Community Standards – A Call For Feedback
To me, blogging is very different than other sources of news and information. Blogging is not like a newspaper or TV news – it’s a conversation between the bloggers and the community. We as contributors don’t feel like we “own” the stories, we are conversation starters. We don’t want people to feel intimidated to join in the conversation and we want as many people as possible to join in.
We have been getting a lot of feedback lately about the proliferation of rightwing talking points in our comments section. Our blog is called Delaware Liberal. We hope to bring news and comments of interest to our community, mainly focused on the interests of liberals and progressives. What we don’t want to become is the depository for rightwing talking points.
We are discussing a new policy at Delaware Liberal, and that will be more aggressive moderation of comments. We will start reserving the right to put comments in moderation. We want to have great conversations and not be tied up refuting and researching false and misleading talking points. It’s not only frustrating for our readers – it’s frustrating for the contributors as well. Our policy in the past has been in favor of free speech, with certain exceptions (threats and hateful/bigoted language). We’re not sure that this laissez-faire policy is working for the wider community.
Here are the proposed changes:
1. We ask that comments stay on-topic. We realize that comments sections are organic and can sometimes move in unexpected directions and we are sensitive to this. Off-topic comments can be removed by moderators without warning.
2. We want your opinions. What we don’t want is your or other people’s opinions stated as facts. If you make an assertion, please state if it is your opinion or back up what you say with a link.
3. The Fair Use Doctrine means that you do not cut and paste entire articles written by other people in your comment. Use an excerpt of the article and post a link to the whole thing. Comments that cut and paste too big of a chunk of other people’s material will be edited for Fair Use.
4. We realize that we can’t cover every topic of interest to our community. We will provide daily open threads for people to discuss topics that interest them beyond the ones we have highlighted.
5. Comment moderation will be in accordance with these rules and in accordance with the moderator’s judgment.
We want your feedback. Do you feel that the comments section has become difficult to navigate? Do you feel that it has been too difficult to participate in conversations here recently? We would like to get feedback from as many of our readers as possible. Even if you’ve never commented before, tell us how we can improve the climate for conversation. This is your change to influence how Delaware Liberal works, so let us know what you think.
Tags: Delaware Blogosphere
Tough call. So long as Cass keeps running with my bacon/non-bacon blogging suggestions, I can be bought! 😉
More serious, though, this will sound defensive, but I am only trying to induce some constructive thought. Does this indicate a self-moderation (of contributors) as well? What about rebuttals from R’s (actual rebuttals, not cut-and-paste talking point blabber) that are constructive, but respresent an argument 100% against the topic of a post? Additionally, those rebuttals have sometimes brought out invective responses that have no constructive weight, rather only the opportunity to thrash. Will they be met with the same, discerning consideration as would comments from people who are generally looked upon unfavorably here?
Smitty,
Those are very good questions. One thing we don’t want to do is censor someone just because we don’t agree with what they say. I think Steve Newton would be an example of someone like that (not that we always disagree with Steve). You’re right, we can’t just censor Republicans selectively.
My personal philosophy would still be generally broad. However I do think there are comments that don’t add to discussions. Some examples would be the normal Protack post of “Obama is a failure” especially in threads that have nothing to do with Obama. Those fall under two moderation considerations: opinions stated as facts and off-topic. Another example would have been the Kennedy memorial thread with some people adding highly personal invective against Kennedy.
I think it’s going to take a little bit of time to get things right. That’s why we’re experimenting a bit. However, if someone believes they have been unfairly moderated, they can appeal to the contributors. We will put the comments in moderation, and not delete them outright, so they can be recovered.
You are going to wear yourselves out. Plus, inevitably you will eventually make a small number of moderation mistakes which will bring bad vibes. This is why community rating systems were invented (yes I know it is a lot of work to implement and maintain).
