No? Then butt out and allow Xeni the dignity of maintaining her integrity according to her own lights.
No one at BB is required to live up to any particular reader's standards of blogging, whether it's viewed as a personal journal or as news.
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but it seems to me that telling someone it was "wrong" to delete a blog entry is equivalent to telling someone it was "wrong" to vote Democrat, or have an abortion, or go six months without flossing. You're only allowed to tell someone their choices were "bad" when you're their best friend and you know all the details.
Until that time, I think the folks at BB do a bang-up job, and I'm happy to let them delete anything they think they ought to. I trust that any such deletions will not derail the entire free world (such as it is).
p.s. oh, yeah, ditto #2.
I seriously can't believe people cared so much about deleting a handful of posts from a few years ago. What the fuck? And then Valleywag mis-reported it, in their usual fashion. I swear, every single time I click on a link to a post on a Gawker blog, it's a slapdash, sensationalized misunderstanding of the real story.
This whole affair is right out of a circle of twelve-year-old girls' livejournals. "OMG BOINGBOING FRIENDS-LOCKED SOME OLD POSTS ABOUT ME!" becomes "OMG BOINGBOING DELETED OLD POSTS BY SOMEONE THEY BOOTED OUT! DRAMA!". Cue shrieking hordes of angry commenters, looking for DRAMA! ON! THE! INTERNET! because nothing livens up your shitty day job like watching someone else melt down, and mocking them to see if you can get them to melt down some more.
Actually, OED says "curfuffle." So we're all wrong.
But I like "kerfluffle" because of the "fluff" part.
And I thought my second shift at work was going to be boring
@#312 mdhatter, I rather like the notion of unicorns on 410 error pages. I might take down more posts if we did that, though, just to see more of the pretty unicorns.
@#314 John A Arkansawyer, those are really interesting points. you are right, I didn't mean to imply that the Wayback Machine was an outsourced archive service, but my point was simply that there were ways for us to have foolishy attempted to "vanish" information from Wayback or Google, and we haven't.
@#315 Nelson.C, regarding the first graf of your comment: that is exactly what happened, at one point during the post review process. The oversight was corrected, and I regret that error.
Regarding the second graf of your comment, here you are mistaken. I am sure you are commenting in good faith, and I respect why you perceive the situation as you do, but feel differently.
Bad Pxy @ 317: You hurt my feelings terribly when you said, "You're only allowed to tell someone their choices were 'bad' when you're their best friend and you know all the details." You don't know me well enough to say that. How dare you!
@Nelson - The benefit of your doubt sure does require a lot of idle speculation, so I ask you, where is the benefit in it, exactly? Who, aside from you, gets it?
xeni - the trash can idea is interesting, could also be kind of cool in terms of comments that have been moderated/rejected.
i guess if someone puts the energy into posting something that is deemed as inappropriate, you might as well let it go somewhere else where others can play, remix, amuse themselves with it..
Mdhatter, I really doubt that you know who I am (though I expect Teresa does). You and I have never interacted ever, here or elsewhere, which means I suspect you are mistaking me for some other person that you have a problem with, posting style comments or not...
I'm in agreement with DW@309. I've been on the net since 1989 and was a heavy Usenet poster back in the day. Very little of the "trolling" here qualifies as such unless you want to dismiss everyone here that is mildly pissed off and willing to say so or be critical of the "moderation" that goes on here as a troll. Being pissed off doesn't make you a troll nor does being willing to state it clearly if bluntly.
@sumer88,
the trash can idea is interesting, could also be kind of cool in terms of comments that have been moderated/rejected.
Wow, I had never thought of this. Boy, we sure could make some fun episodes of BBtv's SPAM THEATER out of this, only they'd be, like, TROLL THEATER. People say the darndest things in comment threads sometimes. We could build BBtv scripts out of this stuff and never have to come up with original material again!
Sorry, gotta say one more thing:
John @ 314: you wrote, "the original post must be preserved. I think that's a rule."
John, I bear you no ill will and I totally respect your opinion. But Xeni and other BB folk: I think that idea is totally crap.
I realize that this all snowballed into a huge kerfuffle (correct spelling) and that y'all feel bad about that.
But Xeni, I think your post is far more apologetic than it needs to be. You wrote stuff. You showed it to people online. Now you're choosing to not show it to people online.
