A Reminder About Manners When Commenting
Dec 4, 2007 11:59 - 8 Comments
Dear Readers:>
Over the last two days, there has been a spate of anonymous comments that include mean-spirited attacks pointed at local public officials. I have deleted the worst offenders.
I can’t believe I have to remind folks — who presumably should know this already — that name-calling and vitriol have no place here. It is one thing to disagree with someone, and it’s OK even not to like them very much. But it is NOT okay, at least not here, to be mean about it.
I allowed anonymous commenting because the registration process was making it difficult for some people, not because I think anonymity is OK in the public square (unless there are compelling reasons for it). I knew at the time that removing that hurdle might open the forum up to a different tone of discourse, so I have been watching for it. I am considering ways to address this, including moderating comments (so they must be approved before they appear), or turning back on the registration system.
In the meantime, please make every attempt to be decent and civil as you express your opinions. Remember that public officials are just as human as you are, and deserve just as much respect. Just being in the public eye does not give anyone license to turn them into punching bags.
This is the byproduct of a good thing, I suppose: readership has risen so more people are noticing Rockville Central. And they are responding viscerally to some of the issues raised here. But it is of the utmost importance to me that this remain a civil forum.
Thanks for listening.
[UPDATE: Sadly, I have had to re-enable registration for commenting. That means you'll need to register with Google (it's free) if you want to post a comment. Here is my explanation:
I just deleted (for the second time) an inappropriate comment that is mean-spirited.The person appended the following to the comment: "Brad, the fact that you deleted this comment earlier today shows that you do NOT want citizens to have a voice, just your spin on the issues."
I feel the need to respond, on behalf of Rockville Central as an entity.
This person is choosing to remain anonymous, which is itself a red flag and indicates he or she does not wish to stand behind their words. If anyone were to spend even a half hour looking through the posts, comments, and contributor opinions on Rockville Central, they would see that it is precisely the opposite of my intention for this to be just my "spin on the issues." However, I insist that it remain civil.
This blog is created using free tools ("Blogger") that are available to anybody. It's just sweat equity we have here. Anyone who wishes to speak in ways that aren't tolerated here are more than welcome -- and encouraged -- to set up their own systems.
Don't freeride on months of hard work building trust and creating a civil space -- and then turn around and say we're being unfair when we ask you to tone it down and follow the rules.]
Follow on Twitter
Hear! Hear!
It’s a shame that there’s at least one commenter out there who can’t keep it civil. But I understand the response, and think Brad’s doing the right thing.>
It’s my experience that folks only start to trot out personal attacks when they don’t have any valid points to make on the issues at hand. So our anonymous trash-talker won’t be missed.
I fully agree with the need to keep the conversation civil, but any unilateral editing of comments gives me pause. It looks like both comments that were deleted were about one particular politician. I would like to get an idea of what was being censored to determine for myself whether or not it was appropriate. I want to know I can trust that this blog really is being neutral and not protecting certain people from public scrutiny.>
So here’s a little test, if you’re willing to play along. Which of the following comments are things you would delete:
A. I strongly disagree with what John Doe did and think he should be ashamed.
B. John Doe is a real idiot for what he did.
C. John Doe is a [insert profanity here] idiot for what he did.
D. John Doe should burn in hell for what he did.
E. I heard that John Doe sells drugs to little kids and uses the money to run a dog fighting ring, so it’s no wonder he did it.
And if I’m missing the type of comment that you deleted, feel free to make an example that more accurately reflects the situation.
By the way, I really appreciate the hard work you are doing here. Efforts like this help keep our democracy strong! Please don’t take my questioning as an implied criticism–it’s really a complement on how relevant the site has become.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, and questions. Just to be clear, I didn’t (and can’t) edit comments — I deleted them.>
I am not trying to protect interests, but I AM trying to protect the space. There are a number of blogs around here whose tone frankly disgusts me, even if their content is factual and people are engaged in serious debate. This place is an antidote to them. So, while my bias is (and I think it is clear from the totality of this blog) toward transparency, I have a high bar for decorum here. I don’t think people should say (write) things on this blog that they would not say in person, at a friend’s house, to someone’s face. Things that are hurtful just don’t have a place here, and I strongly believe public officials deserve the same (no more or less) respect that we give one another. That’s just a philosophical issue with me. My bet is that it means I would delete comments that you yourself do not find objectionable. That’s just an area where we’ll have to disagree and I hope it won’t drive you away.
But, if I am on the fence, I try to give the benefit of the doubt to the commentor. And I usually run things by someone else before I take an action. And . . . my mind CAN be changed.
Another philosophical issue with me about neutrality: I am trying to be neutral in everything I do with this blog, but I know that it is impossible not to have opinions and biases. So, my safeguard is to try to be as transparent about my biases as possible, and about my decision-making.
In my professional life, I have to write a lot of text from various points of view, being as neutral as possible, putting each viewpoint (even those I personally disagree with) in the best possible light. I know how hard it can be, and I can tell you, “protecting interests” is the last thing on my mind. But, you will have to trust me on that, as there is no way, really, to prove it!
Anyway, here are answers to your good questions! I would keep A, probably keep B (unless it was couched in a lot more “idiot” language with not much “I think” language to balance it), I would likely delete C for the profanity, definitely delted D and definitely delete E.
I would also delete “F,” which is a new one along the lines of the comments I deleted. This one depends on context. Say politician John Doe got caught doing something that is definitely newsworthy but also is pretty personally shameful and is most likely smarting for it. Let’s say, in his public life, he is also working on some (unrelated) public issue and some are not happy with his positions on that issue. Now, along comes “Commenter F” who says, in a comment attached to the news item about the personally shameful item:
“John Doe is morally repugnant for what he did, and that shows he’s going mess up this public issue in exactly the same way, and here is a glib joke about why that is so.”
I would delete Comment “F” because it is piling on, meanly, in a context that is volatile. A similar comment attached to a news item about the public issue, especially if it didn’t have the glib joke, might actually stay.
Here is a post that explains a little more about my thoughts when it comes to commenting and anonymity.
Sorry to drone on so.
Thanks for the reply and answers to my specific examples. I think you have a good policy in mind for keeping posts to this blog civil. It is nice to have a place where issues can be discussed and debated without fear of being attacked and demeaned for your opinions. Requiring people to use a Google account is not that much of a burden, and it does still allow people to be somewhat anonymous if they want. It might be worth the effort to post a policy about what the process is for deciding if a comment should be deleted or not, expanding on some of your thoughts here. So examples cases are always useful, like the glib joke comment, profanity in a comment, etc..>
Thanks again for doing this public service. You know, you’re really starting to compete with the Gazette for market share…
Hey, Todd, thanks.>
I think actually this post and the comment trail constitute a great explanation of the comment policy. The totality of it provides, if you will, the “legislative history.” I will use this as the chief “comment policy” link from here on.
Thank you for pushing me to be precise.
In case the Gazette is reading: I do NOT see us as in competition, but as interacting symbiotically.
Ah, so I’m not the only struggling with this on a town blog?
>
I recently turned off comments on our blog, as a temporary measure until we could come up with a comment policy, which I hope to publish by tomorrow. I don’t know if I want to hear the backlash…lol. Oh well, such is the life of a blogger.
Thanks for some ideas!
[...] like most online spaces. Two good articles that give insight into our specific history are here and here.) Share [...]