In the meantime, there are older methods from the early days of the Internet that might work here:
1. Don’t feed the trolls. They only keep posting because you engage with them.
2. Maintain an FAQ (so you only have to rebut a point once).
More fancifully, you could maybe redirect all links to Protack-related sites to Clown College. If Protack can no longer use you as a tool in his SEO scheme he will stop.
I do think that the talking point trolls have been very active here lately, and perhaps that the result you get with a successful blog!
I don’t mind the talking points as much as I mind that there are at least 3-5 talking point trolls here, including Mr. Protack, who simply won’t answer when anyone questions what the talking point means. (My personal favorite: “Anyone who listens to Obama on education needs an education.” It was posted in at least three threads and he never replied to my query: what does it mean?) Some posters consistently have only talking points and name-calling to offer.
Given that some people come to these threads not for conversation, but to hear themselves talk, or to disrupt, I don’t think your changes are going to help much, except for removing off-topic posts.
I give you credit for trying, though, and for acknowledging that it has gotten annoying.
As a fairly new semi-regular commenter, I’d like to throw in my thoughts as well. I think it’s a good idea in theory. The devil, as they say, is in the details. You’ll have to brace yourselves for the inevitable “You’re trying to censor all conservatives!” screams. I have no problem with people disagreeing with us or bringing up alternate viewpoints. Frankly, this would be a fairly boring site if it was just progressives sitting around patting each other on the back (I’m sure donviti would have a more colorful way to phrase it).
I think the important point is discussion. There seem to be a few (like the mustachioed one) who have no interest in discussion or debate, only cutting and pasting the same, often irrelevant, talking points. I swear some of them are this close to just posting “Obama is a poopyhead” over and over again.
Bottom line — if it can be done well, I think it would be a very good idea. I’ll admit it has been a little difficult sometimes lately wading through a lot of the crap and hate showing up. Keeping the threads more to an intelligent discussion would be a positive.
So far I’m hearing – be very careful but that there are some abusers on the site. Am I getting this right?
When I come to DL, I come because I want to hear what Liberals have to say. I don’t come on to hear right-wingers, and for the life of me, I don’t understand why they visit this blog where they aren’t welcome, except to cause trouble and stir up tensions. There is enough of that going around the country these days and I don’t need to see it when I come on DL. They aren’t going to change our minds with anything they say anyway.
Say it isn’t free speech, but I encourage DL to moderate the hate talk from them and if someone is giving an opinion in a civil and mature manner, they stay on. But if not, they should go to a right-wing blog.
Just sayin’…
UI, that’s about what I’d say. I think for the current abusers, you know who they are and what they say. I would suggest that anyone new get the benefit of the doubt at first. No matter what kind of crap they want to spew (within decency bounds), if they can try to defend it with facts, or at least admit they can’t (just their opinion), that’s fine with me. A FAQ might help for new people, but the repeat offenders already know what they’re peddling and aren’t interested in a debate rebuttal. On the extreme end, I have no problem with you banning anyone who consistantly violates and has no agenda other than pulling the level of the site down.
More serious, though, this will sound defensive, but I am only trying to induce some constructive thought. Does this indicate a self-moderation (of contributors) as well
worry about yourself dickface
1. Don’t feed the trolls. They only keep posting because you engage with them.
2. Maintain an FAQ (so you only have to rebut a point once).
agree and agree
now get a fucking real name dickface
So far I’m hearing – be very careful but that there are some abusers on the site. Am I getting this right?
Why do I feel like I’m in marriage counseling….
Be careful, lest you become Delaware Echo Chamber.
“Why do I feel like I’m in marriage counseling…”
Because sometimes it does feel like marriage counseling around here, or maybe a middle school playground.
Seriously, since a core of both liberal and conservative folks here seem to know each other IRL, sometimes threads do degenerate into an “inside baseball” discussion complete with kicking, spitting and name-calling. That doesn’t bother me, because having lived in the diamond state I know how — um — cozy things can get.
