FanDuel - WFBC

September 05, 2012

Comment Editing: Wow, I'm not really not cool with the comment editing- chide me if you must, but if you're going to rewrite comments (and without clear indication, to boot), this site just became a whole lot less friendly.

posted by hincandenza to editorial policy at 05:57 PM - 33 comments

Wow, I'm not really not cool with the comment editing- chide me if you must, but if you're going to rewrite comments (and without clear indication, to boot), this site just became a whole lot less friendly.

Sorry you feel that way Hincandenza. I should have noted the edit, but this isn't a new thing. From the new user page:

This site is not a place for trash-talking fans to repeatedly proclaim that their team rocks and someone else's team sucks.

I'm all for fun. Trash talking doesn't encourage discussion. And this has been a problem in the past. People either love or hate the Yankees, but if every link about them becomes a discussion of how much they suck, why put the time into created a post about the Yankees.

If you disagree please bring it up in the locker room or email a moderator.

posted by justgary at 05:56 PM on September 05

It has been SportsFilter policy since day one to remove parts of comments that violate site rules. It doesn't happen very often -- when I did it today on two comments in another discussion, it was the first time in at least six months.

We don't note those partial edits, either. Typically, a sentence or paragraph is removed. This is a policy we adopted from Metafilter that has never generated any controversy, as far as I recall.

posted by rcade at 06:03 PM on September 05

Just one drone from the mob, but if a comment or part thereof is deleted, could not something be inserted to let the rest of us know that? An announcement that a sentence/paragraph/comment has been deleted due to inappropriate language, commentary not in accordance with site guidelines, or such would remind us that we are being monitored and need to be careful with the keyboard.

I do note there is little visible evidence of editing by the monitors. This tells me that those of us who do contribute are behaving themselves. We do get into some pretty good verbal battles, but the temperature stays down, we are willing to accept other viewpoints, and are more than ready to defend our own. I've been a member of the community for 6 1/2 years, and I've learned a lot about sports, discourse, and good behavior. At my age, courtesy is important, and I congratulate the vast majority of SpoFites for the way they act.

posted by Howard_T at 06:28 PM on September 05

This is a policy we adopted from Metafilter that has never generated any controversy, as far as I recall.

/ducks

Or did you mean here? I promise I'm not picking, I just want to be clear where everyone is coming from. And I think as Red Sox fans, we should be sensitive to that kind of trolling when a team we don't like nose-dives.

posted by yerfatma at 07:18 PM on September 05

For the record, the line I deleted was something along the lines of:

"as a fan of the Red Sox the past two seasons can I say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

When the site first started we had a good number of Yankee fans, and over the years many have vanished. I know for a fact that some left because every Yankee thread turned into a Yankees hate fest.

There's nothing wrong with commenting that you're enjoying a certain team losing. People have done so in the thread. But I thought hincandenza's comment was a little over the top.

I enjoy the Yankees losing, but I didn't make the post to bash them. I posted it because it's an interesting story.

I disagree that by enforcing that particular guideline we're making the site less fun. you often have enlightening comments hincandenza. In my opinion, that's where the fun is.

posted by justgary at 07:51 PM on September 05

The part I didn't like was the editing out and then the use of part of the edited portion in italics to fuel the moderator's response.

If people came along who never saw the original "HaHaHa" portion that was deleted and then saw it referenced in a response, they wouldn't have the benefit of full knowledge of the situation, which I feel they are entitled to.

If you're going to delete text, then subsequently tailor it to your own purposes without any sort of disclosure or clarification for the benefit of other members, that is something I object to.

I also think that if you're going to delete text and then reference it here as done above, you should quote it verbatim rather than paraphrasing it. The "something along the lines of" approach shows a further disregard for what the poster originally posted, as if to reinforce its illegitimacy in the moderator's eyes. The casual "I threw it in the trash and now I can't remember exactly what it said" approach is dismissive of both the membership at large and the record.

In general, I think this particular episode was not handled well and shows a questionable use of the moderators' discretionary powers and authority.

posted by beaverboard at 08:37 PM on September 05

Or did you mean here?

