PG:  Very good comments

My comments regarding this topic on the open thread are shown below.  As I noted in my comment, I really do believe that a lot of the "recent unpleasantness" is a result of the increased attention that TOD is getting.  While I think that I have been the primary tactical target so far, don't be fooled.  The strategic goal, IMO, is to destroy The Oil Drum.

IMO, Hothgor is a result of the increased attention that TOD gets.  I think that he represents, either on a paid basis or on a freelance basis, the interests of some group that perceives The Oil Drum as a threat.  I think that his purpose is to make the TOD experience as unpleasant as possible, and you have to give him credit, he is remarkably effective at it.  I know that I have begun to wonder why I should continue to bother.

More readership= lower signal-to-noise ratio.

Also, just an FYI: in the next version of TOD (3.0), we are tossing around some mechanisms, including disabling comments completely, comment ratings (slashdot style), comment moderation, ....

I think that's an excellent initiative.

Thanks for that Prof Goose. Debate over substance is great but really there is so much side discussion that people have to invest too much time to get the real nuggets of wisdom out of the comments. Rather than view a thread as a success if it gets more than 100-200 comments, it should be something that attracts new readers and educates them or provides new depth to old readers understanding of complex subjects.

We have a lot of newly elected officials out there and many new people in positions of power. They have a lot to learn about energy issues and could benefit from some good solid posts and comments on these issues. Let's not scare them away, but rather invite them to a civil discussion of the issues.

I appreciate the open words about the trolling and would like to add one thought of my own.

Peak oil is a very serious problem which requires political and technical solutions. I am confident that the technical problems of renewable energy systems can and to a non-trivial fraction have been solved. The political problem, however, is the perception by the overwhelming majority that things that were always available in the past will always be available in the future. We know this religiously held belief is wrong. We also know that the opposite of oil is not chaos and the apocalypse. However, there is a large faction among the readership here who identify themselves with a "doom-and-gloom" religion which is absolutely counter-productive in the discussion about peak oil.

I would suggest TOD authors seriously examine realistic post-peak scenarios instead of letting the crowd feed on its own the-world-is-near fantasies. They are, in my opinnion, the single most devastating quality hit this site takes and could be easily moderated by more articles which discuss real mitigation strategies.

Prof Goose, hear hear!

As Ive said before, I dont KNOW what is going to happen in coming years - I visualize in my mind every day a new probability distribution of likely events ranging from a world war over resources in next few years to a vision of 2030 with the world humming along with wind turbines, tidal and solar panels - most outcomes are somewhere in beween and I shade my 'distribution' every day based on new knowledge or events. I come to TOD to share my experience and perspective and to learn from others - there are just too many angles on this problem to be an expert on all of them - here is where I 'cheaply' shore up my blind spots.  I also feel a sort of 'tribal connection' to many of you that post here, as I have gotten to know some people who share my world view - TOD is a place to have intelligent discourse among like minded, thoughtful people and I really value that.

That said, I get upset at times that much hard work goes into posts on discrete topics, and the comment threads are hijacked by totally unrelated tangents.  David Hughes( who I consider a foremost Peak Oil expert and may become a contributor to TOD) read my summary of his ASPO talk and all 145 comments yesterday.  I have yet to speak to him but feel badly that the vast majority of the thread discussion was about China, the dollar, or something other than natural gas depletion. (There were also many excellent and educational comments (oilmanbobs come to mind) completely on topic.) But the ratio was so skewed that someone who really cared about the topic might have gotten fed up and left.

We all have alot to say, but I would please ask that on the content specific posts (as opposed to open threads or Drumbeat) staying on the topic of the post.  Other than making it more educational for us, it also increases the chances that the post will be forwarded/read by policy/academic/mainstream people that we ultimately need to convince of what we are facing.  These viewers might get turned off if >50% of thread is inane banter.  Humor from time to time is welcome, (but make sure its funny..;)

Furthermore, the content specific posts (Khebabs plots, or an economic piece from Dave Cohen) are archived, complete with comment sections - who knows when these will be valued resources to go back and review - if comments sections are full of mud-slinging of off-topic stuff, it reduces the reader TODEROI...;)

Bottom line: this site has a chance at influencing and broadening our national discussion on changing our energy policy and structure, from a grass roots, internet perspective. When you post, please consider that in its broadest context.  

Lets leave the esoteric, subtle debates for the open threads and drumbeats.

Prof Goose -thank you for attempting to continue to make TOD special.

Just a thought or two about the situation with the comments:  The human race has a demonstrated need for being moderated - or policed.  --Left to our own devices we've proven time and again that we're perfectly willing to get into squabbles intense enough to leave large tracts of territory a smoldering ruin.  The "community" that frequents the TOD is nothing special in that regard - I think it's safe to say- we simply share an awareness of and interest in the subject matter of the website.  

Mankind has made a couple of flawed -so far- attempts at moderating itself -thinking of the League of Nations and the UN here.  But at least there is recognition that you just can't leave yourself open to the law of the jungle.  Sooner of later things get seriously out of hand.  One hopes that we finally get it right, and soon, 'cause there isn't a lot of time left for continuing the SNAFU.  So while I applaud the appeal to everyone's "better nature", and hope that such appeals are a consant (because we all need reminding frome time to time). I think that you're just gonna have to break down and decide what's to be considered acceptable and what won't be, and start moderating the comments.  To include banning repeat offenders if need be.  

Inevitable growing pains, I fear.  

I would not be in favor of a "pay to post" system.  It would be a hardship for people overseas, many of whom have a lot to offer.  A "nominal fee" here might not be so nominal elsewhere, especially if there are conversion charges.  Also, in many countries, they simply have no way to pay.  Not everyone has bank accounts, credit cards, or PayPal.

I hate the idea of disabling comments.  The comments are the part of TOD I enjoy most.  

Comment moderation...sounds good in theory.  In practice, it's kind of a pain for an active site.  PO.com uses moderators, and it's a lot of work.  It also results in a lot of arguments and controversy.

Comment rating a la dKos is not without its flaws, but it may be the best option.

Maybe a combination of moderation and comment rating?  The problem with comment rating at dKos is that it's too easy to get "trusted user" status, and you end up with a lot of people troll-rating comments simply because they disagree with them, or dislike the person who posted them.  Perhaps if "trusted users" were picked the way moderators usually are, we could avoid the ideological troll-rating spats that dKos suffers from.

I would also like an "ignore" button.  That feature was much-requested at PO.com, and the place has been a lot more pleasant since they enacted it.  

Just a thought. Yes, the trolls and much of the discussion sometimes approaches college freshman b.s. sessions but perhaps it isn't altogether bad to reminded from time to time of what we have to confront in the real world. I find myself increasingly skipping through a lot of the b.s. to get to some useful meat and wish there was a better way of doing this, skipping that is.

Quite frankly, I am mostly interested in those discussions that deal with global warming as it relates to energy production and consumption.  Also, whether it was the intent or not, this site is about far more than peak oil.  At some point, consideration might be given to changing the name or creating some spinoff sites.

