Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   General comments on Bloggingheads.tv (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3871)

Brenda 09-03-2009 08:58 AM

Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Here's a draft of a comments policy we're considering. We look forward to your feedback.

COMMENTS POLICY FOR THE BLOGGINGHEADS COMMUNITY

We welcome all political viewpoints in the Bloggingheads forum, and encourage lively debate, but we do ask that you treat other commenters with common decency. We don’t like to censor* posts or ban people from the forum, but we do so when necessary to keep the environment from getting too ugly.

We particularly aim to keep the "Diavlog comments" subforum civil and on-topic, so we enforce a higher standard there than in the other two subforums.**

Here are our baseline rules for the "Diavlog comments" subforum:

#1 No name-calling aimed at fellow commenters or diavloggers.

#2 No gratuitously rude comments aimed at diavloggers.

#3 Use four-letter words sparingly, if at all.

#4 Use the vBulletin quote function only for real quotations.

Notes on the rules:

re: #1 Like most superficially simple rules, this one is easier to state than to enforce fairly—one man’s verbal abuse is another man’s fair and accurate characterization. Here are some examples of what we’d label name-calling: moron, idiot, asshat, wingnut, moonbat, troll—and, absent very good evidence: racist. (To be clear: We don't proscribe the use of such words, only their use as epithets against other commenters, either directly or by implication.)

re: #2 In particular, avoid derogatory or demeaning remarks about physical appearance and speaking style. Don’t forget that many diavloggers read the comments section.

re: #3 Fair warning: A post containing profanity that appears early in the comments (“above the fold” on the videopage) may be hidden from the videopage,* even if the post is loaded with insightful substance.

re: #4 We realize that sometimes commenters like to fabricate quotes for humorous or rhetorical purposes, but we think this compromises the integrity of the quote format. Readers should be able to trust that if something looks like a quote, it really is a quote.

* * * * *

*Note that we have two levels of post-removal: (a) “hiding” a post, which removes it only from the videopage (it can still be viewed in the forum), and (b) “deleting” a post, which removes it from both the videopage and the forum thread.

**The "Diavlog comments" subforum is the one that feeds comments from the vBulletin forum onto the videopage (directly below the diavlog). This subforum has exactly one thread per diavlog, and no other threads. The other two, less structured subforums are "General comments about Bloggingheads.tv" and "Life, the Universe and Everything."

bjkeefe 09-03-2009 09:07 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Probably worth making clear who will be, and who will not be, enforcing the comment policy.

Other than that, looks fine to me.

Lyle 09-03-2009 09:35 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Not that it matters, but I support this. Preferably moderators won't come from the commenting community either, if at all possible.

Brenda 09-03-2009 09:58 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 128250)
Preferably moderators won't come from the commenting community either, if at all possible.

Only BhTV staff will moderate comments. And maybe this is a good time to re-state for the record that the few non-staff forum members who've been deputized to delete spam are NOT authorized to moderate other posts and have NEVER done so. (When I first gave them the spam-deleting capacity, I unthinkingly accepted the default vBulletin "moderator" label for users with that level of access. Big mistake. I apologize for the confusion this caused.)

I think all the regulars know the deal, so how about knocking off the needling of the spambusters for their supposed "moderator" role? It's probably confusing the newbies.

And while we're on the subject: Much appreciation to our spam-deleting volunteers for their mostly unsung efforts at keeping the forum tidy. I don't thank you enough.

Lyle 09-03-2009 10:09 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brenda (Post 128253)
Only BhTV staff will moderate comments. And maybe this is a good time to re-state for the record that the few non-staff forum members who've been deputized to delete spam are NOT authorized to moderate other posts and have NEVER done so. (When I first gave them the spam-deleting capacity, I unthinkingly accepted the default vBulletin "moderator" label for users with that level of access. Big mistake. I apologize for the confusion this caused.)

I think all the regulars know the deal, so how about knocking off the needling of the spambusters for their supposed "moderator" role? It's probably confusing the newbies.

