OK, I’ve finally had it with my comment section. Frankly, it’s a disgrace.
From now on, Oranckay from Oranckay.net will be policing the comment section. He will no doubt be laying down the law sometime later today.
It’s hoped that with Oranckay enforcing some actual decorum in the comment section, it will once again be safe for good commenters to go back in the water.
UPDATE by Oranckay:
Hi you many readers of the Marmot’s Hole.
For years I’ve teased the Marmot, calling his blog the “Marmot’s Discussion Group.” Usually there’s nothing wrong with online/email discussion groups, of course, unless they go unmoderated for too long and end up becoming, even at best, incestuous debate clubs dominated by a few very active online personalities who, you are made to think, believe that every discussion in life is a big gochu measuring contest. It’s embarrassing to go back and see what you wrote somewhere online and think yourself a jerk. Believe me, I know. Let’s stop embarrassing ourselves, but for these reasons…
First of all, any intense dialogue by people who appear to know each other scares off persons who might make helpful comment and offer a fresh perspective. This, frankly, is probably what lacks most at Marmot’s Hole: an environment where people who have never commented before feel they can do so freely.
Secondly, the generally held perception about Marmot’s Hole is that the commenters come overwhelmingly from a certain racial and generational category. I fall into the same category. I make no apologies, of course, but the nature and tone and even subject of the comments that dominate some posts manage, in my humble opinion, to simultaneously make the atmosphere feel unwelcoming to others and give people in that category (and categories are never fair) a bad name. We don’t deserve it, and, to be sure, sometimes the accusations are racist indeed. My point here is only that the mood of the comment section in general (and I’m not talking about the tone/appropriateness of actual comment content) is something I like to call namtang bunwigi, the atmosphere in the men’s half of a public bath. There’s nothing wrong with that kind of atmosphere - it’s something different from what we call “locker room talk” in English - it’s just not very inviting. The fact that the more prolific commenters talk as if they know each other (I’ve been just as guilty of this) only makes the atmosphere all the more unwelcoming if you’re not in the in crowd.
The reason all this matters is because the Marmot’s Hole matters. Laugh if you must, but it has an influence on international perceptions of Korea and Korean perceptions of how internationals view Korea. It is read by embassies, think tanks, students, journalists, and others around the world. It is also read by functioning members of Korean society, Korean and non-Korean alike, including Korean government officials and members of the Korean media. The Marmot’s Hole is not a club, and it is much more than what most people like to write off as “just a blog.” It is watched, closely. (It would be worth noting that you can get in a lot of trouble in Korea for things said in your comment section or bulletin board (gesipan), and in some cases you can even get in trouble for saying things that are true, depending on how you say them and why, so this is a practical concern as well.) There will always be posts that seem “tabloid” and tabloid posts certainly are just begging to be buried away in the kind of discussion you’d expect to hear in an Itaewon sports bar, with guys telling athletes on the screen how stupid they are. That’s natural, and no one is saying every comment has to be entirely helpful and profound. But for the most part the overall mood in the comment section needs to change, and, judging from the comments that have already been left on this post while I write this here update, most of the faithful regulars seem to agree.
Now Hear This:
The approach will be to be nice and set some vague guidelines then clamp down hard if that’s what it takes. Here are some preliminary rules and a hint at what might be in the works. Keep in mind that I have no intention of reading every comment. It’s a matter of the tone as a whole, and that’s what everyone is hoping to improve.
The Rules (more coming):
1. Stay on topic. Of the initial blog post.
2. Avoid ongoing dialogue. Add clarity. Make your point and be done with it. Don’t have the last word.
3. Ignore inappropriate comments. Don’t react. See Rule #2.
4. Take issue with what’s said, not someone’s “motive” or “right” to say it.
5. Try not to talk as if you have a history with a fellow commenter.
5. Go outside and play before you break the internet.
Policy ideas being considered are as follows:
1. Moderate all comments.
2. Moderate all comments for most posts, but let things run their course in some posts, and maybe even have occasional “open threads” where it runs wild.
3. Limit comments to, say, 20 after each post, then close comments.
4. If there is a blog program plugin that could limit an IP to, for example, two (or however many) comments per post, please let me know. Not something to be done manually.
More coming. Thanks for your patience. Sugggestions welcome. This update was posed at about the same time as comment #22 below.
131 Comments
Good move, Robert. Getting someone else to do it also protects you from accusations of partiality.
I promise to try apply better standards for myself. (seriously)…..Before I get irritated and fire back, I’ll count to ten and then wait to see how things develop before deciding to jump into an affray.
Cleaning out the Marmot’s stables, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone
Hope one of the main rules is no more “yeah, so what about in Japan” comments. Like somebody said recently it’s the Godwin’s Rule for Marmot’s Hole.
75% of your commenters gravitate here specifically because it’s a disgrace. it’s like itaewon in that regard. but hey, if you want to turn it into a nice, sparkly, boring myeong-dong, it’s your prerogative.
i personally prefer starbutts to starbucks.
Yeah, it was becoming a full-fledged hate fest.
great idea but it will be only a matter of time before some people accuse the moderator for being anti korean or anti japanese or anti american or anti kyopo or anti expat and etc…
Do you have any specific guidelines/rules about what kind of comments are OK and what kind are not?
I think it’s more like 75 percent of the commenters who remain gravitate here because it’s a disgrace. I’ve lost a lot of good commenters in the meantime.
kimchi2000—No doubt that will be the case. So be it.
James—Oranckay will hopefully elaborate later.