Transparency is good and I'm glad we all care about it. Trust is also good. I think you've earned the right to have us trust you if you decide you need to take something down for personal reasons. I can safely say that I have zero fear that BB will become a hotbed of censorship.
Sheesh.
I sure could use a unicorn chaser right about now.
Kittens and puppies to teh rescue.
@305 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator
"please don't embarrass yourself any further. We've known that you're a sockpuppet, and which banned user you are. We also know who you really are, not that we'd tell anyone."
Well bravo. That is incredible detective work inspector Lestrade. You'll have to tell me how you saw through the most transparent subterfuge imaginable whereby replacing "Satan" with "Lucifer" and using a near identical email address as my login identifier and the same password lead you to pierce through my dark veil of secrecy.
Speaking of veiled - I see you're back on this whole business of dispensing threats like you're got a surplus running. What's up with that? Seems to me like you the moderator is the one running some kind of vendetta. What's worse - a cute sockpuppett made of natural fibers or netstalking and moderating with hostility?
"It's been interesting watching you prose on about truth, transparency, responsible behavior, and honest opinions."
Are you truly that obtuse? a-hah got me there choking on my own hypocrisy because I signed in using basically the same identity as before. At least you owe me partial credit for consistency, which I count as responsible behavior and honesty. As far as transparency goes, I am not the one saying "I have a private dirty secret that lead me to unpublish a bunch of stuff but I won't tell you" so yes, I am more transparent. Satan - Lucifer... come on - that's a pretty transparent naming scheme wouldn't you say?
I usually don't even read this kind of stuff on boingboing because its boring to me and I don't like reading boring stuff.. but the rate of expansion on this thread caught my eye so I looked up the "violet blue" controversy and boy was I asleep fast. Honestly, you should just lock this thread and not reference or acknowledge anything to do with THAT ever again, I know I won't miss it.
I don't read everything you guys publish because frankly a lot of it doesn't interest me, but there are some days when its like this blog was designed to personally delight me, and thats why I always come back. The other days I can get over them because I'm a grown up and realize that "wonderful things" can mean many different things to different people. It's your own site and you're doing a pretty damn good job as far as I can tell, keep it up, don't change much.. maybe less Little Brother posts.
@ 309 DW:
"[I]t seems this easy dismissal, combined with the caustic moderation, has only fed this kerfluffle. It makes me think you're not willing to admit that maybe there is some truth to what's been said."
We created these threads precisley *because* we admitted and apologized for fucking up.
"I mean, in a sense, you're responding to these comments with non sequiturs and name-calling. Isn't that what trolls do?"
Yes, trolls call people names. Non-trolls do, too. Trolls eat breakfast. Non trolls do, too. So what?
"And it saddens me to see how poorly you've handled all of this. I mean, who's the "winner" in this mess? Yeah, exactly. She could just sit there and grin while you all stumbled through this mess. Meanwhile, you've been pilloried in the papers and on blogs around the world for all the mistakes listed in this post."
Boing Boing has not been "pilloried" by any paper. Some blogs have had harsh words for Boing Boing, and I'm hopping mad about it. I tried to unpublish the posts on those blogs, but our Movable Type install just wouldn't let me do it! You've been on the internet since the Bush, Sr. era. Do you think you can help me out?
"It's sad. I really liked reading you guys, but lately I feel like I'm listening to some band's rehashed new album wondering what the hell happened."
It's all Yoko's fault, man.
All this kerfluffle was just the concert tour you phoned in on top of the bad album. Get back to being creative. Stop being so stretched between your thousand projects. Get interesting again.
Wait till you hear my solo album! I've converted to Mithraism and you're really gonna dig my message for all humankind.
"And stop being so dismissive of anyone who opposes you as 'trolls' or 'cranks.' Many of us read the blog from the beginning, some (not me) read the zine. I think we have the right to say that you've lost the plot and not get called a bunch of cranks or lumped in with a bunch of trolls."
You are not a troll, DW. You are not a crank. Now will you please tell me where that darned plot went?
@ #327 bad pxy: yes, +1 to all of that, thanks for the kind words.
We deliberately did not say "here is our new absolutist policy," because every situation is different, and because we (I anyway) sort of abhor policies where they are not needed.
