The TPM comment policy
is conveniently located at the link above every comment box that says "comment policy":
Does TPM have a comment policy?
Yes! TPMCafe and the TPM Media network follow a simple set of rules for acceptable commenting.
1. All political viewpoints are welcome. However, hate speech of any kind, libelous statements or threats to fellow users or others will be deleted and may be grounds for suspending or terminating a users account.
2. Four letter words are not banned, but we ask that they be used sparingly as overuse coarsens and undermines the debate.
3. TPMCafe is a venue for lively and passionate debate. But insults, personal attacks and the like make that sort of enlivening exchange impossible. If you just want to scream and taunt, please go somewhere else. If you have any question about what is and what's not acceptable, follow this rule: If you wouldn't use a certain word or talk to someone a certain way in a real-life political discussion at a Coffee House, don't do it here either.
My title, of course, should read "policy."
June 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't mind my asking, what brought this on?
June 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, welcome it.
It is a good reminder. Some do forget...
June 29, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's been innumerable threads the last week or so where the issues addressed there have come up one way or another.
June 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember trying to click on that back when I first started around here and it was a dead link. Good to see it works now.
June 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for shining the light on this. Especially #3 which could use more attention
June 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed a few scattered infrequent attempts at enforcement of some priniciples there by new site manager Lila Shapiro and old site manager Andrew Golis.
But those I have seen have always been on the threads of contributors on the front page of TPMCafe. Seems to me the situation might be that they have limited time to read everything on the site, and they prioritize enforcement time as they care more about maintaining high quality civil debate and discussion where it might harm their potential to get interesting contributors.
I believe that is why there is a noteable difference between the members who comment on contributor threads and those that spend more time on Reader Blogs. It's like a class system where the available law enforcement goes to the good neighborhoods. :-) Also, the commenters on contributor blogs by and large seem either to be older members who remember a TPMCafe that was lauded for civil and intelligent discussion or absolute newbies who are busy people who don't bother with most of the sturm and drang of internet forums but want to say something to the contributor.
And interestingly on the class divide thing, I've seen several denizens of Reader Blogs in one way or another make the inference that they are kind of afraid to participate on Contributor posts, as if they don't belong in a good neighborhood and they know their place. That's a kind of self-censoring that is real interesting and telling about behavior on internet forums.
June 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to add that I saw a lot of posters here since the software change in February that sure looked like Obama volunteers trying to spin the stories in his direction and others looking to spread bad memes on Hillary. And strangely enough, a couple of the most prominent haven't posted much of anything after the primary was decided.
You can't in the end know whether "supporters" of a candidate come to post or comment in good faith. All you have is the content and behavior unless people have use an actual name or a screen name with a history on Google.
Should add that I don't think Josh started this website to be a spin room for Democratic candidates.
June 29, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang the above comment doesn't belong here, it's not really applicable here, that's why it doesn't make sense. It was supposed to go on Ripper McCord's thread on McCain trolls, where I am now going to repost it.
June 29, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting all of this artappraiser.
I tend to believe, as a default, that people are sincere about what they're posting here. Yes, sockpuppets exist but since I have no insight into the motivations of people that I don't know so, there's almost no point in speculating.
In any event, I doubt that campaigns are paying people to post on political sites in the way that penny stock operators pay people to post on stock message boards because the return on investment just isn't there.
If enforcement at TPMCafe is lax, I think it has less to do with the time available than it's a case of TPM wanting to have rules but also a lot of leeway.
I don't know, it's a tough call -- I was pretty surprised to see myself called a troll so often during the FISA debate and I got a laugh out of it since the people who called me the T-word mostly came here and started posting, well after I did.
I'm not really concerned with partisans posting here since they're subject to debate and analysis just like we all are. Truth will out eventually, especially in a market place of ideas. But their tactics do bother me.
June 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's about "knowing your place," Art. I generally spend much more time commenting in the Reader Blogs, for various reasons. Take the Book Club, for example. More often than not, it's a book I haven't yet read. If it's a topic I know anything about or have anything to say, I'll jump in. The other two things about the Book Club that I don't like are that, in my opinion, there are too many posts too quickly, leaving little time to get into anything before everyone moves on to the next. Additionally, I'd say most of the posters don't comment in the threads, and I find it more interesting to engage with the writer of the piece, which is in part why I like the Reader Blogs.
