(2) "Bozos" are excellent practice targets.

(3) You never know when the "Bozos" might be correct.

(4) Intellectual inbreeding is as unhealthy as genetic inbreeding.

(5) The larger community that includes environmentalists also include people who believe in open debate of issues.

(6) If environmentalists leave the "Bozos" out of the discussion they will weaken their own case. They will appear unwilling or perhaps unable to actually counter their opponent's position.

Just some ideas. I don't know whether they're valid.

What's with the GE ad? I'm tired of the silly lump of coal jogging across the top of the window. Perhaps it IS time for Grist to enact some quality control and create a protected space for environmentalists to discuss matters among themselves, free of corporate influence. Perhaps there should be a public pledge of some sort signed by all participants, a statement of environmental principles for all to adhere to during discussions.

Just some ideas. I don't know whether they are valid.

There comes a time in the life of any discussion forum when it decides whether to let the trolls and trolloids ruin it for everyone.

Active moderation is a necessity.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

The Gristmill would be much more interesting if there was more focus on discussing practical solutions to problems rather than debating the existence of the problem. Pretty much everyone here agrees the environment is under assault. Why else would they visit the website? The real issue is what should be done to protect the environment.

I guess I'm concerned that there is a slippery slope from evicting those who deny the problem to evicting those who are somehow labeled not true environmentalist (say, because they believe GMOs are a good thing).

However, after additional consideration, I support those who want to bring some order to the discussion.  Gar's suggestion would be an interesting start. Another option would be filtering all comments. This would definitely be a time-consuming job, but some contributors might appreciate ensuring that discussion remains on topic. It is quite sad to see a very interesting post disappear under inane responses... contributors should have the means to prevent this.

Given that the goal of the shills is not only to shake people's conviction

but also to mop up people's time debating AGW,

rather than discussing the many tiers & factets of solutions to the problem,

it would appear that they find Gristmill a useful workspace.

As far as I can tell, none of the deniers were arguing for an end to rebuttals of their nonsense in the thread on the issue -

and they got to vote on the issue too ??

Whether Gar's proposal of the authors' filtering responses
can function well without an appeal process seems debateable -

So would Dave be willing to see to, or delegate, that role ?

Regards,

Bill

Of course, I've moved Ralph through several stages of denial and gotten him to actually talk (mostly) civilly, so replying to skeptics isn't always fruitless.

Gar -- I do not think you know who the real trolls are.   I think it is more a matter of being off metal meds.   I have had verbal conversation with what would be considered trolls except there was no audience, so....

I am also having fascinating conversations with "the other side".  After covering dead carbon (C12/C14) and the global warming on Mars, I stopped or stalled, and began asking questions rather than respond.

The knowledge of melting permafrost methane is creeping into the far right (anti-liberal, not fossil-fuel advocate).  They talk in political terms, not scientific terms.  They see the right orbiting end-of-the-Earth Armageddon from God, and the left orbiting end-of-the-Earth from fossil fuels.  The attitude is cynical.  They see bubbles of economic opportunity on something they see as a joke, mitigation.  

We need to bring science to Jesus.

For instance "factets" above should read "facets."

Bill

I would support something that could be used, provided it is not ABused, to label comments anyone judges to be consistent with that of a troll.  Just a tally similar to a vote that could be accessed and would appear on, say, the title of a specific message.  Such a device would require maturity and discipline, and specific only to that message, not the messenger, some of whom after all, do improve and can perhaps be taught something.  Just a simple public expression of the value of specific messages to the larger discussion, available for all to see and benefit from.  

I would not support anything anything anything at all resembling censorship, including deleting messages or blocking participants.  Freedom of speech is absolutely precious, beyond any price.       We are able to participate as we do at very high cost to others.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Maybe it sounds complicated, but it works very well.  

It would take a fairly massive reworking of this website, but if implemented, it makes the messages self-moderating.

Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca

David: I would not support anything anything anything at all resembling censorship, including deleting messages or blocking participants.  Freedom of speech is absolutely precious, beyond any price.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and the  press. But I also believer in the necessity of gatekeeping and moderation.

I have seen too many discussion sites turn into cesspools because moderation wasn't forceful enough.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I'm not suggesting that the being trolls mentioned are moving the argument along, but they are grounding us in the reality that not everyone thinks like grist.