I meant here, and only in reference to partial comment deletions. I looked in MetaTalk to see if in-comment editing was ever discussed, but didn't find a thread.

I also think that if you're going to delete text and then reference it here as done above, you should quote it verbatim rather than paraphrasing it.

It's not a matter of being dismissive. There's no way to quote it verbatim. After the comment is saved again, the original is no longer available.

One of the reasons MetaFilter and SportsFilter are more civil than other sites is because of active moderation. Comments are rarely moderated here any more, but in the early years we doused a lot of flamewars using the technique you object to.

posted by rcade at 09:38 PM on September 05

I do agree with The Beave that it was weird to delete the text but then respond to it. Confusing for others and makes the "victim" feel powerless to respond when their comments can be edited but the moderator can say what they like.

posted by yerfatma at 09:41 PM on September 05

I would really love it if people could stop basing the emotional energy of their baseball fandom over how much they hate some team. I find this flavor of sports "fandom" kind of embarrassing and kind of disturbing. It doesn't help that I'm a Yankee fan, always have been, and that SpoFi has a long history of shitty attitudes and behavior towards the Yankees and their fans. The fact that it's worse elsewhere doesn't make it good here.

I know for a fact that some left because every Yankee thread turned into a Yankees hate fest.

Exactly so. Who the hell needs that kind of bush league bullshit all the time? But no, apparently we can't have a thread where the Y-name is mentioned without this kind of silly-ass nonsense, always and forever. Who needs it?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:57 PM on September 05

I guess I feel that rather than edit it, if you'd just followed up with a comment (in big bold mod font) saying "Hey, let's not do the pile-on and keep it civil", it'd be just as effective at moderating without actually censoring. I think that's something MeFi could definitely do better. A simple polite mod callout early on can keep a thread civil, without going so quickly to the delete option.

posted by hincandenza at 12:06 AM on September 06

Do they actually edit comments over on MeFi (other than the occasional broke-the-page HTML stuff)? Seems to me that they just flat-out delete a comment rather than edit out offending parts. And that is what I would vastly prefer, if only because it doesn't expose the mods to charges of changing the intent of what someone said.

posted by Etrigan at 07:46 AM on September 06

Here's a recent comment from Jessamyn on MetaFilter that says they don't partially edit comments except for broken HTML and typos. That wasn't my experience in the early years of the site.

I would really love it if people could stop basing the emotional energy of their baseball fandom over how much they hate some team.

I can understand your ire when it comes to how people express their Yankees hate.

But getting no energy from it? If a franchise dominates its sports for as long as the Yankees, they're going to attract a lot of counterfans who are as motivated to see them lose as their own team win. As a Rangers fan, loving my team doesn't give me skin in the game through the World Series very often. Hating the Yankees, though ...

posted by rcade at 08:33 AM on September 06

I love to hate the Yankees. It's fun to root against those kind of dominant teams. However, I don't want to do it such that SpoFi loses Yankees fans. I think we lost BullpenPro over that, and he was a great member.

posted by bperk at 08:57 AM on September 06

Freely spewing untamed vile thoughts about the Yankees is far too convenient a path to follow. And totally unnecessary, as things have a way of catching up with them often enough to soothe the savage beast who lusts to see them suffer discomfort or ridicule.

When fate doesn't provide enough difficulty, they are adept at creating their own, and occasionally are able to pull people like Boras into the vortex, as in the A-Rod contract dispute. Moments like that are a service to humanity.

I give them credit where due, even if the outcome is not what I would have hoped for. What they did to the Braves in 1996 remains a stunning accomplishment to this day.

For those who are troubled by how people like Torre have been treated by the organization, there is the fond memory of Dick Howser's run to glory, which remains sublime in my mind.

They are going to be center stage, win lose or draw. It's their destiny. I am totally content to leave 'em be and let them do their thang.

It's Trump who hasn't suffered enough.

posted by beaverboard at 09:27 AM on September 06

counterfans who are as motivated to see them lose I love to hate the Yankees.