But it does feel sometimes like the rest of us are the third-cousin-once-removed-after-the-divorce at the family picnic.
On another topic:
“I swear some of them are this close to just posting “Obama is a poopyhead” over and over again.”
Scott P. wins it for the comment of the week!! (Especially after all those threads on the school speech!)
what is a “talking point”?
from reading the varios posts, I think it is fair to say that the collective position of the DL crew is that “healthcare refrom” should include nationalization of the insurance industry IE single payer.
so is any comment in opposition simply a talking point?
I like the plan to ban trolls way better than I liked last month when you were banning actual contributors. It is progress.
I think it is fair to say that the collective position of the DL crew is that “healthcare refrom” should include nationalization of the insurance industry IE single payer.
This counts as a “talking point”.
Making up a position of a whole bunch of people you don’t know based upon what your radio handlers tell you we like — rather than a close reading of the very many positions on this thing here. This kind of talking point is how we know you aren’t here for any kind of discussion.
But it does feel sometimes like the rest of us are the third-cousin-once-removed-after-the-divorce at the family picnic.
Sometimes it feels like a closed conversation from here too. Especially since we apparently have ALOT of readers, but a very small group of commenters. Any thoughts on what might get commenters to delurk?
Some of the people who post here have an obvious agenda — blow up DL. Mike Protack is the primary offender, although Rhymes With Right is right up there near the top of the list.
You don’t have to give them a bully pulpit. Can you imagine FOX or Rush giving us a chance? This is a liberal site for liberals. God knows, we’ve got few enough chances to express our thoughts without the main stream media putting them through the corporate filter.
If you’ve got some sort of freedom of speech purity thing going on, just wait until the Supremes get done declaring that corporate money equals freedom of speech. It’s time to toughen up Dems!
At least throw Protack out on his keister. He is so worthless.
who among the DL collective doesn’t support single payer?
And if you were reading us you would know this. You would also know which of us was for “nationalization” of insurance companies.
So instead of reading us, you just made it up. Which makes it a talking point.
UI,
If you think you are going to train the retarded conservative fuckwits like Rhymes With Right to play nice and abide by rules of decent behavior you are dreaming.
This is a microcosm of the country. Conservatives win because they are single-minded and, due to their stupidity, have no other options than to rant. Liberals lose because they are nice and don;t want to spend half the day trying to correct the uncorrectable.
and a special thanks to Scott P for providing me with my new internet name. I revell in the sillyness of it.
And your comment at 6:11 is the kind that would be considered for moderation. It is wrong on the merits and you only posted it to provoke. You’ve added nothing to the conversation and yet you insist on being wrong.
So consider yourself warned that you are off topic here. You can respond to UIs request or you can go home.
RWR: “Be careful, lest you become Delaware Echo Chamber.”
You’re kidding, right? This from a guy who allows NO comments on his blog.
And you know my reason for closing comments generally — though I do open comments on some posts.
I don’t care why you censor your blog. It’s your blog. That said, those in glass houses… should probably shut up.
Wake me when #2 applies to contributors here. (Actually with Jason gone I have some hope for this place yet.)
All,
I marked some comments as moderation because they were off-topic. The topic of this post is about community standards, not health care reform.
As far as community standards I will simply say that moving to more strict moderation is exactly the stuff Right Wingers want you to do. The American standard is free speech, no matter how repugnant, off topic, or otherwise. Now, decorum has a place with regards to vulgarity, but subject matter?
Free country = free to not read posters you disagree with, but holding their posts? Not cool in my book, for DL or any other blog either.
Aggressive moderation is code for censorship, just like socialist in 2009 is code for racist.
As they taught me in Alabama: Same Difference.
Jason, come home !
I want to take this opportunity to officially appologize for introducing any fecal-cranial ideas to anyone, and I take full responsibility if this becomes the new Tea Party rallying cry.
To OIAP — I’m glad you are enjoying it and reveling, just as we are reveling in the sillyness of what is left of the Conservative Movement.