Also, while the information on this site is fantastic and as far as I know unsurpassed, a focus on affecting the political powers that be would be welcome. Now that the Dems have taken over, things seem a bit less hopeless. However, the time is ripe to take action and influence those now in charge of congress and many of the state houses throughout the country. Otherwise, there may be a tendency here to engage in intellectual masturbation. Not that there is anything wrong with occasional masturbation.

A few quick observations:

The increasing level of unproductive (to be kind) comments on this site have driven me to severely limit my participation.  To be blunt, I'm more than a little disappointed in some of the personal nonsense that gets posted here.  There is clearly some terrific information that shows up in the comments, but at times we all have to wade through a lot of manure to find the pony.

Those comments have also played a major role in my decision not to add a user comment ability on my own site.  My site is a one-man show currently, and I simply don't have the time or the desire to start my site on that path to continual food fights or policing.

I sincerely hope that v3.0 will help curb these problems, as TOD is already an extremely valuable resource and could be even better with some relatively minor changes.

OT

    Does anyone know how or where I could obtain a copy of the documentary " A Crude Awakening- The Oil Crash" by I think Mark Oliver?

As kebab says, more readership == lower signal to noise.

Of all the blogs I've seen, I think slashdot strikes the right balance. It's a rare article that gets less than 200 comments there and the comment moderation system makes it possible to find the best ones quickly.

The downside is that some really worthwhile comments are not given prominence they deserve, but once an article has over 100 comments, it is really hard to read everything anyway.

1.  Thank you all very much for this site.  It is one of a very few (and increasingly fewer) sites I read regularly -- because of the quality of the information. This is not my field, and I have nothing to add, but much to gain.  You should charge, at least for people who can pay.  Clearly, not everyone can, as the poster above noted-- their are parts of the world that don't (gasp!) have PayPal.

2.  Be careful, please, with words like "heretic".  Heretics violate an imposed orthodoxy.  It is a theological word.  Skepticism, debate and challenge in an empirical system such as "science" is not "heresy"--it's the way you do business. And as much as some in the current Administration and their camp-followers would like it to be, "science" is not theology.

3.  Have you thought about allowing comments only on the Drumbeat, but not on the main articles?  Or at most, allow comments only by selected members of TOD who have known credentials?  

I firstly thank you sincerely for providing this free and unhindered forum for the discussion of what is arguably the most important aspect of life: energy.

Putting forth heretical views will naturally produce countering arguments - some even filled with invective. It is the price one pays for going against perceived wisdom and the common man's comfort with his ongoing way of life. Inertia is our enemy - not trolls, whoever they may be, since concerned readers/commenters know the difference between valuable postings and spleen-venting or loony catastrophology.

I respectfully recommend minimal changes to TOD - the open thread is extremely valuable as a place where a variety of news items come together and can be judged. The ability to post at will is beneficial to the creative exchange of ideas. And, finally, who is to judge what is worthwhile and what is not? Science is not orthodoxy.

PG
I was pleased to see your utne link as I am also an utne fan.  I have learned so much from contributors to TOD.  It is addictive.  It is also frustrating to see some days drumbeats not having much meat in them.  IMO there is too much discussion of human nature and politics which are probably driving good people off, and I tend to skip those discussions.  I also skip over certain people all the time.  Life is too short.  Thus, IMO a lot could be solved by having an IGNORE button or maybe categorized comment threads.  That way we could regulate our own reading, according to our own interests.  It might motivate people to keep their comments at a higher level, too.  Another possibility might be to suggest a limit of comments per day to 2.  That would motivate people to keep the quality high.

we want to bring the smartest people who think about this stuff together into one place and talk about ideas, solutions, and policy

Last week, I was privileged to be in the company of an academic engineer and state Ag professors at a conference related to the changing world of energy and agriculture.  It was enlightening, and I learned a great deal on their perspectives on the real world.  There is so much expertise out there that could be tapped.  The Internet seems to be our crowning oil age achievement.  At the highest level imaginable, TOD could be part of that Apollo project.  An appeal to all academic and field engineers in the world, along with architects, agriculture experts, green city planners, and key economists to join this site is probably an unattainable dream, but maybe not when people realize the future of humanity is dependent upon it. The key would be to make it worth their time. And now I've given myself away as a dreamer...

These things could be attained in the architecture of the website, however, so its nice to know your goals here seem ambitious, PG!  Keep up the great work.  
 

Philip Greenspun had some thoughts on building trust as users interacted more and more often with a site. As they did they got more and more tools and options, etc.... That used to be in the background to arsdigita/ACS system. maybe here

An example might be a moderation system where only experienced users, perhaps with accumulated good karma (one way or another) get to post on some stories, but everyone gets to post on the drumbeat.

All of that becomes more than a full time job.

I think a Slashdot-style moderation system could be extremely valuable here, but the negative mods need to be finer-grained than used there.  In addition to "troll", "flamebait", and "offtopic" I would suggest a list which includes:

• Spam
• Unsupported assertion.
• Cornucopian propaganda.
• Doomer propaganda.

It would also be useful to be able to attach links to certain mods, especially those last three.  If the public is going to be told someone is spouting propaganda, they shouldn't have any doubts about where it originated and why it's propaganda instead of serious discussion.

Last, users need to have karma.  I'd suggest tagging propagandists with their propensities, so the public has some idea of how seriously to take them.  You can slap "Technocratic optimist" on me.

I think the major difference between Worldchanging and TOD is that one is an intentional community, with a stated platform, and the other desires to be more big-tent and open-ended.

While Worldchanging may pick up the occasional troll, I think they do start from a bit more of a common ground on why they are all there:

OUR MISSION: worldchanging was founded on the idea that real solutions already exist for building the future we want. it's just a matter of grabbing hold and getting moving.

On the other hand, here at TOD, I've certainly been on the receiving end of ad hominems, basically for leaning toward the worldchanging mission statement.

Something to think about perhaps.

Prof Goose I think you are heading down the right path.  I am a very infrequent poster but when I do post I try to add something constructive to the conversation.

I just gave a Web 2.0 presentation and I have been working in the Web business for years. I was one of the very first bloggers out there and I have had the opinion that, while commenting is a wonderful feature, it would collapse under its own weight someday.

The Oil Drum is one of the best community sites on the net.  I mentioned it during my presentation as a case study in how to create an effective online Web 2.0 community.  I, for one, am willing to give up my posting rights, if that is what it takes, to weed out the disruptive comments.  These disruptive posters (bandits) only want to breakup the community and they are very effective at it.

I now skim over posts to find the posts Westexas, Oil CEO, and others but it can be a chore due to the number of threads.  Unfortunately these good posters spend half their time responding to the bandits and not educating us on the challenges we face with our dwindling energy supplies.

My choice would be to grant posting rights to the Oil Drum.  I believe we should have all voices, pro and con as long as they are constructive.  If you disagree with Peak Oil that is fine please post with data or valuable insights.  If you just act like a bandit then you get banned.