Restricting posters and moderation is a very heavy handed way of dealing with trolls.  If not done well, it can stifle even good discussion.  For this reason, I believe that moderation should be done with the lightest touch possible.


Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca

Really, I think that relaxed and occasional answers carry more weight than angry or frequent ones.

The science of climate change is actually pretty straightforward (man creates warming primarily by fossil fuel combustion emissions, but also through agricultural practices, and that in turn may produce feedback loops with additional warming).

Anyone who 'denies' these days isn't really denying, they just seek to inject doubt.  When doubts are weak, they only deserve a quick dismissal.

I'm not sure I agree with the term "fossil-fuel advocate", however. Most of these people aren't really advocating anything, just being sceptical for the fun of it. 'Sceptics' is fine, as is 'bozos'.

And is this place really not for scientists?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

I think if technically feasible this would be a start. And in terms of appeals: ideally there would be some sort of saving of delete comments, and trolls could appeal to management. If this was not technically feasible then anyone deleting a trolling comment would be responsible for saving a copy in case the accused troll wants to appeal. If someone is trusted to post (as opposed to only comment) they ought to be trusted to recognize and delete trolls. I think most of us can be trusted to distinguish between "comments I strongly disagree with" and comments that are disruptive--either due to mental problems or due to deliberate pleasure in disruptiveness. Such people may well be someone you can have interesting discusisons with--off this board.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/doubt/ind ...

I highly recommend it.

as is now happenning in Africa,

would we still take this leisurely an approach
to those who seek to disract us and disrupt discussion

of just how we may best curtail climate destabilization ?

Or would those people simply have there posting privileges ended ?

So does it really matter whose children are dying ?

Regards,

Billhook

"They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."

Likewise, if Gristmill prevents skeptics from responding they are insulating the discussions and preventing an important function from being served. John Stuart Mill argued one of the virtues of free speech is that it brings intellectual honesty - your views have to be defended and this is important.

One practical suggestion is to label the subjects of the discussions to highlight whether they are about the basic science or what we should do about AGW. Those who doubt the former by definition should be disinterested in the latter.

Finally, for those that accept that AGW is occurring does not entail that everyone agrees about how serious the effects with be nor what we should do about it. Consensus does not mean homogeneity.  

If I ran Gristmill I would either institute:

1) Author-driven moderation:

 a) Give each author of a post an option to send comments into a special "full" version of the thread, and

b) give users the ability to choose "screened comments" or "all comments"

That way, the author isn't deleting the comments; instead, readers are simply being given the option of reading two versions of the discussion: the one where the author has screened out the dross or the one where everything is available.

OR -- and maybe, AND, since they are not necessarily exclusive ---

2) A weighted comment rating system that gives the greatest weight to the ratings given by people whose own comments are most highly rated.  (I've sent the details to David, but it sounds too arcane to clutter up the list with.)


The 5% Project

Here's an example of a tiered sidebar which compactly shows the three most recent comments on each of the ten most recently-commented posts: really easy to scan, really easy to keep up to date, really easy to sidestep the known trolls.

http://orangepolitics.org/

How about it Dave?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

First , thanks for the support of the idea I presented.  

I think that perhaps a modification of the idea using what "Werdna/andreW" (see the symmetry?) suggested (if I understand it correctly) might be good, in which each particpant who wishes could enter, on a one time basis per message, a number say between -5 and +5 inclusive, to quantify the value of a message, which would generate an average, which would then provide a quick look at the community's sense of value for a given message.  This number would be best found next to the title of the message.  I suppose to satisfy the statistics geeks(!), a value "n" would be needed.  (Yeah, I'm one.)   Such a label might look like this--Value = +1.4 (n=6)--or something similar.  (Do we need max and min values, and dropping outliers?--Nah!)  

I think it is important to restrict votes to one per message per participant, avoiding what could be termed 'voter fraud' (the Duval County, Texas or Cook County, Illinois "Vote early, vote often" phenomenon), which would avoid precisely what "Tico" has correctly mentioned.  By the way, Tico, I do think the site is for scientists and non-scientists as well.  We can all learn something from time to time.  

A point system of sorts, rather an index, should tell us which messages are worth reading and which might just as well be passed up.  Passing on, and refusing to respond to troll messages may act like negative selection pressure in natural selection, perhaps leading to the extinction of such messages, and (Eureka!) evolution of the authors of such messages.   Or a virtual death....

