This diary is intended as a proposal for community moderation for Israel/Palestine diaries, and an invitation for ideas from all who are interested. First, some background. As you all know, I/P diaries usually devolve into the kind of bickerfests that make mudwrestling at the county fair seem dignified. If an I/P diary gets 100 comments or more, you can pretty much count on 80% of those comments to be along the lines of "you suck" and "no, your side sucks." People recommend certain comments, and hide-rate other comments, and much debate ensues as to whether those ratings are proper. As if it really matters. I got an e-mail just yesterday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he reads the I/P diaries here, and while he has great expectations for achieving peace with the Palestinians, he thinks those of us at DailyKos are pretty much hopeless. But seriously...
Near the tail end of a recent I/P bickerfest, Meteor Blades posted this comment:
I recommend that everyone who wants...
...it [fairness] should practice it. Too many in the I/P threads - all sides - have turned the screw on their response to hair trigger and high decibels. Instead of saying, "You know what you're saying strikes me as anti-semitic, or anti-Arab." "What you're saying doesn't mesh with my understanding (reading, experience), could you explain further. please?" the usual reply is some version of "Whaaaa-aaat?! That's a lie. Fuck you!"
Except for the most egregious comments - and sometimes not even then - there are few crossovers when it comes to community moderation. That is, few people regularly challenge those they agree with when they make an outrageous remark or name-call. But lots of people are quick to jump down the throat of anyone they disagree with for making a similar or even milder comment.
I know, I know, I sound like a broken record. But effective community moderation using me as a last resort is the only way this situation is going to get resolved. I suggest you all pick a team of three or five I/P participants acceptable to all. Have them tamp down the ratings abuse (both HRs and uprating of bad comments) and tone down the other nastiness without stifling vigorous debate. I am not saying that strong opinions should not be expressed or differences of opinions papered over. That would be ridiculous. But anyone here who thinks something productive or persuasive is going on in I/P comment threads has been reading a different blog than I.
So in response to that comment, I propose that we form a community moderation committee for I/P diaries. I favor small committees for efficient decision-making, so I suggest that the committee consist of two people from the "Palestine" side of the debate, and two people from the "Israel" side of the debate. Each side can pick its own representatives, and people can nominate themselves (if they have suffered a head injury). The committee would be responsible for reviewing ratings and comments, and stepping in if someone goes too far. For example, if someone calls somebody else a "dirty Arab" or a "filthy Jew" and people uprate that comment, the committee could and should do two things:
- Tell the person who made the comment that he or she is out of line, and
- Tell the upraters that they too are out of line.
I think if the committee steps in quickly enough to speak out on a comment or ratings, we can avoid some of the interminable back-and-forth that pollutes these diaries. I note that when Meteor Blades chimes in on a comment, that usually ends the discussion. The key is for the committee to intervene quickly.
To ensure that intervention is speedy, I ask that the committee members be prepared to invest the time necessary to be involved with these diaries. I recognize that we are all busy people (except for volleyboy and mets, who are online here 24/7), so that might not always be possible. Perhaps we can adopt a community rule that if someone is upset about a particular comment or rating, they could respond by explaining in rational terms (if at all possible) why they are upset, and ask for the committee to intervene. We could mutually agree that by doing so, debate on that particular point should be suspended until the committee has a chance to step in. Kind of like a "safe" word in BDSM. Don't ask me how I know that. That would avoid dozens of back-and-forth vitriol as to whether the comment or rating is really offensive, yada yada yada. The comment/rating has been made, the objection has been stated, everyone can stand down and let the committee do its job.
For many of us, just having the committee chime in as described above may not be enough. There may be situations that require further action. I propose therefore that the committee also have the power to suspend a person's ability to comment and/or rate comments, if the circumstances warrant and if a majority of the committee agrees. Also, the committee can recommend that a person be banned. If the committee is divided 2-2, they can bring the issue to Meteor Blades for a tiebreaker. If someone here has a problem with another person's rating practices or comments, they can and should bring that to the committee's attention for action, rather than going directly to Meteor Blades.
Finally, I propose that if someone is banned or suspended for something done in an I/P diary, the reasons behind such action should be provided. Previously, there hasn't been a lot of transparency about these actions, and there's been too much confusion and speculation. This inevitably has led to distrust and questions of bias.
I hope that this kind of a community moderation system will make these diaries less toxic. That may induce more people in the general community to participate, which would be a good thing for advocates on all sides. It would also help us avoid more drastic remedies, like banning I/P completely. I'm open to feedback from all of you as to whether you think this is a good idea, and of course suggestions as to how to make it work better are welcome. I don't claim to have all the answers, just the right answers (wink). Feel free to use the comments for your feedback and suggestions, as well as for nominations for committee members.
UPDATE:
Many of you have identified problems or weaknesses in the proposal. I'd like you to take it a step further, and propose a way to fix the problem. If you think it doesn't work, how would you make it work?