At this point the Oil Drum has a wealth of data on who are good posters and those who are not.  I suggest you grant those good people posting rights and any future posters can gain those rights if they contribute positively to the community.

Of course this entails extra time, time the good people at the Oil Drum may not have.  Therein lies the dilemma.  But I think to keep the Oil Drum as effective as possible something needs to be done soon to control the bandit situation.

Shorter: decide who you are prof goose.

If you think this energy thing can be managed, say that every day, and how you hope to manage it.

If you don't think this can be managed, start selling canned goods, and for God's sake drop the Worldchanging references.

I don't like the new format as well as the old one. I feel the daily threads create a lot of noise. I would like to see certain threads where only the "real experts" have permission to post comments.

It's been a while since I've posted, mostly because I'm a layman.  I find that there isn't much I can contribute to the wonderful information and discussion being put out by the "elders of our community".

However, I do know a little about moderating discussions, so here are my thoughts.

Don't believe that a totally technological solution to moderating exists.  Remember that these are posts made by people;  reducing them to a score belittles the contribution made from the best to the worst of us.

Reduce the frequency of a troll-rated user's comments;  only allow them to post 1 comment once every other day etc.  To prevent flamewars, only allow even the best users a certain number of comments in a time period.

Don't give a single user too much power.  Don't trust new/unknown users by allowing them to moderate.

If a user is troll rated or ignored, tell them!  Make sure they know why it happened, that X number of people felt their contribution was poor.  Only by feedback do we change our behaviour.  The worse the feedback, the less behaviour is changed.  If someone's science is suspect, then make sure they can find out why.  If possible, when downrating a comment, require the moderators to write 25 to 50 words detailing their decision.

Some trolls are just inexperienced or unskilled people who can be turned into very effective and valuable members of a community, if they are engaged correctly and early.

Have a way of flagging the worst comments such as stock pump and dumps or similar.

Make moderator status hard to attain.  Require a certain length of membership on TOD, a certain number of contributions.  etc etc.

Don't tolerate uncivil behaviour.  Don't be afraid to punish someone if they step out of line.  Make sure everyone knows that name calling simply isn't tolerated.

Don't tie the moderation system too deeply into the site;  if it breaks, it needs to be easily replaced.  One possible way to do this is to allow (pre-chosen) tagging of comments and then allow users to display comments with/without certain tags.

One possible idea would be to require a membership fee.  $10/year for posting privileges may work.  Or require new members to write an essay!  :-)

I hope this endeavour works out well;  this site may quite literally be one of the most valuable out there.  But only if the message, the signal, is not lost through trolling or draconian moderation.

Hi TODers.

This is my first post, but I have lerked for quite some time.  Thank you for all of the efforts everyone has contributed.  i believe the sharing of information and opinions has been invaluable.  I am in awe of many of the primary contributors.  Thank you all for this.

I do find it ironic that we are considering changes.  Moving to V3 strikes me as a belief that technology will provide a better solution.  Implementation of changes, limited number of posts pre day (rationing) or minimal charge for posting (carbon tax) etc seem to indicate that we can force a needed (or desired) behavioral change.  

If the Oil Drum community can not even co-operate jointly to collaborate, exchange ideas, and share our knowledge without such measures, what hope does humanity as a whole have when facing the potential dangers posed by peak oil and other major crisis we face?  

IMHO,

A pay to post would not keep out paid trolls or many of the "unsavory types" whoever they are....

If a troll has a weak argument their are many here who are completely capable of tearing the person to shreads academically.

I am sure there is a way to block IP addresses and if someone violates obscenities or personal attacks or stalking sure get rid of them.

I lurked here for two months laughing at the ongoing debate, sometimes it is fun to watch the battle unfold.  I am refering to educated debate not name calling.

I think PO is an important message that gets lost on this site due to political leanings and conspiracy theorists.  A majority of americans are turned off when they read things about how the twin towers were blown up by controlled demolitions and leave the site, missing the PO discussion because we all get labeled nuts.  Open threads should atleast be able to connect to energy in two direct steps.  ie mideast politics fair game because they affect petroleum exports.  just a thought.

Besides that PO is a geological event that does not discriminate against social, racial, or political lines.  We are all in the same lifeboat. Arguing over the little stuff does not get the boat safely to shore.

Some people here are not getting it, IMHO. Try this for starters:

• Registration with personal information and a working e-mail address would be required. Confirmation would be required for registration. Payment would not. This personal information would not be shown on the user's information page at their request but TOD would have it on file.

• Any TOD staff could flag a user. If that user gets more than N flags, they are issued a warning. If additional flags are added afterwards, the first warning not being heeded, they could be banished after some number of further warnings. The e-mail address is the key, as in a database.

I am not saying this will happen. It is conceivable, however. So, there is not necessarily a pay-to-play system and there is not complete moderation, which no one has time to do. However, all TOD staff look the website over on a regular basis.

So, in my view, we are not talking about limiting a user to 2 posts or 5 posts in a day. We are talking about zero posts for that user & e-mail forever.

This comment reflects some of my own tentative thinking on the subject of PG's post and is not the policy position of The Oil Drum.

Regarding the DRUMBEAT:

a weakness of that format is that there are a dozen or so news articles cited on top, but then, more often than not, these articles are not discussed, or the discussion relating to one particular article is difficult to find. Could you change the layout to:

ARTICLE blablablablablablabla             Discuss this news
                                          [post a comment]
ARTICLE blablablablablablabla             Discuss this news
                                          [post a comment]
....

that means the DRUMBEAT would "branch out" into a dozen different, focussed (hopefully) discussions on top. The remaining unfocussed part would remain the same, at the bottom.

The structure of TOD is a disorganized mess. I much prefer the structured type of forum software that peakoil.com has.
I come to TOD because of the high quality of the contributors.

We here at TOD are here to facilitate education, empirically-centered debate, good policy, and learning, not create a battlefield on which people can try to foist their normative views on others: and I think most of us here agree with that vision.

I am reminded of a Quaker saying: "Be silent until you can improve upon the silence."

No truer words have ever been spoken.