Applause! I want good-natured and useful discussions here, got no time for the cyber-trash always cyber-trashing.
fair enough. but if there are people who can’t see a screen name and just skip over it, or can’t tune out the 5% of comments that may need moderation in the first place, they’re not exactly schooled in the tubes of the internets anyway.
or to continue my itaewon analogy, i’m sure there are some prudes who refuse to eat at many of itaewon’s fine restaurants just because there are a few hookers within earshot…but that minority are just missing out on good food and itaewon doesn’t need to overhaul The Hill to please them.
About time!
‘It’s hoped that with Oranckay enforcing some actual decorum in the comment section, it will once again be safe for good commenters to go back in the water.’
what is your definition of a good commenter? someone who always agrees with you? someone who never challenges you? i have a feeling expat oranky only going to busy himself with korean posters.
I’m no prude, but I’d be happy if only IhearBB gets rid of his NSFW avatar.
Mr. Choe, just curious,
Do you know of anyone who spells is,
Chwae?
Some moderation, sure, but don’t take iheart’s balls away from him
Perhaps Mr. Choe is a 조 and not a 최.
Romanization of family names can certainly be quite confusing.
you’re implementing this policy to silence koreans.
don’t fool yourself, robert. i’ve been here for two years. it’s always been like this.
As an American voice, I assume you [nulji] will continue not to be silenced then.
No, Pawi, in fact, it’s the gyopo-bating that I find most frustrating—the majority number of people I’ve banned have been banished for making racist, anti-Korean statements. But keep making groundless accusations, Pawi, and you won’t be around here for much longer. Your personal attacks are getting quite tedious.
I hereby present Oranckay with the nice cup. May he pour from this cup until it overfloweth nevermore.
Good call, plus it’s your blog so tough shit if not everybody agrees. More than happy to go by the rules if it makes for a better blogging environment. Shouldn’t mean a change in the content of the articles/photos that are contributed, which is what has been the main draw for me at least. For those who want more in the way of shock value in a comments section, there should be no shortage of blog options out there - Korea-related or not - that should do the trick.
‘No, Pawi, in fact, it’s the gyopo-bating that I find most frustrating—the majority number of people I’ve banned have been banished for making racist, anti-Korean statements. But keep making groundless accusations, Pawi, and you won’t be around here for much longer. Your personal attacks are getting quite tedious.’ marmot
fair enough.
I’ve seen 최(崔) written as Choi, Choy, Choe, Chey, Chwe, and Tsche, and now I’ll add Chwae and Chai as well. Any others, in non-English speaking countries?
Oranckay,
About your “policy ideas” at the end of the post; I would certainly vote for #2 (if anyone wanted my opinion, that is). Arbitrary limits on the number of comments per post (either individually or collectively) could potentially limit some interesting discussions.
Pawi,
I myself, and, as I believe, most other commenters have got nothing at all against you personally. On the occasions when you said or did something of real value (like calling upon people to become bone marrow donors), you were universally lauded by all sorts of different commenters.
If you just toned down your language a little bit (BTW the same goes for some other commenters with different ethnic backgrounds, as well), then IMHO you are certainly most welcome to continue to express your bona fide opinions on this blog, even if they run counter to the mainstream.
After all, my own views may sometimes be out of step with the mainstream, as well, due to the obvious fact that I am not an American and have not been socialised according to the American rules of Political Correctness.
But nevertheless, I think, with a little bit more mutual respect, we can all get along here peacefully and without personal insults. After all, a healthy diversity of views is an asset for any discussion…
Also (sorry about the double post), a possible rule of thumb: If the comment is longer than the original post, it should raise a red flag with the comment policy. Some long comments add important information, but they are more often a post-jacking.
Antti wrote:
“Choi”, as written in Cyrillic, is typically romanized as “Tsoi”.
No deleting for the time being, but, just because it’s a perfect example, the comments about how to romanize the surname 최 are both off topic (Rule #1) and ongoing dialogue (Rule #2), fun as the topic may be for many, including myself.
Rules 1,3,4, and 5 sound good, but I don’t like the sound of 2. Very often, commenters cannot express the entire depth of their position in one or two comments, and ongoing debate on a single issue is often much more informative to read that the actual posts the comments have originally responded to. What seems to be the biggest problem recently is the lame name-calling and personal grudge battles going on between users in the comments sections of most posts. I also hope that you take more action against the inappropriate comments rather than punishing those who react to them.
Could we get rid of pictures of testicles too?
I also think that the excluson of dialogue (#2) is ultimately not in the best interest of those who come here to learn and help others learn. Frankly, commentary without dialogue is like a trip to an art gallery with a bunch of art-house newbies - one person describes what she sees, and everyone else tries to think up something ‘new’ to say, but in the end you’re still just walking around with a group of people who lack any depth of thought.
The working out of ideas benfits greatly from interchange, but under the current set of rules that won’t be allowed to happen. I understand the desire to ‘take out the trash’, but do you really want to limit the development of ideas? Surely that’s not in anyone’s best interest.
After reading a long cut-n-paste on another thread, I’d like to add one more suggested guideline: if the content is longer than a few sentences, just give us an intro and a link. Most posters already follow this netiquette.
One more vote in favor of all those rules, including No. 2. Personally, I am in favor of heavy moderation most of the time, with the occasional open post to let people vent (Mardi Gras to prepare for Lent). With a couple of months of re-training, I bet 90%+ of problems would take care of themselves leaving a new blog order that is much more orderly.
