A new plug for AIC :)

William Connolley, Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford and Wikipedia administrator former Wikipedia administrator on climate science articles, has decided to plug AIC on his blog (h/t to Magnus Westerstrand):

"An exciting new blog aicomment.blogspot.com. However, I'm insulted that An Open Mind has got on their bad-boys list and I'm not. I thought I was notorious for rejecting inconvenient comments? Anyway, *I* suggest that you all try to make a comment on this post here, I'll reject them all, and you can get me added to their list of blogs. Of course, if they reject your coments then we can start a blog for that."

He seems eager to join the list of "Climate Blogs Covered So Far by AIC" (which could be understandable in a less petty light if this forum received more than the tiny amount of traffic it does at the moment) and has thus been deleting comments from the post.  Any authors whose comments have been deleted are welcome to post them under here. ;)

In the meantime, while Dr. Connolley has been deleting comments from others and leaving a visible record, he's decided thus far not to acknowledge the comment AIC left under his post (which would have been ~#3, if published):

Hi Mr. Connolley,

Thanks for the plug!

While I regret the political nature of the blog's title, created on an afternoon of Sunday football and frustration over the moderation policies of a certain range of the climate blogosphere's political spectrum, it's there now, in response to the reality of things.

But I want to make it clear, if you, or any of your readers have any experiences with posts being rejected, snipped, or moderated away in contradiction to stated comment policies, or in a way you think is unethical, on ANY climate blog, you're free to email AIC, and if the rejected/snipped post fits with the forum's stated policies, I'll create a post for it, and the blog in question will be listed along with CP, OM, and RC...

I intend for the forum to be as close to a fair and neutral space as possible. Though, as the admin of RC Rejects notes, this may be a difficult task:

"Your aspiration to maintain a neutral stance for your blog is certainly a worthy objective. However, I think that you will find it difficult to appear to be neutral even if you assiduously maintain a neutral stance in fact.

The reason that I say this is that I am sure that you will get many more rejected comments from sites such as Real Climate and Open Mind than you will from sites such as Climate Audit, Watts Up With That, The Air Vent, Roger Pielke Jr, Lucia and similar sites.

Why will you get many more rejected comments from Real Climate and Open Mind? The answer lies in the way that they exercise their moderation policy. Both sites simply elect not to put up posts that do not conform with the 'house view' of the site."
Ref

In my experience as a person in the middle of the road on the climate policy discussion, posting comments disagreeable to most "sides", RC Reject's estimation of things is accurate.

If I wanted to be snarky, I could encourage you to add yourself to the blog through your actions, as you suggest above, but the goal of AIC is to better meaningful discussion on climate science and policy, so please don't.

AIC's objection to moderation policies of certain blogs isn't to rejection of "deniers" idiotic comments, which I'm sure are plentiful; it's to the rejection of meaningful comments by informed persons.

Roger Pielke, Jr., who has one of the most open comment moderation policies I've come across, has recently put up a "Rejected Comments" thread. Apparently, his moderation policies haven't provided much need for it. If other blogs who have recognized issues with rejected comments created similar threads, there wouldn't be an acknowledged need for AIC...

Cheers,
AIC

As I've already attempted to comment at Dr. Connolley's site without success, I'll address the three comments let through moderation on his post so far here, briefly:

#3 by J

Okay, I scanned through the latest ten posts over there. Past performance may be no guarantee etc. but I'd say that site isn't going to the top of anyone's must-read list.
#10 has no inconvenient comments.
#9 has no inconvenient comments.
#8 has no inconvenient comments.
#7 has no inconvenient comments.
#6 has no inconvenient comments.
#5 has no inconvenient comments.
#4 has one inconvenient comment. Apparently someone submitted three rather silly comments to Tamino's site and he declined to let them through moderation.
#3 has no inconvenient comments.
#2 has one inconvenient comment. In a RealClimate post, Eric Steig joked about both Hansen and Christie complaining about the peer review process ("If both feel the peer review process is biased against them, it must be working rather well.") Somebody was apparently offended by this, and wrote a rather huffy two-line comment that doesn't show up on RC.
#1 has no inconvenient comments.
Sic transit gloria mundi. 

This is a new site and I've done very little in the way of promoting it so far.  At the moment, it takes very little time administrating, and I've been happy to see if people become aware of it on their own.  I do believe there's a need for something like this forum.  RC Rejects, a blog I was made aware of shortly after the creation of this site, has a much more proactive approach to things, and I believe the comments found and posted there support the argument there's a use for a forum like AIC.  While I might personally agree with much of the editorial stance of RCR, AIC is meant as a neutral mirror, so it leaves it to people to come to here by themselves.

#5 by Guthrie

You'll delete this anyway, but the best way to get in their bad books would be to get people to post denialist type questions to that place.
Its another example of the noise machine going up a gear. Mocking it is one way to go.

I don't know how much I need to comment on this; I think it speaks for itself.  AIC's open nature leaves it open to abuse and manipulation...I'd like to think its clearly stated mission statement would dissuade most from attempting to do so...

#6 by Deech56

After three comments on a thread at American Thinker I was banned and the comments deleted. I could try again and save the comments this time.