Yes, "Bart", I do understand that the site is under no obligation, as you say.  But to some extent freedom of speech is an issue everywhere, and since this is a public forum by virtue of being on the Web, we should be judicious in how we treat those with whom we disagree.  I do agree with you on the need for both gatekeeping and moderation.  Does the idea I suggest fit that need?  

Even passive group moderation can be harsh, just as selective pressure in natural systems can be.  I think as "Andrew" suggests this would avoid the insularity he refers to by allowing and enforcing disciplined disagreement.    

"Gar", I would like to use your message to bring up the issue of individuals having the power to delete or edit other people's work.  With all due respect, we all know the lesson of power corrupting, so unless the authors of threads are made up of a corps of Mother Teresa's or Zen monks, I think the job should be in the hands of the community.  I had one such occasion on another site, where a person who really abused the term "moderator" made the experience very unpleasant.  And the Grist staff having the added task of watchdog, or watching the watchdogs, could be a difficult one.  And Gar, if a person's message gets a "-5", is that equivalent to Hell?

As "Biodiversivist" requests, maybe this would provide tolerance within reason, and discipline, both on the part of naysayers and those who support the central mission of the site.

"Greenthinker"--very good message--do you think such a system would improve intellectual honesty?  

I look forward to seeing what develops from this topic--good discussion.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

If a forum is full of spam, flaming, ad hominem and troll remarks

it becomes very hard to read and get the gist of the real topic of conversation.  Threads become too long and too difficult to keep one's emotional state in order.  

All threads should be edited to remove inappropriate off topic posts.

Ah, but that is the problem, define off-topic !

Obviously some posts obviously need the chop, while others may be too far advanced for the audience and so may appear off topic to some.

You guys have a problem, but edit you must if you are to retain the type of people you have fought so long to attract.

If you have a voting system, who has the vote ?
I see this problem in all forums.

I just lock mine, but really one does need feedback if action is contemplated.

omegafour.com

On the other hand, the devil is in the details.  To blindly insist the only way to address global warming is to cut mankind's GHG emissions dramatically is fair game for dispute as far as I'm concerned.  The cuts you advocate are unreasonable.

The IPCC is calling for 80% GHG emission cuts from 2007 levels by 2050, to achieve a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous global warming.  Don't you see how unrealistic that is?

That means developed nations have to cut their GHG emissions over 90% because developing nations get a free pass until their per person emissions catch up to developed nations.

China's net growth in GHG emissions is more than three times the annual increase of all industrialized nations combined.  Their GDP growth rate is 11.1, and their energy intensive industries are growing at 20% per year.  Their electricity consumption rose is rising 15% yearly, and 60% is generated by burning coal in inefficient coal-fired generators.

China has offically declared they will not accept any binding limits on GHG emissions until at least 2050!  

Do you really think any sane US politican will commit our nation to over a 90% cut in GHG emissions by 2050, for only a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous warming, while China/India/developing nations continue their unrestrained GHG emission growth?

Instead, I suggest using genetic engineering to improve nature's ability to remove the CO2 from the air.  This is a low-cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible solution (per experts I've consulted).

BUT, I am a scientist (have been and practiced for over 40 years), so if you knew science you would understand that laypeople have never bothered to study science, so how can y'all make such a judgement ?

I am here to alert y'all that your path is entirely misguided, corrupted and will lead to fatal results.

What is that you say, "but you are a troll" !!!

Well I have asked you to present your objections to the science I have put before you, oh, you don't understand it !!!

Dismiss it out of hand, shoot the messenger... yes I know it all, LOL.

So what can I do, y'all are useless in making any judgement at all, because you have no idea about the deep levels of science, just surface skimmers, all your information is drawn from other surface skimmers.

I will draw your attention to a report recently published by the Lancet (a very highly esteemed science journal).
see
http://www.physorg.com/news97810869.html
Quote
<<< When developing "evidence-based" guidelines, the UN World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence,. That is the verdict from a study published in The Lancet online Tuesday. >>>

The UN WHO is incompetent, so you think the UN IPCC is competent ???  It is all political and inept.

I am only here is assist, I will gladly leave y'all to you incestuous discussions; my work is done here.  You have been told.

>>  Pretty much everyone here agrees the environment is under assault. Why else would they visit the website? The real issue is what should be done to protect the environment.  >>

Yes we all agree that life on Earth is under assault.... What we don't agree on is WHY ???

