Here are some examples of comments they do not wish to publish:
With all due respect, Norbert, I am puzzled at how you don’t see the irony.
1. You know that I am a blogger. I do realize the effort it takes to moderate comments. I also know that it takes next to no effort to publicly state your moderation policy, as I have done on my own blog multiple times.
2. It is ironic to state that people are blocked from making comments on blogs critical of the current COE and administration, but then likewise block comments on here. It is made even worse if there is no reason stated as to why.
I’m not saying spammers and haters need feedback. However, if the person takes the time to make a reasonable comment, then why not respect their time and effort and at least guide them appropriately?
Obviously, the above comment was not deemed “reasonable” and the time and effort I took to make it was not worthy of respect.
Are there no practicing Jews in Chile? If so, don’t any of them run daycare centers? If so, do they not keep the same holy days? Is there no legal precedent for this?
So today I posted a comment [on the Inside United: Realtime blog] on the letter: "Matthew 7:1-5 rules should apply. Right? :-)"
And guess what — it was DELETED by this evening!
Remember, you can start your own collection today!
When I blogged the only comments I deleted, even when on a ucg related subject, were spam or abusive comments but then again when an organization has a blog that represents them the call becomes more difficult.
There's just some things you can't have on a blog representing ucg, on the other hand if you delete tough but civil comments the blog loses credibility and those people will just likely put those comments elsewhere and you lose the ability to direct the conversation.
I'd suggest either not allowing comments at all or perhaps responding to some of them. It's a tough balancing act and would be tough to do without looking arbitrary or like you just expect people to mouth the company line.
It's been my experience from participating on numerous forums throughout the years, that moderation in a fair chunk of cases, can take on a separate and much bigger life all of its' own.
Here's a generic warning from one such forum.
Your post has been deleted for staff review. We will either notify you further or your post will be reinstated. Please be patient as staff reaches consensus."
I've seen people easily offended and become bitter towards the moderation because the reasonable statements are being judged as inappropiate. And then for some it soon becomes about them and the moderators.
And as soon as a place starts to moderate one person they'll have to moderate everyone. So I see a certain wisdom in just deleting responses. It avoids producing a secondary set of issues, where it takes an entire staff to reach a consensus.
@Norbert: Well, they are on WordPress, which affords a lot more moderation tools than some (including Blogger).
I don't understand what you mean by having to moderate one or all vs deleting them. Deleting them is a form of moderation. No matter how you slice it and dice it, it will cause secondary issues. However, one way to avoid such issues is to just simply publicly state your moderation policy. Then, when someone complains, you simply point to the policy.
Companies have received bad press for exactly what UCG is doing right now, and deservedly so. Just deleting comments that you don't think reflect well upon the company only intensifies the resentment and shows the readers a lack of respect.
And, please tell me, who can you contact to ask what the issue is?
Not only that, but to complain about something someone else is doing and then doing it yourself is the definition of hypocrisy.
Naturally deleting is a form of moderation. However it should be considered that helpful intended reasons can be deleted just as well as the luney tunes type. So all comments can be deleted.
That takes a wholle lotta effort and resources as my prior quote shows. It was one of a number I received and all I'll say about it is this. It may not be a good idea to try and make a valid point using humor with a double entendre that uses and relays the word 'judaizer' in a good sense.
It's been my experience that further moderation leads to further additional problems that are unrelated to the topic. Not in all instances but in some instances it can make an already bitter person into a more bitter person. Which is mostly the secondary effect I am specifically targeting in my comments.
And when that happens it does not necessarily stop the bad press, it also may create further bad press which someone may NOT deserve. A moderation policy can also polarize the participants and only intensify the intial resentment, creating a greater lack of respect.
And when it comes to contacting someone about the issue, which one person should a person wish to contact? When dealing with a corporate entity where numerous people are being represented, that one person's decision to delete becomes all the others reason to delete. Then that too becomes a bigger issue seeing not everyone may completely aggree with the reason for deletion. Thus creating a separate issue where even more people have to deal with it. The problem gets bigger and bigger.
Like I mentioned before, there is some wisdom in deleting without explanation.
Now when it comes to the definition of hypocrisy as straightforward as it is. I can't be sure if what is being complained about is the exact same thing another party is busy doing. I would need greater insight to untie that knot.
Norbert wrote: "It may not be a good idea to try and make a valid point using humor with a double entendre that uses and relays the word 'judaizer' in a good sense."
Sometimes, you hit the nail right on the head, but sometimes I don't know what you mean. Where was the term "Judaizer" used and by whom?
I quoted someone on a discussion forum who was making a strong point against judaizing. Then I performed a short exegesis on his words in the most absurd way and made it look like he was accusing himself of judaizing. I thought everyone would understand that I was really implying it would be absurd to believe he was a judaizer. Which I thought could be rather funny too given the situation.
Needless to say some people misunderstood, so I received the warning from the moderator.