As I said in the post, taking down content for non-usual reasons is **extremely** rare in our archive of 48ishK posts (have to check on current total, including BBg and BBtv). None of us have ever done so for trivial or petty reasons.
We have agreed on good practices we will follow if such an extraordinary situation occurs again. I frankly hope it does not.
@xeni
bb junkyard presents *rant theater*
then nobody will feel left out and neglected for not getting their posts up on a thread..
The good that comes from giving people the benefit of the doubt is that it's a kind thing to do. Much comes from that. People are more willing to communicate with you honestly when you cut them some slack and don't always assume the worst of them.
It's that simple; hard sometimes, but simple. It's not always appropriate; sometimes a long-running and consistent behavior on someone's part demands suspicion. Most of the time, though, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the right thing to do.
God knows I've ripped a few new ones in people over the years. It's a behavior best avoided when possible.
OK. I give in. I just can't stop myself. The beer and potato salad have long gone, and all the other displacement activities I use to stop myself actually doing any real work have been exhausted.
So, I've read the posts about "The Events Transpiring", the umpteen comments here and in the other threads, considered various synonyms for "kerfuffle" (hubbub, to-do, flap, stir and ballyhoo spring to mind), scratched my head a bit, petted the cat, and come to the conclusion that I'm left with a vague sense of unease. That's it, really. Am I going to miss those unpublished posts? Not especially. Am I a bit surprised that they quietly vanished? A bit. Is it going to interfere with my enjoyment of BB in the future? Hardly. Have lessons been learned? I hope so.
Back to work.
*sigh*
Lucifer/Satan - you ARE, however, the one insinuating the secret is 'dirty'.
And that is insulting, and yes, it is transparent too.
Short version of 329: "I knew that you knew, all along! I even knew that you knew that I knew that you knew!"
John @ 322 --
How is it that you were replying to my post at 317 before I had even said anything about you (which I did at 327)?
You made me laugh :-) (serious, not sarcasm!) I didn't intend any of my comments to be directed to you personally. I apologize for stating any personal opinion about what is "allowed" in this thread. Did I fall into the sin of saying, "you can't tell anyone else to not do something! and this is me, telling you not to do that!" ;-)
Xeni @321: Eh, I thought I was doing well to suggest a normal, human explanation in my second graf, rather than the flinging around of accusations of pure evil that some commenters favour. If I offended you or anyone with my guess, please be assured it was completely inadvertent.
On the other thing: when editing posts I would favour a note along the lines of "Edited by $name at $time for $reason" where $reason can be as simple or complicated as you like, e.g. "grammar" or "because I was being a ditz" or "esprit d'escalier" or whatever. It might be overkill for removing a comma or similarly trivial edits, but it seems like a good habit to have.
#333 sumer88, WIN. We are so getting right on that, first thing Monday.
Bad Pxy @ 327: I didn't mean to say "preserved out there for everyone to see". I meant to say "preserved by the author for the author." If you still disagree, that's fine, but it occurs to me I might not've explained myself clearly.
When you say, "Trust is also good. I think you've earned the right to have us trust you if you decide you need to take something down for personal reasons," I'm completely with you. It's a drag to view the world through the lens of continual mistrust.
(Why, yes, I did do that in a past life. Yes, I do still occasionally feel irrational and unnecessary suspicion. Yes, it does suck.)
Mdhatter - what private secret between two adults isn't?
@Xeni Jardin
So is it to late to go with "Voted off the Island of Wonderful toys"
@xeni
please let me make some puppets for the junkyard show
Lucifer, your obsession, I see what you did with it.
Wait....ornament....that's good, right? I was rather hoping for Falchion of Truth and Buckler of Justice for Threads Everywhere.
At least tell me I'm a pretty ornament that goes well with the whole outfit.
Npblshd @234, I'm not going to have a fight with you any more than I'm going to have one with Cheesebling or Mike Harris or Lucifer. However, as a purely administrative act, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say, in reference to this:
You lie, you lie, I say three times you lie.Comments got very little behind-the-scenes moderation last time, and this time they're getting next to none.
You're not acting in good faith.
@HAGBARD
Maybe not
#339 Nelson.C, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to have sounded defensive, it's fine -- I'm just saying the thrust of that final graf was mistaken. The bigger point is that I appreciated your kind and reasonable approach. I think your idea about including a short expression of data along with the removal is not a bad idea, we've been batting that idea around, too. Funny to see some of the ideas we generated internally also express themselves "in the wild."