Alternate idea — everyone registers to post, then has posts subject to a score system. You start at zero, and as people give you positive votes, you move to 5. If people do not like your posts, you go to -5. As you drop below zero, slowly you lose darkness value to your font, the lettering becomes grey or translucent. Until -5, when your posts are totally white, and no one else has to read them. Sure, a little difficult code-wise to implement, but oh-so poetic.
Re policy ideas #2 thru 4: Here’s a plugin that is a comment timeout. Though it’s primary purpose is anti-spam, it could be useful since it could limit comments for ex. 48 hours. Maybe your current anti-spam plugin has such a feature? Limit Post sets the number of permissible characters. I couldn’t find any plugin to limit the total number of comments nor limit the number of comments per commenter/IP, but most bloggers seem to want to maximize the comments submitted rather than reduce. But I’m not a fan of policy idea #3, so I didn’t search too hard.
Unrelated (sorry, rule #1), but perhaps useful for some who post a second comment to correct typos and other errors, is this Edit Comments plugin or this Preview Post plugin.
If we can abide by rule #1 I reckon half the battle is won. Good luck to all.
Hi. Thanks for the imput. Nothing’s set in stone, but while gbnhj’s comment at #31 is true, it is also that very phenomenon, at least in this case at Marmot’s Hole, that gives the section the atmosphere of a clique.
It ISN’T supposed to be a discussion group where people “come to learn and help others learn” as if it were the “Korea debate club.” I for one think it is presumptuous to assume the many who leave numerous comments every day are any more informed than those who are scared away. When you’re leaving comments here it’s hard to remember that for every comment there are thousands of readers who aren’t leaving anything at all, but that’s the case. Imagine a classroom of 40 students and the same three among them shout out answers and comments to EVERYTHING and then react to each other to no end. The other 37 might even learn something from time to time, but we still wouldn’t call the atmosphere a healthy one and if you went to the “art gallery” with the 37 you might be surprised at what you hear from them. Take a look at Marmot’s site meter. 2,165+ unique site visits a day, and yet most comments are coming from the same few dozen people. If things changed, it might, at first, be a major void for those who comment all the time but the other 2,135 visitors might feel differently and they might speak up more. It would LOOK like a big change but visits would probably stay around the same, so a major loss if you think of it as discussion group but a good thing if you remember that this blog occasionally comes to the attention of the likes of the UN Secretary-General. Note that some well-known and influential blogs (Like http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com for example) don’t allow comments at all. Given Marmot’s Hole’s visit stats, it is likely that if comments were gone altogether (NOT being considered) the readership (remember them?) might like it here even better, and that the blog would actually be seen as more authoritative.
My suspicion is that if Rule #2 were observed, that would automatically mean all the other rules are observed as well. I’m not sure Rule #2 is the best way to go and it could get vetoed, but, “gbnhj,” I’d be grateful to see an example of where there has been an “working out of ideas” here. I’m not being sarcastic, I’d really like to know. I’m sure it has happened and can in the future, I just think that more often than not it’s incestuous and that the “discussion” as it happens now often actually snuffs out the “development of ideas” you’re talking about.
Nothing wrong with working out an idea. But it should be done in the context of the main post. Not cross-chatter between commenters.
LastWorditis is one of the worst afflictions of the Internet. Everyone is almost always better off subduing the urge to make that one more post to get your point across.
Rules 1, 3, and 4 make excellent sense and would probably accomplish the goal of runaway, off-topic free-for-alls.
However. . .
Under “rules,” #2 seems to defeat the purpose of a comments section, as would #4 in things under consideration.
Moderating all comments also retards genuine discourse. Perhaps better to moderate troublemakers on a case-by-case basis, probation to freedom.
The first #5 could also be unnecessarily limiting. Asking someone how the wife and kids are doing should be reserved for another method of communication, but reference to some past comments interaction would sometimes be needed for clarity.
Limiting a post to 20 comments would, in many cases, mean that those joining in from the States would be too late to comment on a post at all. This post is a case in point – over 30 before I even saw it.
Note to Oranckay; my site gets ~900-1,100 unique visitors (IPs) per day and relatively few comments, the point being that the vast majority of viewers don’t comment. I’d be willing to bet that #2 will cause a drop in visitors, although some of those could just be voyeurs of shootouts in the comments section.
Note to Andy on comments longer than posts; good point, with the exception of inline asidescourse, which are usually only 1-3 sentences.
I regularly delete comments from my posts here if they strike me as being “way off-point” and inflammatory. If each thread author would do the same, the results would be about the same as Oranckay having a go at it.
I like this blog. I don’t like the new rules. Not necessary. Also, this talk of visits by Korean government officials and the comment “this blog occasionally comes to the attention of the likes of the UN Secretary-General” reeks of self-importance.
In addition, no intelligent reader is scared away by the comments section.
This sounds like mommies taking all the jungle gyms out of the playground and leaving the kids to play in sand only. Boring.
How about just deleting inappropriate posts (bad words, racism, personal attacks) and leaving it at that? All the self-justification for the new policy is unnecessary.
I’m with iheartblueballs. I wanna see balls in the avatar, and I want readers who have the balls to handle some strong comments. Noboby’s getting hurt.
I don’t think implementing the new rules will open up the comment section to a new generation of bright and fresh commentators.
Ever watch pro wrestlers try their hand at fencing?
Neither have I, but I think I’m about to…
What about your own blogging, Oranckay?
