Over the past years New Mandala has benefited from the over 11,000 comments hosted on the site. Many of these contributions have opened up important new areas for debate and discussion. We have always appreciated the time and effort that so many readers devote to the task of commenting.
In the hope of further improving New Mandala and its value as a forum for understanding mainland Southeast Asia we have decided to experiment with a different approach to comments for the next few weeks.
During this time, we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, remain space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained.
And exceptional comments that are submitted to New Mandala will be considered as stand-alone guest posts. The goal is to cultivate a style that is somewhat more formal, better considered and highly readable.
Based on past experience, comments which carry a real name will generally be more likely to satisfy our evolving criteria.
Thank you for your patience as this new system is trialled over the coming weeks. We hope that our large and growing readership finds it a beneficial change.
17 responses so far ↓
1 BangkokDan // Sep 15, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Sounds kind of like the PAD approach.
A system based on selection, decided by the top few.
For heaven’s sake, how can you ignore the broad masses!
Maybe you could add a comment rating plugin – that could make the less desired commentators go away by themselves.
Am I serious?
I’m afraid my comment is the first one not to make the cut.
2 Kaimook // Sep 16, 2008 at 2:48 am
I think that if we believe in freedom of speech and diversity of ideas, cultures and beliefs, the least that you could do is to have one special page of the website where all the “trash” is dumped. This allows your users to read the “trash” if they are interested but at the same time you can keep the rest of the website “clean” in accordance to your standards (whatever they are).
This would be transparent way to go about it, and would also maintain the credibility of this website.
Just an idea for consideration.
3 Little Piranha Fish // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:12 am
Smacks of elitism doesn’t it. Had you ever really noted that the academic/intellectual community of your home country contributed much to improved social justice? The politically-correct folks who run this site still think you can engage in polite & constructive dialogue with bigots such as Sonthi Lim, Thaksin, Samak & Newin Chidchob. Politicians are generally rather more constructive when they are forced to live in constant fear of a fickle public. Something missing in the local political scene, and soon to to be missing here by the looks of things.
4 willneverbenamed // Sep 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Questions about the assessment process:
high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion
-how are these to be decided? You sound like you have just finished marking a thesis. Is it not the case that some of the most original contributions to academic knowledge have been dismissed at first as being too eccentric? It is only later that people realise their value.
Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved.
- and why is this? Are you trying for the ADD market?
Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained.
-of course there need to be rules for any game to work, but the whole point of this game is that it works in an anonymous forum. This forum allows people who would otherwise not say what they have to say to come along and say it with the only consequence being a reply. Sure, there is no such thing as a utopian free space for uninhibited discussion, but this space at least gives some ‘flexibility’ for people to try things out that they otherwise would not.
Turn it into a seminar room and you will get the same old dinosaurs that dominate debates in real seminar rooms dominating this one. Perhaps this is your aim? To feed into an online publication of some sort? The New Mandala journal? Sounds good.
5 Srithanonchai // Sep 16, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Just yesterday, I had a long talk with a professor from Germany. New Mandala also came up. He complained that most comments were clearly sub-standard, on which I argued that the core importance of NM were its posts and the large readership, not necessarily its comments.
However, I had to agree with him that most comments had become like letters to the editor of a newspaper, that is, not very tempting to respond on, but still a legitimate way of expressing opinions. And you simply cannot expect that such letters, or comments to New Mandala, are mostly written by people who intellectually are at a similarly high level as seem to be the standard of post-docs or research fellows at RSPAS.
If you are really serious with your criteria, hardly any of the more frequent commentators on New Mandala will ever again see their comments appear on this blog.
6 Observer // Sep 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Having a bias towards comments using a real name is going to give you a bias towards comments that favor the government in places where people have a realistic fear of the consequences of open speech.
I would have to stop commenting on Thailand because do say what I want to say using my real name would be too dangerous to be worthwhile. Anonymity is not evil.
Oh well. At least there is Bangkok Pundit.
7 Little Piranha Fish // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm
It is perhaps worth noting that the quality of replies is far superior on topics that do not dwell on the current Thai political stalemate. Just a suggestion. Why not leave issues like PAD Vs DAAD to Bangkok Pundit and so free yourself up to deal with those other far more interesting regional issues with which you deal so well? Frankly, punditry on mainstream Thai politics is a completely unproductive waste of time. More issues on real rural people would help, as they are far more interesting than the likes of Newin ‘Boring’ Chidchob, ‘Im Indoors or Bangkok’s middle-class class.