On the other topics, quite often it's clear that the people in the conversation know a hell of a lot more than I do about whatever they're talking about. I almost always read through them, however. But I've also seen a fair share of vitriol tossed about there as well, likely in lesser numbers because a lesser number of people participate there.
June 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was certainly not true with this week's Book Club. Philip Gourevitch replied to comments both on other posters' threads and to those from "regular" readers. The topic was depressing, but the discussion was quite good.
June 29, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of hit or miss. I liked this week's better for that. And some of the guest posters do interact regularly. I liked the discussion about Zakaria's book awhile back b/c I had the chance to read an excerpt from it in Newsweek.
June 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
People don't understand that #3 applies to them and therefore will never abide by it: They think it applies only to other people.
Fran Lebowitz's view about going out in public:
—From When Smoke Gets in Your Eyes...Shut Them
June 29, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that's good about a comment rating system (and there are lots of downsides) is that it trains people to judge the content of each comment or post, not the writer.
Mho, cardinal rule on internet forums that you want to prevent from spiraling into all garbage all the time: attack the argument, not the poster. Say "that comment was idiotic," not "you are an idiot," or "that comment was trollish," not "you are a troll." It really works, I've seen it work. Stick to content, not the personalities of other posters. Getting into personality in an attempt to figure agenda, gets you into the dysfunction of a large family discussing politics at the Thanksgiving table.
And people who have fun fun getting personal in a positive way should keep in mind that they are forming a sort of family including people they don't really know at all except for a few comments and posts. And are also setting themselves up for others feeling excluded and lashing back at that. Sorta like in high school, you know? :-)
June 29, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I know from a stint as a moderator on a forum long ago far away, that the "
getting personal" thing really discourages a lot of lurkers from contributing. I'm sure Josh has gotten emails to that effect.
June 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some questions about your moderator experience, artappraiser:
1. Was the forum you moderated a political forum? I ask because politics is by its nature a hot-button topic (you know the old saying re politics and religion should never be discussed in polite society). Every unmoderated political forum I've seen (and I've looked at a lot of them) has the exact same commenting behavior that occurs at TPM. The sites that don't are moderated.
2. Did the forum you moderated have a function where people could post a public blog like they can here? How anonymous was it? Did people know each other offline?
Thanks.
June 29, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket
1. yes
2. yes
It was the same software as but had 100's of active members. It wasn't as big as this place but there were lurkers in the 1,000's and we had private messaging and they would private message the moderator ad nauseum of course.
It was the first years of the Iraq war through 2004 election so the emphasis was more on that and ranting on all things Bush. It was a forum attached to a liberal blog but there were quite a few conservatives that would come to debate the anti-war people, and also far lefties disagreeing with more moderate liberals. There was also a lot of posting by users of breaking news, the audience for that is served here by the other TPM sites.
Really would prefer not to say much more.
June 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screwed up the link to Eric's site, the url is
http://projectlucidity.com/forum/index.php
June 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
time to go, I'm making too many mistakes. With screwing up that link, I cut out some text too,
I meant to say with the link that it was a place with the same software as Eric Stepp's TPM refugee site and had similar discussion categories as he had set up there.
To be clear: it wasn't that site! I just gave Eric's as an example because it has a similar setup.
June 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, thanks for the info, artappraiser. I wasn't trying to pry, I was simply trying to understand what you were comparing TPM to because you didn't say.
I can't speak to the issue of how TPM used to be before the new software or before the primaries got underway. I arrived in late January. Once the primaries started, Democrats split naturally between the two candidates, resulting in the following behaviors, which still play out to this day:
1. Obama supporters defend Obama from criticism. Clinton supporters defend Clinton from criticism.
2. Obama supporters defend other Obama supporters from criticism. Clinton supporters support other Clinton supporters by adding supplementary commentary in favor of the minority view. Clinton supporters appear to be in the minority at TPM. I would bet that every single acknowledged Clinton supporter at TPM has been called a troll. I know that not every Obama supporter has been called a troll.
What does this tell us?
Commenting was unmoderated during the entire primary season, and most commenters at TPM do not seem to know or care about the comment policy. (Policy? What policy?) See Cricket's comment for evidence of this.
June 29, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll.
Just kidding Gasket. You know I love ya. ;)
June 29, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Yes, I know. I love you too, H99. ;-)
June 29, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have also been a moderator of a pretty contentious forum. I had an informal rule of thumb that I think dovetails with what you've said. I use it here, too. If someone simply says something nasty or disparaging, I ask something like, "Do you have something of substance to add to this discussion?"