Like most here I'm sure, come to this sight to gain information about things relating to oil. I know very little about the subject and have found the TOD to be very informative on this subject. I stopped coming to this sight because of all of the unrelated post that has nothing to do with the original subject that was posted. I enjoy what Westexas, Ceo, Heading out, Etc. has to say on a subject. I do not believe in any type of censorship when it comes to a persons post unless it has the intent of destroying the purpose of the forum in the first place. I have learned from the TOD that there are no oil pipes coming into the state of California, but I still do not understand what prevents a well head from blowing out of the ground from all of the pressure that it sees. I am still totally in the dark about how in the hell do you establish a well head that is several thousand feet under the water. Hope to hear about these things here in the future.
For what it is worth, here are some suggestions to the creators of the TOD.
I'm looking for information on oil related matters so I can make an informative guess in what to expect regarding what kind of life one will experience in the future. I matters that we may be coming to a point that demand exceeds supply but I'm not sure if this is one of the subjects that the creators of this sight originally intended to cover. Making a forum outline on just what this forum is all about would be a great help regarding subjects that are covered.
I enjoy going to sights like LATOC forum, and Sustainability Arizona Community forum. They both use the same sight format regarding how and where subjects are posted. When someone post a comment that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed it is not deleted but moved to a topic that is located elsewhere in the forum under a different heading. If something like this is established here at the TOD I recommend a forum heading, (Troll posts). It doesn't matter if someone should ever go there and can not make heads or tails out of what the poster is saying because what they posted didn't make any sense in the first place.
One other thing that I find disturbing here is that you establish a forum heading but then list a lot of links to other topics under that listing. Instead of just calling it DrumBeat, add, (and related news stories,) then allow your members to post comments to a story that they feel  needs further discussion under a new forum listing. Only post news stories that you intend to be discussed here at the TOD.
One last comment that I need to make and then I'll go where few trolls dare to go,
Please, Please, Please, I know allowing Ad's is a necessity in keeping this sight alive and well, but please do not allow ads that jump, flash, roll or whatever. It is very annoying in trying to read something and have something jumping all over the place next to what you are trying to read.  :o).

A thought for TOD 3.0:  Give everyone a blog space.  Bear with me...  if everyone who wants (from the regular, academic authors to the trolls) can maintain a blog at TOD and link back and forth as they see fit, but no one can post comments, then the value of your comments on another's post (via the commentary that you post to your own blog) determine how many people link to you, and whether anyone even sees what you're writing.  This type of networked organization is, roughly, how the larger blogosphere works, so it may be worth considering it in microcosm for TOD as a non-hierarchical, open-to-all solution to the problems.  The "front page" of TOD could list the most recent and linked-to article, or could post a blog-feed from internal blogs that is prioritized according to some social ranking system.  It would be a radical departure from the present system, but it might be just what is needed to keep fresh and insightful content rising to the top.  Just my two cents...

There is a well working system on the german IT-forum www.heise.de. As a registered user you can mark any contribution from double minus (most insignificant) to double plus (remarkable).
It takes only minutes after the first comments show up that troll stuff is deep red. This makes comments in the forums very clearly laid out.

Even if you can't read German you might like to have a look at any forum page at heise.de - here is one where disputers are quarreling about Windows Vista.

The advantage of such procedure in my perception is that there is no such thing like censorship. If there are enough pro and contras the result will still be neutral, but trolls are sorted out fastly.

Good luck, PG and TOD - the problem of online discussions is a knotty one.

Pesonally, I've stopped reading and participating in discussions. Reasons:

1. Low signal to noise ratios.
   
2. Lack of time.
   
3. Not learning much new from them.
   
4. Unpleasant attacks and trolldom.

I would second the suggestion from odograph, for TOD to decide who it is and what it stands for. It's not necessary to please everyone, and trying to do so will wear you out.

Another suggestion might be for individuals to advance beyond discussion forums to essays or books. If a subject is important to you, doesn't it make sense to do the research and develop one's ideas fully?  

Discussion forums are a good place to get an introduction to a subject, but past a certain point one is spinning one's wheels - reading and repeating the same themes.

Bart
energybulletin.net

Excellent post PG,

My two cents for what its worth.

I come here for the insightful discussions of oil, gas and energy related topics I can't find other places.  I contribute only when I think I have something of value to share.

TOD can live without my comments.  I am in favor of allowing the people who run this site to arbitrarily banish (or silence) those posters who don't adhere to the accepted rules of the site.  If that is me, so be it, I can still read the comments.

Lately it is a pain wading through all the mean spirited comments just to get to some data or new ideas posed for discussion.  Most of the positions have been stated multiple times in the past and there is still no way to predict accurately what is coming next year.  This site should not be about who can win an argument.  

It should be about rigorously investigating and bringing to light all the valid positions of topics.  If that is done, than everyone can make up there own mind about what the reality is of a particular subject.  

The key is scrupulously vetting all the data sets to make sure all are equally valid.  How valid is the data cited?  Who is citing it?  Can it be independantly verified?  Is the source known for propaganda to achieve ends?  Was the scientific method used to gather the data?  Is old data being used in predictions when new, different data, is available?  

These questions are what TOD is really about.  What is fact and what is ficton, and which one is being used to underpin policy or business decisions.  Skepticism and open mindness of all positions is required.  Posts (and posters) that don't contribute to this goal are a waste of space and everyones energy.  Weed them out.

May I point out that Leanan already functions as a moderator of sorts and that she is extraordinarily fine in that role?
Her ability to defuse tension and reintroduce a touch of commonsense, with minimal or no ruffling of feathers, is most valued.
Of course she is not always here. And probably doesn't want to  overdo or change what she currently does.
As a minimal step that might address some of the problems without changing what has been an unusually productive status quo, I suggest some of the other staff might try very lightly steering discussions, short short comments, when they happen to be online. Or perhaps coded flags or stripes in the left margin indicating that a staffer has looked over a thread and suggests that it's long, unproductive, off-topic, or short of the best of TOD.
There would be no need to review and flag content constantly. Just a small group of people empowered to flag, if they wish to. And then you find out if posters take heed.
Just a suggestion. My guess is that few would want to perpetuate a thread flagged as boring. No one would want to be caught in a discussion suddenly and independently flagged by two staffers as repetitious. But no coercive control and very little mechanism would be required.

Like others, I have learned an incredible amount from this site, primarily from major contributors (I sure miss Stuart for example) but also from the ensuing comment/questions/answers discussion.

Like others, I have learned proportionately less as the months have gone by, especially due to emotional rantings, unsubstantiated opinions closely held and angrily argued, and material that seems far from the point. There is still enough good information and insight to keep me coming back, but my addiction is growing less powerful.

We are our own enemy when we get sucked into nonproductive arguments and then perpetuate them, like the recent religious discussion that went on forever. Our first line of defense is to IGNORE people once the discussion is stale or if it has become personal. Otherwise, I favor some power of the moderator to decide whether to place something in a "trash" thread, set up separate threads for politics, post-peak survival, transportation issues, alternative energy threads, etc. I hate to lose all of the give-and-take, but it has to be managed. I favor people being dropped after one or two warnings for uncivil personal attacks, or for essentially "spamming" a thread with repetetive unproductive comments. Civil disagreement needs to be preserved, however, or we lose the point.

Sorry to make this so long myself, best wishes and thanks so much for the incredibly valuable resource this has been.

Eric

First Post.  Have lurked for years.  Read all new posts, close to a quarter of drumbeat articles, and probably about half of all comments.  Like everyone else I have noticed more "noise" lately, and as peakearl said, it does make it less productive.  However, I personally do not see it as a big problem.  One of the attractions here is the civility of the discourse.  Compared to many other forums it is amazingly civil given the subject and number of commenters.  Maybe there is merit in dealing with the increased irrelevant sniping before it escalates further.  If so, my suggestion is to be as gentle as possible.