8 jonfernquest // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Little Piranha Fish: “Why not leave issues like PAD Vs DAAD to Bangkok Pundit and so free yourself up to deal with those other far more interesting regional issues with which you deal so well?”
What a wonderful idea. For three years I have been pulling articles out of the newspaper I work for, explaining vocabulary, and sometimes writing close-ended and open-ended questions, and it always struck me how the diverse range of English language newspaper articles in Thailand, particularly that get down to the details of how the Thai economy operates and functions, are considered unworthy of blogging, whereas the more contentious in-the-news political stuff, always was.
Last year the big economic issue was exporters fretting about currency appreciation, this year it has been escalating food and oil prices, LPG and other subsidies, as well as central bank independence and the laws that the cou-appointed legislature passed so hurriedly, especially the broadcasting liberalisation bill.
Contentious political issues are guaranteed to generate semi-rational responses as they do on top academic blogs like Brad De-Long’s economics blog at UC Berkeley. Brad De-Long once likened what happens in his comments section to a food fight.
9 Sorry No Name // Sep 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm
You want me to live my real name and discuss issues like Thai Politics and Human Rights? Sorry, I value my life and freedom, so as always no real Name.
10 Land of Snarls // Sep 17, 2008 at 2:10 am
If it aint broke, don’t fix it. You run the risk of ruining a fairly good forum (much better – freer & more open – than the Pundit club, IMO).
Leave the Bkk politics in – it’s terrific. Keep it all just as is. It’s too late! NM’s character is established. “Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained.” O.K, so slap ranters like Republican over the wrists (I’m talking about his long, boring, repetitive series of a few months ago) with a wrist-slapping warning-post. But please don’t get into censorship.
Srithanonchai #5, I do agree with your final paragraph, but can’t entirely agree with the ‘letters to the editor’ idea: it’s a new & different medium, and NM allows for real (extended) discussion, in a way that newspapers (& many blog-sites) don’t – even though some participants are not as well informed as others. Look at some of the longer threads. They’ve gone through boring patches & suddenly sparked back into life. And dialogues like that between Teth and Sidh – where else would we see stuff like that? (Where are they now BTW?) NM is good, when it’s good, and productive, ditto, and has sometimes produced exceptional stuff out of non-academics as well as from collisions of academics with non-academics, by accident as it were, because it’s been loose.
“Based on past experience, comments which carry a real name will generally be more likely to satisfy our evolving criteria………… Thank you for your patience as this new system is trialled over the coming weeks. We hope that our large and growing readership finds it a beneficial change.” Bloody hell! Here’s a little exercise for you: Read those 2 paragraphs aloud in a falsetto voice.
If it aint broke, don’t fix it!
11 Ed Norton // Sep 17, 2008 at 2:44 am
To be honest, I am not sure how this will work. How can one be sure of blog quality? Is the basic idea to make it academic rather than political? I personally like the idea of quick commenting. If I want to write an academic paper I have other outlets. Actually, a couple of days ago, I spent sometime writing a comment – actually attacking two other commentators, but in a reasonably polite way, suggesting a bunch of references on vote-buying. However, that has never appeared. If that kind of post, linking to a bunch of comments and to some academic literature is outside the scope of NM, then I am wondering what is acceptable? Or is it that my post just disappeared in cyberspace?
12 Observer // Sep 17, 2008 at 3:12 am
There are two issues here: quality of comments and responsibility of comment(ators). The two are not the same but they do overlap in certain ways.
Webblog and webboards are new media. It opens up mass participation. It is cheap and easy. Many good and bad things come along with this new media. Never before do we get to hear the voices of people who otherwise might not want to express themselves in public. Exactly because of that, along comes the silly and often time irresponsible posting that spread false allegation, unfound rumor, and so on. To be fair, many comments are decent, respectable and very good without having to sign their real names.
I think people need and will develop their taste for good and not good web discussions. Perhaps sometime in the future there will be websites that suit to different tastes, like the quality newspapers versus the tabloids among the print media. In the meantime, we have to be aware that trash and treasure are mixed. We (all of us) have tolerated to trash without doing much to help improve the quality of discussion.
