Comment Moderation Thread


Barcabhoy I think we need to have a new definition of …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Trisidium.


I think we need to have a new definition of the word irony. There was never a possibility that what you said could happen. The mods have guidelines (rules if you must) and interpret them using context. I think that is sensible – and ultimately it means that we attract an audience of people who on the whole trust the mods.

It also makes us all hostages to the mods’ interpretation, and many folk have been at the sharp end of that in the past with minimum fuss attached.

You appear to be standing firm on a point of principle, and I respect that. However we are also standing firm on how the rules should be applied. I wish you would respect that as well.

Clearly you are not happy with the situation, but there is little point in us going round in circles here. What happens next is up to you, but I hope that both you and Ryan can move on.

Trisidium Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
Not quite causaludendi,

A couple of posts (this morning not this afternoon), the first of which was an OT non sequitur attempting to introduce sectarianism into the debate, were removed. Only the first of those posts was worthy of moderation. The other was simply following on from it and was also removed. The author of the second post (Blether veteran ianagain) was mailed with an explanation.

Neither praised the behaviour of Rangers fans, although the second pointed to an absence of sectarian singing.

Although it does beg the question, “why on earth would we over-zealously remove posts which were positive about TRFC?”; and I am dismayed that one of our regulars would assume it to be so.

Comment Moderation Thread
Actually one example of evolving moderation is the collective decision to allow the Dundee United / Celtic debate to take place. Mods had been accused of over-Nannying the blog and we did try to take that on board.

Comment Moderation Thread
On the current debate with respect to one sentence of a post being removed;

1. The removal of the sentence was indicated on the post.

2. The sentence in question mentioned an historic incident involving Neil Lennon. Not the first time that the poster in question has traduced the former Celtic manager. “Thug” was one word used previously.
The mod in question removed it and checked with me right away. I agreed with him that the intention the sentence was to inflame the debate (trolling in other words), and its removal did not change the ostensible sentiment of the comment.

3. There is no question of naming individual mods. Our experience of trolls is that they will simply move the debate to PMs (or the comment moderation thread) if they are indulged.

4. We simply have no time to notify people when a post is removed/edited. Seriously, 99% of the time people who are affected are well aware of the reason for moderation. My guess is that the figure is actually 100%, but that some choose to make an issue out of it.

5. As ecobhoy says, the issue here is the refusal to accept that the mods are acting in good faith. And he is correct in that if an error is made we try to make good on that. Moderation policy evolves in concert with trolling strategies, and from learning from our mistakes.

6. If we had 10p for everyone who claims their comment’s removal proves beyond doubt that this is a Celtic or anti-Celtic forum, we wouldn’t be making pleas for funds. We do have an imbalance in the sense that Celtic fans are the biggest constituency of our active membership (although not a majority). Consequently moderation is sometimes tricky, but made all the more difficult when trolls hijack the debate. I think some of the posts removed (not moved) this morning more than justify the mod’s suspicions.

7. I clearly have more time on my hands than usual 🙂

Recent Comments by Trisidium

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Be surprised if the larger part of the loans is converted to shares.
Control of a structurally insolvent company lies not in virtually worthless shares, but with the major creditors who will retain control when the shareholders are all stiffed.
Going to happen.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
John C
Might be registered in the far east?

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
There’s only one David Low. 👍😊

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Wasn’t aware that anyone had reproduced Concomitant’s article elsewhere. Nobody asked either, but it’s not a problem for us.
As we’ve said, it’s not a contest. 👍

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
John C
So true about the sport being killed by the authorities.
No matter how corrupt RFC were, the sport could have survived the reputational damage imposed by a rogue club. Impossible to survive damage imposed by rogue governance.

About the author