And while we're on the subject: Much appreciation to our spam-deleting volunteers for their mostly unsung efforts at keeping the forum tidy. I don't thank you enough.

My comment was not meant to needle anyone. Perhaps you aren't addressing me specifically though for there are those who give bjkeefe and whoever else a hard time about their perceived role at bh.tv.

Personally I like that none of bh.tv's moderators are commenters. I'd like it to remain this way if possible.

Brenda 09-03-2009 10:33 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 128255)
My comment was not meant to needle anyone. Perhaps you aren't addressing me specifically though for there are those who give bjkeefe and whoever else a hard time about their perceived role at bh.tv

Sorry, Lyle, I most definitely was NOT directing that at you, but at any regulars who've propagated the notion that some non-staff forum members are in the business of moderating comments other than spam. (I should have made that clearer.)

graz 09-03-2009 11:48 AM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
The evolution of bhtv.
Thanks for your efforts Brenda.

Comments policy, editorial clarity, spam-busting and hopefully more details about booking.

Rather than let the site mutate randomly, some intelligent design is being proposed. The timing seems (W)right.

TwinSwords 09-03-2009 12:00 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Brenda,
Thank you and the Bh.TV staff for putting this together, and for asking for feedback.

Couple of questions.

(1) Why the difference in language between rule #1 and rule #2? The first says "no name calling," while the second says "no rude comments." The "no rude comments" forumulation sounds much broader than "no name calling." Why not limit the 2nd rule to "no name calling" as well? (Or maybe "no name calling or rude comments about personal appearance.) Broadly defined, almost any legitimate criticism could be considered "rude."

Example: If it is my opinion that a particular diavlogger is consistently dishonest, and I believe that this diavlogger should be called on this dishonesty, can I say he or she is dishonest or lying? Presumably to do so would be rude in some sense, but quite possibly true.

(2) What about attacking groups of people? If I say the Republican Party is the Party of Race Hate, can every person on the forum who self-identifies as a Republican take it as a personal attack under rule #1? If I refer to tea-partiers as "tea-baggers," can everyone who went to a tea party claim that I have insulted them directly?

I am certain these questions will will arise once the policy goes into effect, so it may be worthwhile to clarify as much as possible at the start.

rcocean 09-03-2009 12:12 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
I disagree about not criticizing "Speaking Style". Many Diavlogers are terrible speakers but could get better if constructively criticized. Matt Y, for example, has gotten better over time by speaking lower and softer. At first his loud, high-pitched voice was almost intolerable.

Also, I agree its a good idea to backpage/delete those comments with insults like "Nazi" "Fascist" "Racist" "Wingnut" etc. These add nothing to the discussion.

thouartgob 09-03-2009 12:15 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
on rule #1 will there be a difference between calling out someone for what they say vs. what they "are" as in saying "that is a racist statement" or "that comes off as a racist statement" and calling someone racist ?

ps. there are such things as "trolls" as a phenomenon of life on a comment section and although it is used way too much as a simple bludgeon there is an argument for delineating what can arguably be called trolling or flaming or any number of soon be be created categories.

#2 Absolutely good idea. Should have been in place from day 1.

#3 Is there a list of proscribed words ( Carlin's 7 words or some analog ?) since "ass" "goddamn" and others that find themselves on prime time tv might be used without any foul intent. ?

#4 I take it the vbulletin means
Quote:

blah blah
and if so good idea.

rcocean 09-03-2009 12:19 PM

Racism
 
Most of the lefties here can't do anything else except call or imply that others are "racist". So I can see why they'd look for loopholes.

My suggestion: Just ban the word "racism" and "Racist" from the comments. Problem solved.

Brenda 09-03-2009 12:26 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 128268)
Why the difference in language between rule #1 and rule #2? The first says "no name calling," while the second says "no rude comments." The "no rude comments" forumulation sounds much broader than "no name calling."

Rule #2 is intentionally broader than #1. We'd like to maintain a somewhat higher standard when it comes to the diavloggers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 128268)
Broadly defined, almost any legitimate criticism could be considered "rude."

