Quiz: Are you qualified to be a HuffPost Moderator?

.

Do you have what it takes to be a HuffPost Moderator? By the time you finish this quiz, we'll both know for sure!

Some background:

Since at least March 2008 (and to some extent since October 2007), the job of being a HuffPost Moderator has centered on on three primary tasks:

1. To review all the comments that are submitted by users on its news story pages
   
   
2. To decide which of these to comments to publish, and which to reject
   
   
3. To decide which users to ban
   

To guide both users and Moderators, HuffPost established and articulated nonpartisan comment policies, which dictate that comments:

• Must be on-topic (pertaining to the topic of the thread).
  
  
• Must not harass other users, or attack them on a personal (ad hominem) basis, or with vulgarity, defamation, libels, etc.
  
  
• Must not engage in hate speech, such as using slurs relating to race, sexual orientation or gender, ethnicity, etc., or celebrate anyone's sickness or death.
  
  
• Must not contain threats.
  
  
• Must not break any laws, or encourage anyone else to do so.

Here, in Ms. Huffington's own words, are HuffPost's basic principles regarding comments:

• "We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments – such comments are taken down as quickly as they come to the attention of our moderators." (3/20/08)
  
  
• "If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post." (5/6/05)
  

And as Ms. Huffington confirmed in a July 2008 interview, the only comments that appear anywhere on HuffPost are those that a human moderator has reviewed, approved and decided to publish. In fact, when asked to identify the biggest mistake HuffPost made since its 2005 debut, she replied:

"From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site... [O]ur comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted).

"We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news."

Of course, some user comments may not fit neatly into a "publish" or "reject" paradigm. That's why one must possess a certain ethical standard, and rapid decision-making abilities, to be a successful HuffPost Moderator.

With a recent $25 million investment by a prominent hedge fund, and some of the best technical talent in the industry, HuffPost is far better suited than almost any other blog to equip its army of Moderators with the tools and support necessary to fulfill their duties.

So --- do you think you're qualified to become a HuffPost Moderator?

Let's find out, with this [satirical] quiz!!!

===============

Questions (1)-(3) pertain to one user, "kevenseven," who has a rather "colorful," four-year, 50,000-comment history on HuffPost. See a summary of the incidents described below here, and detailed documentation here.

===============

(1) A user submits a comment that threatens/urges the murder of President Bush.

===============


In December 2007 (soon after HuffPost began pre-moderating user comments on news stories, to some degree), HuffPost published a news story about how the White House is considering methods of revamping President Bush's public image. In response, "kevenseven" submits a comment for your review, in which he claims:

"The first step is to cut off his freaking head."

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject the comment, immediately & permanently ban him, and send a courtesy email to the U.S. Secret Service with his IP address

(b) Approve and publish this comment

If you picked (a), what, are you running for the Dudley Do-Right Award? WRONG.

The correct answer is (b). C'mon, it's Bush, for God's sake!!! See here for detailed documentation of the above, and here for an overview of HuffPost's enabling, protection and emboldening of "kevenseven."

It's different when leftists urge the murder of the president. After all, no one would really take such an appeal to murder seriously, or act on it... would they? Besides, federal law doesn't apply to radical leftists. Remember, dissent (and threats against Republican presidents) are the highest forms of patriotism.

See the following articles for additional examples of HuffPost enabling, protecting and emboldening radical leftists who urge or threaten violence against non-leftist public figures --- and even protectees of the Secret Service:

• 5/2/09: HuffPost users: "Hey, someone should murder President Bush!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")
  
  
• 4/12/09: HuffPost Users: "Hey, Let's Murder Bankers!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")
  
  
• 3/23/09: HuffPost Users: "Hey, Let's Commit Murder!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

Also, here is a detailed, special report on HuffPost's (actual) moderating policies:

HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis

===============

(2) "Guess what? Agents XXXXX and XXXXXX of the U.S. Secret Service came to my house, because of my threat against Bush on HuffPost!!!" "No XXXX!!!!" "Yup, they're total losers!!!"