Also, Mark Frauenfelder wins at this thread.
"You're not acting in good faith."
Hello, Pot? It's Kettle. We need to talk.
Teresa @347 is correct. People who are saying that the comments in this thread are "heavily censored" are either mistaken or lying and just trying to stir up trouble. Of course, you have to trust me (and us) when I say that.
John @ 341 --
I did misunderstand you. I will happily agree with "preserved by the author for the author."
But while I think that's a good rule -- I was wishing just a few weeks ago that I could find my stupid journal from my freshman year of high school! -- I won't say that any BB reader has the right to insist Xeni follow that rule.
Enjoying the smart, interesting posts that these smart, interesting people publish for us is a privilege, not a right, no?
Out of purely personal curiosity, are you so jaded that you do not trust the (sort of) nameless, faceless BB editors? I thought I was jaded and cynical!
You should remove comments from BoingBoing entirely. They add nothing to the site.
ROSSINDETROIT
oh snap!
David,
Having seen my own comments censored under my old account and had Teresa deny it in e-mail (as if I hadn't seen it), I have a hard time giving anyone here my trust on this issue anymore. It's been lost (as has much of my good will as one of your earliest readers/fans/promoters to others). As with my other comments, I expect no reply from you or the other editors here.
#351Pesco is right. Comments like this, and some of the other silliness I'm reading here, totally make me want to go like this, and I am not kidding.
We could bring in Ken Snider. He can see the backstage areas as well as we can.
@#333 sumer88, I imagine BBTV RANT THEATER, based on unpublished troll comments, looking like Fat Albert and sounding like the Chipmunks.
David Pescovitz @ 351: Trust you people? Like I said, I've met Teresa. When I did, I discovered that she's not fourteen, she wasn't home alone drinking, and she has a beard. And handcuffs.
Trust you? I think not.
Bad Pxy @ 352: If I didn't have some level of trust for these folks, I wouldn't bother talking with them.
The previous life in which I was continually suspicious was far ago and long away. I think.
Xeni @311:
Sorry, Xeni -- I had to go put out a brushfire.Kerfluffle, variant spelling of kerfuffle. The latter is roughly eleven times as common. The former is the version I learned as a sprat. I've never successfully switched over to the commoner form.
Clear back at comment 146, Ryane said,
Which is a grantable wish if I ever saw one. At the moment I realized that, I posted the word "Kerfluffle" because, I don't know, it seemed like a really good thing to do at the time.It may not be an adequate explanation, but it's as much explanation as there is.
John @ 360 --
Teresa's going to delete this, as well she should, but if your name which links to your website does not have a "contact" link, how can I continue to harass/flirt with you?
Also, has no one ever told you that white Courier on a black background is horrible to read?
John @359: That wasn't Teresa. More than that I will not say. But... could you post the handcuffs back to me?
@ #321 Xeni
"that is exactly what happened, at one point during the post review process. The oversight was corrected, and I regret that error."
Then say that in the first place!!! You have Teresa, in this thread, still denying that happened, after we've been bringing it up for weeks! When I pointed it out weeks ago, you denied it happened, then restored the ones I pointed out some time later. If you'd start being transparent, your fellow bloggers wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths defending you.
The act restoring those mistakes seem like the only action taken so far, and they were left out of this post that supposedly was about updating us on the actions taken so far. Your own mods don't even know about it. Come on!
Xeni, Cory, David, Mark, Joel:
Your work on BB makes my days brighter. Thanks!
As for the issue at hand, I like the idea of a .Trash that never gets emptied, where discarded posts and redacted text is tossed to moulder and be picked over by the web vulturz. Sort of a Boing Boing unWonderful Landfill. I also like the idea of placing moderated comments in there as well. Perhaps someone will fashion an ASCII reproduction of "The Scream" from the contents for use on a commemorative t-shirt...
Burnchao, Please try re-reading Xeni's comments to you at 321, and take them both at face value. Both of them, not just the one you agree with while allowing the other to blow over your head. Thank you, carry on.
BBrs - I love the idea of a BB Rant Theatre or whatever.