Now if you were reasonable (and I see you aren't) you would think the WHY is more important than "What to do"

But y'all are sheep being led to the slaughter house.

I have given valid reasons why your precious CO2 theory is incorrect... and basing action on that theory will definitely lead to extinction of LIFE on Earth.

Big Oil has you covered in slimy deceit, and y'all are too blind to see that.

Have you at least looked at the EVIDENCE pointing to an oiled Earth ??

I hope some people have been alerted, the rest, well I know who are the real trolls.

Book "The Death of Clouds" explains it all in a hard SciFi format, and only available from my website

omegafour.com

Frankly, for the sake of Gristmill and the kind of community it is (we are!) when it is at its best, I have been more and more fearful, seeing how persistent and energetic our favorite trolls continue to be.  When they are at their worst, that cannot fail to chill or depress our conversations.  And we cannot doubt that a good number of Grist's very many silent readers, who rarely or never submit comments, must get bored or disgusted, and so leave, which is a very great pity.

The appeal to freedom of speech made by David SustainableGreen (who for an obvious reason cannot be referred to simply as "David"), and the appeal to tolerance made by BioD, and Werdna's concerns about "insularity" and the echo-chamber effect, are fine and good.  But I respectfully think that they miss the point of how the quality of Gristmill is being threatened.

Bart is most clear-sighted here.  It is not a question of tolerating differences of opinion, or even of hearing from people who want us to know, simply, that they do not share the view of reality widely shared by the Gristmill community, or do not believe the assertions of any particular Gristmill writer.  It IS a question of whether to tolerate commenters who are deliberately and repeatedly nasty, unfriendly, insulting and disruptive.

E.g. the commenter with the first name of Karen, who writes infrequent but usually long comments in defense of the development of nuclear power, a cause that is not well thought of by many Gristmillers, is certainly not a troll, and is not part of the problem under discussion.  And that is because she is generally respectful and candid, however strongly she may assert her position.  It would not be at all well done, were she to be excluded.

As for Gar's complaint, I suspect the kind of impossibly difficult and challenging commenter that he has in mind is especially attracted to his kind of post.  I can understand his frustration, but I do not think his particular problem is quite the same as the more widespread Gristmill problem.  Until those challengers become plainly repeatedly offensive and disruptive, I would urge him not to use whatever power of deletion he may be granted to wield.

Many of the ideas in this thread thus far have already come up in earlier Gristmill discussions about thread management and thread discipline.  But Spaceshaper has now suggested something that strikes me as truly new, and welcome.  He has identified a weak point in Gristmill's method of facilitating conversations, namely the very limited, ever-changing list of "recent comments," something that I too find frustrating and vexing.  What he is proposing, a "tiered sidebar" with which he has some experience, sounds like a brilliant improvement.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It's really quite a shame. I've seen hundreds of Gristmill posts nuked in this manner. Each one involved careful work and attention on the part of the original writer. Each one had the potential to develop a productive discussion where real issues were discussed or debated, or new ideas developed, or new paths of activism organized.

But when posts are nuked by trolls and troll responders then substantive discussion is effectively shut down. Hundreds of opportunities for real advancement have been lost. The effort and goodwill of Gristmill's contributors has been trampled and flushed down the (noncomposting chemical) toilet.

Get with the program and treat your readership right.

Ped Shed Blog

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/30/ ...

As it turned out I was substantially right. But that is 20/20 hindsight.  Many pundits from the think tank realm were/are influenced by corporate cash to oppose environmental causes.

Will the irritating GHG climate change deniers that haunt the mill be proven right someday?  Even the particular ones that hawk t-shirts and seem to make statements contradicting climate science just to hear themselves think?

At least they give us all practice addressing limbauhish sophistry.  Would any of us like to listen to limbaugh, coulter, cheney, bush,boortz, fauxnews, drudge, or o'really to address these points?  Nope.  

The problem is that these wing nuts really do infect the mass delusional media.  Teevee and mass media jornalists are weak.  They swallow up this filthy drudge and regift it out into the general consciousness.

Our own wing nuts here are weak copies, like the dead organisms in a vaccine.  They help inoculate us against the diseased mass delusional media. "Conventional" wisdom is a modern plague.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I work in the oil industry on environmental issues. Some people think that is a good thing as less damage to the environment is considered to be good. Other people think I am the bastard son of satan and Barry Manilow... After all my work reduces costs for oil companies and therefor makes it more economic to drill where otherwise they might not. I also fly a lot for my work.