I am sympathetic to Andrew and Nich for their efforts to improve the quality of NM. [I myself stop visiting NM some time ago for not wanting to waste time reading irresponsible posting. Thanks a friend who alert me of this topic; otherwise I wouldn't have looked at NM now]. I disagree with criticism that editorial intervention equals “elitism” or a divine power from above. They are trying to do what other editors do. But it could be counter productive or defeat the characteristics of the new media. It might not be the right medicine.
Is there any way for readers to help control and improve the quality? Please help Andrew and Nich think. If we love the open participation of the new media, we should take care of it too, for our shared benefits.
Many suggest that using real names might help improve both the quality and responsibility. I am not sure, but I can understand the reasons. If we agree for now that it might help, how about two parallel sets of comments: one by those who use real names and one by those who don’t? (This would minimize the editor’s intervention as well.)
How about creating an incentive for real names and disincentive for the unnamed — such as reducing the font size of all unnamed comments to the degree of readability but with some efforts, while leaving the named comments to the normal size? Or how about allowing the named comments on the site for longer time than the unnamed comments (that shall be removed after a shorter period)?
Apart from the real name matter, how about a way for readers to vote to “trash” certain comments? E.G. providing a click for “Trash it” at the end of each comment and if x number of voters click it, that comment goes to the bin. The editor may override the votes. Then, the editors would look only those that are trashed to prevent a foul play, instead of having to screeening the quality of all comments.
13 nganadeeleg // Sep 17, 2008 at 9:25 am
Frankly, punditry on mainstream Thai politics is a completely unproductive waste of time
I agree, but it can also be a form of entertainment.
Also, Nich & Andrew have done their fair share of Punditry – whether that was done to get the site going, or part of a wider agenda I do not know, but I suspect this recent change in policy is an attempt to censor views that differ from the Jim Taylor’s of this site.
Thanks for the site – It was fun while it lasted
14 jonfernquest // Sep 17, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Ed Norton: “Actually, a couple of days ago, I spent sometime writing a comment …suggesting a bunch of references on vote-buying. However, that has never appeared. If that kind of post, linking to a bunch of comments and to some academic literature is outside the scope of NM, then I am wondering what is acceptable? Or is it that my post just disappeared in cyberspace?”
There is a problem with spam blocking software that puts posts with links into a spam bucket. Sometimes these postings get through, sometimes not.
I wouldn’t blame it on moderator intervention. Thank you for those postings, even though I didn’t get to read them.
Observer: “Apart from the real name matter, how about a way for readers to vote to “trash” certain comments? E.G. providing a click for “Trash it” at the end of each comment and if x number of voters click it, that comment goes to the bin.”
Doesn’t sound like freedom of speech. Delete what the majority doesn’t want to hear? No minority voice? That is “democracy”?
Editor (NF): Please note that the comment by Ed Norton is now available here. It has been saved from the spam filter. Sorry for any temporary inconvenience this may have caused.
15 matty // Sep 18, 2008 at 3:12 am
Yeah . . . nganadeeleg. I see what you mean.
So adieu NM but it was fun (while it lasted) to rant repetitively and to submit unimaginative point-scoring low-quality comments.
Bye.
16 Johpa Deumlaokeng // Sep 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Having watched the original online Thai discussion group on usenet, (crikey this really dates me) soc.culture.thai devolve into a childish playground, and currently observing the same trend, although at a slower pace occur over at ThaiVisa, I hate to admit it, but I am all for moderation of these forums.l And let me add that I would not be personally offended in the least if one of my comments were not published.
17 Masao Imamura // Sep 26, 2008 at 2:12 am
I think that promoting a culture of respectful disagreement and open discussion/debate on vital social issues in mainland Southeast Asia is far more important than providing unlimited space for online comments. For that purpose, it is more effective for New Mandala to have a fewer contrasting opinions than a high volume of opinions which are rather indistinguishable from each other.
When I was working in northern Thailand I found it very frustrating that the access to academic literature was very limited. I felt that the academics kept their stuff to themselves. So New Mandala, accessible to any internet user, was a breath of fresh air. This blog’s strength is not that the commenting is open but that it has two very intelligent and effective editors/facilitators who provoke and moderate public discussion on a wide range of issues including sensitive ones. A successful blog with unique contents requires editors/facilitators with astute judgment and experience (whereas anyone could open a blog for unmoderated discussion).
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.