Burnchao @364: like you've never dealt with a situation of imperfect but developing knowledge? If there's a better technique for dealing with it than "tell the truth and timestamp everything," feel free to tell me about it.
Lightfoote @236, thank you, and I hope you have an excellent time tonight. I'll hoist one for you, next time I escape and go outside.
Mark Frauenfelder @262:
For the first time ever, I regret giving up embroidering mottos as cross-stitched samplers.Frankie Shipley @266: That part about the Boingers looking down on you from the heights of intellectual superiority, elitism, et cetera? That's all your imagination. It's like kneeling on the floor while you accuse everyone around you of wearing lifts in their shoes.
I don't think the Boingers have anything to do with the reasons countries slide down into Communism.
Sweet cuppin' cakes. This is one of those times where I've continued reading a thread where I should have just stopped. Dios mio. You all get cookies. Now be nice to each other. Because like Kurt said -- god damn it, you've got to be kind.
It's like an episode of behind the music. Except it's more train wrecky. With less cocaine. And hair products. But still like that.
Brian @272, if Cory were worried about it, it would take him about ninety seconds to republish the material.
Frank in Virginia @274: Everyone should be grateful to not be stuck full of forks and plugged into a wall socket, yourself included. It can't be a pleasant experience.
Lucifer @278:
Woot! To quote Ethan at Making Light, my Bingo card just burst into flames.I haven't heard one that good since the time Bill Patterson tried to cap a yes-it-is/no-it-isn't argument by claiming he had superior perceptions of objective reality.
Hongaku @280, waiting a while, writing me a non-surly letter saying you want back in, and behaving yourself thereafter, is likely to be sufficient.
I get no joy out of banning people. I just want them to be civil and pleasant to those around them so that everyone can enjoy the conversation. Some days I think my real job is convincing rhinos that there are other species in the world.
I love this site and the seeming polymaths who write for it. But I think someone needs to clarify a few things. Did Ms. Jardin remove posts (Yes, wayback is there, but...) because they mentioned or were attributed to (or whatever it was) this Violet Blue...entity? (You'll have to excuse my out-of-the-loopedness, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.) If the reason for the removal of the posts was, shall we say, personal in nature, then someone should say so. I for one won't care all that much (no apologies necessary), although the BB luster will probably require a nice spritz of Pledge. Once that has been clarified, maybe then the discussion can move to a definition of ownership, a new protocol for such eventualities, and the fine art of thread moderation.
Again, I love it here. And, for what it's worth, there isn't another site that I've liked that has gone even half this long before letting me down, bigtime. And this isn't a letdown. Not yet.
To get the ball rolling, allow me to offer an opening to your explanation/clarification. It should start with (or at least include) the following construct:
"I could no more disown my [ ] than I could my [ ]."
Works like a charm. For a while.
Nelson C. @283: It's so embarrassing. He must be someone I've disemvowelled or banned, but I honestly don't remember doing it.
@294 TNH
Ross @190, that's an interesting question, given how common it is for websites to remove content without mentioning it to their users. I've been wondering whether it's related to the disproportionate sense of outrage and personal invalidation we sometimes see in people who've had one or two comments disemvowelled or removed by a moderator. You know how that goes: some take it in stride, most kvetch, and a few react as though we'd threatened the entire basis of their online existence.
Sorry for the long quote, but it was good.
I wonder if there's a disorder where people lose the ability to differentiate between self and words. I ran into this as a (poor) Mod, where people would fight to the last breath to retain an accidental racial slur, factual error or drunken outburst like it was a vital organ.
Maybe we can get a grant to study it.
Hongaku (again) @292: No, I'm not going to delete your account. If I'd known you were grieving over it that much, I'd have reinstated you ages ago.
Welcome back.
MkSm32 @293:>Frst rsl K. L Gn gts th x ...N. Cnvnc m tht's n hnst mstk, nd 'll b lt lss dsppntd wth y.