PLEASE DO save your comments and please do email a link to the story for posting on AIC...honest paraphrasing for what you've already written is fine, too...

This an AIC thread, and not strictly a mirroring thread for Dr. Connolley's post, so any general comments here are fine.  We might as well use this post for deleted comments from the post in question on Dr. Connelley's blog, too.

Update: Perhaps this comment is from "Guthrie"?

Open Season

Despite a recent discussion regarding the comment moderation policy that will be necessary for this forum if it's to be meaningful in the long-term, for the next couple days I'll be in generally desolate, internet-dead regions of Nevada, so I'm opening this forum to unmoderated comments until I get back.  Let's see what happens, and sorry for any spam that makes it through...

About This Blog

This forum was created to provide a clearing house for all the reasonable and respectful commentary out there that's been drafted and submitted to online climate blogs, or to online climate-related articles, only to be deleted, or pulled from moderation, in contradiction to the blog or website's stated comment guidelines, or due to what the commenter believes are unreasonable and unfair restrictions for an open forum.

AIC respects any blogger's right to moderate the discussions on their forum however they see fit, but is troubled by the descrepancy between some forums' claims of openness and even-handedness versus the reality of their moderation practices.

For general discussion of questionable moderation practices on climate blogs, RC Rejects is probably a more appropriate forum for than AIC.

This forum was created with two primary goals:

Through the publication of rejected comments,

1) To provide a more open and diverse extension of ongoing discussions at climate blogs where people have had difficulties in having their comments published. While this forum requests that initial comments on a mirrored post are copies of comments that were rejected at the source, responses to and discussions arising from those rejected comments are encouraged. This forum is not intended as an echo chamber; people of all viewpoints on any issues are very welcome to join the discussions in a respectful manner.

2) To encourage those who may have given up on contributing (or attempting to contribute) to discussions at blogs that rarely or never publish their comments to begin again, in hopes that what comments do go through contribute to a better discussion on those forums.

Since this forum's creation, the initiative of Roger Pielke, Jr., on his own blog, has suggested a third goal which might supplant the need for the first two:

3) For climate-related blogs to create a "Rejected Comments" thread where people are free to post comments rejected from the main threads, in the interests of transparency.

It can be a real sting when one spends time drafting polite and relevant commentary only to have disappear into a black hole because it doesn't support a specific scientific or policy perspective.

By providing a fallback outlet for such speech, this forum hopes to provide a directly related space for those unheard voices, and to encourage more meaningful discussion between differing viewpoints.

Guidelines for Comments

(Updated 12/9/09)

Comment Policy

This forum has an unrestricted posting system at the moment, but the following types of comments may be deleted after review:

1. Comments on a thread for rejected comments that were not initially deleted or rejected at the source in question and are not in response to a discussion that's arisen in response to such a comment
2. Off-topic comments
   
3. Abusive or offensive comments
4. Spam (of course)

Aside from the hard rules above, the tone we're shooting for here is one of thoughtfulness, substantiveness, and a due amount of respect.  Comments will not be judged on the stance they take on any issue, and the fact a comment on this forum has not been deleted in no way means it reflects the administrator's own opinions.

I'm hoping that this will be enough to keep this place running smoothly enough and working towards the goals stated in "About this Blog".

-----

To the first visitor to submit a comment to one of the off-site-related posts:

With apologies, thanks for your visit, and I hope you stick around.  I very much appreciated your honesty, and hope everyone holds to the same level in the future here, but if you're going to open a discussion in a thread for rejected comments, please don't open it up with "I'm not even going to try to post this at..." ;-)

(Anyone with thoughts on how to improve the comments policy is encouraged to share them in the comments here.  Cheers!)

Welcome!

This blog is the result of a straw-that-broke-camel's-back rejected attempt to comment - in a polite, relevant and academic manner - on a popular climate-related blog earlier today.

From my own experience, on the blog in question today and on others, and drawing from others' experiences I've come across within the climate blogosphere, it's my personal belief that very often comments are rejected from blogs such as Real Climate and Climate Progress not because they violate their stated comment policies, and not because they're offensive or abusive off-topic, but because they meaningfully take issue with something within the post that authors don't feel comfortable acknowledging or responding to, for whatever specific reason.

This forum is intended as a clearing house for such speech, and hopefully as a more open extension to discussions taking place on some other blogs.

While the initial motivation for this blog was my own personal frustration with certain blogs' approaches to moderation, I genuinely hope this can serve as an open forum, so I plan to keep as free from editorialization as possible.

The general format I plan is to post a link to stories on climate blogs readers have had moderation difficulties with, along with a copy of the source blog's comment policy, if one is explicitly stated.  If someone has attempted to post a non-offensive and on-topic comment on the source blog without luck, they're welcome and encouraged to post it here, preferably within quotes or otherwise indicating it was a rejected comment.

If others feel like responding to previously rejected comments, that's great, and discussion that arise from there are, too.

For more description and a sort-of mission statement, please see the "ABOUT THE BLOG" sidebar on the right of the page.

The whole reason for this forum is to be as open and constructive as possible, so please try to keep the discourse as respectful and on-topic and substantive as possible.

Cheers!