I actually meant to change that to "gratuitously rude." I've done so now. It's not meant to discourage legitimate criticism. But under this rule, comments such as "Ann Althouse is a stupid, stupid woman" would be considered off-base. (Sorry, AA-haters.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 128268)
Example: If it is my opinion that a particular diavlogger is consistently dishonest, and I believe that this diavlogger should be called on this dishonesty, can I say he or she is dishonest or lying? Presumably to do so would be rude in some sense, but quite possibly true.

This is one of the very hardest questions. I have a personal opinion about this, but I'd like to hear what others think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 128268)
What about attacking groups of people? If I say the Republican Party is the Party of Race Hate, can every person on the forum who self-identifies as a Republican take it as a personal attack under rule #1? If I refer to tea-partiers as "tea-baggers," can everyone who went to a tea party claim that I have insulted them directly?

Again, I'd like others to weigh in on this.

thouartgob 09-03-2009 12:27 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128271)
Most of the lefties here can't do anything else except call or imply that others are "racist". So I can see why they'd look for loopholes.

My suggestion: Just ban the word "racism" and "Racist" from the comments. Problem solved.

Howsabout "that was a moronic statement" vs. "you are a moron" ;-)

also the excessive use of smiley faces can something be done about that ;-D

AemJeff 09-03-2009 12:29 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brenda (Post 128239)
Here's a draft of a comments policy we're considering. We look forward to your feedback.

COMMENTS POLICY FOR THE BLOGGINGHEADS COMMUNITY

We welcome all political viewpoints in the Bloggingheads forum, and encourage lively debate, but we do ask that you treat other commenters with common decency. We don’t like to censor* posts or ban people from the forum, but we do so when necessary to keep the environment from getting too ugly.

We particularly aim to keep the "Diavlog comments" subforum civil and on-topic, so we enforce a higher standard there than in the other two subforums.**

Here are our baseline rules for the "Diavlog comments" subforum:

#1 No name-calling aimed at fellow commenters or diavloggers.

#2 No gratuitously rude comments aimed at diavloggers.

#3 Use four-letter words sparingly, if at all.

#4 Use the vBulletin quote function only for real quotations.

Notes on the rules:

re: #1 Like most superficially simple rules, this one is easier to state than to enforce fairly—one man’s verbal abuse is another man’s fair and accurate characterization. Here are some examples of what we’d label name-calling: moron, idiot, asshat, wingnut, moonbat, troll—and, absent very good evidence: racist. (To be clear: We don't proscribe the use of such words, only their use as epithets against other commenters, either directly or by implication.)

re: #2 In particular, avoid derogatory or demeaning remarks about physical appearance and speaking style. Don’t forget that many diavloggers read the comments section.

re: #3 Fair warning: A post containing profanity that appears early in the comments (“above the fold” on the videopage) may be hidden from the videopage,* even if the post is loaded with insightful substance.

re: #4 We realize that sometimes commenters like to fabricate quotes for humorous or rhetorical purposes, but we think this compromises the integrity of the quote format. Readers should be able to trust that if something looks like a quote, it really is a quote.

* * * * *

*Note that we have two levels of post-removal: (a) “hiding” a post, which removes it only from the videopage (it can still be viewed in the forum), and (b) “deleting” a post, which removes it from both the videopage and the forum thread.

**The "Diavlog comments" subforum is the one that feeds comments from the vBulletin forum onto the videopage (directly below the diavlog). This subforum has exactly one thread per diavlog, and no other threads. The other two, less structured subforums are "General comments about Bloggingheads.tv" and "Life, the Universe and Everything."

I hope we don't end up engaged in an endlesss to and fro over the details. I think these are pretty good guidelines that highlight the problems without being overspecific. I'd hate to see this turn into some endless list of proscriptive examples.

nikkibong 09-03-2009 12:33 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128269)
I disagree about not criticizing "Speaking Style". Many Diavlogers are terrible speakers but could get better if constructively criticized. Matt Y, for example, has gotten better over time by speaking lower and softer. At first his loud, high-pitched voice was almost intolerable.