I like the idea that oldhippie sets forth.  Something very innocuous, if it is technically feasible.  Don't get too heavy handed with blocking and censoring unless it becomes absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of the discussion.  Sometimes that can be counter productive.  Like a wounded animal, a pissed off troll may become more dangerous.

Just a thought from a longtime lurker who thoroughly enjoys this place and has utmost respect and gratitude for all who make it happen.

Thank you!

Not to be too insulting....

But, really, these threads are not that important, are they?

I come here primarily for the articles and updates.

PG - so I've read what your wrote twice - I've never done that before.  And you have no charts!  I've not read any of the comments - cos life is just too short.

what we are doing every day here at TOD is difficult--and the people here do amazing things on a daily basis to make it work.

First up I've learned more here on TOD in the last 6 months than I did in the last 16 years - so that's worth remembering.

Trust - the SheWolf - who is off in Dublin and Edinburgh this week, is more qulaified than I to comment on this and one day I'll persuade her to write some guest posts. However, my general understanding is that the UK has drifted from a high trust society towards a low trust society. This is a complex issue involving public empowerment and the media and politics.  Making TOD a high trust media outlet is in my opinion a priority.

With respect to posters comments - I have learned a lot form posters - which I was myself until several weeks ago.  But equally - it is problematic to sort out wheat from chaff - on oil and gas reserves and production issues I am on firmer ground - but whan it comes to electricity, hydrogen, electric cars etc - the ground seems to be quite mobile.  And I would also admit to posting some stuff I wish I haden't posted (especially when I see the spelling mistakes in the morning).  I think it is admirable to not have deleted anything thus far - more than admirable infact.

So where is this mini ramble going?

My own involvement here can be summarised in many ways, but let me say this.

All our main political parties support expanding airport infrastructure - these parties are all green! In London this week I listened to a former British Airways Captain outline strategies for conserving fuel - why?  I heard a Shell reservoir engineer say that no one would be flying in 10 years - so why are we debating this?

Our political parties have now become Schitzophrenic (don't give a toss about the spelling) - they want to reduce green house gas emissions (in fact from now on I'm going to use fonetik spelling) - and yet they want to lay the foundations for the next phase of fossil fuel led economic growth.  

Quite simply I want our UK politicians to acknowledge the problems that face us (energy shortage, energy insecurity, and the melting of the arctic ice cap) and to start implementing policies to tackle these problems - instead of saying one thing and doing another.

Well that was a fine wee rant.  I would also like to pay tribute to all the TOD staff - folks, you need to remember that SuperG keeps all this stuff running behind the scenes.

We do things because they are hard, not because they are easy - I'm in for the long haul and learned that TOD was a rough environment from some of my first posts.  So we need to retain the spirit of "piss off you ignorant b*" to see if folks pass the test - balanced against reaching a wider audience.

Evolution not revolution?

CW
aka Euan Mearns
ps its 12:25 here in Aberdeen

This was frankly inevitable.  TOD is still the best site I've ever been to, and I can say with all seriousness that I have learned more here than I could have possibly imagined.  The level of discussion is generally very impressive, and the level of knowledge even more so.  But the noise level has been growing too, and it will have to be defended if the site is to avoid being ruined.

I have one idea for how to do that - stop commenting.  For every comment you're tempted to write, ask yourself how important it really is.  Consider it over and over, and unless  you really think it will be of extreme relevance, don't do it.  I say this with some misgiving, as I have learned much from waht are really side-bar comments.  And I also know how strong the drive is to engage in the conversation - but it is a choice of reducing the noise or having the signal swamped out entirely.

So if you care about TOD, then police yourselves.  You really can enjoy it silently - I reduced my comments from several a day to maybe once a month, and I still find it of great value.  The main difference now is that there are a lot more comments where I wish people would have refrained!    

While I agree that hostile commenst and way off topics posts have damaged the comments here, I am worried that the remedies are worse than the illness.

A rating system is going to be a popularity contest. Why even bother, I can give you the ratings now. Westtexas will get a five and anyone who argues with him more than once will get a zero and soon be banned.

I think that the negative posters are in one of two categories:

1. Old timers who hate everyone else's off topic posts, but can't keep within the bound themsselves sometimes. I am probably one of them. I think a little guidance by the site editors that certain things are inappropriate would straighten them out.

2. Hit and runnners, who come and go and hence aren't much of a problem

So at the end, I think the solution is community policing. But it is going to be very, very hard. I think we all know what is off topic or insulting when we see it. But we don't when we do it ourselves. Everyone is guilty including some TOD contributors.

At the end of the day, I would ease off the paranioa - no one is paid or is trying to detroy TOD - and realize the there is a real danger of confusing popularity and appropriateness.

Good luck with whatever you do.  I agree this is important and will look forward to efforts to improve the discussion and plan to be supportive.

well could we have the normal serious discussions and a "romper room"  for the children (and adults that refuse to grow up) for trading insults  making fun of gwb arguments about religion(since these are tangentially connected to p/o)

Well, I'll try not to be redundant, after reading over 186 posts.

I like the feel of a coffee shop or pub where one might hear the odd random comment or even heretical or occasional off-topic comment. This also is a kind of richness and makes for learning.

However, moderation in some form seems to me to be very needed.  The less intrusive the form of moderation, the better -- but it certainly is needed to help reduce the noise.

Participate.net has a nice format to their site also, BTW.

I think moderating will be the key.  Whatever techno-changes or re-packaging might be helpful too, but I think finding ways of moderating is vital.

Also, does the term "viral marketing" ring a bell?  I hadn't seen it referenced so far, but it seems to be a real and insidious form of planting memes without revealing one's intent or identity.

I believe that any heavy-handed moderation would be counter productive. Formatting changes might be helpful to let readers  more easily skip over long threads which seem irrelevant or distasteful.

A better approach to improving the tone would be for folks to refrain from responding at all to posts which are inappropriate except to note that they are such--posting into thin air gets old after awhile. Second, do not recapitulate a heated discussion from the previous day in a long summary post. What is the purpose? To get in the last word? To make sure that people just tuning in don't get any bad ideas in their head? There are lots of differences of opinion here regarding Peak timing, Peak strategies, and Peak consequences, and I don't believe anyone can claim to know all the answers. We are in uncharted territory.

Maybe it's just me and maybe I just haven't been posting/lurking much lately but why don't you guys just have some type of fundraiser and use the money to a trusted moderate to act as an "enforcer"? If in the enforcer's opinion the person is here to cause trouble then he/she bans their ass. Maybe have a three strikes and your out policy.

Hell we don't even need to know who the person is, they can just have the handle of "TheEnforcer." I just got one of my board members to act as what I call the "board overlord." If somebody acts up she has the right to ban his or her ass as well as send them the aforementioned jpeg attachment of the "blindingly white ass of doom" (tm) to make sure they don't come back round town any more.