I am a fossil fuel advocate. I think the world needs them right now. I think we should work very hard on reducing CO2 emissions. I also believe that caring about the environment in the "rich world" depends on a solid economy. It is a luxury problem for most people. If economic costs rise too much support will falter for any measures.

I am pragmatic and, I think, realistic. The human race is not going to do a 180 over night. There will be winners and there will be many loosers. Ignore the tiresome types and address the real questions. We all know it when we see it.

However, some people here have rather extreme views on what we should do and what the consequences will be of global warming. Where do we draw the line? Personally I find Zarkov quite amusing. I disagree almost always but at least it is imaginative. Good old jabailo is just having fun and winding people up. It's not like there are that many trolls here. Just make sure you do not let them steal the discussion.

However, I think by going to plugin serial hybrid drivetrains (basically battery electric vehicles with backup generators)gasoline and diesel consumption can be reduced by 90%.  Making that oil last a few more decades (at that much lower consumption and GHG emitting rate)until better batteries make liquid fuel obsolete.

This would make the eco-disaster of fuel farming completely avoidable.  Like wise natural gas from coal can backup renewables (used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generators)in the decades of transition to all renewable energy, where biogas from waste would be the backup for wind, water, and solar power.

I suspect you would not go along with any of my ideas.  Even though we both advocate the use of fossil fuels.

Zark and the jabbering one are tolerable. I ignore the former and only read a few words of the latter.  It's like accidentally switching the teevee to fauxnews or clicking a link to drudge.  You only see it for a few seconds and that's enough.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Some people are considerate and thoughtful, others behave boorishly. They insult people, don't listen, go on and on about weird theories.

If I want ignorant comments, all I have to do is turn on the TV. If I want to hear the oil industry's point of view, their multi-million dollar public relations staff make it easy for me.

Gristmill and a few other discussion forums have opened up a space for thoughtful and intellgent debate. Let's protect it.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I was just listening to a Wisconsin Public Radio Program and realized something. The guest wrote a recent Mother Jones article about declining biodiversity... a Grist contributor will probably post an editorial about the article soon. But that is not why I quickly logged in to post a comment. There was a string of callers questioning whether humans have cause the loss of biodiversity, whether it is perfectly natural because there have been mass extinctions before, et cetera... you know how it goes. Well, I realized that for those listening to the radio program, the discussion of global climate change and loss of biodiversity is new. Hard to believe. But I think about 10% of Americans have never heard of global climate change! So... my point... while regular visitors to the Grist website view "trolls" as annoying because the rehash the same arguments over and over and over --- yes, the same "trolls" are rehashing the same arguments over and over and over --- there are probably a large number of visitors to the Grist website that are seeing this discussion for the first time. One might say it is important that those new visitors see the trollish remarks and the intelligent responses when they stop by. They are not going to dig deep into buried threads to become enlightened. They have to see a current discussion of the issue. It might be old news, but not for them. So...one might suggest it would be valuable to rehash these arguments regularly... sort of like performance art. The bizarre dance between environmetalist and troll is an essential element of the grand effort to protect Earth's ecosystems! Sorry for the long, somewhat disjointed remark, without any paragraphs breaks. Hope it makes sense. Have a nice day. Just an idea, though not necesarily of an value to anyone.

I think I'm generally on the "right side" here, but that doesn't change my view that insularity in online communities is a greater danger than trolls or opposing ideas.

The danger of moderation is that it tends to reinforce insularity, and it breeds many websites all with their own little agreed reality.  That turns me off.  That's not what I'm looking for.

What I want are sites that can stand up in the world with their own ideas.  No "bubbles" and no "bunker mentality" (to borrow from today's political news).

The insular communities, the ones that I feel have divorced themselves from the mainstream ... those are the ones I leave, not the ones I join.

Wiscidea makes a great point  here:

"One might say it is important that those new visitors see the trollish remarks and the intelligent responses when they stop by."

If I wanted to create a couple of strawman sock puppets to act as hapless foils, I might name them Zarkov and Jabailo.

A few things, like personal attacks are not acceptable, but short of that, have at it. Nobody is forced to read a given comment.

I also agree with astetica

"Personally I find Zarkov quite amusing. I disagree almost always but at least it is imaginative. Good old jabailo is just having fun and winding people up. It's not like there are that many trolls here. Just make sure you do not let them steal the discussion."

