You shouldn't feel obliged to join or, even if you did, I think you should feel free to take about half a year to think it through. I first got interested in these issues in 1999 and I still don't think I know the answers. All we can do is our best and sometimes that takes a little while.

However, we do have one data point on what Shub meant by unpalatable feedback (UF). He also seemed to imply on 9th November that the comment concerned was good UF. And even the word good needs qualifying. What Shub seemed to imply was that the blog was better for the particular comment being here than not being here. That is what I suggest we mean by good. That's very different from something being right; it can be a weaker condition than right, certainly than 100% right, in any particular reader's view. But there may also be comments which one considers right but not good - for example, ones including a lot of swearing or phrases like "You must be a fucking idiot to believe that." One might agree with the speaker, that their expressed opinion is right but think the way they've expressed it is not good. In other words, the blog would be poorer for that comment remaining unsnipped, even though it's 'right'.

So, to get us started, when Shub used unpalatable feedback he had one comment in mind and I think he was implying that that unpalatable feedback was good, in the sense I've defined it here. And I myself wasn't far away from the same opinion.

Dung: You're right that I never got into massively multi-user games. But I think there are potential lessons in many diverse places on these issues. I like the sound of your guild in WoW and of the freedom of choice people have to join it or, if they prefer, others with different rules. We may not have quite such a range of choice with sceptic blogs, as far as rules are concerned, but that doesn't mean we can't auto-correct within one good one, as you rightly say.

At this point I'm trying to define terms rather than express my own view. One of the next things I was thinking about was the spectrum of good and bad, specifically bringing in the role of the host. So perhaps:

bad-s
bad-w
good-w
good

In due course I might be proposing a new category: good-r. But I don't think we should rush at that.

s stands for snipped by the host
w stands for subject to a warning from the host.

Any ideas on why I have both good and bad in the second case?

As far as real names being a new idea, Ward Cunningham released the first wiki in early 1995 and asked for Real Names Please in that first release and from then on. So from where I'm coming it's not so new.

As a little diversion, that last paragraph led me to re-read my own words on Ward's Wiki from at least seven years back, maybe more:

There is only one page that I started on Wiki that every time I come back to it gives me guaranteed, massive pleasure, often causing loud guffaws.

ThankYou, Wiki, for what you have done with WikiRewritesHistory. Anonymous all. Indeed, anonymity at its coolest. -- RichardDrake

It's still true that Wiki Rewrites History, which I began in early 1999, immediately followed by an enigmatic comment by Ward himself, makes me laugh. It just did again. And it's still the case that there are no (real) signatures all the way down. Wonderful and remarkable.

No matter. I didn't start this expecting massive numbers to join and I have no bad feelings towards anyone not doing so, though I would be fascinated to know what Martin A said that was "[deleted - i misunderstood something]"! It was that edit of a comment that made me suspect that I was missing something by not being a registered user here. And so it has proved. Thanks Martin and Squarespace.

And I've just learned of a wonderful example of good-w that occurred on WUWT two days ago, with Anthony saying to 'Science_Author' (without deleting his post, which I'd definitely class as good-w):

REPLY: Ignore him. This denial of the greenhouse effect is just more CRAP from Doug Cotton under another one of his FAKE NAMES to get around the fact that he’s been banned from WUWT for thread bombing with Principia junk. He and the whole crowd of slayers can take a flying leap. Doug, let me be clear. You are creating fake email addresses. One more incident and I launch a complaint against your ISP. Now, for the last time GET OUT – Anthony

I note that this is now being discussed on another BH thread - so I think there is an interest in anonymity after all :) But when I wrote earlier "I have had real contempt in my heart for ... the refusal to face up to, or the casual belittling of, bad behaviour in this area" I have to clear Anthony Watts on all counts!

But that's to take the light-hearted view. How much precious time has been wasted, for Anthony, Jeff Id and many others, with these sly attempts to subvert social norms on brilliant (but demanding to moderate) climate blogs by these pathetic characters? Such great people's time is far more important than mine. So my passion is also in gear. But that also means the analysis of what might be done better to counter such attacks has to be the best.

