Contributors

Monday, February 23, 2015

Comments Will Now Be Moderated

After careful consideration, I've decided to start moderating comments. The biggest turn off for new readers that find my site is that comments aren't controlled. I have learned, via email on the feedback form, that people don't want to bother with a site where they are going to be harassed by other commenters. They don't feel safe, given the nature of comments on this site, so here are our new policies.

Comments that refute points or ideas presented in the posts or by other commenters are just fine. Criticisms about groups of people (liberals are all blah blah blah...conservatives are all blah blah blah) are also acceptable. Criticism about public figures are fine (Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim! John Boehner is a corporate shill!) as well. Personal remarks about posters or other commenters that take the form of insults, childish baiting, answering questions with questions or arguments about arguments will not be allowed. Here are a couple of examples...

Types of comments that will be allowed:

Huh, I guess if you pick individual items, he has some bright spots. Of course, additional parts of the equation:Worst 8 year Run for EconomyOrWithout Texas, US is net negative jobsOrBig Unemployment liesStock market by many accounts is in bubble territory. Economic competitiveness is getting worse. 

The underlying economic factors are all weak. US debt will have doubled by the time Obama leaves office. Lower Gas prices (lately) and Shale Oil drilling have provided massive benefits for the US that prop up the economic condition.There are bright spots but there always are, even in a recession. I hope things are turning for the better but lots of warning signs look ominous

or

Gun 'Cult' Ideology: RULE 1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED RULE 2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY RULE 3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET RULE 4 BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded. Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy. Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety! Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it. 

So, despite you claiming this is 'gun cult' stuff - the actual 'gun cult' ideology specifically forbids it. How many ideological rules of the 'gun cult' were violated for this to happen?

Note that both comments are counterpoints to ideas presented in a post and in no way focus on a poster or a commenter. They are defending their viewpoints which is perfectly acceptable.

Here are some examples of the type of posts that will be deleted from now on. They are all from the same thread.

What drugs are you fucking on?

God only knows what sort of mass murderer an enraged Nikto-anus would turn into if he actually had one of the Evil Instruments of Doom (tm) in his possession.

You want to play games, you leave me no choice but to treat you like the idiot you are acting like.

Because you are an idiot, you are wrong that this would have changed a thing.

So, clearly these are personal insults. Here's an example of singling out a poster or commenter with childish baiting that would lead into an argument about an argument.

I don't have any problems with guns, per se, if they are in the hands of professionally trained people like Army rangers or police officers. -Markadelphia 

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with trained police or private security being in school buildings-Markadelphia 

Guess not.

My hope is that comments will now become an area of more serious discussion and an exchange of more intelligent ideas and thoughts. Perhaps we can finally attract some new commenters now that there is some sort of structure.


17 comments:

GuardDuck said...

Question. Does that apply to you as well?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark Ward said...

NMN, I'm going to ask you kindly to adhere to the comment rules. Failure to do so will result in you being blocked from commenting.

juris imprudent said...

Your playground, your rules. I trust that means you'll omit all foul language and egregious insinuations from your own posts and comments.

Otherwise, you'll be talking into the void.

Mark Ward said...

The rules are clear, juris, and they say nothing about foul language or insinuations. As long as they aren't directed at commenters or posters, curse up a blue steak and insinuate that all liberals are commies for all I care:)

juris imprudent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
juris imprudent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
juris imprudent said...

M if you just want me to leave, say so. I've always said I would respect your decision if I was no longer welcome.

Mark Ward said...

You are welcome, juris. Simply follow along with the rules. You left some substantive comments in Nikto's recent post that were just fine.

juris imprudent said...

I am going to ask again - for clarification, since it is in the OP as a no-no - does this include quoting a person when his/her statements are contradictory with previous statements? Is that really a rule of commenting misconduct? Please don't delete this, just answer yes or no. Thank you.

Mark Ward said...

Yes, because it centers the attention on the person (poster or commenter), not the idea. It also is an "argument about an argument" which, again, centers the attention on a poster or commenter and wastes a lot of time with immature silliness.

Now, if you wanted to post contradictory statements that gun grabbers make or some sort of political figure, those would be just fine. Also, making fun of groups like gun grabbers and why they are stupid etc is also just fine.

GuardDuck said...

Then is it ok to ask which one of the apparently contradictory statements the poster is actually claiming to endorse?

juris imprudent said...

Curious. That rule indicates it is more appropriate to discuss what people NOT in this forum are saying and less so with the actual participants. That seems an awkward way to have a conversation.

Mark Ward said...

It's about the ideas and the positions, not the posters and the commenters. My goal is to avoid the rabbit hole of arguing about arguments. Pointing out contradictory statements by a poster or commenter or wondering which one they endorse takes the focus away from the idea and starts making it personal. So, if someone writes a post wanting to ban guns, this new framework would call for a counterpoint as to why this is a bad idea (prohibition never works, here's why etc) not why this person is misguided.

The new rules are all themed with the foundation of avoiding personal remarks about commenters and posters and focusing on ideas and perspectives. Aside from a few bumps, I think we are off to a good start. The comments in "Our Violent Nation" are really great!

GuardDuck said...

Well then in that case everyone should really all be anonymous commentors, including the bloggers. I understand what you are trying to do, but if a person can change their position from thread to thread, or even from post to post and not be questioned as to the contradiction then there is no consistency. Without that consistency there is no reason any particular post need be associated with any particular person.

Mark Ward said...

The point is to get away from the personal attacks and arguments about arguments...exactly what questioning possible contradictions brings. Given the plethora of ideas presented on here, all of us will have plenty to discuss.