I apologise for the school report metaphor, which seems to have caused offence. I thought of others, but these were worse!
I try to apply group standards to my own posts. It's hard to moderate your own work. Currently about 90+% of my posts are in my capacity as moderator / curator of the group. As long as people don't abuse individuals, it's fine for them to criticise 'schools of thought'. Indeed, I think it's helpful to see where people are coming from. If posters' attitudes don't win them friends, so be it. A On May 30, 2013 9:33 AM, "Ninad Bondre" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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<http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Sam Carana <[email protected]> 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<http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> From: Ken Caldeira [email protected].**edu> >>>> >> Reply-To: [email protected]> >>>> >> >>>> >> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 >>>> >> To: Google Group geoengi...@googlegroups.**com> >>>> >> 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].**edu >>>> >> >>>> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<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 geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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 geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>> . >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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. > > > -- 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.