I admit that I barely looked at that discussion and wasn't aware of your own contribution. On the dynamics of the incredibly complex system we call atmosphere (and that and every other term it seems is so misleading, including of course greenhouse) I tend to follow what Jonathan Jones wrote in his memorable first 'real name' venture here in February 2011:

Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

I trust people like Lindzen and Held in this way, having read them as carefully as I can - and I also applaud the amateurs who have a go in places like this as well.

But I abhor the misuse of pseudonymity to subvert the social system of blogs in such an important area of debate, by the likes of Doug Cotton and his deceptions, and by the likes of mydogsgotnonose and his many shape-shifting aliases around here. Anthony Watts, Andrew Montford and co have better things to be doing with their time than dealing with that kind of thing. I'm sure you agree with me on that.

Did you read the comment by Anthony Watts and merely find it amusing? Doesn't it make crystal clear his view of pseud abuse by Doug Cotton and how much useless time it has wasted for him and the whole WUWT moderation team? Hasn't our own host had to consider, then start to snip, then sometimes ban a whole variety of pseuds as well, including the very shifty BBD? (I gave another absurdist as an example in my last post but even if you think they/he/it is the greatest brain since Einstein the principle of his abuse of pseudonymity is the same.) Don't you agree that the cost of dealing with the dark side of the pseudonymous has been unproductive for Andrew, compared to writing his latest book, say? Do we really need a statement from him on that? Isn't it blindingly obvious?

Anthony Watts has become angry with one man

No - he wrote: "He and the whole crowd of slayers can take a flying leap." What's interesting here is how naturally slayers take, without any conscience, to abusive use of pseudonyms to try and advance their cause or (in my view, in the worst cases) to distract and destroy the credibility of genuine, thoughtful sceptics.

However AW has never suggested that the answer is for all his followers to use real names.

Neither have I. Was does that have to do with it? We're not talking solutions here but about the nature and scope of the problem - like the time Simon Abingdon, Jonathan Jones, Martin A, Jeremy Harvey and many others spent on MDGNN's impossible-to-decipher ideas in seven pages of Radiative transfer - with Jonathan, Martin and Jeremy, at least, being scathing about the guy once they'd really looked into it. But he managed to divert attention for that long of some very valuable people, both names and nyms, I care not. And by October the same guy in different pseudonogarb felt happy to interrupt and confuse a key visitor Chris Hope. It's not the only time.

The decisions are not ours to make on moderation but, if we do the thinking well, who knows when and where such analysis and proposals for action will become useful. Thanks for the interaction for that end :)

One pint of cider earlier in the day is more than I normally do. Sorry :)

Let's get back to what unpalatable feedback means. Unpalatable refers to the reaction of someone. In the case Shub was dealing with that person was Nic Lewis and the UF was from Mailman. I think it's simplest to start with that as the model: person A says something and person B gives feedback suggesting that A is wrong in some way.

Now in some cases A may at once welcome the feedback of B, in fact (and I've seen it here on Bishop Hill, remarkably enough) they may at once take B's point as correct. But I think UF should mean here any feedback that might be unpalatable to A because it suggests that they are wrong in some way.

Nobody in their right mind is going to say that all UF is harmful - it is mostly brilliant, as Shub was suggesting. But there are a small number of cases where UF is bad - indeed, some cases where it is bad-s, or snipped. There were two striking examples of that in the last ten days on Martin A's BBC Tipping Point thread, from someone calling themselves Anon, who I took to be responding critically to me. You can see my responses here and here. In the second case I began:

Who is asking you to believe that? Steve Messham. There are people of his age and background who have never googled anything. But I'm not asking you to believe him. It's a free country. Perhaps you want to go further and libel Lord McAlpine directly, using Bishop Hill as your medium and 'Anon' as your user name. How courageous that would be and how thoughtful to the host of this blog.

This also serves as a good example of my contempt - not for all nyms, not even for a small group of them, but for an individual who has just really misused this priviledge. I was delighted when the host snipped the original in that case but I couldn't be totally sure he would. There'd been an earlier post which pointed to similar material about McAlpine and others that hadn't been. The host cannot be expected to follow every link from every post here. Perhaps my sarcasm in this case helped to pinpoint the culprit. I don't know. But all of this takes time - for more than one person, most likely. It's not productive time.

But we have here two examples of UF that was at once deemed bad-s. And I think we've got a working definition of UF to boot.