Tuesday, July 15, 2008

If ever I were to feel guilty about firm meta moderation...

...and I don't...

...all I need to do is look at Justin Taylor's metas.

And then I feel all better.

14 comments:

Charles Sebold said...

Oh, come on. Surely you aren't suggesting that Jethro Tull lyrics and postmodern hand-waving aren't valid responses to a discussion of justification?

*smiles*

DJP said...

< shakes head >

I particularly love Taoist, lesbianism boosters preaching salvation by works.

But... who wouldn't?

Stefan said...

Well, a back-and-forth about the man's faith is a lot more God-honouring than the sorts of comments that probably popped up on political blogs at the man's passing. And it brought to light some fascinating things about the man that I didn't know.

Regardless of whether he was a Catholic, Methodist, or Evangelical Free First Church of Bethel Fundamental Baptist, either he was a believer or he wasn't, and I pray that he was.

DJP said...

As I made plain in the meta, that's also my hope. And again, that alignment with Rome strikes at the basis of the hope, is to Rome's discredit, not the questioner's.

Daryl said...

I'm with you guys (as if I had to say that...) I agree that one shouldn't talk bad about the dead, especially so soon after the fact, but that hardly means that you need to lie about them either.

In this case in particular, when someone will (is) be held up as a paragon of Christian virtue, a little temperance regarding what they've actually believed is in order.

I really liked how you stressed Rome's culpability in all this Dan. Painfully obvious but needing to be said methinks.

Something about little children stumbling and millstones and the sea...

Stefan said...

Think of the millions of common folks in mediaeval Europe who were led astray by Rome, who attended masses in a language not their own, who were denied access to the Bible, and so on.

It really was the "dark" ages, when the light of the Gospel was faint indeed.

David Castor said...

I'm a bit new to the concept of meta-moderation. Are talking about meta-moderating other moderators, or other moderators meta-moderating you?

And sorry about my ignorance, but how do you read the metas?

DJP said...

LOL, I'm having fun envisioning making up sentences with lots of "m's" following "meta-moderating."

I refer to the comment-thread on any post as the "meta" (I picked that up from Frank Turk; am I using it correctly?). I have in mind a blog-owner's moderating his own meta's. I am contrasting two approaches:

1. A passive, laissez-faire approach that is (apparently) okay with allowing meta's to be hijacked by trolls who have the effect of defeating and derailing all purposeful and contentful conversation, and in fact countering the very convictions of the blog (on the one hand), and...

2. A more involved, hands-on approach, that allows a range of on-topic conversation from differing perspectives, but does not allow trolls to capsize the ship.

I paint the two as extremes.

Now I wait to see if that was a trick-question.

Fred Butler said...

I reckon if you had more crack-pots stopping by here, like over at Teampyro, I could see the need for the firm hand of moderating your meta. I have never seen too many of them hanging around. I know Neil stops by, but he is more of a lovable eccentric

DJP said...

Neil is a TOTAL crackpot! But a good and welcome crackpot.

We have had them here, Fred. But less traffic = less visibility = fewer crackpots.

candyinsierras said...

That was an interesting but frustrating meta over there. Probably as interesting and frustrating as the "Cry of the Damned" meta I followed for a few days.

Mesa Mike said...

"Meta-moderating" would be moderating the moderator.

I think what DJP is referring to is just plain moderating (of the "meta", which are readers' comments about the blog poster's comments).

bugblaster said...

I am NOT lovable.

Mike Riccardi said...

You're on the money with that, Dan.

Sometimes when I read the threads at BTW, I just walk away feeling discouraged and helpless. That's not necessarily JT's fault; it's the fact that the preaching of the Word of God in this day is so weak that so many people feel comfortable calling themselves Christians when they've just got no business doing so. But that notwithstanding, there are some things that I think he should address when things get ridiculous. When that doesn't happen, people may take his reticence as agreement to the many "crackpot" things that get said around there. Then, people go away screaming, "See! Justin Taylor agrees with me!"

I've always appreciated you and the other PyroManiacs for being very responsible with and even protective of your readers by keeping up with the flow of most threads diligently, and solidly engaging and often refuting dissenters. Even if readers don't agree with you, they know where you stand on the issue you brought up. And no one leaves feeling like the Pyromaniacs agree with them when they really don't.

Anyway, that was sort of stream of consciousness. I just agree with what you said here. Don't feel guilty. I appreciate it greatly.