As a reader I would rather (much as I hate to say it) see you ban people rather than moderate them.
That’s because I would then never know what parts of the conversation I am missing out on.
That’s also because (and this is purely my perspective) I get more turned off by threads hijacked onto totally different topics than I do by watching you guys play “smack the troll” [picturing you down at the Beach on the boardwalk holding the little mallet in your hands].
From what you have said you are trying to accomplish, perhaps LG can give you the ability to stop someone from commenting further at all on a given thread.
The practical problem I see is that even with a half dozen of you that’s an awful stiff scheduling issue for who is going to watch over the moderation queue that night or that day.
I think the plan is to moderate our own threads, and that isn’t too hard since we do receive emails every time someone posts on the thread. The only issue is when someone is really busy at work. We’ll have to see how it works out.
You know, I wonder how much work it really would be. We know who the worst offenders are and I think that more than a few of them will test the new regime out pretty quickly and pass into oblivion. We don’t want to stop the threads that may move from DADT to the War in Iraq in some organic way. It is mostly the hit and run stuff that starts to approach spam.
cassandra
I think you underestimate, because I think the folks you are targeting will think of it as a game to see what they can slip by you, and I think they are–at least some of them–pretty persistent.
I agree with Steve. I’ve never been one for moderation.
More serious, though, this will sound defensive, but I am only trying to induce some constructive thought. Does this indicate a self-moderation (of contributors) as well
worry about yourself dickface
It’s like poetry when points prove themselves without effort.
It doesn’t stand a chance, UI.
Aren’t there some WordPress plugins that you can set to remove all the vowels from comments by “banned” people? That way, their comments are displayed but are slightly or mostly illegible.
The comment abpve would look like this:
“rn’t thr sm Wrdprss plgns tht y cn st t rmv ll th vwls frm cmmnts by &qt;bnnd&qt; ppl? Tht wy, thr cmmnts r dsplyd bt r slghtly r mstly llgbl.”
It is called “Disemvoweling.” Look at http://codex.wordpress.org/Plugins/Disemvoweler
I don’t think moderation is any good. It sends the wrong message. I don’t think that banning them is the key either. They come here for one reason~ to try and cause disarray and try and fragment those of us that gather and share our thoughts for a common purpose. I think the best way to do it, is basically to just glaze over it and let them rant on. Ignore it or read it for what it is, it doesn’t matter but the more attention they get here, it almost makes them (key word, almost) and what they say legitimate. This also isn’t a slight to anyone who actually presents an opposing view. I love opposing views! That’s what makes this country great! What I don’t like is people hiding behind “code words” to try and hide their deep rooted hatred for this man that goes well beyond anything that can be defined between the two parties.
Disemvowel them all!
Smitty — please keep sending the bacon articles!
What about rebuttals from R’s (actual rebuttals, not cut-and-paste talking point blabber) that are constructive, but respresent an argument 100% against the topic of a post? Additionally, those rebuttals have sometimes brought out invective responses that have no constructive weight, rather only the opportunity to thrash.
This is a bunch of good questions and I want to weigh in on these too.
One of the difficulties of a group blog is that we all have a differing level of tolerance for what sometimes goes on here. The test is not so much in differing views (there have been multiple long and interesting conversations re: local politics — where we largely share the same reality) but in differing sets of facts. If we are talking about Immigration Policy, say, and one of the regulars comes here talking about how ACORN profits from undocumented immigrants (I made that topic up) — that person has pretty much shut down the conversation. That person is indulging in a fantasy that can only find any support from right wing (not very credible) sources. Trollish behavior. And that person –depending upon how persistent he or she is — may be subject to moderation in my view.
Personally, I wish there was more rational rebuttals from Rs. Altho I think I understand why you wouldn’t. But sourcing the entirety of said rebuttal from the WSJ editorial page or the NRO or newsbusters is just not on.
