I haven’t talked to my co-bloggers about this, but I’m taking this opportunity to repost the posting rules. If I say something out of line, I’m sure they will set me straight. In other words, to quote the Vigilantes of Love, "I could be wrong, I could be wrong, but I really don’t think so."
We have had about four examples of threads which have degenerated into hellish examples of ugliness while us regular posters have been on vacation.
Quit it.
I will be the very first to admit that I have, on occasion, responded inappropriately to people. I’m not as good at setting the tone as Moe was. But people… please try to respond to ideas. Please try to explain ideas. Please try to come up with ideas. Please try to think things through. Please respond to people who disagree with you without becoming monsters. I think we have an excellent site here, and it is one of the few places where people have been able to come from different sides to talk about lots of different things. The blogosphere doesn’t need dKos III, FreeRepublic IV, LGF V, or heaven help us WashingtonMonthly II.
So I’m reposting the posting rules. But as we know from the discussion of law around here, the letter of the law doesn’t always cut it. Fortunately we are all adults here, (or if you aren’t we are going to give you the courtesy of treating you as one) so think about the spirit of the rules–pointed discusssion without vilification. So without further discussion, the posting rules…
Be reasonably civil.
No profanity. For the record, ‘hell’, ‘damn’ and ‘pissed’ are not considered ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule; also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule
Don’t disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.
Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.
Like Tac, we don’t ban for ideological reasons (unless you’re a Nazi or something equally vile) and/or simple disagreements (never mind that it’s not the easiest thing in the world to find someone who can manage to disagree with Katherine, von and me on the same topic). We’re all adults here, so I’m sure that this should be sufficient – with one caveat: there are a couple of notable trolls out there who will be banned the moment that they show up. As of 1:18 PM EST, Sunday, November 30, 2003, they haven’t, so if you’ve made a post here before then I’m not talking about you.
Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool).
UPDATE (05/19/2004): As you may have noticed, we delete and ban spambots on sight. This is because comments sections are for original and/or interesting thoughts, not mass postings. Therefore, please note that if I come across a overly-long comment that is obviously a cut n’paste job, out it goes, no apologies, no regrets. Small cut n’pastes are fine; entire articles are not: when in doubt, it’s too long. Mind, if you have seen or made a comment elsewhere that would be perfect for a particular thread, you are more than welcome to link to it; just don’t give us the entire thing. We don’t have unlimited storage space.
ANOTHER UPDATE (10/24/2004): Calls for the assassination of any politician will be subject to immediate banning. An exception is made for legitimate military targets in time of war; due to the unique nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, members of the Palestinian Authority are to be considered ‘politicians’ for the purpose of this rule.
The above should be explicitly not read as being a prohibition on (but is not limited to) criticism, vituperation, espousal of conspiracy theories, disagreement, speculation on personal habits and/or motivations, expressions of contempt, unfavorable extrapolations of past behavior in order to guess future behavior, mild cursing or any other traditional method of expressing disapproval with a politician’s policy positions or personality, provided of course that such behavior does not violate another of the Posting Rules.
I thought that I would chime in here and say that my new year’s resolution is to try and follow the letter _and_ spirit of the posting rules and I invite anyone who feels that I don’t do this in the coming year to call me on it.
You could be wrong, but IMHO, you’re not. Good time to revisit the rules…and thanks for doing so.
Aw, hell. I’m damn well pissed.
(just wanted to give it a try)
Thanks. I was worried that I might run out of knock-knock jokes.
Like Tac, we don’t ban for ideological reasons (unless you’re a Nazi or something equally vile)
I don’t mind discussing things with Nazis, as long as they’re polite.
I repeat myself (again):
“Apologies to the blog participants for getting ad hom (new sense) just now – von calls us to a higher tone and I bow in his general direction.”
I’m going to hew to this line in future – if I find myself in another pissing match on this blog, or riding someone (sorry about the pelting with Star Trek links, felixrayman), or losing patience, I’m just going to stop posting here. [Insert what lj said above here, where it’s more appropriate.]
Remember, you aren’t obliged to post in response to someone if you feel you would have to go off on them. Katherine doesn’t like to respond to me, I don’t respond to felixrayman, etc.
Just reminded by something I saw on CrookedTimber. There are very few things that could get you banned quicker than by making inflammatory statements under someone else’s name. If you impersonate one of the regulars (either the posters or the commentors) you are going to banned. If you make insightful comments under my name, I may show leniency. 😉
Amen. To all of the above.