I also view these guys with a little affection, like I might view the village drunk. They are Gristmill's official troll guys. However, you don't go out and buy the town drunk booze and you don't want to feed trolls too much either. Why the hell you guys take what they say seriously or even bother to read  most of their posts is beyond me. Yes they can be boring and irritating but so can I.

One last thing. I really like the comment scroll bar. If Grist's elite webmaster could write some code to make that thing scrollable so we can go back a few days it would be emulated all over the web. You would be the God King of forum comment scroll bar code.

 

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Search function do not work on blogs, even google blog search is problematic.

Web masters, make it so.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Second, yes moderation can be abused. But I've been on plenty of boards where it is not.  I don't think there is any position that constitutes trolling by itself (well not totally true, but so far we have not Nazi posters and such.) But again, constant repetition, constant hostile style combined with lack of content. You can say something true in a way that is trolling. You can be totally wrong it a way that is not. It is a matter of disruptiveness. I have no problem with a rating system. I'm just thinking it is much harder for the people running the board. Because then they have police the ratings system and make sure it is not abused. (Boards that use it have to spend a lot of time policing people who downrate comments they disagree with rather than comments that are actually disruptive.)  The number of actual bloggers is small enough that I don't think policing them to make sure they don't abuse a moderation system is not a tough task. Incidentally when I talk about repetition, I am talking about repeating the same thing over and over again in the same thread, or bringing robot talking points up in threads that they bear no relation to. In another thread I suggested we respond to standard talking points: but I don't think we should let robotic spammers take over and destroy threads.

1. I suppose there people out there who are both skeptical of climate change and who support rapid, radical restructuring of global energy systems - worriers over "peak oil" probably fit - but the vast majority of "skeptics" either directly, or in effect, are advocates for expanding fossil fuel use. At the very least, the burden should be on them to distinguish themselves.

2. I did not argue that Grist should not be open to scientists, nor that climate activism should (or could) be effective without the clarion voice of climate scientists. I argued that environmentalists are: (1) inordinately preoccupied with quasi-scientific arguments, at the expense of clear speech; (2) have compounded that problem by ignoring the simple, clear and precautionary position originally articulated by Jim Hansen, and now widely adopted (e.g. UK Stern Commission) - but not by US environmentalists.

It seems that there are at least two basic camps: those who would leave everything up and those who would like posters to be able to zap some comments.

But I have another question, and maybe suggestion: what becomes of these Gristmill rules?

1. Don't be a jerk. Nobody likes jerks.
   
2. Try to avoid profanity. The English language is vast and magnificent.
   
3. Do not direct personal attacks at a poster or fellow commenter. Substance, people. Substance.
   
4. Don't be a troll. (Troll: Commenter who makes outrageous or provocative statements purely in order to derail discussion.) You know who you are.
   
5. No spam, no solicitation, no links to porn, no internet detritus of similar ilk.

I don't think there are many of us who have not violated at least one of these. But maybe we could have a system like on Wikipedia, where readers could flag an individual post for violations of the above rules. Then perhaps when a poster gets around to it, they could review the flags. I don't like the idea of a poster zapping comments at their discretion; it's not very democratic and is frankly more work for the posters.

On editing: I love the idea of being able to edit our own comments. Who among us has not pressed that "post" button, only to have the typo assault our delicate eyes immediately?

Finally, I agree with numerous others that Gristmill is pretty light on the trolls. Not a huge problem.

First, Gar, I apologize for the quotes--having looked closely at the prevailing convention I will avoid it for all.   By the way, I like your take on my user name.  

This coincidentally provides an example of how we learn discipline by being on the site.  If I had said something stupid or offensive I would have expected a harsh response.  If I want my comments to be taken seriously and responded to appropriately I would change my tone.  

A larger contemporary  example of just such a process is found on the topic of rebutting skeptics.  Ralph Hansen made some insulting comments, and both Grevangelical and I told him to shape up.  He did and the result is constructive for all.    

The idea of a scroll bar seems a little more complicated than merely doubling or tripling the cutoff number for Recent Comments, now set at 20.  These topics and comments are physically long enough to accommodate that change.  A scroll bar could then be implemented when ready.  

The idea that allowing some repeated invalid points (I am sorry to the author but I couldn't find the comment the second time) as an instructional tool for newbies and others is a very good one, and deserves consideration.  Maybe a separate on-site summary of the sceptics' arguments is a good idea.  