Agreed. Appearances on BHTV are performances, and they should be judged as such.

We don't expect concert goers not to comment on singing voice!

thouartgob 09-03-2009 12:35 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 128274)
I hope we don't end up engaged in an endlesss to and fro over the details. I think these are pretty good guidelines that highlight the problems without being overspecific. I'd hate to see this turn into some endless list of proscriptive examples.

I think that a list of proscriptive examples would be funny, for a while at least. Actually creating a comment section called "stuff I would like to have said" would be cool, although the general comments or life, universe yada yada could be re-purposed with threads on a particular subject

thouartgob 09-03-2009 12:36 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 128275)
Agreed. Appearances on BHTV are performances, and they should be judged as such.

We don't expect concert goers not to comment on singing voice!

general comments section for that I say. You can create links to specific posts in other sections if I am not mistaken.

AemJeff 09-03-2009 12:37 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128271)
Most of the lefties here can't do anything else except call or imply that others are "racist". So I can see why they'd look for loopholes.

My suggestion: Just ban the word "racism" and "Racist" from the comments. Problem solved.

Nobody has said "racist" in response to what you've posted more than me, I daresay. I hope it's also obvious that my posts aren't limited to that one mode. It seems to me that if a label is arguably accurate, and particularly if it's in reference to a non-participant, then it would be in conformance with the guidelines as they've been stated.

I'd really hate to see a Carlin style list of verboten words.

TwinSwords 09-03-2009 12:42 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 128274)
I hope we don't end up engaged in an endlesss to and fro over the details. I think these are pretty good guidelines that highlight the problems without being overspecific. I'd hate to see this turn into some endless list of proscriptive examples.

The rules have to actually be enforced, and will be enforced either strictly or loosely, so someone is going to have to think in very concrete, specific terms sooner or later. The more public a fashion in which these decisons are made, the less able BhTV's critics will be to accuse them of bias.

No matter what happens, BhTV will be accused of unfair and ideologically biased enforcement, so again, it's probably worthwhile to understand precisely what is meant by these rules. No question yet raised in this thread will not come up again once the policy is in effect and being enforced. If BhTV clarifies the rules before putting them into effect, it will be harder for people to accuse them of making it up as they go along and applying enforcement in an arbitrary or biased fashion.

TwinSwords 09-03-2009 12:46 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128271)
Just ban the word "racism" and "Racist" from the comments. Problem solved.

Since racism is a very real feature of American life, and a deeply important feature of American politics, these words must be protected as a legitimate part of any dialogue.


.

AemJeff 09-03-2009 12:51 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 128281)
The rules have to actually be enforced, and will be enforced either strictly or loosely, so someone is going to have to think in very concrete, specific terms sooner or later. The more public a fashion in which these decisons are made, the less able BhTV's critics will be to accuse them of bias.

No matter what happens, BhTV will be accused of unfair and ideologically biased enforcement, so again, it's probably worthwhile to understand precisely what is meant by these rules. No question yet raised in this thread will not come up again once the policy is in effect and being enforced. If BhTV clarifies the rules before putting them into effect, it will be harder for people to accuse them of making it up as they go along and applying enforcement in an arbitrary or biased fashion.

I'm not saying there's no justice in your POV. My personal belief is that if you concentrate on the details, then the urge to "lawyer" every dispute is magnified, and the policy has the effect of enforcing a particular form, rather than deflecting conflict. If the rules are nebulous, and you trust the judgment of the enforcers, then (IMHO) the policy has a far better chance of achieving its aim.

nikkibong 09-03-2009 01:07 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Will posters be informed if their comments are deleted? Is there a way to start an automatic notification function? This might be a good feature.

Also: we can make nice comments about DVers physical appearances, right? (I'm lookin' at you Michelle G.)

Lyle 09-03-2009 01:22 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Thanks Brenda. I understand.

graz 09-03-2009 01:34 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 128288)
Will posters be informed if their comments are deleted? Is there a way to start an automatic notification function? This might be a good feature.

Also: we can make nice comments about DVers physical appearances, right? (I'm lookin' at you Michelle G.)

Consider the auto-function engaged regarding your post.
No referencing the physical appearance or inspirational charm of DVer's!
No flattery, no jokes. no nothin'. Got that?

But when you make your "bhtv at the Appollo" debut, will you be disappointed not to be critiqued (on more than your ideas)?

rcocean 09-03-2009 01:42 PM

Re: Racism
 
Banning words like "Racism" "Racist" "bigot" "KKK" et al will force those who wish to discuss race related topics to focus on specifics and and provide meaningful statements rather than simply using insults and tired cliches.

The constant use of the words "racism" and "racist" has rendered them meaningless on this board - except as an insult.

TwinSwords 09-03-2009 01:54 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128301)
Banning words like "Racism" "Racist" "bigot" "KKK" et al will force those who wish to discuss race related topics to focus on specifics and and provide meaningful statements rather than simply using insults and tired cliches.

The constant use of the words "racism" and "racist" has rendered them meaningless on this board - except as an insult.

I am very sympathetic to the observation that there are some people (a small group, and not on this forum) who are too quick to condemn their political opponents as racist. And I am even more sympathetic to how aggravating it must be for conservatives to be constantly put on the defensive on the question of racism. I know a lot of conservatives and Republicans who don't have a racist bone in their body, so it's important to not paint with too broad a brush.

Nevertheless, you can't talk about politics in America without being allowed to talk about racism. This is a country which exterminated an entire population of non-whites, and then held another entire population in chains from the early 1600s to the Civil War, a period of centuries that was then followed by 100 years of Jim Crow. The civil rights struggle was aggressively resisted by conservative white Southerners, to the point that the US Army had to be deployed to enforce basic human rights for black people. This conflict led directly to the reformulation of the Democratic and Republican Parties along lines defined by their positions on issues of race. This long legacy persists to this day. To not talk about racism would be like not talking about government, or taxes.

Having said that: It's probably a mistake for us to take over this thread with a semi-off topic side conversation, so I'll let you have the last word, or if it merits extended discussion we can start another thread. In any event, I am glad you are presenting your thoughts on the matter so we can constructively work towards a forum that everyone enjoys and benefits from.

Wonderment 09-03-2009 02:50 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

#1 No name-calling aimed at fellow commenters or diavloggers.
Good!

Quote:

#2 No gratuitously rude comments aimed at diavloggers.
Good! I committed this sin once and regretted it for months. (I'm serious)

Quote:

#3 Use four-letter words sparingly, if at all.
Puritanical Bob squeamishness about dirty words, but whatever. At least you won't get an FCC fine for saying "fuck"

Quote:

#4 Use the vBulletin quote function only for real quotations.
Good!

AemJeff 09-03-2009 02:59 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 128288)
Will posters be informed if their comments are deleted? Is there a way to start an automatic notification function? This might be a good feature.

Also: we can make nice comments about DVers physical appearances, right? (I'm lookin' at you Michelle G.)

I've said it before: If you happen to go to a strip club, you're not there to evaluate the dancers' foreign policy positions.

When people agree to show up here, they haven't necessarily signed up for judgment on their effect on viewers hormones, pro or con. I doubt that it really ought to be considered appropriate.

graz 09-03-2009 04:11 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Isn't it obvious that any such rules can be circumvented with rhetorical flourish.
I might say, eg: You're obviously being disingenuous or willfully obtuse? Which is simply calling someone a liar by a different route.

Isn't a dagger applied with a smile as deadly?

bjkeefe 09-03-2009 04:26 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 128288)
Also: we can make nice comments about DVers physical appearances, right? (I'm lookin' at you Michelle G.)

If you must know, I find that even more irritating than derogatory remarks about physical appearances, especially when it's repeated over and over, directed at the same person, by the same person. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

nikkibong 09-03-2009 04:29 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 128312)
I've said it before: If you happen to go to a strip club, you're not there to evaluate the dancers' foreign policy positions.