SH, those of us who have a little debate background find it hard to let points go by (though I force myself to do so) – we’re trained to think that’s an admission of assent from the judge’s point of view (maybe this is the same in the law?), and in my opinion this mindset is partly to blame for the recent threadwreck I sadly contributed to. Anyway, would you consider adding your wise suggestion to the Posting Rules so I can point to it next time I need a reminder/reference?
Just about Con Law & nuclear proliferation, Sebastian. In one case it’s a subject I’ve spent a lot of time with, in another there’s a real but also irrational fear that it’s going to get a close friend or family member killed. And I think those are two hobby horses we share, and could not be further apart on. On many–most–other subjects I like you fine.
(Don’t take it personally; I also cannot discuss the electoral college with my husband.)
But yes, if someone or a particular thread is driving you round the bend–you don’t have to respond. You don’t even have to read it.
One thing Moe did right: he kept a light tone and made plenty of apolitical posts. Another thing he did right: he actually was willing to ban people. I once thought him too quick to do so, but I think that less and less.
I was no quicker on the trigger than anyone else–I’ve never banned and rarely warned.
I think an intermediate solution between warning and banning may be helpful. Perhaps disemvowelling. Perhaps a one week (or whatever period) suspension. Perhaps deleting individual posts, or locking threads.
The knock knock joke approach was not a bad one either, but I don’t think poor hilzoy could possibly keep up.
DeLong had an interesting take on this a few months ago. I’m not sure he’s right that the thread will be okay if the first five posts are okay.
also, people who consistently screw up their html should be banned immediately.
But…but…all Xs do eat babies!
Oops. Guess that means I’m gone.
“also, people who consistently screw up their html should be banned immediately.”
Hey, I’ve been earning good blogkarma here for months deitalicizing and debolding and so forth – don’t leave me a moral beggar.
The problem with the knock knock approach was that there was a lot of collateral damage. Many innocents were unable to avert their eyes in time and were not spared the horrible consequences.
Like Tac, we don’t ban for ideological reasons
Bad example; Taci would ban Alan Colmes.
Dare to be great, ObWi. Set your standards higher than Frederick, MD’s answer to Chas. Johnson.
What’s your debate background, rilkefan? Mine was APDA, which taught me that it’s much better to debate when drunk. Come to think of it, the lesson holds.
Bad example; Taci would ban Alan Colmes.
You can’t imagine my rage when I realized Harley was a Democrat.
Embittered obsessives strike again!
Embittered obsessives strike again!
I defer to your understanding of mental illnesses.
Can we have a posting rules thread without posting rules violations? Jadegold, your “Dare to be great” was kinda provocative in the context – I gritted my teeth at that section of SH‘s post but didn’t feel I had the moral authority to complain even if the context allowed.
carpeicthus: “What’s your debate background, rilkefan? Mine was APDA.”
Just did standard non-parlimentary high school, badly.
Without attacking Tacitus (the blog or the man), my impression was that Moe was hoping for a kinder, gentler site here, and I was always surprised that he didn’t modify the borrowed rules to reflect that. I think it’d be wise to codify some of the unwritten rules that most or all of us are operating with, especially so that newcomers who visit here during a time of low moderator involvement don’t get the wrong idea.
In that vein, might I suggest a rule requiring posters to respect others’ good-faith choices with respect to anonymity?
And by “posters” I mean “commenters” of course.
Justa note. I just used cut-n-paste for all words after “the posting rules…”
What’s with the peevish bitterness toward me, Jadegold? You’d think I took your girlfriend away. Is it ’cause you got banned from tacitus.org? Not a good way to get me to rethink that, this. And, before we forget, you had promised in the thread you fled to talk more in depth about my personal depravity vis a vis my politics. Still waiting for that.
The elephant in the room here regarding posting rules violations is the general inability of folks like Jadegold and a few others — usually rilkefan, wilfred, Jesurgislac, and felixrayman — to react to my presence in any constructive manner. Whatever their reasons (embittered obsession does seem to cover it), my suggestion is that working on this problem will probably end up solving most of the “wrecked threads” that I’ve been in.
In the absence of working on this problem, consistent and fair enforcement of existing posting rules ought to cover it. But then, if that were in place, I suspect Moe would still be here, and Jesurgislac would not.
Tacitus: your suggestions about how we should do our job on this site have been noted.
A community without the witty insult or artful putdown strikes me as a bore. What, we are gonna be like all real nice to each other? I don’t know what your conversations are like, but I enjoy some amusement and outright laughter in mine, and seems there is banter among friends. Banter.
When Tacitus was enforcing posting rules fairly… and yes slack should be given regulars, so maybe some unfairness is acceptable…but the insult became an art form, somewhere above screeching and coprophilia, and a mite below Parker and Levant. I enjoyed that comment section.