===============

In April-May 2008, soon after HuffPost formally announced it had begun pre-moderating all user comments on all news threads, "kevenseven" submits comments to you containing:

(1) His admissions that he received an in-home interview with the U.S. Secret Service for the above comment, and others he made on HuffPost, containing threats and urgings of violence against its protectees

(2) The names of the Secret Service agents who interviewed him

(3) Vulgar personal insults against these agents

(4) His boasts that his "cred" with activists in his area is "way up," because (he claims) he kicked the agents out of his home

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject the comments, immediately & permanently ban him, and send a courtesy email to the U.S. Secret Service with his IP address

(b) Approve and publish these comments

If you picked (a), who do you think you are, the Morality Police? WRONG.

The correct answer is (b). See here for detailed documentation. Think about it --- the U.S. Secret Service? The U.S.S.S.? It even sounds fascist. Those agents deserve to be insulted, for voluntarily protecting a treasonous monster like Bush --- and hassling a good HuffPoster in his home for threatening/urging that he be murdered.


===============

(3) "What do you think those Secret Service agents will do when they read that you called them 'rejects from the Blues Brothers' [on HuffPost]?"

===============

Having seen "kevenseven's" bragging about his threats against President Bush, and the in-home visit he got by the Secret Service, another user, "BreakingnewsJustintime," submits comments to you that denounce him for these actions --- and particularly, for outing and insulting the U.S.S.S. agents, by name.

In response, "kevenseven" submits comments to you containing vicious insults against the other user, explaining that he doesn't care about offending the U.S.S.S.

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject "kevenseven's" comments, and immediately, permanently ban him

(b) Approve and publish "kevenseven's" comments, without delay

(c) Ban "BreakingnewsJustintime" (as well as all others who object to "kevenseven's" threats, urgings of violence, etc.)

(d) Continue protecting "kevenseven," enabling him to post another 20,000 comments, under the same screen name, over at least 18 more months, during which he:
- Urges the murder of other conservative political figures
- Stalks other users (mostly women) and threatens their children (more here)
- Gloats over the "protected" status that HuffPost affords him

(e) (b), (c) and (d) are correct

If you picked (a), what are you, a talibangelical? WRONG.

The correct answer is (e). See documentation of all these incidents here.

After all, part of the job of a HuffPost Moderator is determining what kind of users make up the HuffPost commenting "community," and the tone of that environment.

Who wants to interact with a bunch of do-gooders?? Live on the edge, dude!!! And remember: it's wild-eyed leftists like these who live on the site 12-24 hours a day, during which they routinely submit between 200 and 650 comments. These are the people who drive our page views and refreshes, upon which our ad revenue --- and your paycheck --- are based.


===============

(4) To ban or not to ban, on a news thread dealing with the deaths of U.S. military personnel.

===============

On October 3, 2009, HuffPost published as its top news thread a story detailing the tragic deaths of U.S. soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Some users, radical leftists, attempt to "hijack" this thread in order to jubilantly post their favorite music, flirt, and more.

Another user, "Bravia Justicia," submits a comment protesting to these users' behavior, and said:

"This page is about our soldiers.
If you can't stay on that, there are lots of other pages to visit."

The other users react by submitting comments to you containing vicious condemnations of "Bravia," claiming that (a) they control the thread, (b) they put it to a "vote," and (c) order him to leave HuffPost.

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Ban the users who were posting music and other off-topic comments on this thread

(b) Approve and publish the comments made by these users, without delay

(c) Ban "Bravia Justicia," and any other users who dare to complain about them

(d) (b) and (c) are correct

If you picked (a), what, are you stupid? WRONG.

The correct answer is (d). See the documentation of this incident here.