When people agree to show up here, they haven't necessarily signed up for judgment on their effect on viewers hormones, pro or con. I doubt that it really ought to be considered appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 128326)
If you must know, I find that even more irritating than derogatory remarks about physical appearances, especially when it's repeated over and over, directed at the same person, by the same person. I suspect I'm not alone in this.


Fine.

Jesus 'effing christ, you ugly bastards. (Joke)

But seriously, this is not the equivalent of cat calls out of a car window; they are simply a compliments meant with the best of intentions.

Further, you will find that when praising Michelle, I always temper the (admittedly superficial) with more substantive comments.

That being said, I apologize if I've offended anyone.

rcocean 09-03-2009 04:29 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 128280)
I'd really hate to see a Carlin style list of verboten words.

We already have a list of words that are "Verboten".** The question is simply which ones to add. A good start -Ban inflammatory insults like "racist" and "traitor" & like words that impede meaningful discussion.


**We all know what they are- so don't play dumb and ask me to list them.

Me&theboys 09-03-2009 04:33 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 128325)
Isn't it obvious that any such rules can be circumvented with rhetorical flourish.
I might say, eg: You're obviously being disingenuous or willfully obtuse? Which is simply calling someone a liar by a different route.
Isn't a dagger applied with a smile as deadly?

Well, at least that may serve to raise the caliber of the writing, which could be a good thing and perhaps quite entertaining. I'd much prefer to read:
"We're getting off track by you being wrong" (Steven Colbert to Robert Wright) rather than "You're an idiot" (not to imply that that is what Colbert meant in that particular exchange).
Or
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire" (Winston Churchill) instead of "He's a self-righteous, sanctimonious jerk."
We may never reach a Churchillian level of rhetoric in these forums, but some of the commenters here are quite the wordsmiths, and I like the idea of encouraging them.

nikkibong 09-03-2009 04:41 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 128312)
I've said it before: If you happen to go to a strip club, you're not there to evaluate the dancers' foreign policy positions.

Hey Jeff, look what else you've said before: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...98&postcount=3

And on the more deragatory side....is it just me, or were you defending this comment just a week or so ago?

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...72&postcount=4

Whatfur 09-03-2009 04:49 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
#1) What is, or is not, being said by "implication" is rather subjective. As is already alluded to here, people projecting themselves into a group maligned in a previous post, are doing so by choice, are they not? I also assume based on our previous discussions and although not specifically mentioned here, that "Perez" is still right in there with "moron". (See what I mean?)

#2) So, NO making fun of how the HEADS look or talk...check. How about painting pictures of them fucking while wearing masks of political figures? That Ok?

#3) Hmmmm???? "sparingly"...Kind of like when I was wading in a river once full of spawning salmon and came to a sign that said $75 fine for bothering the Salmon...I thought "define bothering" while holding one by its tail and asking it to stop wiggling if I was bothering it..

#4) This last one I feel rather bad about as I kind of blame myself for the loss of an effective tool. When you admonished me for the invented BIH quotes, and I pointed out their purpose, demonstrated that they were entirely avoidable, and suggested that there were numerous examples by numerous people utilizing this technique for various desired effect; I really was not looking for any real negative action by you. Now I DO find it confusing to seemingly discover that there was no real rule before... while you alluded to me that there was, but...

In any case, their usefullness aside, anyone who comes across....

Quote:

Originally Posted by GitmoRon
You really haven't. And, btw, your continued self-congratulations only serve to further diminish what little respect anyone here has for you.

and sees it responded to with:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIH (Post 126325)
congratulations

Thanks!
and doesn't snicker but instead confuses it with a real quote and thus compromising the integrity of some inanimate comment-tool is a <stops in fear of breaking rule #1> or is named GitmoRon or both.

I know your heart is probably in the right place and probably not a bad idea to get something down, but this is an excercise in futility spawned by a couple people whose glass houses were ill-gotten. Canada just came to the realization that their methods in determining, defining, and penalizing "hate speech" was counter-productive to "free speech". Why would BHtv want to start down the same dead-end path?