Well, it's really up to y'all what kind of fans (or "counterfans", or haters) you want to be, and what kind of place you want this to be. I'm surprised that the comment was censored because for years, it's been open season on Yankees and Yankee fans here. If you didn't want that, you should have done something long ago, and if you do want that, why make a pretense of changing the nod-and-wink-at-the-haterade-fest policy now?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:18 AM on September 06

SpoFi has a long history of shitty attitudes and behavior towards the Yankees and their fans.

I think that's a cheap shot.

Looking at the discussion here the night the Yankees last won a title, I think the way Yankees talk goes here has as much to do with their fans as their detractors.

I got my ass kicked six ways to Sunday for not discussing the game properly when my post was packed with in-game details. You didn't make a single comment about that game. Your only investment in the topic was to thunder at people for anti-Yankees bias. From my perspective as someone who does make posts, that's become the norm. Yankees fans are more likely to complain about how their team is treated here than to contribute posts and comments about the team.

This site is what people make of it. If you want something good to happen, encourage it with your own contributions. If you think people are engaging in "hater" behavior that discourages you from contributing, tell us. Gary and I will moderate this site to discourage that stuff and encourage people to post.

posted by rcade at 10:26 AM on September 06

I guess I feel that rather than edit it, if you'd just followed up with a comment (in big bold mod font) saying "Hey, let's not do the pile-on and keep it civil" ...

Do people really like that approach? I think anything that calls attention to moderation tends to bother people. They'd rather see comments disappear than be told how to conduct themselves.

posted by rcade at 11:00 AM on September 06

I got my ass kicked six ways to Sunday for not discussing the game properly when my post was packed with in-game details. You didn't make a single comment about that game. Your only investment in the topic was to thunder at people for anti-Yankees bias. From my perspective as someone who does make posts, that's become the norm. Yankees fans are more likely to complain about how their team is treated here than to contribute posts and comments about the team.

1. You're cherrypicking. Given the dynamic that's made Yankee fans not want to post about their team because of the abuse, you've got no basis to complain when I come into a thread for the first time, see a bunch of haterade, and call it what it is. 2. If it's become the norm, whose fault is that? Look upthread for how that happened. If you treat people in a nasty fashion, over a long period of time, don't be surprised when that becomes and remains a sore point. Attempts to remedy this are few and recent, so I don't think that should be a surprise.

This is, or should be, a thread about moderation, so that's all I've got to say about the hate. No, I'm not going to come to you and Gary with complaints. It's all well and good to tell people to bring tasty ingredients to make the SpoFi punch -- that's one part of the picture. The other part is what to do when some antisocial asshat lobs a turd into the punchbowl. Dealing with that is a moderation thing, and that part of the tasty punch is up to you.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:22 PM on September 06

rcade: Do people really like that approach? I think anything that calls attention to moderation tends to bother people. They'd rather see comments disappear than be told how to conduct themselves.
Really? Because having my comments edited/disappeared is what drives me absolutely ballistic. When I came back yesterday a few minutes later and saw my comment was edited- and then saw you took my reply and made this thread- I was seriously thinking "To hell with sportsfilter, if it's just going to be Metafilter but with game results". Which- I've been here for 10 years, and literally since day 1 if I'm not mistaken, and like to think on the whole I've been a positive contributor. But I was really, really, really upset about it.

I have long felt that comments- here or at Metafilter- should almost never be deleted, except in unbelievably extreme cases where it is legally problematic (i.e., if someone types a very explicit threat against someone's life, hiding but not deleting the comment and discussing among the site owners what to do, etc). Using gentle nudges will be more effective at moderation than comment deletion, without the side effect of angering the people who make up the site.

If the mod is polite, it's a way of appealing to my good nature and reinforcing a site ethos- and it doesn't even have to be public the first time. Your email to me yesterday for example reminded me "Okay, as a Sox fan, I certainly can sympathize with Yankee fans who are potentially watching their team do what mine did last year". And you know what? That would have been enough. I'd have not posted a 'HAHAHA' again in that thread.