Number 2# and 3# are impossible to police, and here is why. One particular commenter (not naming names!) would say that I had “admitted” to something, like being an anti-semite, or some other calumny. Leaving it at that would certainly look like an admission, so I would have no choice but to violate rule 3#. If rule 1# was strictly enforced, it would not be a problem.
Number 4# and 5# seem like good ideas to me.
Policy ideas 1,2,3 and 4. All bad. I think that 1,2,3 are too top heavy. Rather than this approach, you should simply ban those badly behaved. 4# is bad because it will discriminate against virtually every person from Australia because we are almost all on dynamic IPs that change every couple of days.
I think post limiting would be a great idea.
Eliminate some of the white noise
Moderating (or even totally banning) comments will not necessarily affect readership. I, for one, stopped reading the comments here a long time ago (I just look over the posts that look interesting on my google reader) except for maybe a few posts like this one, and I imagine many other readers to be the same. While I have huge respect and confidence in the capabilities of the Oranckay, I must say this comment-policing attempt sorta sounds like many of the administrative policies in Korea: 어차피 끝까지 실현되지 못할 일을 (여러가지 이유가 있을 수 있음: 맨파워/자원 부족, 의지 상실 등) 정책으로 내세웠다가 용두사미 격으로 흐지부지되는…
This is not my blog, and I will respect the rules as set by the owner of this blog because in general….it’s a good read!
Somehow, that smiley face looks sarcastic. Was not my intention. I mean it, the blog is interesting to read.
I’ll disappear if Shakuhachi will disappear. I won’t lie.
Honestly, the clarification of the new regime gives me much less confidence in it than I had when I read Marmot’s first message about it.
I have confidence in Oranckay and the other admins here in large measure because I’ve been reading their thoughts for a few years now…
but then Oranckay’s #35 got to be somewhat depressing (to me).
#35 seemed to start out populist but ended up elitist.
The whole point of readership vs commentors seemed off the mark to me.
How many of the 2,000+ readers who come here have extensive experience with South Korea? How many expats, Kyopos, and Koreans have the English language skills and experience in Korea to add a lot of insights into a topic?
Most of those dozen or so commentors are people who have lived in South Korea for years, some studied about Korea for years, and the most valuable are those who actually have fluency in reading/speaking both English and Korean and can add stuff they have gathered the vast majority of us can’t bring to the table.
So, I disagree with this next comment:
What percentage of the readership here has as much experience in Korean society and with Korean history as Marmot, Oranckay, Occidenatlism, Bevers, and others, including JK and perhaps even pawikirogi if I knew how much time he had spent in Korea?
I think it might do some good if readers from the UN, US Defense and State Departments, or those same institutions in the Korean government would see what people down in the grassroots have to say about certain issues. It certainly won’t make them screw things up with any more regularlity than they already do.
There are thousands of readers on this site, but how big is the expat and former expat and kyopo and Korean community that has spent significant amounts of time living in South Korea who have the English language skills to read and respond?
Not big. Not in the thousands. I would bet not even in the hundreds.
Most of the expats I met in Korea were short-timers. Most were here for 1-2 years. Of those few who were in Korea for more than 2 years, only a minority of them had spent any time reading about Korean history.
How many of the regular commentors here have shown knowledge of Korean history and society beyond stereotypes and one-liners?
Marmot’s comment section has been a community for a long time, and most of the frequent commenters have been people who have lived in Korea and taken time to learn about it. That is what made it special.
Oranckay said he seriously can’t think of discussions on this site that were informative. That is suprising to me, because I have given kudos to the site for being such a knowledgable community before any of these decorum problems got so bad.
Do we really want to make this place just another K-blog? where you get 5 to 10 comments of 1 or 2 lines each: “Great post. I agree”…..”You’re wrong.” “lmao”…
Is that what we want?
Really…..both the admins here and those encouraging the limits on # of commments, # of com 1 person can made, and length —– go around to the K-blogs right now then come back…
I read Lost Nomad, GI Korea, One Free Korea, DPRK Studies, Oranckay, Big Hominid, Gypsy Scholar, Occidentalism, and USFK Forums daily or a couple times a week unless I’m extremely busy, because those are blogs that post pretty much daily, and the vast majority of posts are on topics beyond “what I had for breakfast today” that I am interested in - and all are run by people with years of Korea-related experience.
(USFK Forums is the exception, and it might be worth comparing that communities open discussions to Marmot’s Hole: it seems to me the vast majority of commentors there are the short-term variety (primarily military) and thus its usefulness in giving an informed discussion about Korea beyond USFK’s environment is limited).
…but go over now and look at the comments sections of those other K-blogs.
Is that what we want to see here at Marmot’s?
I like DPRK Studies blog. I know Richardson in real life. I comment over there from time to time. But, it would be sad to see Marmot’s comments section reduced to the amount of dialog that Richardson gets over there.
Even a great, informative blog like One Free Korea’s, where the posts are more extented than at the other blogs, with more links to primary and secondary sources doesn’t have a healthy exhange or sharing of thought though I am sure of the fact that many very knowledgable readers go there frequently.
If we stuck with “3. Ignore inappropriate comments”, I would understand and applaud.
The fact is, many of us do know each other. Some of you guys actually know each other, or have met each other, outside the realm of virtual reality. Others of us have been reading each other’s thoughts (on our blogs and comments) for years. And if a person has only been around for a few months but comments regularly, you can get a feel for where they stand and who they are - in at least virtual reality.
Limiting the number of comments, the length of comments, and/or the number of times a person can comment in one thread seems like —-
—– community-killing measures rather than moves to enforce decorum.