One thing that I don’t think that r’s get is that the liberal-leaning blogs have been at the business of recognition of and debunking of RW talking points for a very long time. If your newsreader has just a handful of the very best of them, you know about most of the talking points AND the vector through the right very quickly. And the right is just that much more disciplined about repeating what their leaders tell them to repeat. None of this includes you, Smitty.
Rebuttals — not matter how well reasoned or polite — that are pretty much sourced in already discredited info are just not rebuttals. If you are insisting that Obama wants to kill your grandmother or disabled kid, the only thing you have to support this belief is what other people tell you. Because this has been pretty thoroughly discredited every which way from Sunday. And you can’t ask for a special indulgence for already discredited or badly formed sources. But your last sentence is worth considering. and you probably know better than anyone that there are trusted voices whose critiques will be listened to.
I think the best way to do it, is basically to just glaze over it and let them rant on
Would you feel the same way if the problem was an infestation of Viagra and porn spammers? You’d be willing to be here, read the posts and just glaze over and scroll by them?
Cass,
I hear you but isn’t giving them censorship, letting them win? Why give them the satisfaction that they got under our skin?
Lets them win what, exactly?
Bragging rights that you were banned from Delaware Liberal won’t get you much and the places where it might — few people read.
When Mike the Gun-Nut was finally banned for his racist comments about Obama and blacks, the quality of the threads improved considerably. Since returning, his comments have been far fewer and he hasn’t gone done the racist path. Maybe the “little guy” learned something.
Other wingnuts have simply left in frustration, which is fine. Nobody would miss Protack, and few would miss repub david and a lot of RwR’s stuff.
Disemvoweling would let people read the disemvoweled comments, if they wanted to take the time, and it wouldn’t require outright banning or “moderation.” (I am soooo not a moderate.)
Give it a try.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1852747_1854195_1854185,00.html
Dnvt s dckfc fr cllng Rsmtty dckfc.
Outright banning comes with the same problems as moderating. Who do you ban and for what reasons? Banning is a lot more permanent, too.
Maybe we need a 3 strikes rule.
Disemvoweling isn’t banning or moderating, per se. The DL bloggers could read the actual posts and make a decision (vote) to continue disemvoweling or not. Maybe some people, like Mike the Gun-Nut, would learn how to behave. Others might just leave on their own.
While it is sometimes difficult to bear the troll stuff, I am not in favor of censoring or banning, save for the blatantly offensive stuff the contributors are handling now. Sometimes I stop reading and fire off a comment because the blather compels me to.
I agree the traffic of this ilk has increased lately. The DL staff should take it as a compliment. Yeoman’s work, gang. Keep it up.
Uh-oh. I could actually read that disemvoweled post with no difficulty. Does that make me a troll?
Look, I apologize to anyone offended for bringing this up. But having been used by Protack myself, I object strongly to the no-money-expended airing of his views anywhere, let alone on a liberal blog with bigger fish to fry (outside his own blog, of course).
Cass –
Rather than copy parts of your comment-response to me, let’s just say I do agree with you. On occassion, I have seen a handful of contributors (OK, maybe not at once) find common ground with RWR and/or mikew, and even Dana P! I have seen more acceptance of debate with Steve Newton, spiced up with the somewhat increasingly common agreement…er, on smaller points of the overall topic. More specific, the willingness to engage has increased. That said, blatant and reflexive dismissal has also increased a bit and that’s why I made my initial comment above. Now that some talking head bullet-point machine has been unplugged for the time-being (although you are missing out on great material for when he declares a candidacy), that reflexive dismissing may wane.
BTW, I understood that you weren’t including me as part of the talking-point regurgitation process – quite frankly, it pisses me off that people of any ilk ever employ that process – but I do appreciate the recognition of removing me from that group. 🙂
But having been used by Protack myself…
Oh, Geezer, I think there are a few of us who can relate (and no, Donviti, this had nothing to do with removal of pants).