My intent for proposing an Value Index for messages is to point out and punish the useless message, and not necessarily  the messenger.  It appears to me such a system would be pretty much a programming issue, and once done, would require little monitoring from the Grist staff.   I am a big fan of community action and this is why a community-based approach to moderating the site seems best.

Ken, I admit I missed your second point about focusing on and expanding and fostering Hansen's point of the precautionary principle applied to climate action.  I have not seen the Craig's list policy you referred to, but I think a Value Index would serve a useful purpose here.  If I see a low negative Index on a message I would might read it the first time, but thereafter skip most similarly rated messages.  Likewise, as above, if I wrote something stupid and boorish and repetitive that received a low score from the community I hope I would learn from it.  

We in the U.S. do need to sharpen and focus our position, but more importantly we need to provide clear practical actions that individual citizens can and are likely to take.  This has a far more immediate positive effect than altering entrenched public policy.  As a simple example, the false dichotomy of 'paper or plastic' needs to be destroyed and sturdy reusable cloth bags popularized.  

I do believe there is a growing awareness of AGW among the general public.  Certainly the MSM appears to refer to it more than before, as a gauge of growth.  

I simply try to educate people to the possibilities of improving our condition overall while reducing our wasteful individual impact.  Using the "Do as I say, not as I do" approach is extremely hypocritical, so we all need to be the change we wish to see, as Gandhi so brilliantly stated.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

SustainableGreen: This coincidentally provides an example of how we learn discipline by being on the site.  If I had said something stupid or offensive I would have expected a harsh response.  If I want my comments to be taken seriously and responded to appropriately I would change my tone.

Discussion boards are vulnerable to abuse because:

• We don't have face-to-face contact. Those who engage in anti-social behavior don't receive the disapproving feedback from body language and facial expressions.
• We are open to anybody with an internet connection. (One strategy might be to require users to "prove themselves worthy" before becoming posters with full privileges.)
• There are ruthless people who have no scruples about sabotaging discussions on sites like Gristmill, whether for financial or ideological reasons.

If idealistic groups do not develop defenses against witting or unwitting predators, they will be destroyed - a lesson that I learned again and again in the 60s. A little common sense applied ahead of time will save tons of heartache and frustration in the future.

One other point -- in discussions like this, we should listen attentively to people who have contributed most to the site, such as Gar. Solutions should be easy for the Gristmill to administer, since they are the ones who are providing the platform.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Well a Big Oil representative, Hi !

Could you clear up a couple of queries for me, and for the readership of Gristmill.

(a) How long does petroleum mineral oil remain in the environment ?

(b) How much petroleum mineral oil is discharged, spilt or whatever, into the environment per year ?

(c) How long does the breakdown products of mineral petroleum oil remain in the environment ?

Also would you be so kind as to inform me about synthetic oils ?

1.  How much synthetic oil is manufactured each year ?

2.  How much of that synthetic oil would you estimate, finds its way into the environment at large ?

3. How resistant are synthetic oil to environmental degradation (from any natural attack, eg oxidation, microbiological, UV etc) ?

Remember, I am aware of the approximate figures, so Astetica please be as straightforward as you are able.

Thanks for your time

omegafour.com

Apparently, what has happened in the past is this:
amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/30

amazingdrx,

We have received several complaints about your participation in the comment boards on Gristmill, both from other readers and from guest authors. Though the complaints cover a variety of subjects, the main two are as follows:

1. You frequently issue ad hominem attacks, questioning the motives and character of other readers and authors.
   
2. You  simply comment too much. Readers have complained that you "overwhelm" the site and "crowd out other voices." They have said that they believe the frequency of your comments makes other readers hesitant to comment and reduces the diversity and vibrancy of the comment boards.

Please take steps to address these behaviors.

This will be your only warning. If we receive further complaints, we will be forced to ban you from further participation on Gristmill.

--Gristmill admin.

Just because I work in "Big Oil" does not mean I have a database of numbers in my head. Since you state you already have the numbers maybe you can post these yourself?

With regard to your questions I would say it depends... It depends on the exact oil type and how it enters the environment. Is the oil released to sea, river, sediment or on land? Is it in the arctic or in the tropics? Is the oil freely available on tied to a solid substrate?

Synthetic oils it was hoped, would be less toxic in some circumstances but have turned out to be much the same to mineral oils.