C'mon, what's a few deaths of our soldiers, compared to HuffPost's unspoken obligation to ensure that radical leftists can post their music links and flirt with each other, on any thread they want --- even this one? And why should we allow some stick-in-the-mud like "Bravia Justicia" to interrupt the "groove" they got into, by suggesting that this is not the right thread for those kinds of comments?

Besides, as we allow many of these radical leftists to essentially "live" on HuffPost, they generate lots and lots and lots of page views, upon which our revenues are based. The user who complained was a total newbie!! Who cares what he has to say, or if he's banished (which caused the leftists to erupt in glee)??


===============

(5) To ban or not to ban, on a news thread dealing with death & devastation.

===============

On February 27, 2010, HuffPost published as its top news thread the story of the massive earthquake that struck Chile, and the fact that at least 200 people are known to have been killed, with many more injured.

Some users, radical leftists, submit comments to you that make fun of Chile and the victims ("NO MORE BEANS FOR CHILE!! --- HA HA HA!! LOL!!"). Another another, "Nocturnal Soleil," submits a comment to you that denounces these users for their cruelty and callousness.

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Ban the users who made fun of this tragedy and its victims

(b) Approve and publish the comments that made fun of this tragedy and its victims

(c) Ban "Nocturnal Soleil" and any other users users who complain about them

(d) (b) and (c) are correct

If you picked (a), what, don't you have a sense of humor? WRONG.

The correct answer is (d). See the documentation of this incident here.

See the rationale for why this is the correct answer in (3). Besides, we all know that only radical leftists are arbiters of compassion, morality and humor --- and these users didn't mean any harm, they were just having "fun." The user who complained was a total newbie!! Who gives a care what he has to say, or if he's banished??


===============

(6) To ban or not to ban, based on vicious, vulgar personal attacks --- depending on the race of the victim.

===============

HuffPost published as its top news thread the story of Gov. Sarah Palin's annual picnic in Alaska, after she resigned her office.

A number of users, radical leftists, submit comments to you containing attacks on Palin including that she's "white trash," "a whore," "a tramp," "a racist," and "a trailer park queen," and that her children are "political quacks," "breeders" and "sluts."

A new user, "Mirror Mirror," attempts to defend Palin, and submits comments containing exact copies of the above attacks, but reworded to be applicable to Michelle Obama.

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Ban all of the users who submitted these vicious, vulgar attacks, regardless of who was being targeted

(b) Approve and publish the comments that targeted Palin, but block the comments targeting Michelle Obama, then fast-ban "Mirror Mirror" for submitting them

If you picked (a), what, are you retarded? WRONG.

The correct answer is (b). See the documentation of this incidents here.
Palin deserves every one of these attacks and more, but Michelle does not. And if we Moderators have to break HuffPost's non-partisan (hah!) comment policy in order to drive that point home, then you have to be willing to join us; you're either with us or against us in this policy.


===============

(7) Nazis in the midst --- and a user who spoke out against one of them.

===============

In March 2009, a user, "KQuarksSuperKollider," submits a comment containing a gigantic ASCII "HEIL HITLER!!"

In July 2009, another user, "Poco767c," repeatedly submits a comment containing nothing but rows of ASCII swastikas. In response, another user, "Mir Observer," submits comments voicing his objection to "Poco's" use of swastikas.

In January 2010, in response to HuffPost's decision to twist a crime story to focus on an irrelevant Jewish aspect, "CaptainQueeg" submits a comment explaining that he's "Getting sick and tired of all of the Heebe's in this world."

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject the "comments" by "KQuarksSuperKollider," "Poco767c" and "CaptainQueeg" and immediately, permanently ban them

(b) In the case of "CaptainQueeg," surgically remove the above comment --- along with his explicit calls for violence against conservatives --- but leave him free to continue posting comments.

(c) Approve and publish all their comments, without delay

(d) Continue enabling and protecting these users to post tens of thousands of additional comments --- including "Poco," who went on to say, "I just hate Jews so much, with their big noses, silly sideburns... and controlling the world government..."