Cry pstd wht h thght ws chrmng xcrpt frm lngr wrk by L Gn. Trnd t t ws th ntrty f shrt pc, s fr s ddn't pply. Cry tk t dwn s sn s h rlzd wht h'd dn.
nfrtntly, hngr-n n th pr SF cmmnty wh'd rcntly lst fght wth Cry trd t blw th ncdnt p nt bg dmb >prtrnt mnts SFW thrsh. Ths ws shrt-crctd by Cry tkng dwn th xcrpt s sn s h rlzd wht h'd dn.
n th wk f tht st f ntrctns, Cry rlzd tht n prssn ws gng t prvnt sm f Bng Bng's cmmntrs frm trshng L Gn, wrtr whm h hlds n cnsdrbl rspct. ls, h fgrd L Gn hd bn n th rght nd h'd bn n th wrng, s t wsn't ccptbl fr hr t gt trshd lk tht.
Cry thrfr sht dwn cmmnts n tht thrd. Sm rdrs trd t rstrt th rgmnt n thr thrds. Ths cmmnts gt npblshd.
f y'r nt gng t g th "t ws n hnst mstk, hnst" rt, fl lk xplnng hw tht cn lgtmtly b dscrbd s "rsl K. L Gn gts th x"?
Burnchao @298, I know you're just trying to be nasty, but I honestly feel that you could be doing a much better job of it if only you'd try harder. As it is, your nastiness feels like you're phoning it in.
DW @309, the meaning of "troll" has shifted since those days. It's a normal linguistic process.
Teresa @ 377:
"Dr. Rance: Did you enjoy it?"
"Mrs Prentiss: At first. But the pleasures of the senses quickly pall."
BIG DITTO #2! cory: happy freekin birfday! BONK -BOINK: u guyz rock, i read yas almost every day and gots no complaints. DON'T FIRE TERESA :even tho she disemvowelled me, i prolly deserved it. xeni, cory, david, mark, et al... i have one surefire way to make this the very best fuckin blog on the whole of god's grey earth and it is this : FREE CAKE AND ICE-CREAM! ON DEMAND! so simple, yet so mindbogglingly awesome, it can't possibly go wrong!
Boingers,
Thanks for addressing the matter so candidly, especially Xeni.
One suggestion: next time you could robots.txt and sitemap the hell out of the offending posts. That way random people using Google and other search engine would not find them, but existing weblog links would still be working.
Could this be an acceptable middle ground?
Well I won't consider this issue resolved until everyone remotely connected to the site has weighed in.
Wil Wheaton, where are you? Adam Koford?
Until EVERYONE has had their say this issue might as well go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever...
*gets distracted by shiny thing and wanders away*
At this point, everyone should know that the cake is a lie. Free ice cream though, I could get behind that!
exciting, isn't it?
I'm so very glad to see this post. Thanks Xeni. Taking responsibility and being forthright sooner rather than later is the Right Thing To Do. Sadly the first, belated public explanation (I'm not sure it was even written by a regular Boinger) was in that defensive PR-double-talk style that is so aggravating. It just made the problem worse. If that was the result of BBers not able to coordinate, then so be it, but you must realize you DO have a collective persona and reputation and you need to be careful about how you sound to your readers. It's happened a couple times before too (about ads). Perhaps the wrong person is writing your collective statements about issues like these.
Also, while I won't get too upset about it as others here are doing, I do wish the moderation at BB came without snark and personal attacks. It's a problem I've seen occur many times and I've borne the brunt of it once. I hope the head mod learns "moderation" does not equal "counterattack". Disagreement and criticism aren't good reasons for a moderator to vent against commenters. That's the antithesis of good moderation. And again, the confrontational moderation made the Violet Blue issue worse for Boing Boing.
BTW: does anyone know where one might hire a 'kerfluffer'?
Teresa Nielsen Hayden: putting the fluff back in the kerfluffle since the big BoingBoing kerfluffle of 2008.
/me runs and hides
Xeni, I'm glad you editors learned something from this kerfuffle. The short answer is that yes, you should have a policy on deleting older material, and you should help each other make sure that your policy is followed. This doesn't just benefit the readers, it also protects you from uncertainty and random journalistic brickbats.
What the policy should be in detail is of course up to you guys, but I can make some general suggestions. First, your posts are your own, and you should have final say as to their fate, but you should probably not, as a matter of policy, delete the posts of other editors without consulting them first. (I'm not suggesting you did, just mentioning one reasonable plank of policy.) Second, as has been mentioned already, you should have a polite "Deleted at the request of the author" notice, not a 404 message - if only so people don't unnecessarily worry that the DOWT is crashing.