Moderators,owners ,et al  :

I think that TOD is exactly as it should be and remain so.
Its sucessful as it is and thats the proof in the pudding IMO.

I firmly believe that within the area of a DEFINED topic , not an open thread DrumBeat, that comment that are OT and tend to stray into other areas should not be allowed. That the topic and comments should remain fairly oncourse and that it would be time for the contributor/author to insist upon that course.

Drum Beats seem to be a different animal I discovered and in fact do not IMO detract from the defined topic but allow them the freedom to go their own course.

Its easy for a interested party to skip the Drum Beats but if they elect to browse them they should not protest that they detract. They simply can make use of the defined topics and skip the rest(drum beats).

I think Drum Beats allow many to express themselves on topics that range further afield yet do have use.

Therefore I clicked on YOUR COMMENTS on the home page and discovered, as I knew, that almost all of my comments are within the confines of Drum Beats except for the odd on here and there on Defined Topics in which case I thought my commets were very much on track.

I realize that in the heated debates that ensue that I am guilty of much coarser language than I would prefer to use. Yet I become incensed and made very much of one whom I considered a troll for he was obviously using other material I had mentioned in other topics to make personal attacks.

One who sits back watchign and chips away constantly and lies in wait for each comment you make is to me the epitomy of a classic troll.

If you perceive I am a troll then I will make the offer I made earlier on when I was a new member at this site. Delete my membership. I will still read and browse the site but will not be able to make posts.

I am not familiar with oil technology. I am a farmer and worked in many fields but primarily rocketry , electronics and programming.

I find the TOD site to be one of my set of websites I usually visit daily.

I have expressed my admiration for its existance in the past. That still stands but I would personally see it remain the same as it now is.

Self policing is IMO the best policy for the net. Trashing a website though should not be allowed. One or two warnings and then deletion of the userid.

Again if I am guilty in the view of the owners or moderators then delete my userid. I am not asking for verification one way or the other and not seeking it.

Allow me to continue to post or not. Your choice. I will not assume another id. I have been told that my views are heretical in nature by my friend.

One last point. If a poster were to state that he is a Christian or a Bush supporter or one of several other despised types then you find out real quick just how much venom can be directed at you(not me personally but I observe such often). This is very obvious by the lack of some good manners and courtesy. Some of the hate here seems to run very very deep and is not conducive to civility. Why is that? Frankly I tired recently of hearing the USA roundly condemned and spoke about it. Same for the rest. Closed mindness is surely not something that is upheld here yet seems to flourish in many cases. Again , why is that?

airdale

P.S. In summary: Keep it as is. Drum Beat serves a useful purpose. Those who eschew it just simply don't need to click on it. Stick to the 'defined topics areas'.

So....what do we do now?  Hold a vote or hope for a benevolent dictator to decide all this?

There are always going to be people to whom peak oil is a new concept, and the usual first reaction is denial.  Oftentimes the denial is quite violent (in a verbal sense).  I wonder how much of the trolling that you talk about is really just denial.

I have to confess though that I don't really read the comments very much any more.  Kind of busy with work and a new girlfriend.  I notice that a lot of the stories have a lot of comments, but I don't delve into the details and just read the stories.

I can provide these insights however.  Dailykos has had similar issues, and they have several different mechanisms that are used to help keep some amount of control.

One is that there is a concept of allowing the community to rate comments.  Comments that have an overall rating below a certain point are "hidden" from normal users.  And users with a sufficient number of highly rated comments become "trusted users" and they can still see hidden comments (and can select whether they want to see them or not).  If the troll-like comments are hidden from the vast majority of users, then

The second and more drastic measure is to ban users who simply refuse to behave in a civil fashion.   Nobody wants to be the heavy who has to do this, but the fact that the possibility of banning exists will serve to temper a lot of the bad behavior.

BTW I have recently been thinking the no edit feature was intentional-mean what you say,say what you mean & you can't take it back.

Dear profG (and other editors):

I'm tuned with you; the excellence of TOD is at peril with the new found fame. It is something we should expect but always terrible when it knocks on your door.

Just some suggestions:

. I do not favor the comments rating - the ill intended people will still have a way of creating entropy;

. I do not favor the thread less posts - it steals the TOD spirit (although some special cases might justify it);

. I do favor the deletion of entropic comments;

. I do favor comment moderation - although that would oblige TOD editors to review all comments and steal away the "real-time" interaction.

We should never forget that we are heretics, for whom the fire or the lapidation are the most likely ends.

This topic finally pushed me to register, so thank you for that and thank you to all those dedicated posters that have educated me over the last month, especially Engineer Poet whose own blog lead me here.

I have not posted before because I had little knowledge about the oil industry but I have plenty of experience watching the rise and fall of various internet based fora and I want to offer my thoughts as they apply to TOD.

Firstly, I would not bother thinking about technical solutions to manage the discussion until you can actually clarify the purpose of the site - the best solution will reflect the purpose.

To me, "Discussions about Energy and our Future" is so broad that people can justifiably shoehorn any topic, including religion, into the debate without stretching logic too much. This is no big deal when numbers are small as it's nice to range widely but, like a dinner party, it is easy to be sidetracked from something important never to return! If you try to be all things to all people, your workload and aggravation levels will increase exponentially with popularity and you will burn out and give it up. I guarantee it, because I've seen it happen again and again.

So what do you want TOD to be? Answer this first and the solutions become clear.

An exposition of your own(or invited) views on things?
Answer: Keep the blog, ditch the comments because TOD exists solely for your view on things. Use the blog to call for additional commentary you may want. Then there is no work other than researching and constructing your posts and deciding which guest contributions you will publish.

A resource to inform the interested but ignorant?
Answer: Ditch the blog and build a website and/or wiki. This will allow you to structure information in a meaningful way and you avoid people seeing old or incorrect information. A blog is completely the wrong solution if this is what you want to do.

Provide for discussions between members of the public?
Set up a discussion board so that you can control things without too much time or effort. As has been pointed out, there are incredibly well developed packages available to provide this specific capacity. A blog with comments is absolutely the wrong solution for this and CANNOT be managed effectively no matter how hard you try. The best message board software allows you to:
-create sub-boards to structure discussions, say(based on TOD history) PO timing calculations, Oil replacement options, Energy policy/ politics, The nature of humanity, Random garbage.
-create hierarchy of memberships so that once members prove bona fides they can post on, say PO timing. This separates the dregs from the most important discussions.
-shift off-topic posts to correct sub-board or threads and easily apply(or threaten) bans or suspensions based on username, IP address etc
-flexible layouts
-sticky topics
-Private messaging without email
-View only new posts since last visit
-Effective search! and more.

Provide a portal to specialist websites/blogs?
Ditch the blog and build a website and/or wiki so that you can provide structure and advice on the purpose/quality/style/usability of links.

Provide an all singing, all dancing experience?
Build a website that incorporates specialist software to meet each specialist information need. No web software can do everything you need but all of them can do a lot of things badly and inefficiently if you try hard enough.