If multiple people piled on the Yankees, then maybe a public mod-quote of [Okay, let's tone down the anti-Yankee rhetoric and keep it civil] to help tame things. If I or others persisted in being a dick over and over, despite you trying to moderate, then a time-out (one-day) ban seems reasonable, as a "Okay, you keep going over the top, we asked nicely, so take a breather and come back tomorrow".

I certainly understand the desire to not want this be every other sports site comment section, with lots of "_____ SUXX!" shouting; but we're more of a community here, with far fewer (and in a way, less anonymous) voices than an ESPN. So, please appeal to that understanding, and ask me and others to tone it down if things seem to get heated or divisive.

But when the comment is just up and edited/deleted, at least for me it makes me far more defensive, and angry: suddenly, the eggshells we're apparently all walking on are too visible. Will my next comment get edited/deleted? Why? Will I know? Is the deletion just, and is it balanced- or will I feel persecuted if seemingly parallel comments are left up? Now, instead of just typing and being part of the conversation, I'm thinking "What's the point? Why invest even 5 minutes of my time to comment, when it could just be deleted because someone didn't have their morning coffee?" And I don't think I'm alone in being really uneasy about comment deletion.

This might be my American sensibilities, but comment deletion seems so extreme, and seems like something that is inherently an abuse of power. Again, might be the "Freedom, man!" upbringing, but something about being able to edit history as if a comment didn't happen (or even, that a user never existed), seems like a really difficult thing to have on the table for anything that isn't utterly exceptional. And I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but it just has a touch of Orwellian overtones to rewrite the past- even if well intentioned and obviously small potatoes, since we're just talking a message board on the internet. That it's "just a message board" doesn't mean it isn't unsettling when it happens.

I feel strongly that the comments and users should be left untouched, warts and all, and if you think a user or thread is becoming unfriendly to certain fans or an overall trainwreck, then try to guide it using social tools (including the 24-hour or escalating timeout as an option). I hope I can convince you to feel the same way, and to avoid comment editing in the future- even if it's already rare- altogether.

posted by hincandenza at 01:27 PM on September 06

Given the dynamic that's made Yankee fans not want to post about their team because of the abuse, you've got no basis to complain when I come into a thread for the first time, see a bunch of haterade, and call it what it is.

I'm not interested in seeing any more discussions involving the Yankees turn into a meta-discussion of how SportsFilter treats the Yankees. That kind of discussion belongs in the Locker Room.

If you're not willing to contact us personally to deal with comments you object to, then the only place I want to see those concerns is here. Not in discussions.

posted by rcade at 01:57 PM on September 06

Do people really like that approach? I think anything that calls attention to moderation tends to bother people.

Not that I'm a guide to human behavior, but I would prefer a note indicating what happened or deletion of any comment that refers to the comment with the Metafilter-style "[please don't do x]" replacing the comment(s). I've had a couple of comments axed at Metafilter because they were in reply to something problematic and I got a note from the mods letting me know and providing the text of the comment. I think that's above and beyond, but having things disappear down the memory hole is the worst possible outcome for me.

If you treat people in a nasty fashion, over a long period of time, don't be surprised when that becomes and remains a sore point.

This is veering close to "When's White History Month?" and "Know who the real minority is now? Straight white Christians!" Other teams, for me the Red Sox and the Patriots, cause just as much schaedenfreude as the Yankees. It's the price of success and the only answer is to grow a thicker skin or avoid the threads. I can sympathize as it is almost impossible to enjoy Deadspin as a fan of New England sports due to the knee-jerk "Tawmee from Qwinzee is a racist" trope that crops up between members making racist jokes as an arch art form. Bringing together sports fans from different regions/ teams is going to lead to arguing and the successful teams will always get the brunt of it.