It seems that every time I ask that question of someone who has offered nothing by insults, they go away. If someone does ever come back with substantive arguments, questions or comments, I welcome it. Of course, if they can't do so with civility, I tend to tell them that I don't hear what they're saying due to the volume of invective that gets in the way of their apparent contentions. Or something like that.
Anyway, my benchmark is substance. Even if they are flat-out lying, at least it opens the door for discussion. But "You suck" presumes a knowledge of my behavior that the person simply does not have and "You're an idiot," while it expresses an opinion, fails to add substance to the discussion.
June 29, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Arta,
Thanks for raising this point, as well. The reminder/warning that we really know very little about each other is fair, though in some cases we're talking about more than "a few comments and posts." But that's largely an issue of individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.
As far as the impact on other readers from "getting personal in a positive way," my experience has been that the enforced openness of the TPM structure makes those relationships less obfuscated and therefore more inclusive. I read without posting here for a long time, and what finally drew me in where the silly threads and the interpersonal relationships. I've seen other people talk about the feeling of exclusion you mention as well, so I'm not discounting that -- just pointing out that building relationships doesn't always end up creating exclusivity.
June 30, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still think making moderated comments an option for bloggers would clean up the threads. At least other readers would be spared the invective aimed at the blogger. Probably not every blogger has time to moderate comments in their threads, but, for the ones who want to take on the task, it should be an option.
June 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy! Welcome back! It's been... what? 17 hours?
June 29, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smoking only weakens your case, gasket.
I think you can smoke tobacco to your heart's content in your home.
But not when we are in a shared public space. Especially since it's been proved to adversely affect my health.
Your rights end where others' rights begin.
June 29, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but the question is always where to draw the line. Now, most people can't smoke in buildings, but what about on the streets?
How about cell phones? Quite possible that they have adverse health effects, and people chat away on them in the public realm.
Or, driving? Definitely some adverse health effects there, as I know you know! ;)
My point is, where is the line here? Can it be a clear and defined one?
This:
really covers a wide range of possibilities.
June 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No documented ill-effects (except hype), but that would only be for the user, not the person nearby.
And you will find that cell phone use is being restricted while you are driving. In CA we are about to enact a law that says you can't hold a cell phone while driving. It makes good sense.
As far as words go, the Supreme Court defined "smut" as "I know it when I see it." That may sound like a cop-out, but most people here would say that calling someone a "child pornographer" (and then claiming to do so as a 'joke') crosses the line. If you mind the larger offenses, you don't need to fine tune the line.
June 29, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't smoke, and it's the perfect example, clearthinker.
Not true. You don't have a "right" to breathe smoke-free air.
June 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt you will find many that agree with you. If you want to play contrarian (as always) find a better issue.
June 29, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not playing. Maybe the law is different in California than in New York. Or maybe you don't know what your rights actually are.
June 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in a state that has had a cell phone ban while driving for some time now. While I'm sure it does encourage hands-free usage, there are still plenty of people who use cell phones in their cars, or worse, text messaging, Blackberries, etc.
It's not a stringently enforced law and it likely never will be unless we become a flat out police state.
And I used the cell phone example purposely. The effects of secondhand smoke have only come to be widely documented in our lifetime. And how long before that were people smoking? Additionally, while still preliminary at best, some studies have linked cell phone usage to declining bee populations. If true, this creates serious problems for the food supply, arguably some of the healthiest choices, which can in turn effect my health.
My point is, these arguments are always vague, and one can always make an argument that someone else's actions affect my own life.
The "I Know It When I See It" is not the current rule of thought for obscenity cases, because it is so vague. Even the Justice who coined the phrase later admitted it was not valid. They've since added the "community standards" rule, one which is still heatedly debated.
Yes, calling someone a child pornographer is a clear crossing of the line. But there are lesser offenses that exist somewhere close to wherever that "line" may be, which are subject to interpretation. So who moderates? The writer of the individual blog? A TPM employee? I'd be willing to bet you could get a group of 4 people together and you will have 4 different defintions of what is and isn't acceptable commenting here.
June 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CA is not banning cell phones in the car. They are banning holding them while you talk. That is very easy to enforce and easy spot. Just watch for the swervy drivers!
Also, how did I get put in the position of wanting a moderator? I haven't ever said such a thing.
I only note that the "child pornographer" comment reactions were unanimous -- so much so that the person went on to say "it was all a joke".
