Blog comment policy


I said that at the beginning of every month, I would repost my comments policy for those who started visiting this site the previous month. I stopped doing so after awhile because I thought that at least long time readers would have absorbed the message. But it seems like the reminders are necessary, since there have been violations, some seemingly accidental and some so egregious that I have had to take action. But here is the general policy again.

As long time readers know, I used to moderate the comments with a very light hand, assuming that mature adults would know how to behave in a public space. It took outright hate speech targeting marginalized groups to cause me to ban people, and that happened very rarely. But I got increasingly irritated by the tedious and hostile exchanges among a few commenters that tended to fill up the comment thread with repeated posts about petty or off-topic issues. We sometimes had absurdly repetitive exchanges seemingly based on the childish belief that having the last word means that you have won the argument or with increasingly angry posts sprinkled with puerile justifications like “They started it!”

So here is one rule: No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning.

But I also want to address a couple of deeper concerns for which a solution cannot be quantified but will require me to exercise my judgment.

The main other issue is the hostility that is sometimes expressed, often triggered by the most trivial of things. An email sent to me privately by a long-time lurker brought home to me how people might be hesitant to join in the conversation here, even if they have something to say, out of fear that something that they write, however well-intentioned, will be seized upon and responded to in a hostile manner by some of the most egregious offenders.

It is well known that the comments sections on the internet can be a cesspool. I had hoped that the people who come to this site would be different, leading to more mature exchanges. But I was clearly too sanguine. People should remember that this is a blog, not a journal or magazine. There are no copy editors, proof readers, and fact checkers. In such a casual atmosphere, people (and that includes me) will often inadvertently be less than precise or accurate in what they say and people should respond appropriately. If the error is trivial but the meaning is clear, the error should be ignored. If the meaning is not clear, clarification can be politely asked for. If it is a genuine error, a correction can be politely made. This courteous behavior should be obvious but clearly it isn’t for some people. So here is another rule: If I think people are being consistently rude or condescending or insulting (and I do not mean just abusive language but also the tone), I will ban the person.

For me, and I suspect for the other bloggers on this network, the rewards of blogging lie in creating space for a community of people to exchange ideas and views on a variety of topics. But that is pleasurable only if people post comments that are polite and respectful towards others, even while disagreeing. Some time ago, I wrote a post that a good philosophy of life is “Don’t be a jerk”. That would be a good rule to keep in mind when posting comments as well. There is absolutely no call for anyone to be rude or sneering or condescending towards others. Almost all the commenters on this blog contribute positively and it is a pleasure to read their contributions and interact with them. It is a very few who think that a sneering, condescending, or abrasively argumentative tone is appropriate. My patience has been worn thin by some of their comments in the past. So here is the third rule: If I think, for any reason whatsoever, that someone is behaving like a jerk, I will ban them. I am in no mood to argue about this. I may not make any public announcement about who is banned. They may simply find that they can no longer post comments.

So I would suggest that in future commenters think carefully before they post anything, taking into account what they say and how often they say something. They should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they are arguing with and think about how they might feel if their comment had been directed at them. They should also think about how their comments might look to others. It surprises me that people do not realize how badly this kind of behavior reflects on themselves.

Readers may have noticed that there are no ads on any of the blogs on this network. Nobody is making any money at all. In fact, it is a money sink and PZ Myers pays for the costs of the servers out of his Patreon account that you can contribute to if you would like to support the network. The bloggers here blog because they want to create spaces for conversations on issues that they care about. ‘Clicks’ have no monetary value. That means that I do not care how many people come to the site.

I realize that these guidelines are somewhat vague. So a good rule of thumb would be: If in doubt as to whether to post something because it might violate these boundaries, that is a good sign to not post it. I will be the sole judge of whether the boundary has been crossed.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I have zero tolerance for people who try to find ways to subvert the guidelines such as, for example, skirting the three comment limit by continuing it on another thread. I also reserve the right to make exceptions to the rules at any time, if I feel it is warranted. These decisions will be solely mine and will be final. There will be no discussion, debate, or appeal. If anyone objects because they think that I am being arbitrary, they are of course free to leave and never return.

Comments

  1. birgerjohansson says

    As I often comment at 03-04 AM local time as the influx of US internet information filter through I do not always observe enough dilligence (this also results in numerous typos).

  2. mikey says

    Religious reader, infrequent poster, here. There are for sure a couple of regular posters here that I almost always skip over, and never engage, because of their overbearing attitude. (And I’d hope if I ever sound like that, that someone would check me so I can correct myself if necessary.)

  3. Silentbob says

    @ 4

    If I think people are being consistently rude or condescending or insulting (and I do not mean just abusive language but also the tone)

  4. Mano Singham says

    Chigau @#9,

    That is not what your comment implied . When you wrote “OK. If you say so”, that was clearly casting doubt on my claim that I had heard from a lurker, not on the nature of the lurker.

    You have not seen the back-and-forth email correspondence that I had with the person that convinced me that they were genuine. So even if your comment was aimed at the lurker, you were making an entirely ignorant and unjustified assumption.

  5. Mano Singham says

    It is interesting that sonofrojblake goes to another blog to complain about this blog, that I am neither transparent nor consistent about my banning policy.

    It is puzzling to me that people who actively choose to come to this blog, then complain about it. If they do not like it, they are free to leave.

    I have been increasingly irritated by the needlessly combative attitude taken by sonofrojblake towards others.

    So I have concluded that they are behaving like a jerk and have decided to ban them.

  6. chigau (違う) says

    I clearly did not imply anything but that you fell for a sockpuppet.
    You inferred the rest.
    My comment was not “aimed” at anyone but you.

  7. file thirteen says

    @chigau #13

    The line between implication and inference can be fine. I read the same subtext into your comment as Mano did, so it’s not just him. Now, to me your latest comment sounds combatively defensive rather than apologetic for a lapse in tone. I feel I need to ask you (and note that this is a question for your own self-reflection rather as a goad towards Mano banning you): is that really how you want to come across?

  8. Silentbob says

    @ ^

    (For the record, passive-aggressive has been their entire shtick for years. It’s not about to change.)

  9. Dunc says

    Comment moderation is always a difficult business, and I for one very much appreciate Mano’s efforts. The policy here has certainly encouraged me to weigh my own words more carefully, and think that’s for the best.

  10. Rob Grigjanis says

    Re #15: For the record, harassing and misgendering chigau has been Silentbob’s schtick for years.

  11. Katydid says

    I also appreciate the reminders to think before typing. I also appreciate Mano’s blog in general--the topics are so varied that there’s a lot to think about.

  12. Jazzlet says

    To be fair to sonofrojblake he was responding to a comment I made about comment limits. I had misunderstood what the poster was talking about, but I did say something to the effect that ‘there are no comment limits on this blog, just on Mano’s’.

  13. file thirteen says

    @Jazzlet #19

    I would not be concerned that, were it not for your comment, sonofrojblake might not have responded with the straw that broke the camel’s back. Sonofrojblake has made good points here, but he has been dancing close to the edge for a long time.

    I have been increasingly irritated by the needlessly combative attitude taken by sonofrojblake towards others.

    That says it all really.

  14. Jazzlet says

    file thirteen @#20
    I’m not concerned, but sonofrojblake, like John Morales, at least lards his more acerbic comments with interesting comment, even if for both of them the balance between the two is less on the interesting side than I would personally prefer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *