|
Meta: On MoA Moderation
MoA commentator Karlof seems to be pi**ed because some comment he tried to post here did not appear. As he writes at his own blog:
I provided what follows in a comment made to the current Iran thread at Moon of Alabama, but the site owner trashed it for some unknown, unexplained reason despite its obvious vital importance to understanding the events surrounding this war. What follows are a portion of Lavrov’s opening remarks that relate to the topic followed by an excerpt from the first Q&A that’s then followed by the most important question posed:
[1684 words long quote from Lavrov’s press conference]
The blog software Moon of Alabama is running on has, like others, functionalities which somewhat protect against being overwhelmed by spam comments. The system will filter comments following certain criteria into three buckets.
Most of the comments entered at MoA will be published without further review.
– Spam:
Comments which come from known spam addresses or include advertisement for certain products will be deleted automatically. Each day there are some 50 to 100 “Buy Viagra” or similar comments that fall under this criteria. This part of the system is astonishing reliable. That’s why I rarely review the comments which are being filtered at this stage. They simply vanish.
– Moderation:
Comments which:
- exceed a certain length
- include more than 5 links
- include certain swearwords
- come from certain IP addresses
will be withheld from immediate publishing for review by the moderator. Karlof’s comment, which included a lengthy Lavrov quote, was caught by this filter.
– Manual review:
Twice a day I scroll through the comments to sift out those which I find inappropriate, grossly off-topic, or generally dislikable. Some I delete immediately without further ado. If I find multiple questionable comments under one username I will check the IP address the comments are coming from and put it on ‘moderation’. Future comments from that address will be reviewed before being published.
I will also review the comments the system has held up and put into the moderation bucket. Some I’ll delete immediately without further ado. Some may be published after I have checked the context in which they were made. Others may be shortened and published.
The criteria by which I do these reviews are subjective. Here are some general hints, in no particular order, of what I dislike:
- Looong quotes. This is the web. Dear Karlof, a text that is freely available on the web and can be linked should never be quoted at length. Provide a summary and a link. Thanks.
- Snappy one-liners. Commentators who offer nothing but these will be banned.
- (Repeated, off-topic) advertisements for the commentator’s own blog.
- Off-topics designed to divert attention from the subject of a thread.
- Attempts to overwhelm/derail a thread with a myriad of comments.
- Taking unreasonable positions designed to provoke.
- (Ab)use of multiple usernames by one person.
- Personal attacks on other commentators.
- Factually false statements.
- AI slop.
I do spend about an hour per day to moderate the comments at this blog. Still – a lot are passing that probably shouldn’t. Given the current number of comments I would probably need three hours per day to do this consistently. That would exceed my capacity.
Please bear with me.
@ Karlof
I had written a long reply to your post, but at the time I felt to post it would derail the topic at hand. Now, apart from putting b through the work of explaining how moderation works, which was not necessary for regular posters at least, and seeing as you have a theme largely dedicated to your presentation as tangent, well I might as well post my view ? It is long, so others might want to ‘just scroll on by’. Note, I haven’t read the links on law regarding the straight yet, but doubt those would change much. That is also where I leave this thread, so anyone should feel free to argue, oppose, or trash the following in whatever way :
A correct framing of Hormuz is not of control of it via closing an international shipping lane, but of it being a strategic location from which a blockade of enemy shipping can take place.
UNCLOS cannot be forced on Iran, which is not bound by it.
The blockade extends into Omani waters, which are the main shipping lane anyway. Oman, as neutral, might not object, so as to not be part of any conflict, so as not to take sides. Omani tankers have travelled through.
In reality the blockade could occur outside of the straights, that would be to interdict shipping approaching the straights or in national waters of gulf states. Yemen showed that even limited actions were enough to dissuade passage.
That is not even counting the possibility of targeting land based distribution points, or refineries, to place economic reprisal on US aligned nations.
Hence ‘forcing open the straights’ is just a pretext, and even many that take a view against that are not framing circumstance correctly.
The reason for this is that various major powers have flaunted international law, in various ways, making most of them view from a compromised position.
Iran was attacked due to its contesting an expanding hegemony, due to positioning itself to be able to confront if necessary. The colonisation of Palestine is supported by Russia, historically, in legal presentation, and tacitly at a wider level. The Russian talk of wanting peace is not a just peace, hence. It often appears to play the part of unwitting advocate.
In reality, the attacks on Iran have not been justified legally, and so are acts of war.
We know about avoiding calling war war; smo, campaign, etc. The declaration of war brings a different status to the enemy, who might blockade in reply, for example.
So, these legal…well creeps, basically… go about perverting every definition to suit their own ambitions, become selective, and hypocritical.
People might not like the definitions of nations, borders, limits, how they arose, but they were designed to a framework that aimed to impeded dispute and conflict in a world increasingly capable and efficient at destruction.
The security council, the permanent members, have become part of the problem, for no longer respecting the meaning and intent of the laws provided them.
What they are replacing them with in their pursuits, is unworthy.
How does this look from outside ? Here is just one example :
“Trump told reporters 3 days ago
We are not in a war, it is a military operation and not a war because war requires the approval of the US Congress and a military operation does not require that and that is why I call it a military operation.
Trump now: We are in a state of war and what is happening is part of the war.”
Journalist Suhaib Al-Masalma
Russia is as much to blame at this level, acting as if it wishes to woo peace, posing as harmonious alternative, instead of taking a moral stance or position of responsibility that clearly outlines the wrongs being commited.
These realities are also visible with regard to Ukraine, from US or european political subversion through to Russian unilateral annexation.
‘It’s not cricket’ , as they say.
Posted by: Ornot | Apr 4 2026 22:42 utc | 79
|