As I said, the larger breeches tend to draw uniform disapproval thereby making it unnecessary to worry about drawing a line.
June 29, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, asshole, "the poster" (me) didn't call you a child
pornographer, period. It was an allusion to a made-up conversation about child pornography. "The poster" (me) used that as an outrageous example of how anyone can say anything disparaging about any other posters, untrue things, and how, that was deplorable. "The poster" (me) never said it was a joke, nor did they apologize. Go back and read it.
You didn't get it then, and as you still are doing it, it's something you just don't "get."
People were far from unanimous, and if I see you lying and distorting "this posters" (my) comments again, i will write to Lila. You aren't allowed to make stuff up about other people. Get it yet?
That comment stands as an example of poor behavior, and it still fits you to a T. The reason it still bothers you is that you can't stand being publically spanked by someone you consider to be inferior. Too bad.
June 29, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent as always, dear.
I actually tried to protect you by name. You were the one that brought it on yourself with another of your famous rants.
Aren't you the one always talking about loving one another?
June 29, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. That's why I don't think you have much character.
June 29, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, workerbee, the exact quote (to one of my comments) made by you was:
As I said before, eloquent as usual.
June 29, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't say what you alleged, does it.
Out of context, too. Sophomoric doesn't quite cover it.
Thanks.
June 30, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Linkless, too.
I'm sure no one who has dealt with you wonders why.
June 30, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary99, I think the most successful blogs let the writer moderate comments to their own blog. If they abuse the privilege, no one bothers with them after a while. If they do a good job, the comments build on the blog like good jazz. By way of contrast, you seldom see a TPM comment thread without sour notes and discard. blogger moderation satisfies two goals. The comments are on topic and add to the conversation. People who want to insult the blogger still get to do it. The blogger has to read their insults to moderate his or her blog. The real difference is that other readers don't have to view the invective. I know that spoils it for the kind of people who like to have an audience for their insults, but I don't see why anyone else should object to bloggers moderating their blogs.
June 29, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying, But while there's an upside to that idea, there's also some potential downsides. Say the threads that have over 200 comments...does everyone here want to have to go through all those every time they write something?
Or, if the recommend system stays as is but the comments are moderated by the writer, a post could make it to the rec list, but while the writer is off doing normal life activities, the conversation dies waiting for everything to be approved. Which I think would discourage conversation, both good and bad.
I vaguely remember the TPM guys mentioning a flagging system, which has its problems as well, but I think if it was set up in a way that it took two or more posters flagging an inappropriate comment to remove it, it might be more effective and less prone to people flagging people they just don't like.
June 30, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the feature is optional, each blogger can decide for themselves whether they want to use it. Personally, I would use it. If that turns off people who want to have a real time conversation in a thread, so be it. Read Juan Cole's policy over at Informed Comment. I like it.
June 30, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA or may I call you Arty if that's not getting too personal? :)
This was a timely and much needed reality check. In terms of self reflection, this week I was so sick of the the overtly personal and hateful attacks on both Hillary and myself personally that I decided to fight fire with fire since it seemed logic and self interest in that their actions were self destructive to the their political goals was not working. That kind of retaliation only devolves the debate into a food fight rather than elevating it to a higher level of discourse and actual discussion.
Ignoring those that exist here only to bring nergativity and divisiveness is a challenge (especially for a girl from the Bronx). But I am have no control over those of others and am responsible for my own actions. I can and will try in the future to not engage with those who are here only to seed division and negativity.
June 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're hardly the worst offender, dijamo. That's the problem: The worst offenders aren't going to read this thread or vow to clean up their own act. They never do. I can vow to clean up my own act too, but sooner or later I'm going to get fed up with the extremely vile knee-jerk reactions and provocations I read for what amounts to a simple political disagreement. The commenting here suffers from a Keith Olbermann/Bill O'Reilly blowhard mentality. But that isn't entirely the commenters' fault. Like it or not, the level of quality comes from the top.
In order to have a functioning unmoderated forum, everyone has to agree to the rules, and when those rules are broken, they have to be enforced by the managers of the blog. The most successful place I've seen this happen is democratic underground, and even there it's not perfect (and for all I know, DU does have moderators). It works as well as it does because the rules are group-enforced. Here, the rules are not group-enforced. I've said this repeatedly on similar threads about the level of the discourse to no avail. I'm tired.
Besides, here at TPM, one person's troll is another person's best buddy. The comment "policy" is completely useless.
