Andrew, Do you apply the moderation criteria you listed to your own posts? Because there have been some over the years that shouldn't have passed muster in that case. You may well liken group members to school students, but we could then point out that there are good and bad teachers. The good ones lead by example. It might serve you better if you mentioned up front that your moderation reflects your background, interests, motivations and preconceptions.
While we are on this topic I am pasting below something I brought to your attention in late 2011. I did not post to the full group at that time but this might be a good time to reiterate that message. Ninad ------ On Sep 27, 2011 10:42 AM, "Ninad Bondre" wrote: Hello Andrew, I have some unsolicited advice to offer, which I hope you will take in the right spirit. I am certainly not one of the "great and the good" that you referred to in your post on moderation some time ago. But I hope my opinion as a science editor might be useful. I am not copying this email to the full group - I leave it up to you to pass it on if you deem it worth. Having followed this group for a while, I must say I find myself increasingly worried by the tone of the discussion. The emails include dismissive comments about and barely concealed contempt for opinions (individuals) that are critical of geoengineering (research or deployment). This has begun to remind me of the sort of rhetoric that Republicans and Democrats use to denounce each other in the ultrapolarised US political climate. For instance, in the email exchange below you paint the "green movement" with as broad a brush as the so-called right paints the so-called left. That George Monbiot chooses to sprinkle his arguments with a liberal dose of satire, cynicism, drama and even errors is hardly a shock. That he is not on top of the science should not astonish anyone either -- after all, tenure at Harvard is unlikely to be on his agenda. That your group chooses to pepper its discussions with "silly" and "crazies" is, however, disappointing, especially when righteousness is otherwise a frequent inhabitant of the exchanges. It is fair for you to express frustration at people who base their opinions on an incorrect understanding of the science. But your tone implies that people who mix up tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols (most people in the world, in other words) are not entitled to any opinion at all. That there are no other legitimate bases than science -- for example, hope, fear, confusion and even self interest -- for expressing and communicating opinions. Some of you might benefit from reflecting on why "half-understood logic" continues to be put out by "much of the green movement" despite your best efforts to infuse public discussions with the latest and best science. Is it simply because everyone else but your group is predisposed to "dissing and prematurely tossing out potentially useful solutions?" Some of us are trying really hard to maintain dialogue between scientists and other communities, however imperfect that might be. Respect for and openness to diverse opinions grounds this endeavour. I hope the tone used by some in the geoengineering Google group doesn't end up making our jobs impossible. Thanks for your patience. Ninad PS - We all feel inclined to dismiss and ridicule at times. It might be best not to copy our emails to the full group when that urge takes over. On Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:22:58 AM UTC+2, andrewjlockley wrote: > > That's broadly correct, but some extra info is needed. > > Comments should be referenced. Experts can back up what they say, and > tend to do so habitually. > > 3 sentences is typically too short. If you can't be bothered to write > something decent, I can't bother 850 people with it. This isn't twitter. > > Surveys and announcements are fine, if they're relevant generally to the > group. Most people won't care if you're off to a particular conference or > meeting, and thirty other people all individually confirming that they are > also off to the same conference is simply not worth reading. > > People are either on moderation, or they're not. I can't do 'topic based > moderation'. It doesn't exist. Even persistent offenders get lots of posts > allowed (when they're not offending) . > > Think of moderation like being on school report . A kid might be behaving > today, but they weren't yesterday - so I'll be keeping my beady eye on them > until they've shown consistency. > > I can set all the rules in the world, but the only thing I really care > about is this : is allowing this post going to grow or shrink the > membership? That is fundamentally a gut feel check, so the rules are only a > guide. > > If you want to get your posts passed, then don't be a shrinker, be a > grower. > > A > On May 30, 2013 12:58 AM, "Fred Zimmerman" > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> I think we need a bit more transparency and specificity in moderation >> criteria. Here is what I think they are based on observation. Andrew, >> please let me know if this is helpful. >> >> Fred >> >> auto-approves: >> >> * cite to new research with abstract link and a couple of sentences of >> research >> * cite to old research with same so long as it is reasonably pertinent >> * substantive discussion by person who is expert on topic >> * substantive discussion on topic by people who are not experts but are >> engaging it seriously at some length (>= 3 sentences) >> >> auto-disapprove: >> >> * ad hominem comments >> * "denialist" views on role of CO2, reality of warming, etc. >> * personal dialog that is not relevant to 850 other people >> * one-liners, jokes, and flip remarks >> * self-serving commercial advertising >> >> fuzzy criteria that could be improved upon >> >> * "if you are going to post frequently you need to post more substance" >> * meta-tangents (e.g. recent discussion on nomenclature ... I wasn't sure >> that the excursion to "terraforming" was going to survive moderation, but >> it got interested responses from several experts, so I think it was >> worthwhile) >> * survey questions (I had one blocked asking "who's going to the Harvard >> summer session?" >> * "I"m getting sick of seeing your posts in my inbox" -- I'd prefer to >> see something more objective >> * personality-based as opposed to content-based moderation - "once the >> reins are on, they stay on" >> >> I've moderated large mailing lists so I know it can be very trying and I >> applaud Andrew for his hard work. >> >> >> --- >> Fred Zimmerman >> Geoengineering IT! >> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology >> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Sam Carana <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> More than two years ago, I submitted a message that was blocked by >>> Andrew. FYI, I've added the original message below. >>> >>> My question is, how can we best prevent that potentially important >>> messages fail to reach group members? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sam Carana >>> >>> >>> ============ start message submitted April 2011 ============= >>> >>> [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce >>> climate risk? >>> >>> Given the scary situation in the Arctic, I would apportion parts of the >>> $10 million to methods that promise immediate results: >>> >>> 1. Testing of SRM such as sulfur aerosols, bright water and marine cloud >>> brightening. >>> >>> 2. Testing ways to ignite or break down methane from the sky, i.e. from >>> airplanes or satellites. Laser beams spring to mind. Short, amplified >>> pulses of light could be focused on hydrogen peroxide or ozone, in efforts >>> to produce hydroxyl and oxidize as much methane as possible. >>> >>> 3. Building on the outcome of 2., equipping small aircraft with such >>> technology, as well as autopilot software, GPS, LiPo batteries and with >>> solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings. One such >>> plane could in the first year navigate to the north of Canada and Alaska at >>> the start of summer. In subsequent years, numerous such planes could >>> follow, also going to other parts of the Arctic. At the end of summer, the >>> planes could return home for a check-up and possible upgrade of the >>> technology, to be launched again early summer the next year. There are many >>> self-financed clubs where members build and fly remote controlled aircraft. >>> Even a small financial incentive would give them a goal, while the >>> publicity would make people more aware of the problems we face in the >>> Arctic. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Sam Carana >>> for background on above, also see: >>> http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html >>> >>> >>> >> From: Ken Caldeira [email protected] <javascript:>> >>> >> Reply-To: [email protected] <javascript:>> >>> >> >>> >> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 >>> >> To: Google Group [email protected] <javascript:>> >>> >> Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most >>> >> reduce climate risk? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Folks, >>> >> >>> >> There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of >>> public >>> >> funds available to support SRM and CDR research. >>> >> >>> >> In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might >>> be >>> >> given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would >>> >> actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the >>> modest >>> >> scale. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you >>> were >>> >> told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should >>> >> maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 >>> >> million, what would you allocate it to and why? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Ken >>> >> >>> >> ___________________________________________________ >>> >> Ken Caldeira >>> >> >>> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >>> >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] <javascript:> >>> >> >>> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>> >>> ============ end message submitted April 2011 ============= >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