If you feel like anti-Yankee bias is the result of intentional actions from the moderators, I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes in threads about major US sports, you don't so much come across as a fan of a team as there to complain about people who aren't fans of a team.

posted by yerfatma at 02:16 PM on September 06

I'm a Yankees-hater myself (sorry LBB) but for the most part, I haven't seen a strong bias one way or the other concerning the Bronx Bombers; I've read most of the SpoFi archives. And though I thought the story justgary posted was cool, my first thought on it was "The Orioles tied for first in September!" rather than "Yankees blow a 10 game lead late in the season, suckers!"

For the most part, I haven't had an issue with the way the moderators operate this discussion board. It's one of the key reasons I keep coming back here (I must be a glutton for punishment).

One thing I'd like clarification about, though. There's a little blurb on the bottom of every SpoFi page that says "All posts and comments are copyrighted by their original authors." While I see the reasoning behind editing to keep the site and authors somewhat honest, doesn't such editing violate the copyright? Perhaps if you really had to make an example of someone, the entire post should be removed and a warning issued to the violator. Editing a post can change the author's meaning, and (s)he probably wouldn't want to own the statement after the fact. Am I misconstruing the meaning of the copyright as applied to this site? Any thoughts about this, anyone?

posted by NerfballPro at 02:36 PM on September 06

I have long felt that comments- here or at Metafilter- should almost never be deleted, except in unbelievably extreme cases where it is legally problematic ... Using gentle nudges will be more effective at moderation than comment deletion, without the side effect of angering the people who make up the site.

I used to share your "Freedom, man!" thinking. Then I ran online web communities for 17 years.

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of problems that bad-behaved users create for a community. Gentle nudges only work on reasonable, even-tempered people. They would work on you and most long-timers because you have respect for the place and the people here.

Some people don't have respect for sites like this one and MetaFilter. They just want to troll and enjoy the ensuing chaos. Others can't express an opinion without personal invective or bigoted opinions. Others are too angry about a subject or person to discuss them without a flamewar. That stuff has to be dealt with. Otherwise, the site will become a troll orgy and good users will leave.

As for you being upset that your comment was moved here, it was necessary to address your concerns properly.

posted by rcade at 02:56 PM on September 06

... doesn't such editing violate the copyright?

My guess would be no. If a message board has the legal right to publish your comment, it has the right to alter or remove it. The situation is analogous to a letter to the editor.

posted by rcade at 03:04 PM on September 06

Other teams, for me the Red Sox and the Patriots, cause just as much schaedenfreude as the Yankees.

I think this would be more of an issue here if there weren't so many fans of these teams here. There are far fewer Yankees fans here, so the Yankees posts get more easily diverted to a hate-fest. We ought to be able to discuss any sports team rationally -- pitching, hitting, coaching without the hate. And, as Nerf pointed out, the thread could have just as easily been focused on the surprising Orioles or surging Rays.

posted by bperk at 03:58 PM on September 06

I think it's a literacy thing.

posted by yerfatma at 02:32 AM on September 07

This might be my American sensibilities, but comment deletion seems so extreme, and seems like something that is inherently an abuse of power. Again, might be the "Freedom, man!" upbringing, but something about being able to edit history as if a comment didn't happen (or even, that a user never existed), seems like a really difficult thing to have on the table for anything that isn't utterly exceptional. And I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but it just has a touch of Orwellian overtones to rewrite the past- even if well intentioned and obviously small potatoes, since we're just talking a message board on the internet. That it's "just a message board" doesn't mean it isn't unsettling when it happens.

Oy, if you think the removal of a pointless comment is at all related to some Orwellian overtone then I don't know what to tell you. From the time kids learn to babble, we've told them to be quiet if they're not being productive with their speech. I think sometimes it takes people a while to realize this. I think on the internet, some people go back one development cycle.

The day that something of actual substance gets removed, I will lead the mob. A slippery slope argument based on a comment which is purely antagonistic doesn't make me want to run to the barn and grab my pitchfork. There are degrees to which discourse gets more productive without antagonistic elements in it, and people on the black and white sides of censorship arguments frustrate me to no end. We humans can have a little censorship without descending into a dystopian novel. We actually do extremely well in the grey moral areas, partly because they're the only realistic areas to actually be in.

posted by dfleming at 07:05 AM on September 07

Well, I don't consider your comment to have any value, dfleming. Plus it rather antagonistically calls me infantile and lacking perspective. So... maybe we can have it removed, too?

rcade: I used to share your "Freedom, man!" thinking. Then I ran online web communities for 17 years.