The fact is there aren’t other places the K-bloggers and readers go for the amount of discussion we have online here.
The Korea Herald forum was a community outlet for a short period of time before the trolls destroyed it. Korea Media Watch started out as community center for people with a significant amount of experience in South Korea, but it faded out — in large measure due to the fact Marmot’s Hole was already offering much the same kind of community interaction.
Policy ideas #3 and #4 will go a long way to destroy that.
Rules #2 and #5 also seem destined to do much damage to it.
It is the exchange of ideas (in a civil manner) that I like about the comments section here at MH.
What is causing the problem is the incivility.
I would think you would want to encourage longer comments where people explain their position and extended debate between individuals who have some familiarity with this or that issue, and simply attack those comments that lack decorum, rather than ending up silencing discussion by rules that basically attack the commenting community as a whole…
If decorum were the yardstick, I know I could go back and easily cut out places where my own comments have thrown decorum to the wind and engaged in heated “debate” to the point that virtually little to no discussion was taking place.
I would gladly go back and delete those comments of mine that jumped into the affray if incivility were used as a guideline for deleting comments.
Oranckay, I hope you are doing all this moderating from a rubber room, because I sense that it’s going to drive you insane.
Heh, that’s the truth.
Moderating uncivil/racist/etc. or off-topic comments would allow maximum legitimate participation, but going beyond that would probably ruin the party.
USinKorea wrote:
“Most of those dozen or so commentors are people who have lived in South Korea for years, some studied about Korea for years, and the most valuable are those who actually have fluency in reading/speaking both English and Korean and can add stuff they have gathered the vast majority of us can’t bring to the table.
“
Yes, but to be honest, US, I scroll past many of your posts while skimming them because of the length.
Do you remember Jackie Peng’s blog? Robert linked to it a couple of months ago in the thread on Korean history books. Jackie’s blog has a feature that imbeds comments in reply to previous comments. On the All Empires history forum, all comments appear with reply and quote buttons. However, the reply still appears at the end of the queue.
One of the Korean messages boards, either Naver or Chosun, allows readers to respond to comments. These responses do not appear directly in the comment list and are accessed by clicking. This is ideal, allowing interested persons to click and read the discussion without cluttering up the main board.
I don’t know if Robert is technologically up to this, but compiling replies to comments in a separate link would make the comment section, which does contain some gems amongst quite a bit of clutter, more reader-friendly. Comments by Marmot readers have been picked up and linked to other blogs; a fairly moderated comment section would attract more readers and enhance the content.
I can’t speak on the formats of those other blogs, because I haven’t checked them out. I know from a site like Newsbusters.com the embedding of comments to comments doesn’t look good if you get any kind of interest in a thread.
And on the length and skipping my long comments, that has generally been sucessful here at the Hole for some time — you just pass by comments from some people you don’t want to read or those that don’t seem worth it within the first couple of sentences and read in full and comment on those that do hold interest.
It is the extended bitch sessions that seem to be the problem, and I can easily end my participation in those, and be satisfied if decorum is enforced.
But “These responses do not appear directly in the comment list and are accessed by clicking.” that sounds good..
Just a note related to Sonagi’s comment:
This plugin for wordpress seems to allow commenters to reply to specific comments, and it organizes the comments in threads which can be minimized so that readers don’t have to look at them. I just added it to my site, and it seems promising, although it doesn’t have a setting that auto-minimizes replies to comments (as far as I know).
http://meidell.dk/archives/200.....ments-159/
I was a bit surprised by that myself.
After all, most of Robert’s posts are summarized translations of Korean wire pieces, easily linked to news.naver.com. Are you saying that Korean leaders have an interest in viewing English-language summaries of Korean news articles they’ve likely already read?
While such posts may be a great boon to those many, many expats here who cannot read newspaper-level Korean, I cannot believe they are that fascinating to Korean opinion leaders. How interested would one of us be in a blog maintained by a Korean in the U.S. that contained Korean-language translations of CNN pieces or Google News abstracts?
Perhaps the perceptions of how “international persons view Korea” come as much from the comments as they do from the posts.
Marmot, my two won:
I disagree with most of the proposed rules–moderation does not mean shaping the debate, which rules 2-5 would do, in ways that would bring about maybe civil but ultimately very dull exchanges.
The limit to the number of comments is also arbitrary. I know we go off on small tangents sometimes, it’s human nature, yet we always get back on topic in the end.
Most of the Marmot-type sites I look at just put a disclaimer at the top and let people say what they want. If that’s too anarchic for your tastes just have Oranckay warn the worst offenders once or twice then ban them. Much simpler and more democratic.
Respect to you and Oranckay both, but if the proposed rules go into effect as is I predict a dropoff in readers.
I think USinKorea and Dogbertt touched on something truly fundamental about this site - why exactly people come here. It’s not for news that can be found on Naver or the big daily’s English translations but for the commentary which accompanies them, most especially here in the comments. I come here for the stuff guys like Iheartblueballs, Brendan Carr, Richardson, and yes even Pawi say in response. This isn’t a hard news site, as Robert stresses over and over. If you’re looking for a fair and balanced perspective on all things Korea, the Marmot’s Hole isn’t the place to come. So don’t pretend that it is. Please do warn commenters when they’ve gone too far and do delete explicitly off topic or racist comments. But don’t gut what makes this site special among K-blogs.
On a technical note, is it possible to introduce the ability for a poster to delete his own comment within a reasonable timeframe after posting - say twenty minutes? Several times I’ve commented and regretted how I phrased my words and wished I could just delete it before others respond to my own poorly articulated argument.
