instruction:
Categorize the comment on the basis of obscenity. If the comment is obscene output Yes, otherwise output No.
question:
I wonder what portion of commenters on here are paid by special interest PR groups to push a specific agenda in the comments. My only complaint is the complete lack of subtlety...I mean come on, romance us, ease us into your rhetoric, don't just beat us over the head with it.
answer:
No

question:
Arun makes a number of good points and offers a perspective that undermines the demagogues of the right. The right loves simple easy answers to complex problems. They miss their responsibility for creating the conditions that make for a rich soup of angry people who don't see any way out. Of course we all know that the Iraqi war was the worst response, particular how the first six months were handled. Bush's team was arrogant. Blackwater was arrogant. Debathification was stupid, and arrogant. They left stock piles of bombs around Bagdad that slowly dissolved to become IEDs. And throughout this the words of support for Islam were undermined by the radical right. And it's gotten worse, much worse as Fox and team rally their troops to undermine considered actions that could both reduce the hatred and tension and increase our ability to deal with extremists on both ends...great insights!
answer:
Yes

question:
Yes, that is the review process we go through to comment. The three comments we see are determined by random chance, not by topic, author of the comment, or social psychology. The idea is you take a step back, look at some other random comment in another thread (with a click available to catch context), and rate that one as civil, or not.

I don't know about social engineering, that may be a bit too grandiose. I think of it as all of us pitching in to moderate, instead of depending on one person, or some software to screen words and phrases. We each spend our 10 second, and the system works better. I hope.
answer:
No