(e) Fast-ban "Mir Observer" for daring to condemn "Poco," and any other users who object to these users' "comments"

(f) (b), (c), (d) and (e) are correct

If you picked (a), what, are you a Zionist neocon pig? WRONG.

The correct answer is (f). See the documentation of these incidents here, here and here.

Are you totally unaware of how long we at HuffPost have made it a practice of inciting and tolerating anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred? We're not only unsurprised that there's a leftist-Islamist convergence underway (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) --- we're clearly part of it.

We have accepted the truth, that Israelis, Zionists and Jews are causing most of the problems in today's world. Between them and teabagging Republicans, can't leftists have a little fun, mocking and insulting them?


===============

(8) One user wants to spam blood libels against the U.S. military; another wants to provide facts that reveal them as false. Who to enable, and who to ban?

===============

In May 2009, other HuffPost moderators have been permitting a user, "rich misty," to spam every news story (no matter what the topic) for 14-18 hours a day with comments containing:

• His allegations that American soldiers sexually torture and murder Muslim women and children as a matter of "standard operating procedure"
  
  
• Links to a site that he claims has pictures "proving" his allegation

When other users challenge him, "rich misty" responds by claiming they (other users) are child rapists themselves, and should be thrown in jail. Another user, "David in Hartford," submits comments in rebuttal containing:

• Links to proof that these photos are fakes; they are pornography created to incite anti-U.S. military hatred in the Muslim world
  
  
• The photos are being hosted on a virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic hate site

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Ban "rich misty" for comment-spamming, and for making allegations that you know constitute blood libels against the U.S. military

(b) Approve and publish all of "rich_misty's" comments, without delay

(c) Prevent "David in Hartford's" comments from appearing --- then ban him, and any other users who oppose "rich misty"

(d) (b) and (c) are correct

If you picked (a), what, are you a propagandist for the military-industrial complex, or the Pentagon itself? WRONG.

The correct answer is (d). To see the documentation of the "rich misty" vs. "David in Hartford" incident, check out this special report: HuffPost's Protection Of Blood Libels Against The U.S. Military.

Do you really not know that American soldiers are bloodthirsty monsters,and that the get their kicks by capturing, sexually torturing and murdering Muslim women and kids. We at HuffPost have been on the cutting edge of revealing certain deplorable truths about the U.S. military. And even if we sometimes play fast and loose with the facts, we all know that the reality is probably far worse than what we depict, right? Examples:

4/5/10: HuffPost falsely smears the U.S. military, again; User hate-fest erupts (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

5/4/09: The HuffPost-alJazeera alliance: Fomenting (and approving) anti-U.S. military, anti-Christian propaganda, hate and libels

4/25/09: U.S. military "torture" pictures: Are they real, or are they (#$!*%)?

9/08: Official HuffPost blogger foments conspiracy theories, potential violence against U.S. military (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

===============

(9) An official HuffPost blogger spreads conspiracy theories, implicitly calls for his fellow radical leftists to engage in violence against U.S. soldiers.

===============

In September 2008, an official HuffPost blogger, Paul Peete, begins to spam every news thread (regardless of the topic) with a conspiracy theory regarding the deployment of the U.S. military within American cities.

He then goes on to repeatedly submit the following to you, on all of HuffPost's top news threads:

"I like the fact that many here are crying for a revolution or revolt. It is a little late but I know what it is to be a Revolutionary, I was arrested for inciting to riot in the Sixties. You have to be willing to kill or die to be a Revolutionary, I don't see Americans of today willing to do that. We let the Republicans steal our government, I am as guilty as all of you here.

"The whole fa$cist takeover that is in its final phase now. [...]

"The 3rd Army, the U.S. troops who were in Iraq for 3 tours in Ramadi as of Tuesday will be in charge of Urban unrest. This is life or death for Urban protesters. these troops are combat troops, not from your area like guard troops. Read the implications. Are you Patriots ready to face them?"