Fact: Marmot is very unhappy. He called the comments a disgrace. He threatened a long-timer with banishment.
Hypothesis: The new rules, if implemented, may result in a drop in readership.
Fact: Marmot has noted a drop in the number of ‘good commenters’, and he clearly misses them.
Hypothesis: The new rules, if implemented, may result in a rise in the number of commenters.
Fact: The future is unknown. The present is known. At present, the Marmot wants to test a hypothesis.
To oranckay, as experimenter in chief, I wish all the best of luck in his new role.
I personally like the blog as it is. Orankay can warn someone if he is too obnoxious. But, other than those extreme commentors, I like the free-associating dialog aspect of this blog.
Marmot posts about two to three articles per day. Sometimes they are not interesting enough. Divergence from the original topic is very interesting sometimes, even though in many case we are going through the same arguments like a broken record. Occasionally, however, new comers or new facts do appear and that makes this blog interesting.
I thought this was a poor idea from the get-go, but now as I read oranckay’s further explanation, rationale, and potential moderation policies…it’s getting exponentially worse and turning into a complete clusterfuck of a disaster.
Seriously, stop with all the UN Secretary Generals, think-tank nerds, embassies, high and mighty journalists, and other influential and powerful assholes you’re listing in your bid to make the average Joe feel like he’s not worthy of giving his opinion here. It’s retarded. This isn’t Foreign Policy Review, no one here believes that the comments section will convince North Korea to surrender, and no one seems to give two flying fucks about making this place “influential” and showing off for the powerful except you. I mean Jesus, who knew Ban Ki Moon was so interested in tits, pot-smoking English teachers, and Mongolia? You’d think he had better things to do. But does the fact that one of his aides may have shown him the page once mean that you need to destroy what made this place popular in the first place?
Is your mission really to turn the Marmot’s Hole into THE destination of choice for diplomats and think-tank interns worldwide? Because that doesn’t sound like a place most Holediggers would want to spend their time in. If you want to be patted on the head by Korean reporters and ambassadors, find another way to do it. If you’re looking to make this place a boring springboard to a think-tank job, just be clear about it, because I don’t know any think-tanks that specialize in Korean nudes.
You seem to have a big overhaul in mind based on the unspoken suffering of thousands of high-class readers out there, who would potentially be contributing ground-breaking and earth-shattering comments about Lee Hyo-Ri’s tits if only they didn’t have to deal with the current crop of pond scum inhabiting the Hole. Get a grip on yourself, seriously. I don’t know where you get that impression, but I know a few people that read the posts and comments here but don’t participate, and that won’t change no matter what you do. Lurkers are lurkers, and I don’t understand why it’s suddenly your job to play mommy and overhaul this place in a misguided attempt to help them overcome their fears and participate.
On the other hand, if Robert brought you in to try and convert this place from a New York Post full of tits, gossip, and controversial topics into a New Yorker full of champagne flutes, policy essays, and analysis of grain distribution in Pyongyang, then let it be known and I’m sure a good many regulars will just stop coming here. If the comment section is a disgrace, then just delete the comments that you think make it a disgrace, plain and simple. No arguments about moderation policies and what is/isn’t good for the “atmosphere.” Just delete them.
If the lowly commenters that get deleted don’t like it, they’ll leave. Problem solved. Then you can have the place all to yourself and your select few influential commenters, and you can turn this blog into the greatest journalistic institution in history. Woop de doo.
P.S. I’m a little disturbed at all the preoccupation with my balls. Especially because they’re not even balls. It’s a strategically placed plum with a few hairs growing out. If you’re afraid of fruit, go see a shrink. If you can’t stop thinking about my testicles, you’ve got bigger problems than can be addressed here. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Amen to the last few comments, especially the mammary-related ones.
Wow, I didn’t recckognised until now that this blog was so highly esteemed. It is even enlisted in wikipedia.
Whether you like it or not, when this blog becames so respected and esteemed then it becomes a kind of media,and it is more than an expression of private interest.
Why don’t give it a go with the new rules and politics and see what happens? I am sure that the moderators will amend the politics and rules in the process.
I will think twice before I will post my comments next time.
Corpy Carly wrote:
“On a technical note, is it possible to introduce the ability for a poster to delete his own comment within a reasonable timeframe after posting - say twenty minutes? Several times I’ve commented and regretted how I phrased my words and wished I could just delete it before others respond to my own poorly articulated argument.”
The only problem is that if other commenters respond and you change your original post, then the comments won’t make sense. Well, actually, come to think of it, a lot of comments don’t make sense anyway.
I do hope Robert adds the comment link plug-in found in James’ post. That would permit commenters to respond to other commenters without derailing the thread.
I think the new Sheriff’s been called out.
The clock ticks down the seconds toward high noon…
Uh, like you noted right after, Marmot invited him to come up with a game plan, and I wouldn’t piss all over Oranckay even though I don’t like the rules so far…
As for your balls, the only time I’ve had trouble with them is when they were immediately followed by Baduk’s baby face. Something about that I find disturbing, but if we’re going to kick ou the blue balls, might we not also have to go after James’ blatant sexistism?(if that’s even a word…)
I’m glad I’m not as alone as I thought in feeling that losing the comments section as it used to be would be a big blow to the K-blogsphere - which is why I wrote so long winded about it.
I come here to read the comment threads on the topics of interest to me and pass by most else.