This is actually a point to my response to Cass in regard to the talking-point machine. Anyone with familiarity could always predict what he’d say, the only mystery was when he’d say it. That was complicated from not knowing his schedule. Personally, though, I do think you miss an opportunity to further catalogue wonderful material for his future campaigns, but on the flip-side, the sanity level went up a notch. You just have to evaluate what part of that trade-off has more value.
I think I am trying to force myself into moderation for quantity of comments!
I have to say that disemvoweling has a comedic spin to it. Consider this a vote for disemvoweling!
Gzr,
Tht’s th pnt – y cn rd t f y wnt t mk th ffrt r y cn skp t sly. t s sr t skp dsmvwld cmmnt thn rglr n.
nd bsds, dsmvwlng Prtck’s nnsns wld b fn!
UI,
don’t blame me for the health care sidetrack, that was cassy’s babbling.
I mearly used healthcare in an example to try to undrstand if the phrase “talking points” had any definition beyond an epithet that cassy uses for anyone who disagrees with her (or uses big words)
Got trolls? Do what I do.
Kavips, with your worship of Laura “Pickles” Bush, it is clear that you are your own troll.
“I mearly (sic) used healthcare in an example to try to undrstand (sic) if the phrase “talking points” had any definition beyond an epithet that cassy uses for anyone who disagrees with her (or uses big words)”
Talking points are repetitive lies that have been debunked (“where’s his birth certificate!!” “death panels”); repetitive and often back-handed slurs, usually originating with a right wing commentators, not the blogosphere (“Laura Bush never wore shorts in the White House; but she’s not a dog.”); and meaningless phrases used in a debate to demean opponents without actually saying anything (“Anyone who listens to Obama on education needs an education.”)
Talking points are the same no matter what blogs you go to; they are unoriginal uninspired drivel with no thought behind them. Not to be confused with original uninspired drivel.
But you knew that: you only wrote the above sentence to piss on “cassy” (sic).
That’s not a talking point; that’s just original uninspired drivel.
See the difference?
As I read UI’s moderating 5 point suggestion, it sounds like moderation is for off-topic only, not for talking points or rehashed crap.
While some threads organically move to another topic, I understand what UI means: trolls sometimes deliberately move the thread to a topic they want to argue. A few folks here do it routinely. I think it would be easy to discern the difference between organic and deliberate and moderate out the deliberate. Not censorship — housekeeping.
As for the nasty rudeness that often comes out from some posters on both sides…well…that actually helps me understand to whom I should avoid replying and whose redemption is beyond my abilities.
And sometimes the nasty rudeness is redemptive: remember the discussion of “retarded” a few weeks back? Very useful. (Also, FYI & off-topic: yesterday’s evening NPR news did a segment on “retard” becoming the new n-word.)
Look, I apologize to anyone offended for bringing this up.
No apology needed, Geezer — your post pushed us to think again about a number of ideas re: our resident trolls. We should thank you, really, for pushing us to try to deal with this.
I hate banning and moderating. I also hate watching a post I invested a lot of time in researching and writing get trashed – and I’m not talking about a thread that evolves. Perhaps if we post enough “Open Threads” this problem may be resolved without banning and/or moderating.
My approach will be to remove the off-topic/ talking point comment and place it in the Open Thread. Hopefully, this solution will make everyone happy.
My definition of a talking point is stating an opinion as a fact, especially if the opinion is not your own. Some recent examples are the supposed “death panels” in HR3200. The death panel thing started with Newt Gingrich and was amplified by Sarah Palin. Now anyone using the words “death panel” and saying that this is in the bill is using a talking point. That’s why we insist when you’re talking about something that is an opinion you state it as an opinion, link to the person saying it, or link to the original bill. We’re tired of all the unsourced crap and lies that are getting spread around. There’s plenty of conservative websites around if you want to parrot their opinions. We don’t and it takes a lot of time and effort for us to research and debunk the lame stuff that conservatives lay on the site. I’m tired of the double standard.