A posting rule suggestion: if a comment makes the majority or readers smile or laugh, it gets cut some slack.
The elephant in the room here regarding posting rules violations is the general inability of folks like Jadegold and a few others — usually rilkefan, wilfred, Jesurgislac, and felixrayman — to react to my presence in any constructive manner. Whatever their reasons (embittered obsession does seem to cover it), my suggestion is that working on this problem will probably end up solving most of the “wrecked threads” that I’ve been in.
And it would not have anything to do with the fact you are an obnoxious, condescending and arrogant individual.
Hope I haven’t violated any posting rules.
DQ: Yes, alas, you have.
Sorry!
I just went over to the Washington Monthly and read a thread–please, please let’s not go there. What makes this site unique is that people take the time to write out a complete thought or series of thoughts, not just oneliners and gotchas.
Wait…is Tac complaining about the lack of consistent and fair enforcement of posting rules here on ObWings?
My irony meter just exploded.
Some observations about conversations and structure, from a frequent reader and less frequent participant at both this site and Tacitus, which is a useful comparator. And two suggestions.
The conversation here is structured linearly, not threaded-nested. On Tacitus, if a few people are engaged in a food fight, it can stay within its own little nest and not ruin the whole thread for everyone else. You can, in fact, avert your eyes easily. So a moderator can let it run without intervening, especially if the protagonists seem to enjoy throwing food at each other and it’s staying fairly well-contained.
The threads that become trainwrecks at Tacitus are usually where the original post sets off the polarity, and then it’s tough to save it. One method Tac would use before Redstate would be to intervene in the middle of one of the about-to-be messes and pull the attention to him, so the combatants stopped throwing things at each other. He was most successful when he wouldn’t “take sides” in a food fight but would get both sides reacting to his comments. He could then indirectly influence the tone of the thread and signal through his choice of tone with different commenters who was getting out of hand. That he tended to be more sensitive to outrages from those who don’t share his political culture is to be expected. Evenhanded he is not, but as we all say, “It’s his site.”
Without Tac around, it was possible, although with some effort, to produce useful sidebar conversations even under a particularly inflammatory post. The best technique there, of which Ken White is the master, is to use the “yes,.. but what about” rather than the “no,…and what’s more” form of intervention. The key is to disagree without making a point of disagreeing. You can make a pointedly constrasting remark but engage people constructively. It’s amazing how they calm down and start talking something approaching sense because they feel their ideas are being taken somewhat seriously. You just start out with a tiny bit of agreement and then make your own point, or even, shall we say, rebuttal.
It’s also remarkable how quickly things get off track when the “no, and what’s more…” is adopted — it’s why Mac could never be a moderator, because the subtext to his reaction is always a terse “you’re wrong.” When pushed to explain himself, it usually becomes “Let me speak slowly, you’re wrong because [piece of evidence], stupid!” That Mac may have been technically correct doesn’t really matter. Folks read that sort of response as being totally dismissive of not only their ideas but of them personally, and the fireworks start, ships pass in the night, and a trainwreck is just around the bend.
It seems to me the key to the most enjoyable and successful conversations on this site is when the original post is stimulating but not partisan, and when folks don’t get caught up in fisking every reply. Let’s start with the post itself. By not partisan, I mean that the thrust of the post presents a problem that has more than one dimension to it — it’s not either-or — even though the occasion for discussing the problem may be an action or statement by a Republican or a Democrat. The subtext isn’t condemnatory of one side or the other — the implicit “all X eat babies”. Nor is the subtext glee or gloating at the other side’s misery.
So for all Katherine’s condemnation of the Bush Admin vis a vis rendition, there was no suggestion that people who vote for Bush are twisted torturers, but rather that people from all political persuasions might have a variety of views on the specifics of what is, in fact, a difficult policy issue. And one’s partisan leanings didn’t immediately mean someone was going to see things fully in lock-step with either administration policy or total opposition to it. Given, it’s a policy that can have horrific consequences for individuals, but nonetheless it was treated as a legitimate policy issue within the context of trying to effect a change in legislative and executive processes. Passion and reason well-combined. If the moderators/posters here want a successful site, they should periodically do a group assessment (off site please) of which posts led to particularly fruitful conversations and which didn’t, and try with some objectivity to assess why and apply those lessons going forward.
Sometimes, however, even with a well-framed post, the comments go spinning out of control. That goes back to the linear structure problem. And there’s where first and foremost some self-discipline is in order. The Tacitus posting rules really don’t get to the heart of the problem. Rather, it’s the final point Sebastian made above that we don’t always have to answer everything we disagree with; we don’t always have to have the final word.