I would like to also recall the two previous times I’ve wondered outloud about what seemed to me a shift in Marmot’s style of posting — how it seemed to me he had switched to more of a “journalist” style and away from giving his own 2 cents/won about the topic of the post. —
I liked hearing what he had to say on issue x, y, or z. (I miss the days when Oranckay would comment.)
I like hearing what a good number of the others here have to say when they show a familiarity with Korea beyond the typical 6 months-in-ESLer view I used to get at work when I was still in Korea.
And there is no place else right now in the K-blogsphere where such discussions take place…
Hi thanks to all. Like I’ve said I don’t think I have all the answers, so imput is nice. I do have a little experience in the sociology of email lists. I’ve seen them implode for lack of moderation (anyone remember Moogoondhwa List?), and I’ve seen people resist and kick and scream as lists got moderated and productive, helpful, and on topic again.
In my experience, those who feel the greatest sense of entitlement, as if something rightly theirs is being taken away from them, are usually those who were the more unhelpful contributors before moderation set in. For the more prolific types, it is something like the end of life itself when heavy-handed moderation happens. I’m not thinking of anyone specific in our case here, but what I’ve seen happen time and time again is that the majority of email list members, those who rarely posted and didn’t cry “dictatorship” when rules were imposed, were very pleased when action was taken and began posting from time to time. I’m no math whiz, but let’s do the numbers. If say 100 people dominate the comments here and Marmot’s Hole gets 2,100+ unique visits a day, it would be no great loss if - for example - comments were shut down altogether. As I noted in a previous comment above, some very ifluential blogs in the English speaking internet disallow comments completely, but I suspect Marmot would not like this and frankly neither would I. And I must admit that I’m not sure I’ve got a good working theory when I say there would be no significant drop in visits were we to get that drastic, because as someone has pointed out to me in a private email, reading the comments at Marmot’s Hole is like watching the Jerry Springer show. Most of the people who watch that show would never think of actually being on it, but they watch it nonetheless to feel better about themselves, saying “Look at all those (choose your own adjective) people!” It can be fun, too, like when someone throws a chair, and you still get to say you would never be on it, so that you can somehow feel better about yourself. I think there must be some of this happening here as well. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met an English speaker in Seoul who with a great tone of superiority tells me he never comments on Marmot’s Hole because every time he goes there the comments are “so unruly,” which sounds to me more like a confession about how often he stops by. On the one hand I worry that the comment section scares people away, but I also suspect that Marmot gets a lot of visits from people who enjoy the simple pleasure of watching all the action. So that’s something we’ll have to consider, too.
About the UNSG. Several times when I’ve met Korean government officials and been introduced as a “famous blogger” (which doesn’t happen often, and even less as of late) I’ve been asked if I’m the guy who owns the Marmot’s Hole. Such was the case with Ban Ki-moon when he was FM, and it was painful to have to tell him I am the owner of, um, just some other blog. Please understand that my motives for being willing to be chief moderator and Marmot’s desire to have me do it are not necessarily the same. I have always encouraged Marmot to realize that his blog is influential, an “opinion leader” to borrow an old Chosun Ilbo slogan, but his own motive for wanting some action taken on his comment section might be as humble as not wanting to be wrongly seen as “the guy with that site with all the anti-gyopo (just as one example of what I myself have heard around town) comments.”
The fact that this blog has the same group of commenters actually might also be an advantage in cleaning up the atmosphere. I mean, since it’s not getting spammed by hate groups, I suspect the simple announcement that Things Need To Be Different might go a long way. Even when the comments are civil, however, I am convinced the insular and cliquish appearance created when the same bunch of people comment all the time, even when you can only thank people for commenting all the time, has got to make people who don’t normally comment feel unwelcome and thus not comment. I’m still trying to figure out what can be done about this, if anything.
The idea of limiting the number of comments to each post is out. It would only make matters worse, since only those who check the comments all day long would get to say anything.
One thing is clear. No moderator can read all the comments all the time, so requests that I just delete the really inappropriate comments sounds nice but isn’t practical. What might have to be done is get a few more moderators and just require all comments be approved. This would calm things down considerably, but it would still be a lot of work. It might be a good idea to do this for specific posts, ones we can predict will have some potentially hateful comments that would not reflect on Marmot’s Hole very well. About Robert Kim, for example.
The plan of mine I like best would be to just step in when things get really out of hand at certain posts. I can’t imagine myself deleting individual comments on a regular basis. It’s just too much work, hence the request that people JUST IGNORE hateful or otherwise stupid comments. If you’re a target of the hate just count to ten, think of it as spam, and move on and don’t let a hateful person hijack things. Even if people react comment after comment in a civilized manner to an uncivilized one and the uncivilized one gets deleted you will be left reacting to something that isn’t there anymore, so that’s another reason to ignore such comments. If a whole thread gets out of hand, I’d just close the whole section for that post. This would enact a lot of collateral damage but maybe even that would have a positive effect over the long run.
These are my rambling thoughts… still thinking… thanks for the ideas.
my two cents’ is that a couple of warnings then a ban is effective and efficient for offenders. once you start moderating with actual rules you’ll need to keep amending them as new cases sprout up. it’s much easier to say, “warning one, warning two, you’re banned” and move on.
i highly doubt you’ll pick up any new commentators base on a new policy, but you will necessarily lose some via limits. there are lots of “peepers” on sites who don’t comment-don’t expect to draw them in.
in the immortal words of the descendents, “moderation, moderation, everything in moderation-including moderation.”
I can’t think of a single blog anywhere that doesn’t have an “insular and cliquish appearance,” and so what? Frankly, blogs aren’t popular mediums like newspapers, and if they allow comments online you’ll see precisely the same phenomenon.