The possiblities for this site seem endless but your time and resources are not. Be clear on what you want, constantly remind people of what that is(including yourself), pick the right technical solution and unwaveringly cull activity(or a poster) that doesn't fit. This will give you a fighting chance to keep the site going without destroying your motivation and lives.  I hope at least some of that made sense and good luck.

   Having read 259 comments, many of which were off topic, I think even the discussion is an exercise in futility. The data, which is excellent and hard to come by, is what brings most serious readers back. Ignore the people who do not contribute to that data flow and ignore excessive verbosity. (Hows that for a word?) It will not be salubrious for anyone who criticises my english.

If you're interested in exploring one interpretation of the philosophy of heretics etc, you could do worse than read Robert Pirsig's two books 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and 'Lila' (which have a wealth of PO relevant material, I suggest, most particularly in the cultural relationship to technology, and the blindspot western culture has with regard to religion/values questions).

In 'Zen' Pirsig has a long discussion on 'heretics', and uses a classroom example from his own experience, when, for a term, he abandoned the grading system, ie trusted the students. He also writes about how he much preferred teaching the 'heretics'.

But more fundamentally, in 'Lila', he describes a philosophy built around two terms, static and dynamic, which I feel give a very useful language for describing the problems you face. In other words, how to maintain a dynamic environment (free flow of information) without it degenerating into chaos - ie how to 'static latch' all the breakthroughs and insights, eg from comment threads, without at the same time throttling off the environment in which those dynamic breakthroughs can be made.

For what it's worth, I think the great value of TOD is as much the articles as anything else; by and large I've given up reading the comments. Another commenter above said that good comments could have their own thread. Seems a good way forward.

Well, to throw out an opinion from several days ago, which was not posted, since it seemed to miss the point then.

One thing happening is that the various true believers (and if you prefer another term, please apply one that is as complimentary or insulting as you wish) are finding their beliefs to be more important than discussion with people who do not share their beliefs.

Absolutely normal, a part of human discourse, one of the things we clearly enjoy when not taken to extremes - and being normal, we all think the other person is more extreme than ourselves.

TOD comes from an academic background (tending towards hard science more than otherwise), and uses that framework in general when discussing or investigating a very complex theme.

The information, viewpoints, and opinions are valuable, but as always, the problem of signal to noise is part of the world we live in. And in the fact that various methods or perspectives really do not intersect.

I would almost propose a reduction in the open threads (themselves a response to a problem), in the same way that ripping up roads seems to reduce traffic. Not a total shutdown, but a definite reduction.

And while on topic, so to speak, the current threading of the comments tends to cause information to fracture over time - in a sense, this is an unavoidable problem, but the thread structure is certainly not improving things.

Good luck with moderation if that is the road taken - it eats up a lot of time, is definitely imperfect, and in the end, doesn't solve the problem of people, which is what is to be expected in an imperfect world.

There are plenty of comments here and I haven't read all of them, so apologies if anyone has already covered this. I'm sure a lot of people here read Realclimate. The posts on that are always on topic and no BS is tolerated - and this on a site that attracts a lot of disinformation and ignorance from climate change deniers, paid or otherwise.

So the question is: how do they keep things under control at RC?

However, the thing is it's pretty much data only and data-haggling at RC, and this would, in fairness, cut out a lot of the 'stars' of TOD when they start off with e.g. tendentious accounts of inclusive fitness, 'we're all doomed cos selfishness is in our genes,' etc. All that would have to go as well. Not just those who are being called 'trolls' at the moment.

I wouldn't mind though. I'd be glad to shut up entirely if I didn't see any BS on TOD. I never comment on Realclimate for that reason.

The other alternative is just forget it. Crap is part of the price of free speech. If you fear people are put off by the low quality of debate, just remember that many people are not going to buy the 'hardcore doomer' element of TOD (even without the trolls). And I say this as a hardcore doomer myself. Even I'm put off by some of the simplistic misrepresentations that crop up here sometimes, and I share most of the same outlook as the people who post such stuff in the first place!  

It doesn't take much to judge the quality of argument. If someone is posting rubbish, it shows up in the first couple of sentences. Just skip it, and look for someone of more substance.

Some quick observations:

"Trolling", aka people who disagree and therefore disrupt the status quo is as old as the internet. It is nothing to do with paranoid delusions that secret agents are "out to get" TOD.

When people say "all your comments are welcome" they never mean that. What they really mean, sycophantic comments are welcome. They don't want to hear dissent.

Promoting a viewpoint is never compatible with open discussion. You can't finesse "the result of the open discussion was to agree with our viewpoint". Promote your agenda, and ban disagreement OR open discussion and accept that your viewpoint will not be the consensus.

The reason the state has to distrust its people and keep a tight rein on them is because if they don't a percentage of people will always cause disruption, ranging from littering to terrorism. Disruption leading to distrust is an inevitable product of the system when it grows from a small cadre of like-thinking individuals (family group) to a wide spread disparate group (nation states). TOD is victim of the same systemic process at work. However, it is neatly ironic that TOD says "We are the good heretics. But we will have to adopt some measures from the authoritarian state in order to keep control of dissenters".

Comment threads will trend towards being 99% crap, like 99% of everything. If you only want "nice" comments, you need editorial selection.

Bottom line: if you don't like disagreement, don't have comments threads.

First let me ask a question. Who and what were the circumstances when the TOD was first conceived? To them let me extend my congratulations and appreciation, along with all the rest of the editors and contributors. The TOD is a treasure that we should respect, and I don't see that respect being given to PG by many of the commentators on this tread. I thought we were discussing the future of TOD here.

I have noticed that some folks don't spend enough time reviewing a contributors post before they jump in and respond to something not in context with the post, and also commentors on comments. Some are so eager to respond to a comment they say things that don't address the previous comment.

I would like to see Heading Out re-post his technical posts on all the aspects of oil field and FF technology, or at least provide easy access on a side bar so folks could acquire a better understanding of the complexity of FF production. Folks talk about the technical contributions of the space program, but have no concept of the technical contributions made by the oil field. Try building a computer that will operate in a 20,000 PSI environment at 350 degrees F, 20,000 feet below the surface. Then communicate with it between Houston and offshore Australia.

Without the comments TOD will disappear. Separating the wheat from the chaff is what makes life worth living, or sustains life.

I read and, occasionally, post on the Oil Drum because I find it a great source of information and analysis. My posts, I hope, are relevant to the topic and add extra information.

I don't mind the current format of TOD, and find the wandering off track rather charming than otherwise. My biggest difficulty is that I live in Brisbane, Australia so my response are always far to late - due to the thread format they may never be noticed, I suspect. This delay would, presumably only become worse if posts were moderated.

If a charge to post is introduced, I would almost certainly wander away.

 

Dear ProfGoose,

I'm sorry to see TOD so aflicted that you are brought to consider defence mechanisms.