Degradation of oils depends on many parameters. In general if oil is freely distributed in the sea it doesn't last that long and is readily biodegradable. Certainly the lighter oils do not last long.

Most oil released to the environment comes from non oil industry sources such as garages, domestic, etc...

Tis a shame you are not more informed about your industry and its responsibilities.  But given Big Oil's record, I am not even surprised, LOL.

Yes all the information posted re oil pollution is compiled at my database.

Remind me please

You work in the "oil industry on environmental issues", so I am now wondering just what environmental issues you might be interested it ?

omegafour.com

Of course this also helps in preventing this highly dangerous micro layer of oil on top of all the oceans!!!

I love this: "Though the complaints cover a variety of subjects, the main two are as follows: ... "

What a story!  And not the least surprising aspect of it is that anyone in Grist could actually write in that legalistic style.

In general, we should always protest against people's bringing complaints about our conduct not to us directly, but secretly and cravenly to somebody who has some power over us.  Sure, sometimes it is necessary, e.g., when you are a whistle-blower, and you have something against your immediate boss; or when you are a highway motorist behind a very poorly driven truck, and there is a "How Is My Driving?" sign, with a phone number.  But really, in a society of mature, respectful people, there is no reason but cowardice why anyone would shrink from confronting someone whom he thinks has done something offensive.  And if it comes to trial, the defendant surely deserves to know who his accusers are, and indeed to face them, even if they are unwilling to confront him one-on-one.

Actually, in that connexion, as this thread has progressed, the wisdom of BioD emerges more and more brightly.  Sometimes at least, tolerance is the answer.  And BioD's interpretation of (since the names have been named) Zarkov and Jabailo is very helpful.  In fact, I find lately that they have been mellowing, which is a very good thing.  My guess is that that has come about, not because they have been "fed," but because others have responded to some interesting things that they have said, with great respect to the community's standards of discourse.

I still agree with Bart, regarding etiquette, and maintaining a civil, constructive discourse within a basically friendly community.

It remains unclear whether Gar and a few others have quite got the important distinction between "AGW deniers" and "trolls."  But Bart says he trusts Gar; so, provisionally, I shall continue trusting Bart, trusting Gar.

And by the way, on the issue of "scientists vs. non-scientists," and who Gristmill is for: As a proud liberal-artist, with not a bit of professional science training in me, but a lover of the sciences all the same, I feel rather trollish myself, especially in the past few months, since Gristmill has been more and more exclusively focused on climate and energy, and the posters and commenters are more and more scientists and engineers.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I too like the creativity of J and Z.

I hope for no changes in Gristmill formats and openness.

I think jab is reforming.  He did put the link to the GM volt up.  Maybe zark is getting better too?  I haven't read any of his stuff lately.

We have a new denier on the scene though.  Seems pretty virulent too.  With a link to some new denier website?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

This is why I don't like the idea of comments getting zapped: one person's troll is another's interesting commenter. Flags or some sort of rating system would be okay, but keep the comments there.

Confession time: I usually don't read Canis' comments unless I have a lot of time on my hands, which I seldom do. Does that mean I don't want him to comment? Of course not. When I do read them, they're always enlightening and/or entertaining.

Finally, Mr. Penn has progressed greatly since the 1980s. His performance in "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" was brilliant.

To be sure, Margaret Hamilton had the more interesting (double) role.  And I am afraid I have had my WW-of-the-W moments ...

To Mihan: All is forgiven -- of course!  Life is short, after all.  It is indeed an honor to know that anyone ever reads anything I write.

And by the same token, I ignore all kinds of threads, and all kinds of commenters.  There is just a handful whom I regularly read, and FYI you are on that short list.

But isn't that normal, to be selective like that?

Actually, "good troll" or not, I sometimes get the feeling that I am the only one here who has genuine respect for the vision of Giller & Company, to keep things on balance rather light-hearted.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Well good, we know where we stand.

How do you explain the persistence of MASSIVE amounts of crude oil around the Prince William Sound, Alaska, over a decade after the Exxon Valdez oil spill ?

How can you say that synthetic oils degrade at much the same rate as mineral oils, when synthetic oils are designed to resist degradation, at over 10 - 100 times ?

How does your work reduce the oil slick on the oceans ?

Is your company aware of the oil slick on the ocean ? LOL as if

I see you think it is all someones else's problem.

omegafour.com