Posts by Sarah Bee

Re: Do the crime, do the time ?

I doubt very much that the apparently socially inept McKinnon would magically transform into a charismatic rogue a la Marks, who was a charismatic rogue before he got banged up. It's a hell of a stretch to make. You seem to be essentially suggesting a spell in chokey would sort his Asperger's out a treat, which is absurd.

Also, you should know my feelings by now about any combination of the phrase 'do the crime, do the time'. If you don't, why don't you come here and I'll whisper them to you. No, no, closer than that. Reeeeeaaaaaally close.

Re: Weirdo

That's enlightened of you.

I always look forward to everyone having this argument. I'm thinking of throwing a little party when we reach the 100th time. What do you think? Some time next month? We can have jelly!

Re: Comment lol's

Welcome Dingmatt. You mean 'you're'. Best not to make that kind of error when calling other people idiots.

Thanks to everyone who is about to point that out with varying degrees of scathing contempt/hilarity.

Re: Antennagate

It's a perfectly acceptable shorthand. Shush.

Re: poor donkey

Loving the 'ass' jokes everyone! Keep it up!

Re: Re: Rejection Reason

I might as well be.

Re: Oops

That's fine but I'd really appreciate it if we could keep this thread on topic - it's about comments and moderating, not individual writers. Thanks.

Re: And try and rein in your pedantry

Oh God, kill me now.

It may not be strictly correct but I'm going to leave it in, just to annoy you. So there.

Re: Clarification requested

Some threads are shut down early because of legal concerns, because of a fault with the original story resulting in 50 comments all pointing it out, or because the comments have made me physically sick.

No, seriously, sometimes we shut them down when the thread is clearly heading for uncontrollable offensiveness or flame-age. It happens very rarely and there's always a discussion beforehand - I never shut any threads down without consulting the bosses.

Re: Rejection Reason

Well, I may not disagree personally with a lot of the stuff that comes through here about religion, but put yourself in my place - would you want to oversee an escalating internet scrap about Islam? Nothing fires people up like it, and it gets out of control fast. I don't really like to say it but it's better not to go there, because allowing it to start means an unpleasant day of anxiety and consternation which ultimately contributes nothing. Surely you can see that.

Meanwhile, cries of 'censorship' remain tiresome and hysterical - and insulting, frankly. Once again - it's our site, we publish what we want to, and we have no obligation to publish anything in particular. I know this will never be accepted by some, but that's the bottom line which I'm doomed to repeat until we're all old and decrepit.

Re: I wonder.

Arthur, I'm not going to respond to that beyond saying

1) Comparing an entire nation with one website is a bit beyond apples and oranges - you're not even in the same fruit bowl there.

2) *reins in pedantry*

Re: I think...

Why don't you come over here and say that?

Re: Even bigger sigh, but...

I know it's hard. Try to be strong. :)

Re: Playing safe can be dangerous

>>Journalists surely get that when they "have their articles spiked?"

Yeah. But they're journalists. They are paid to spend lots of time researching and writing articles. Commenters are not paid to splurt whatever they feel like saying across the internet in an instant. There's a difference.

I'm sorry if you feel there's something amiss in the practice of moderating - you're not alone in that. But the fact is that your comment on any day is only one of 500 or so, and we have little time to consider any individual one.

The goalposts are our goalposts, and we can take them home if we want to. We do have a sense of fair play - I know my job would be a lot easier if I didn't - and we do think carefully before rejecting. But once we've rejected a comment we rarely look back. We don't have time - sorry.

I refer you again to #1 and #17. I'm not being bolshy - this is just the way it has to be.

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

What's your point, caller?

Re: Sigh

Ultimately, I'm afraid you have to accept the decision - everyone does. Writers sometimes have their articles spiked too - that's how it goes, and while sometimes you'll get an explanation, the rest of the time you have to just suck it up. (And make sure you get your kill fee.)

Drew is addressing this in more detail.

Re: I love your harshness oh great moderatrix

No. We have about 500 comments to moderate every day. This is fuelled by tea, not beer, more's the pity.

Re: Pottly Pedantics

Not really. It's annoying. I have to be pedantic all day as a sub-editor so it's a bit of a busman's holiday.

Re: I'm with Billy Connolly on "the internet",

You've stealth-trolled? Thanks for letting me know. You've just moved up my zapping list.

Re: Some observations

These are guidelines to try and stick to - they're not absolute. We do understand that sometimes there will be multiple posts saying the same thing - it's a pain when it's obvious people haven't read previous comments, but it's totally understandable if there's been a backlog.

As for posting comment in the box rather than the title field, I don't see how it's awkward to do. I think it interrupts the flow of a thread to have 'N/T' popping up everywhere.

Post-moderation - I think I'll let Drew handle that one.

Re: It's not harsh enough.

That stuff is in white text between the lines. Come on, you know me.

Re: You can't break even

Thanks. I'm sure it's frustrating sometimes but we'll get through it... *together*.

Is that two beers so far? I can dig it.

Re: @ Geoff. Re: I wonder if....

Not really, no. The distinctions are usually subtle. You can't put everything on a scale.

Re: Who's the thread mod?

Are you going to cause me trouble, Pott?

I'm moderating. Drew is also moderating. I didn't state that authors never moderate the comments on their own stories - and this isn't a story, it's a set of guidelines. And I'm the moderator. So I'm moderating.

Clear?

Re: @ Sarah Bee. Re: And try and rein in your pedantry...

I can't win.

Re: I have but one comment

Thank you kindly. There will be a static link in the comment box.

Re: @umacf24

Oi, Pott, stay on topic...

Re: Rejected comments

Hi Peter,

We don't really have time to do that I'm afraid. Also, we can't always explain why we reject comments - we reject what we don't like, ultimately (and as mentioned we do accept the vast majority and are much more liberal than many moderators, we reckon). If your comment gets rejected, be big about it, accept it and move on.

Re: Good job

Thanks!

Re: Just to add

He shot two civilians too and threatened to shoot not just police but doctors and the public at large. I don't think it was such a ridiculous response.

Re: Cops

>Welcome to Britain, the fifty-first state.

Oh honestly, what difference does it make? There's a fair bit of cross-pollination that goes on between US and British English. You don't have to wring your hands about the sociological implications. Unless you want to, that is, but I can't see why anyone would...

*remembers where she is*

Oh right.

Re: Ahhh, I get you...

Twit.

Re: Freedom of Speech?

It doesn't half piss me off when people start complaining that we don't have free speech in this country. We've got more freedom in all senses than the vast majority of humanity, and while there's always room for improvement and we must be vigilant so as not to lose any ground, it's an insult to the genuinely oppressed to whinge about how shackled and gagged we are.

Hmph.