Yet this is in a sense a measure of TOD's success in spreading information that certain vested interests plainly wish to remain hidden.

Therefore you have a simple choice - of being willing to ban posters for conduct below a threshold of quality,
or to see the site being degraded, its readership eroded and, effectively, its broadcasts silenced.

I resigned as Senior Moderator at PeakOil.com on precisily this issue of an abject lack of willingness to censor for the common good.

[But then I'm willing to cut sheeps' throats for the sake of lunch].

Specifically, a series of fascists were using the site to promote racist predictions on the back of PO,
while here in Europe that racism was taking lives on a regular basis.
I was unable to continue serving a platform that gave such filth the space to propagate their bile.

With regard to TOD, whose content I've enjoyed for years, I would urge you to take action in the form of the minimum effective force.

As I see it, this might well be a +/- scoring system for comments, with those posters repeatedly falling below a threshold, or simply being exceptionally crass, being banned without any messing.

All the best,

Backstop

Sign of the times, TOD is ovewhelmed. This is how this works, when a web site reaches a certain stage you begin to have traffic from all sorts of sources. This is a good thing. You folks are getting the message out. There isn't one of us that doesn't think that isn't a good idea. It needs to happen and is probably the most important function TOD plays.

That said the minute you chose to restrict content, you will go back below the fold. Let the community police itself. I've run a message board for a local community website for almost ten years. It's annonymous, and the group that is there polices itself.  They can be really nasty when let loose. Trolls are just not responded to and they go away.

What worries me more is this "we are scientific, we do charts and graphs from the figures"  Life is not like that, and there is a recurring theme here that the figures you all get to run your charts are hogwash. < Being restrained tonite> Restricting content in any fashion means the site becomes less usefull. Figures don't lie but liars figure.

We don't <that's the big we> don't always know everything, and the odd comment from left field can spark really remarkable things. That's why I come here daily.

I come here for the people, odograph, oil ceo, west texas, todd.. I get a laugh, I get educated. Sometimes those people
mention who they are and what they are doing, they become real people to me and I listen to them.

I would say that's what I find important here.

I consider myself a resource, teaching is key. Little tiny ownerbuilt house, heat with wood for the last 25 years, walking softly on the earth, and I'd like to be here to help others who think that is a sane path to follow. I think that is right up there on the priority list. I need to save as many of you as I can. We all have our own crosses to bear.

Problem: everybody wants to contribute.. not a bad problem to have, congrats all round. There are limitations to the medium in general, maybe ppls enthusiasm better used in meatspace? But we like to huddle up near Reasons flame.

All posting to articles with real technocratic content and aims should be on topic and substantive (keep the Drumbeats (1 a day) for free thought). How? A 2nd tier of membership. Posting to technical discussions could be allowed only to 'senior/technical posters', chosen based on merit/contribution and record.

I trust Ed.'s to pick the majority of tech.posters and vet nominations from ordinary posters based on open thread participation. Elite deviance (rife here, completely rife ;) could be tempered by enabling ordinary posters to (seperately and transperantly) challenge offtopic/erroneous/normative posts by tech.posters on tech threads, one way posters can earn their stripes. On Drumbeat & more whimsical articles keep current relaxed policy, except all will have the 'proving yourself' driver to keep posts alert, charming, and careful.

Whatever you do, don't take the all-tech soln. Social engineering is the gunpowder of 21C, we learn it or we lose.

   I am very disturbed by some of the personal attacks and insults I read on TOD comments.  To attack Hothgor and call him a troll for some stupid comments seems to be saying that one will be attacked if they disagree too strongly with the elite experts.  Is TOD only a discussion group for experts only, or is it to bring the public into the debate about the coming crisis of peak oil?  One of the things that destroyed the Communist Party was accusing everybody who disagreed with them of being a police informant. (The FBI knew this, and fed them a lot of disinformation to encourage that).  But my point is that such accusations can really wreck an organization.  If I submit something that most of you disagree with, am I going to be redbaited or called a troll?  I don't mind a vigorous debate, but we are supposed to be scientifically  and open minded.
   I am strongly in favoe of a system to rate comments.  Is it possible to have replies to comments put right after the comments, as they do on BBC News?  It makes it much easier to follow people's train of thought.  Along the same line, we need to find some way to get people to stick somewhere close to the subject.  Maybe by setting up a whole series of topics, with all the comments on each topic on the same thread.  (I do not like the system where I sometimes have to scroll back and forth across the page as I read each line, since I can only see part of the text on the screen at one time.)  It might even be a good idea to have every author of a comment put a subject heading on it. For consistency, a list of acceptable subjects would have to be made up, and one of those used.  Like the keywords used in abstracts of many scientific papers.  The tag system you use now is practicallu useless for finding things.    

Professor Goose,

First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the great work that you and the others have done here.  I first found this site about a year ago, and it has been fun and informative.  It's getting harder and harder to wade through the comments every day, and I know I'm reading less because of it, but TOD is still the hands-down best site on the internet for this topic.

Next, I want to apologize for those instances where I added more heat than light.  I think I missed the recent shouting matches you're talking about, but I've made plenty of comments that didn't add much.  I'll try to do better in the future.  

As I've noted before in this post, I really like the DKos Scoop system: their point system, the collapsible threads, and having points mean something.  I also agree with the previous comments that you and the other editors and contributors should get together and rethink the goals of the site.  In the organizations I've been in, I've found that an annual retreat to revisit goals and methods is very helpful.  In this case, the way the site works should support your goals in creating/maintaining it.  

I'll add one comment that I haven't seen above.  I've been to hundreds of transportation planning meetings, board meetings, etc. in the past 20 years, and I've developed a real affinity for Roberts Rules of Order.  In particular, for TOD's purposes, on each motion, each participant gets only two opportunities to speak, and each of those comments is limited to 3 minutes.  An equivalent here might be a limit to two comments for each topic and a maximum of 300 words each.  Further, if anyone breaks the rules, they can be removed from the discussion, either by ejecting them or just not allowing them to say anything more on that topic.  In reality, this is almost never needed.  Since everyone knows the rules, that there may be consequences, and that they'd be wasting their limited comment opportunities by breaking them, people tend to follow the rules.  It might be something to consider implementing here.

As a friendly neighborhood geophysicist for the last 30(+mumble) years, I subscribe to this site's feed because its' S/N ratio on subjects ancillary (but not essential) to my "day job" is actually pretty good.  I haven't commented here often because, when I check in here I consider myself to be in "learning mode".

Having said that, I think that, to the extent that this site strives to offer a "policy guide", normative suggestions are a natural and expected result of the purely factual content (and the site's analysis of the implications of that content).  While I don't agree with everything I read here (I put myself firmly in the "techno-optimist" camp), I think that allowing anyone to comment (including trolls) is a "good thing" when discussing normative issues.  Ad Hominem attacks are stupid however; it's a good thing that I can speed-read past such (as I suspect most intelligent readers here can).

Whatever your choice, I value your existence, and thanks for what you've done thus far.

Dale