Most of us don’t care for all the blathering about bad Japan and kyopo bashing, so just warn/ban these particular boneheads and the blog will improve immensely.
Also, all due respect to Marmot but the Chosun Ilbo and Hankie are “opinion leaders” in Korea, not him or any other blog, especially one 99.9% of the country doesn’t or can’t read.
Would Marmot’s Hole have gained such “prestigious” readership if the comments section had been moderated to the extent it weeded out any insular, cliquish appearance?
Was it a Jerry Springer-type atmosphere that built up readership? I doubt it. The Korea Herald Forum would be doing blockbuster business right now if that were the case.
Maybe it was the amount of expats (and others) more familiar with Korea and East Asia (area studies types) that pulled in people interested in the same area…
But, I’ll back off. Until recently, I was too busy to read the comments or comment that much, and I’ve been doing a ton since my schedule opened up. But I’ll wait to see how the dust settles…
I would think Marmot has enough guest posters and admin that could police most of the trouble.
As this is the Marmot’s Hole (and not the Marmot Commentors’ Hole), I have no problem defering to his ideas about this site. Marm has said repeatedly that he would prefer a more thoughtful comment section, more akin to Coming Anarchy (for example).
And once again, I agree with Oranckay (all hail the new regime!). As the saying goes, big noises come from hollow caves.
I forgot….I noticed recently on the Newsbusters site that more and more of the outrageous stuff those (conservative) US media watchdog bloggers are catching is coming from the blogs being set up by the mainstream media on their official websites where people like Katie Couric will post — apparently without as much regard for what they say as they do when the police themselves for the on-air stuff (but still end up giving us bias news coverage).
Last comment, then I promise, I’ll end my big noise and wait for the hollow cave…
Coming Anarchy blog: # of comments per post: 2, 0, 11, 3, 2, 2, 4, 11, 1, 0,
If that is what Marmot wants, and I have no idea one way or another, that is fine. Big Hominid didn’t allow comments for a long time, and I saw no problem with it. I don’t allow comments on my anti-US website though I do my blog.
But, if Coming Anarchy, or One Free Korea, are the model of what a respectable blog should look like (in regards to comments) - the bad Marmot’s Hole will be sadly (and I mean that) missed…
(One Free Korea’s Comments per latest posts: 10, 1, 13, 3, 5, 0, 2, 8, 1, 6, 6)
usinkorea,
You don’t know when to stop, huh? Now I see why there are rules.
Matt, Shakuhachi, quicktime will play 3GP just fine. I assume you took a cell phone video.
JK, looking at your post, so do I.
Mr. Secretary General, I would like to offer my humble and belated congratulations on the occasion of your selection. I have no doubt you will go down in history as one of the most influential and effective leaders of the United Nations.
Wait a minute, Mr. Ban Your Excellency I beseech you to look with compassion on my humble abode and grant me a penthouse apartment in Richeville from which I will shout praises to Korea every day
(Or the equivalent in cash)
Orankay (#35):
Which do you mean, Orankay - that it isn’t supposed to be a discussion group where people come to learn, or that it isn’t supposed to be centered in an environment of debate?
I agree with the limiting of trolls, yet hate to think that I can’t discuss something here simply because not doing so could offer the opportunity for others to comment - that is, an opportunity to say that they essentially agree or disagree. To me, that doesn’t seem like much of a rich environment either.
I think you know that I’m not a hater. Like you, I don’t want the threads to get tied down in debate either. But I believe that there has to be a place for Q & A. For all we know, that’s what those governemnt officials checked this blog out for in the first place.
http://www.usfkforums.com
It’s a forum. It has a lot of moderators. It has numerous categories and can expand. JK won’t be able to force a new regime over there.
How about a blog where people first make comments and then a post is slowly built from those comments?
i noticed that the comfort women thread was closed due to “inappropriate posting”. would that have not been better to warn those posters deemed “inappropriate” and kept open the thread? it seems to me that inappropriate posters will merely turn to other threads to troll rather than being served their appropriately hot cup of STFU.
you may well have started a game of gopher hole, oranckay.
Could step out of the box and look at this from a different perspective. No more lurkers. If the 2100-and-change lurkers value the site they ought to contribute. Gotta register to read anything beyond the first sentence of the post and gotta comment X number of times a month/quarter or lose the account. I’d rather see this blog with several hundred comments per post, especially from those notables, than see 6.
I have no issue w/ rules #1 - #5, and by the looks of my growing spare tire the second #5 is sensible too.
Gopher Hole won’t happen because trolls will be banned.
Oranckay, I for one firmly support the moderation efforts. For those topics with above 50 comments it was getting really tedious trying to decide what pertained to the topic and what had nothing to do with anything except personal attacks.
For those kinda discussions may I suggest folks AOL Messenger /MSN /Trillian /ICQ /GTALK /SKYPE /IRC /NETMEETING/etc. etc. ?
Dear JudgeJudy and others,
It is expected that a lot of inappropriate comments will get through. The only way to avoid that would be to make it a full time job and that’s just not going to happen. We’ll try sporadical inappropriate comment attacks and hope that’s enough to change the mood. Assume that some inappropriate comments will fall through the cracks…
Note that “the comfort women thread” had 197 comments but now has I think about 110. Most were removed for being inappropriate on their own or for being endless tit for tat between a few individuals and thus being off topic dialogue. A civilized response to an uncivilized comment qualifies as off topic, too, and will either be similarly d