It would be nice if the compulsive debaters here didn’t shift quickly into “leave no opposition point unanswered” mode. That all too easily degenerates into a series of tedious (and almost unreadable) posts that fisk someone else’s replies, which is no more than pointscoring. It’s also basically lazy and poor debating, because it doesn’t pull the little spats over the specific points being contested back into the debate.
It’s too much to expect that people will abandon their enjoyment of tit-for-tat sparring if that’s the style they get off on. But moderators can call out folks who are engaging in food fights rather than contributing ideas or information. What you need is the equivalent of a “time out,” rather than “go to your room.”
It usually takes at least two to tango, so I’d suggest that when a squabble gets going that a moderator ask those who are engaging in the unconstructive behavior “A, B and C — what’s your point?” Or “closing statements, everybody.” The combatants then are effectively forced either to shut up or to restate what they think was the error or outrage of the other and what their own position is. That means they have to take a moment to think, sythesize and restate, rather than simply react by hitting back at a perceived assault.
In addition to the “time out” benefit of a technique like that, it produces a lot more readable thread, because it doesn’t require following each little twist and turn of pointscoring — espsecially if there have been intervening comments by folks who are actually trying to talk constructively on-topic. If a combatant doesn’t come back with a responsive comment, but rather keeps on with “he said a bad word” or “it’s his fault,” it’s pretty obvious to the rest of the commenters. What typically will happen will be some shunning or booing by those who weren’t engaged in the fight, and the other ones who were fighting don’t feel as compelled to respond to the combatant who remains out-of-line.
This technique works well in small groups ftf. Why not give it a try here?
bob mcmanus adds the other element that’s essential. Humor. Hey, if you can’t laugh…
Here are two suggestions for the posting rules:
1) there shall be no discussions about Michael Moore unless the original post raises the topic.
2) there shall be no discussions about how Tacitus runs his (entirely separate!) sites or whether or not he or his political opponents are bad people, condescending, stupid, mentally ill, or otherwise deficient.
I’m kidding. Kind of.
But look everyone–sometimes pissing contests can save lives.
The idea that the Freedom Fry Congress may have inadvertantly helped hundreds or thousands of tsunami victims in Southeast Asia is doing more to cheer me up today than any number of inspirational stories from Paula Zahn. (Actually, I am relieved and surprised and glad that the press is covering it so much even if the coverage is occasionally cringe-inducing. This can be an incredibly, unbelievably generous country, but only when we know and see what’s going on.)
(and nadezhda, that was in no way directed at your comment, which was a useful example & very very good advice–which I myself need to follow sometimes–our posting times just crossed.)
Well, thinking about this (I’m a little slow and in another time zone) I think a lot of the problem has been mind reading. I notice a general eschewment (if that’s a word) of actual quotations in favor of ‘what x says is…’ followed by some restatement that intends to highlight whatever zinger the person wants to zing. Edward’s threads seem to have attracted the biggest blow up, and that seems to be underpinned by the thought that any criticism of the admin’s actions is motivated solely by hatred of Bush. Von’s citing of Tac’s essay leads to a focus on extracting quotes from Sontag that put her in the worst possible light. Edward just suggested that I use less quoted material in that dead horse post (I quoted an entire article from Jakarta Post that was behind the registration wall) He has a point, but if the conversation is reduced to one liners, we might as well have a ‘yo mamma’ thread.
I also think there is a second point lurking through recent posts. Edward suggests that the admin should have been more on the ball, Charles cites Schwartz arguing that other Muslim sects form a defense against Wahhabism. The point. Police your own. At the risk of being accused of trying to score points, please look at who most often plays thread mommy among you and shift the burden accordingly.
And everyone else, I urge you to call people out _on your side_. I will try to do so (and given my handle, no points on guessing which side that is)
Start writing here on Friday, posting rules warning on Monday. I hope I haven’t ruined another site. 😉
This can be an incredibly, unbelievably generous country, but only when we know and see what’s going on.
Unfortunatly this rarely happens since the major networks are usually to busy covering dramatic events (OJ, Scott Petersen) instead of what the US goverment is up to and how it will affect them or what various corporations are up to.
The elephant in the room here regarding posting rules violations is the general inability of folks like Jadegold and a few others — usually rilkefan, wilfred, Jesurgislac, and felixrayman — to react to my presence in any constructive manner
Pot, kettle, black, etc.
Calling me an “embittered obsessive” (as one example among many) is not reacting to my presence in a constructive manner. It is, in fact, an example of the root problem here – people violate posting rules and nothing is done about it.