Geezer,
It isn’t your fault. This has been a long simmering problem.
That sounds like a good idea, Pandora. If the trolls want to discuss their interests at this site, it’s a good thing for the the site — but as a reader, I just don’t feel like dealing with their standard talking points in the middle of an unrelated discussion, or their evidence-free insults. And the Protack situation is a different animal altogether — he posts here because the site gets a lot of readers, he’s not welcome at mainstream Delaware GOP sites and his strategy for gaining public office boils down to making sure lots of people recognize his name.
I’m a liberal myself, but you guys have developed a disappointing smugness about yourselves. I see some liberal “talking points” on delawareliberal, not just the conservative points made by trolls. You just don’t see yourselves that way. Is it “liberal” to banish rebuttals, no matter how inartfully made? As a reader, I like the back and forth – and I’m able to spot a ridiculous talking point for myself. (If you could ban just the kind of “form letter” comments, mostly about obama, that clutter up the news-journal’s comment sections, that would be fine; but I don’t see them on your site.) I generally agree with the comments of the blog’s regular contributors, but they’d be less interesting if presented without opposition. I know you say “legitimate” opposing views will be tolerated, but will you always make the right call there? Besides, I like to be up to date on the right-wingnut mentality – and maybe the blog operators could provide detailed rebuttals of their own when somebody spouts off about “death panels,” etc. Guess you folks don’t want to rise to the challenge of writing a blog that might attract a more general (and larger) audience (while maintaining a liberal view). You could do it; the talent is there. But maybe you just want to talk among yourselves.
Dean M.: I think the more interesting discussions here are between the liberals and the Democratic Party supporters who are liberal only when it suits them to be.
I certainly don’t miss the gun nut whose posts consisted mainly of shrieking that liberals didn’t respect his gun rights. And I won’t miss Protack’s if he’s banned.
geezer: i agree that those are interesting discussions. but what happens if the farther left starts dismissing comments of moderate liberals as talking points themselves?or vice versa? (guess i’m a slippery slope kind of guy.)
Dean – There is a great deal of interplay behind the scenes here that will hopefully prevent the kind of abuse that you are afraid of. Like all systems, it evolves and changes. There are several contributors here that pull in each direction.
Take Protack… It really says something that we aren’t hearing from him. He has pushed the boundaries of our tolerance to the point that he has lost any support from any contributors at DL. It should be noted that we were one of the last bastions of Protack commentary in the blogosphere.
We do tend to err on the side of keeping commenters commenting freely and there will be great wails of anger and frustration if the pendulum swings to the side of “too restrictive”. Of course, all you have is the word of the team here that this is how we will behave. We hope you will accept it in good faith.
Besides, Dean does not take into account that the group of Editors here span a pretty broad range of liberal beliefs. If we aren’t that homogeneous, we are unlikely to enforce that with commenters.
Yeah, I mean just among 4 of the 9 contributers there is diversity. I am the Party hack, Cass is the liberal activist, Donviti is the liberal independent who hates the party, and Pandora is the pragmatist suburban soccer mom.
Hey, DD! I am a proud city resident! 😉
Ok, urban soccer mom.
That’s better… I think…
I’m not sure what I am. The hack wanna-be?
Yeah, I can’t classify you, Geek, Nemski and El Som.
The bloggers here aren’t talking about moderating talking points; only pulling off topic posts (which are frequently, but not always, talking points).
I hate talking points but you can’t moderate them; they’ll reproduce like bunnies and take up all the air.
Yeah, I can’t classify you, Geek, Nemski and El Som
Oh, can I try? Let me start with Geek! Geek is…*hello? tap tap is this thing on? Hello?
Freaking moderation.
Kavips wrote: “Got trolls? Do what I do.”
Are you banning individual comments, commenters, or both?