My third and more interesting suggestion for your deletion policy is this: Any situation where an editor suddenly wants to delete *lots* of old postings - not one or two, but let us say a dozen or more - should trigger a discussion with fellow editors. Mass deletions are a seismic event, and as you've seen they can unintended consequences. Giving your fellow editors a heads-up protects them from feeling blindsided, and - who knows - might even yield some collective wisdom and an alternative solution. Perhaps some things can be edited rather than purged. Perhaps the "good part" can be archived another way. At the very least, everyone will know what's going on.
Good luck with your journey on this.
#367 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator Author Profile Page, July 18, 2008 7:05 PM
Burnchao @364: like you've never dealt with a situation of imperfect but developing knowledge? If there's a better technique for dealing with it than "tell the truth and timestamp everything," feel free to tell me about it.
@ #367 TNH
"like you've never dealt with a situation of imperfect but developing knowledge?"
Come on Teresa. You guys have spent how many weeks on this? She wasn't even transparent with you. She left you in the dark, while you're defending her. I'm not faulting you for getting in wrong, I'm faulting for putting you in that situation.
There hasn't been any "Lessons Learned" by her, despite the thread title. It should've been said right away. It should've been said in the top of the thread. She still has no idea on how to be forth-coming and transparent, and it's responsible for leading you and others into speaking untruths.
#389 posted by HarshLanguage,
Sadly the first, belated public explanation (I'm not sure it was even written by a regular Boinger) was in that defensive PR-double-talk style that is so aggravating. It just made the problem worse.
(...)
Perhaps the wrong person is writing your collective statements about issues like these.
Hehe! So, your point is a serious and sincere one, but it's funny to read, because the post was written collaboratively and approved collaboratively by all of us. Not a PR consultant or a brand manager or a Crisis Management Life Coach (TM or anything like that.
And that's what I/we were getting at in this post. We didn't have such a great system in place for handling fast, coordinated response to things like this, so we fumbled a bit. We're not a big corporation.
The frankenvoice you're describing is like what would happen if you took scans of all our faces and mushed them together in one of those face-morphing software apps. You'd end up with something that was technically all of us, but looked unfamiliar.
We did our best to accommodate the nuances each person felt best represented their point of view, and we were (with the first post) trying to avoid a petty personal battle. It's hard for 5, 6, 7 people who all have very particular voices to agree on exactly how to articulate something like this, under intense fire, under what felt like intense time pressure.
We weren't trying to speak like publicists, we were trying to figure out how to address something sensitive and volatile, and do so ethically, responsibly, and in a way we would not regret later.
We fumbled in communication, as I said above. But we did not behave, individually or collectively, in a way that violated what I feel is a personal moral code. We did no harm to any person. I can live with that.
@#392 Tom Neff, +1, enthusiastically.
I think all of that makes very good sense, and those exact things are some of what I -- and we -- have learned from this. I really appreciate both the content and tone of your comment, thank you very much.
Clarification on my comment #394:
We did our best to accommodate the nuances each person felt best represented their point of view, and we were (with the first post) trying to avoid a petty personal battle.
that was badly written, I did not mean a "personal battle" among BB editors with one another, but a "personal battle" in public with other parties, as in, a blog-drama/internet combat telenovela.
I think the important thing to remember here is the fact that I LIKE CAKE! seriously.
The truth would have been simpler for you and more satisfying to your readers.
You could simply say, I had a relationship with a person. This relationship enabled their participation in Boing Boing as an editor. When the relationship ended, their contributions ceased and I deleted their posts. I deleted the posts because I was angry with the person and wanted to hurt them. Every reader has done the same thing to an ex at least once in their life. Surprise, I'm a human.
Instead in this post, you've hidden behind the "we" pronoun and offered justifications that have nothing to do with why you did what you did. I see this because just like I've retaliated against an ex in the past too, I've also hidden in a group to diffuse blame and offered justifications instead of truth. :)
For those who have walked in your shoes, a confession from the perspective of a flawed, feeling human being would invoke true empathy. Indeed, provided martyrdom is skirted it could be an amazing blog entry. Certainly better than one above filled with "we" and justifications.
It's YOUR BLOG!
Anyone who criticizes what you do with your own words needs to get a life.
And anyone who is spelunking in posts long past REALLY needs to get a life.