You often react to people of a certain ideological bent with ad hominem attacks, commonly when an argument isn’t going your way. That seems to be the unremarked room pachyderm here lately.
You often react to people of a certain ideological bent with ad hominem attacks
Felix, people who live in glass houses or something like that.
Felix, I suggest you read the Sontag post and then post your observations on the aforementioned topic.
Try not to make it personal I’d say. Saying X is bad because [insert cliche} has never improved the discussion, QED even in this thread. Go for the ball, not the player.
I find that both on the right and on the left people on occassion take the bit between their teeth and run wild. Quite a number of times they rethink afterwards and make amends through apology or explanation: a great contribution towards the civility of the blog.
But the major thing is that one should play the ball and not the player imho. In the posting rules I would remove the consistently in “Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.”
Dutchmarbel: But the major thing is that one should play the ball and not the player imho. In the posting rules I would remove the consistently in “Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.”
I’d agree with that.
I like the declared policy of the ObWing collective, that they pay more attention to people reporting those who are politically on their wing, as it were, for breaches of the posting rules, than they do to those reporting people for whom they’re in political opposition.
A while ago in a discussion on Political Animal about “what is a troll” I wrote:
But I agree with what several people have said upthread: when an argument gets nasty, the right thing to do is to walk away from the argument. I’m not good at doing this, and my New Year’s Resolution for the blogosphere is to try to be better at it.
But I still hold by one thing I said: It’s important to remember that what’s outrageous to one person is a commonplace to another.
This has been an excellent thread, on the whole, which I think would merit being linked to from the Posting Rules.
I think LJ’s point — echoed by several others — that “calling out” is more respected and has more authority if done by the “side” of the offending commenter is certainly true.
But this doesn’t work when the core problem is the dynamics of foodfights, not a single perp. True, the nastiness may have started from one egregious offender, but it only becomes a problem if others pile on.
In that situation, it’s actually more productive to point to a group who are engaging in highly disruptive behavior and tell them they’re misbehaving. My specific suggestion was to “call them out” by saying “what’s your real point?” to the group, not just to a single person.
If individuals insist on defending themselves — “wasn’t me, it was him,” or “she started it,” at least the energy devoted to combat has been diverted to arguing with the intervenor, which usually makes them look silly at best. And if combatants want to keep talking about the issue, they’ve got to stop and restate their view of the discussion, which is more likely to elevate the tone if not the content of the thread.
First, to Rilkefan: Given the number of times you’ve correctly corrected me, I’d welcome your presence in pretty much any thread.
Second: I’ve just about reached my limit with respect to the choruses of “Tacitus is a bad person” whenever he shows up. Address the arguments, not the person.
Third, and related to #2: Recognize that there is a difference between an rough attack on an argument (“what an idiotic, morally bereft thing to say) and an attack on a person (“X is an idiot, and without morals”), which doesn’t address and (intentionally or not) distracts from the argument. The former can be acceptable; the latter (an “ad hominem”) is not.
Fourth: Understand that, if you really want to persuade those on the fence, it is almost always a mistake to engage in a rough argument on either an idea or a person. Trust me: The screamers seldom win.
My final editorial point would be to note that Tacitus clearly understands the difference set forth in No. 3, above, but sometimes fails to heed the warning in No. 4.
And that is the absolute last thing that I’m going to say on this particular subject.
I have a question.
I’m a foul-mouthed English m*****f*****, and generally speaking I don’t tend to edit out the places I’d swear in real life when posting on the internet. Some may feel that makes me a bad and wrong person, especially my mother, but what’s outrageous for some is commonplace for others. I try to abide by the rules at ObWi, but in at least one recent post I have missed a swearword and hit post, then have been unable to get it back to edit it out. I mentioned it in a followup comment, but is there an easier way to get things like this dealt with? Of the regular posters, who has the capacity to edit comments — should I just drop an email off to everyone and let whoever gets it first go and wave the magical asterisk wand?
FWIW, if anyone feels the need to swear and they can’t get their fix over at Crooked Timber, you can use any words you want at my blog. Not that I’m posting much, but it feels only fair to offer it as a sanctuary of bad language.
Third, and related to #2: Recognize that there is a difference between an rough attack on an argument (“what an idiotic, morally bereft thing to say) and an attack on a person (“X is an idiot, and without morals”), which doesn’t address and (intentionally or not) distracts from the argument. The former can be acceptable; the latter (an “ad hominem”) is not.
I think that is also what I mean when I say play the ball, not the player. Bringing up kids makes you (or me at least 😉 ) very aware of the fact that you should say “that behaviour is bad” instead of “you are bad” more or less all the time.