tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post8343489383713892002..comments2023-10-22T01:58:02.647-07:00Comments on Jihad Watch Watch: Spencer and his Readers: Ideas for Improving Jihad WatchHesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-83038515296125350032007-07-03T23:29:00.000-07:002007-07-03T23:29:00.000-07:00ErichNot bad suggestions. Some thoughts on this:-...Erich<BR/><BR/>Not bad suggestions. Some thoughts on this:<BR/><BR/>- On one hand, I'm willing to assume that Spencer is busy with the books he's writing, the articles he does for FPM and the various radio and TV interviews that he occasionally has lined up. OTOH, he does his special bit on blogging the Quran on hotair, and the same piece surfaces on hotair on Sunday, and JW on Monday. While JW does have a header link to the Quran blogs, this seems to give the impression that he reserves better treatment for other sites than for his own. Given how difficult it is to get registered on hotair (I just managed it last week when that window was open), JW should certainly get the priority on this if he's to expect questions on the surah being blogged, rather than more general questions;<BR/><BR/>On Procedural Management @ JW:<BR/><BR/>- I like the idea of having a new status called 'suspended', where a poster has the opportunity to fix whatever needs fixing. I also agree with you that they need to do a better job of determining who's ban-worthy, and not crack down on somebody simply because of a disagreement. The idea of letting other posters weigh in on whether someone should be banned or not is a good idea - and the moderators/owners still have the option of overriding them.<BR/><BR/>- I'd also add that given how posters sometimes tend to get their posts deleted or edited, the rules for posting need to be explicitly spelt out, and not left to some vague interpretation of a one time thread 'Komments Kraziness' that discussed this issue. If they don't like the use of the term 'Muzzie' to describe Muslims, say so in clear terms. If nuking dar-ul-Islam or burning the Quran is off-limits, say so, and in some cases, like the latter, explain <I>why</I>. A few days ago, there was a thread about Mohammed's effigy being burned in Denmark, and I posted a question as to why calls for burning Qurans are treated differently. Instead of responding, someone there simply edited out my question in that post, and ignored it. If they don't want to spell out the rationale behind their rules and regulations, fine, but at least spell out the rules and regulations.<BR/><BR/>- Given how busy Spencer is with his books and interviews, and Hugh is with his essays, I think the extra employees/volunteers they have - Marisol, Anne, whoever - should handle the task of this management. Note that that would also involve empowering <I>them</I> to ban posters that they determine need banning, instead of the call being exclusively reserved for the head honcho. And when they do ban somebody, their decision should be final: if it gets reversed by RS, it has an undermining effect on their authority.<BR/><BR/>- On expanding the site for 'Reader Watch', I have a different suggestion. Right now, if one goes to the site, and has a story on, say, Russia, that one wants to contribute and comment on, they are forced to post something off-topic in one of the threads. Conversely, most of the threads on JW are 'timeless': let's say there was a thread 2 years ago on the Armenian genocide, a new poster who wants to weigh in on that can't because the thread in question is frozen. My suggestion: don't freeze any threads.<BR/><BR/>Instead, have a community-server like forum, where the topics are classified properly - something like <A HREF="http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/default.aspx" REL="nofollow">this</A>. That way, off topic posts are minimized, and those who willfully offend can be suspended or banned. Also, say a new poster weighs in on an old topic with a new look, that topic will come to the fore, just like in my example above. (Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that their classification of topics and structural layout is the right way, but just illustrates an example of how it can be done. One could have different things - jihadi activity split out by geography between continents, discussion on Islamic texts, dhimmi activities by Western institutions, Hugh's essays, JW housekeeping like this article above, and so on)<BR/><BR/>An added advantage of that is that when a news story breaks, the first one in can post it in the right place. In such an event, what the JW moderators would have to do is prevent replication, but RS would no longer have to glaze through 500 e-mails a day. Once this is established, most posters would post things to the relevant threads, and those who spawn too many redundant threads could be disciplined after warnings.<BR/><BR/>This also can accommodate your 'ReaderWatch' suggestion - have a section dedicated to that. Also, have a section, maybe for Muslim comments - those who send their inane hate mail to RS - and let them vent there, and let the troll-bashers in JW take them on. At the end of the day, management can determine whether to keep or flush those threads - typically, they'd be more noise and less signal.<BR/><BR/>- On the question of who sits on the JW board, I'm content with leaving that to RS and his board. I don't know how exactly 501C3s work, and what needs to happen, but it's a fair assumption that those who fund such organizations directly (not by buying Spencer books) are the ones making the calls on that. On Tasbih Sayyid, it would have been nice of him and others to have participated in those discussions. Another disappointing aspect of this is that some of the guest hosts (oxymoron?) like Greg just ignore the comments section: I've posted questions to him about his video 'Islam: what the world needs to know', and just seen it ignored.<BR/><BR/>- I agree with the suggestion that he should open up an open forum for readers to offer their feedback and suggestions.<BR/><BR/>Only thing I don't see - how do all these above suggestions promote the anti-Islamic cause in the larger public?Nobodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936731686633423188noreply@blogger.com