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject all such "comments" from Peete, and write a note to Ms. Huffington or another top executive, advising them of what he's attempting to post

(b) Approve and publish all of Peete's comments, without delay

(c) Enable Peete to get users banned who dare to voice opposition to him --- then to brag about the clout he has at HuffPost that made this happen

(d) Permit Peete to hijack other news threads so that he may flirt, discuss what gets him sexually aroused, etc.

(e) (b), (c) and (d) are correct

If you picked (a), what, do you really believe we don't need to take violent action against U.S. soldiers, representatives of the Bush-Cheney military industrial complex? Are you really that naive? WRONG!!

The correct answer is (e). See the documentation of these incidents here.

Peete may be a little rough around the edges, but he's a HuffPost "insider," and as such, he gets all the latitude we can give him, to "speak truth to power." Who cares if we allow him to break all of HuffPost's rules? Rules are made to be broken, right?


===============

(10) Users submit hate comments against Christianity and the U.S. military; another submits carbon-copies of them --- but against Islam.

===============

In May 2009, several HuffPost users, "MCMetal" and "wedgie" submit the following hate comments against Christianity, and the U.S. military:

"Spreading "democracy" and "Christianity" at the tip of an M-16 ; it's kinda' like trying to spread healthy living while force-feeding someone excrement."

"The religious right has long made it a priority to infiltrate the US military. They want to kill for their beliefs. [...] Jesus would be proud. He's heavily into body counts."

In response, another user, "New User 2," submits the following comments:

"Spreading Islamism; it's kinda' like trying to spread healthy living while force-feeding someone excrement."

"Islamists want to kill for their beliefs. Abroad and possibly at home as well. God help us all. Allah would be proud. He's heavily into body counts."

Which of the following would be the correct action(s) to take?

(a) Reject all such "comments," as they are all violations of HuffPost's comment policies.

(b) Approve and publish all of the hate comments by "MCMetal" and "wedgie" against Christianity and U.S. soldiers

(c) Permit "MCMetal" and "wedgie" to continue posting at will, without moderation

(d) Reject the hate comments submitted by "New User 2," and fast-ban him

(e) (b), (c) and (d) are correct

If you picked (a), what are you, a bible-thumper, or a warmongering Christofascist? WRONG!!

The correct answer is (e). See the documentation of this incident here.

Christians are destroying America and are causing the world to hate us. They deserve all the insults they get, even if it's against HuffPost policy to facilitate such comments.

And of course we will reject hate comments against Islam; that's a different situation. In case you didn't know, an estimated 135,000 or more of our monthly visitors are coming from two of the nations that are scapegoats for inciting and supporting "terrorism" --- Iran and Pakistan (see Section 4.3 here). But let's face it, the Islamic terrorist boogieman is getting old, and we don't want to alienate our Muslim friends.


===============

YOUR SCORE

===============

9-10 correct: When can you start? You're exactly the type of morally-depraved miscreant we're looking for.

6-8 correct: You need to loosen up. Watch the way things really work at Huffpost, then give us a call in a few months. And study up on the following reports, which will give you further clarification as to the types of users and comments we (really) want and protect, and which ones we get rid of --- fast:

"BlueStateMan" - Summary here, and detailed analysis here.
"HumeSkeptic" - Summary here, and detailed analysis here.
"LookToTheLeft" - See detailed analysis here.

Also see: HuffPost's protection of the most egregious violators of its "policies" --- and its banning of non-violators, on a minute-to-minute basis

4-7 correct: Have you thought about becoming a Wal-Mart security guard? You're a misfit and will probably never amount to anything good or worthwhile.

1-3 correct: You are the enemy. At best, you're a racist teabagger. At worst, you're a domestic political terrorist (but not like William Ayers, who's an official HuffPost blogger, because he also happens to be a radical leftist). Don't call us --- and we'll never call you.

.

.