@#395 Xeni, you're welcome, and hey, thanks for your reporting, I always turn the sound up in the kitchen when I hear your name. :)
Tom Neff @#392, Whoa. Were you eavesdropping on our conference call the other day? +1 to your suggestions. Thanks!
Xeni, please.
You don't have to apologize or justify to anyone for what has transpired here. I thank you -others probably do also- for allowing us to play in your backyard with the rest of your friends. What you guys do here extends our world and our consciousness -even if just a little bit- everyday. Keep up the good work.
@#398 Ulrika Zugzwang:
This relationship enabled their participation in Boing Boing as an editor. When the relationship ended, their contributions ceased and I deleted their posts.
Hoo boy. So there are a number of misunderstandings evident in your comment, but they all seem to stem from the most fundamental one:
This person was never an editor/author/member of Boing Boing.
That's not a troll! That Sterculius himself!
Well, we know which side the hammerheads are on.
I like pie. (cake too)
I feel like this belated apology is a step in the right direction, are you guys planning to follow it up with an official posting on what you decide?
I'm just not sure where you guys are going with this at this point.
I've got a number of questions, but my most important one is simply this:
Is this ever going to happen again?
@380
No. Convince me that's an honest mistake, and I'll be a lot less disappointed with you.
Okay, I don't want to continue this huge flame fest, but since you asked.
I'll quote Cory.
I assumed on reading this that Ms Le Guin's primary concern was the length of the quote, so I trimmed the quote and added a note about it. Subsequently, I heard from SFWA President Michael Capobianco, who informed me that Ms Le Guin had contacted him asking to have the whole work removed -- I did so immediately, also removing all other quotes and references to Ms Le Guin from Boing Boing's archives.
If I've got the wrong impression, it wasn't my fault.
Palindromic @313: o hai, we bin talkin all day.
John Arkansawyer @314:
Might still. How many man-hours went into reconstructing Making Light's missing months? It's not the only case I know of where a site had to be gathered up off the floor of hell with a paint scraper. That'd be worth something. Trouble is, it would only pay off in a small fraction of cases.Nelson C. @315, I'm familiar with the automated tools in question, and it would be easy to make exactly the errors Xeni made -- especially if you were upset at the time.
Hagbard @346, it's good. It's all good.
John Arkansawyer @359: Oh, you've been talking to my evil twin! She loves jokes like that.
Holybuzz @376: Mentioned. Personal.
Ross @378:
I've known authors to act like that, but they were fighting with language and narrative. It didn't have that reek of social anxiety.It's a mystery.
I, like others here, debated with themselves on whether to address things said on the post. However, my Kantian induced ethics says that if my sense of rightness requires it, I must.
Even if I am a troll, puppet, sock puppet does it affect the accuracy of my argument at all? If instead I am a member of Boing Boing's audience, who felt ethically obliged to try to help and read posts, register, post comments - what would that say of accusers? What would be the long-term affect of this behavior on this blog's business model?
I think the concept we are circling around is credibility. There were several references to Violet Blue that were found to be repugnant for whatever reason and were redacted. Said in another way, an individual offended the editorial staff of a large media outlet and had every instance of her presence censored. Sure, the editorial staff runs the blog. How is that different than Google owning their servers in China, AT&T owning the switching station? The fact that our presidential candidates are hiding changes of positions does speak of their character. There is likely a major difference in this case (I am in no position to say), though it is more nuanced than I am comfortable with - to end a sentence with a preposition which I have not.
There may have been good reasons. I find the idea that it was simply malicious absurd. But what would we have said if the Times attempted this when they found out Jayson Blair at the New York Times plagiarized / invented stories? When the choice is made when / where you can redact a person's presence from this rather major media outlet, please consider what the effect to your. Censor this and all your readers must consider what else is being censored and if such action is justified. (I know that other places may have captured
the information, but that is not your action.) It is unlikely that I would have bought Mark or Cory's books if I wasn't convinced their choice on content was only based on its merit and not its source.
Lastly a little housekeeping.
Xeni I used the word as a verb. The noun, leeches, Hirudinea, may indeed leech. Though not all leeches are Hirudinea. I have already stated that in retrospect it has unintentionally bombastic bombastic, and unintentional, connotations. Yet, if Boing Boing presents enough information that I need