Bottom line, I go back to my original suggestion to you that when someone comes crying just respond with "looks like you get what you give" and 999/1000 they will go away thinking you looked into it deeper than they thought you would.

graz 09-03-2009 05:05 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Me&theboys (Post 128330)
Well, at least that may serve to raise the caliber of the writing, which could be a good thing and perhaps quite entertaining. I'd much prefer to read:
"We're getting off track by you being wrong" (Steven Colbert to Robert Wright) rather than "You're an idiot" (not to imply that that is what Colbert meant in that particular exchange).
Or
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire" (Winston Churchill) instead of "He's a self-righteous, sanctimonious jerk."
We may never reach a Churchillian level of rhetoric in these forums, but some of the commenters here are quite the wordsmiths, and I like the idea of encouraging them.

Here's to hoping. I'm all for striving, but wary of free speech restrictions. Have you ever taken notice of the lengths people go to in other forums to disguise banned words? It simply mocks the rules. The ignore function is still a functional last resort.

AemJeff 09-03-2009 05:14 PM

Re: Racism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 128329)
We already have a list of words that are "Verboten".** The question is simply which ones to add. A good start -Ban inflammatory insults like "racist" and "traitor" & like words that impede meaningful discussion.


**We all know what they are- so don't play dumb and ask me to list them.

I'm not sure why you thought that last was needed.

Does it occur to you that it might look like you're trying to work the refs?

bjkeefe 09-03-2009 05:16 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Having read the discussion since I posted my original response, I now want to withdraw my "seems fine to me." I agree with the points others have made against the blanket prohibition on "name-calling" -- there gets to be a point where someone's bad behavior is characteristic and has been demonstrated as such, and in these cases, it is entirely appropriate to label such people trolls or liars or racists or whatever it is that they're doing.

On a related note, I would note for the record that to my mind, comments made about "the left," "all liberals," "most of the lefty commenters here," and other variations are often at least as bad in terms of being empty labels intended as smears as are words like troll, liar, and racist. (I find harkin, rcocean, and JoeK particularly egregious in this respect, if you would like examples.)

On a related related note, I use the word wingnut particularly so I am not saying something about "all conservatives." I have a specific dim and narrow attitude in mind when I use that word. I have tried to encourage use of the word moonbat to the same end, without much success -- it appears wingnuts would rather say things about "the [entire] Left" instead.

It seems to me that once you get into the business of listing specific words, you both stifle legitimate uses of these words and you encourage petty circumlocutions that do nothing to change the overall tone (cf. reindeer in Breakfast of Champions.) I also expect, as others have suggested, endless lawyering by a few Ly ... uh, commenters here as a way to clutter up the discussion/get out of acknowledging the loss of face for being called out on boneheadedness. Therefore, I would prefer to see a "Guidelines to Comments" rather than a "Comments Policy," with a note added to the Guidelines that the site admins are the ultimate arbiters, their decisions are sometimes going to be pure judgment calls, and if one doesn't like the apparently arbitrariness, tough, go find some other place to comment.

I think you're making a mistake by trying to be too specific, and even to attempt to codify what it meant by bad behavior. I think the consequent rigidity is going to cause more problems than we have now while also unnecessarily stifling speech, and that the intentional troublemakers, like Whatfur and kidneystones -- both of whom have admitted this intentionality in now-deleted comments -- are going to have an easier time of it than the overwhelming majority, rather than being steered back onto the straight and narrow.

In other words, the more I think about this "Comments Policy," the less I like it. You'd do better to deal with the few persistent problem children on an individual basis, and just silently blocking comments from the video page and/or deleting them outright would quickly make clear to the rest that there are lines on this site that can't be crossed.

I'm going to close with a line by Johann Hari that I've passed along before. Please understand it as a guideline, not an absolute prescription:

Quote:

The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech.

nikkibong 09-03-2009 05:21 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 128338)


I'm going to close with a line by Johann Hari that I've passed along before:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=625

Whatfur 09-03-2009 05:23 PM

Re: Comments policy - DRAFT - feedback requested
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 128340)

Now that's funny.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.