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of problems that bad-behaved users create for a community. Gentle nudges only work on reasonable, even-tempered people. They would work on you and most long-timers because you have respect for the place and the people here.

Look, this is about principle: this site should not delete user comments. You're creating a false dichotomy: I'm not suggesting that by not deleting/editing comments, you should have no tools at all for moderation. I'm saying that the 'gentle nudges' can be tried, but that if a user is such a bad egg they aren't contributing anything, you can temp ban them, and then permaban them. No one will dispute that you'll get spammers, or weird one-trick pony commenters, and have to manage that as a thankless background task on sites like these. But we're not talking about that: we're talking about editing another user's comments because you can. The very fact that you said "They would work on you and most long-timers"- and yet still my comment was edited- says you don't actually believe that.

I'm not going to defend my "HAHAHAHA", because sure, it was a dick thing to say- although there's a separate question of whether it's the tone or the content that's problematic; it would seem odd to have sports-themed discussion where people couldn't acknowledge they rooted against some teams. However, that's actually not the point. I don't think I'm making some irrational request, here. If you need to moderate by temporarily disabling an account after warnings fail to work, then do so. If even as a long-time member, I kept posting like that on Yankee threads after you'd asked me not to, even I couldn't complain if you said "Okay, 24 hour timeout dude".

But the deletion of content seems very problematic, on principle. Not because Sportsfilter moderation is the vanguard of some fascist uprising, as dfleming would like to paint me as suggesting, but because it should just be a thing that's not done.

Besides, as people have noted above, if you left it as-is, and then posted a mod quote of [Hey, let's not be antagonistic], then it would do more to create a sense of a community that discourages trash-talk commenting.

posted by hincandenza at 02:44 PM on September 07

Hal, you and I had a very nice and very civil exchange on the subject of replay in baseball this week. Its the sort of exchange that this site carries so well. Now, I'm pretty passionate on the subject (I dislike the idea), but in a forum such as this it's best to leave the passions at home. I too have teams that I ardently support and teams that I vehemently dislike. I'm often tempted to make a snarky remark in the occasional thread, but I've learned over time to bite my tongue (or since I'm typing, my fingers) and just keep quiet.

I've said before that SpoFi reminds me of a bunch of people in a sports bar who are discussing the latest news in the sports world. Most of us try to contribute something when we know what we are talking about, otherwise we shut up. On many occasions, we will put a little bit of a "yo mama" into a comment, but it is always recognizable for what it is - just a way of having fun with your friends. The guys in the bar all have teams they support or dislike, and when those teams come up in discussion, there is often some passion and borderline insult. This is when the violator of decorum should be hooted down and sent to buy everyone a fresh beer. For those who moderate the site, I say hooted down, not muzzled. Note the offending comment or part thereof, point out why it is offensive, and only if the offender persists in such behavior, send him for a round (that is, a temporary ban - either on the particular thread or on the site in its entirety). Once in a while someone walks into the bar who for whatever reason has nothing to offer except inflammatory, off-topic, and negative comments. This is the time to call the bouncer and remove the offender to the nether reaches of a table next to the men's room.

Free speech comes with the responsibility to adapt such speech to the company present or situation at hand. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' metaphor of "Crying fire in a crowded theater" is applicable, as would be the consequences of calling someone an asshole when his fist is within striking distance of your nose. Many wise men have made reference to the "two ears, one mouth" idea - that one should listen twice as much as speaking. There is also the saying "engage brain before putting mouth in motion". The sorts of caution implied in such sayings should be observed on a site like this, but the idea of patience and understanding should serve equally.

posted by Howard_T at 03:36 PM on September 07

The part I didn't like was the editing out and then the use of part of the edited portion in italics to fuel the moderator's response.

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. Yankee threads have always been a problem, and I knew that in creating the thread. So I was hoping to keep the thread going in a positive direction.

I didn't delete the entire post because the first part was fine, and had nothing to do with the line I deleted. I did not use an actual quote because I did not want to call out hincandenza. That wasn't my purpose. In fact, the reason I only used 'HAHAHA' was simply to demonstrate what wasn't going to fly on Sportsfilter without quoting hincandenza.

Those were my thoughts, and again, it was a bad decision. We're having a conversation in this thread about what the correct method would have been, but it's obvious I chose the worst option.

The "something along the lines of" approach shows a further disregard for what the poster originally posted, as if to reinforce its illegitimacy in the moderator's eyes.

There was no disregard for what the poster originally stated. I simply can't remember the exact quote word for word, and in order to have this conversation, which is not only how we edit, but what we edit, the content of what was actually edited is important.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reinforce its illegitimacy'. Again, we can discuss how the edit should be done, but the line was legitimately against site guidelines, period. There's nothing to reinforce.

The casual "I threw it in the trash and now I can't remember exactly what it said" approach is dismissive of both the membership at large and the record.

You have a problem that I may be a word or two off what was actually said, but you have no problem taking what I said in this thread and rewording it to fit some malicious intent that you seem to be imagining.

Again, I have no problem admitting that I didn't handle the edit in the correct manner, but telling me I'm dismissive of the membership at large after doing this for years is, frankly, insulting.

The edit, even if done incorrectly in your eyes, was done with an eye to the membership at large, which includes Yankee fans, and the hope of better discussion, which also is what I'm sure most members would prefer.

Why invest even 5 minutes of my time to comment, when it could just be deleted because someone didn't have their morning coffee?"

I mostly disagree with your opinions on moderation, Hincandenza. Mainly because of all the sites I've participated in I've never known one that worked using the style your suggesting. But I respect your opinion, and I'm listening, and open to change. But if your view of my moderation is that I delete comments (very rare) because I didn't have my morning coffee, which is nonsense, I can see why you have a problem with moderation in general.

And, as Nerf pointed out, the thread could have just as easily been focused on the surprising Orioles or surging Rays.

Which is what makes Sportsfilter different than most other sports sites. The members control the content. So if you or anyone else believes the Yankees are getting too much attention, you're free to create your own thread discussing the "surprising Orioles or surging Rays".

Not only that, but threads aren't static, they're alive. Anyone that thought more attention should be given to the non-Yankee teams could have easily added those links in the comments.

posted by justgary at 04:01 PM on September 07

The very fact that you said "They would work on you and most long-timers"- and yet still my comment was edited- says you don't actually believe that.

That's not true. Your comment was edited because that's been SportsFilter policy since day one and we adopted the policy from MetaFilter. We never considered another approach until you objected because it never was an issue with anybody.

We will stop making partial edits to comments.

As for deleting comments, we're still going to do that in the extremely rare instances where it's necessary. Websites that never do it become cesspools.

posted by rcade at 04:08 PM on September 07

Not because Sportsfilter moderation is the vanguard of some fascist uprising, as dfleming would like to paint me as suggesting, but because it should just be a thing that's not done.

You brought up Orwell in an appeal to something larger than what actually happens here, not me. It's a common slippery slope reference, but you introduced a fascist, dystopian novel. I didn't.

Look, this is about principle: this site should not delete user comments.

But the deletion of content seems very problematic, on principle.

Where are you getting this principle? You having a belief does not make it a principle. A principle is a fundamental tenet at the heart of whatever it is you are discussing. You disagree, but argue based on the merit and logic you present, not on an appeal to something that overrides a mod's decision how they moderate their own site.

You haven't made any arguments here that contain any logical reason other than "it's not done" and "an abuse of power." In fact, it is done on virtually any website not called 4chan because unfortunately, productive discourse sometimes needs a guiding hand. I mean, you now ackowledge it was a dick thing to do, and (I assume) you won't do it again, so in theory this won't have to happen again...which is proof that it works.

posted by dfleming at 10:10 PM on September 07

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.