June 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I've stopped responding to anonymous comments from people I don't know. It's actually very liberating to set limits that help you keep from responding to every comment aimed your way. If ignoring the anonymous avatars works, I'll probably start ignoring my friends as well.
June 29, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fwiw, Billy, if it wasn't for your continued presence at TPM, I would have left long ago, even though I like plenty of other posters besides you. However, most posts generate echo comments throughout the thread (whether those echoes are almost all positive or almost all negative). There's a reason for that, which I'll get to in a minute.
You always provide complexity in your posts, Billy. You always expect your readers to think. You raise the level of discourse, even in your insults. ;-)
Not everyone writes for the diverse audience that reads TPM; very, very few are even capable of it (I'd say fewer than 10, although many more than 10 think they are awesome writers). Most people write for their friends here. Most people need—and therefore expect—positive feedback. They are not writing to have their ideas challenged. They are writing for an ego boost, sometimes for personal moral support (ugh—spare me—blech—start your own damn blog!).
Despite the vast number of readers here, there tends not to be much variety or humor, let alone much skill at writing well. There's a homogeneousness of style and intent.
I don't think it has anything to do with comment policy rules. It has to do with ego. If you challenge someone's ideas, you will get called a troll as quickly as if you challenged the person's intellect. Because it's instant publishing, criticizing someone's ideas is the same as criticizing them personally. That's why the rules fail.
June 29, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The June 23 New Yorker has a piece on Olbermann. I had no idea he was so bad, since I generally don't fall in the demographic that likes to cheer on crazy people. I think it is sad that so many Progressives are ignorant of the both the content and style of Edward R. Murrow's work that they don't vomit when they hear a mtard like Olbermann say good night and good luck.
June 29, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol! I laugh every time KO says that. It's equivalent to Goofy saying it.
Thanks for the heads-up about the NYer piece, Billy. I haven't seen it yet.
Btw, I think posting worthwhile articles or blogs or vids is a way to raise the level of discourse here. Desidero started doing that, and people actually appreciated it (like the time Des linked to digby). So many crap writers (Dick Morris, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd) are given mention here it's scary. But that's because people don't know who else they could be reading instead.
June 29, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Apparently, not everyone understands that you are known to me, hence my old friend arm chair guerrilla's comment below. I could no more fail to say hello to you in a thread than I could fail to say hello to any of my friends in the "real" world.
June 29, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Billy.
Some people think I am you. Not sure why, other than paranoia.
Anyway, I think Armchair is a very busy person who might not follow all of the threads to know I'm not really as anonymous as I look. Or maybe Armchair thinks I'm a troll. Who knows. Only Armchair does. At any rate, I'm not worried. I like Armchair.
June 30, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was merely needling the illustrious Glad over his seemingly arbitrary policy. Why not just reply to comments that are worthy of it? In any event, I appreciate being liked, although I would prefer revered and have always wondered what it would be like to be feared, having never had the pleasure. I do not believe you are a troll, readytoblow, even by the absurdly broad definition of the word some here would like to apply (i.e., anyone who challenges the nominee on any subject). I have always felt a bit of a disconnect between the screenname and the mostly measured persona reflected in your comments (although I think on my thread last week you did ask whether someone was drunk). I am a busy person. I have a regular job, although one which provides me with a measure of flexibility, and a 14-month-old little girl. This internet thing can eat up enormous amounts of time. I wonder how some of the more prolific posters do it.
June 30, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard tales that some do fear you, Armchair.
At any rate, thanks for the acknowledgment. I read everything you write because a) I always admire your thoughtfulness, and b) I love your self-deprecating humor. Your verbal humor goes well with your avatar.
The article you posted a link to is fascinating and valuable, but it's not a quick read. For me it has interest beyond application to TPM, so much more interest than I could possibly express in this tiny comment box. I'm keeping it as a reference. Many thanks for posting it.
June 30, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't fear him now that I know he has a family to feed. We can always get at these freethinking radicals through their families. Take away their healthcare, take away their livelihood. Pretty soon they shave that beard and learn to go along to get along. Want to really bring one to his senses? Nominate him.
June 30, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the baby has a beard.
June 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. But I hope he or she grows up to have one. I've been trying to find a little piece by lord somebody, his advice to his godson I think. I haven't been able to find the text on line, but it went something like this: When you're older, you'll understand why adults don't do what they tell you to do. Until then, resist blindly. And always eat your rice with a spoon. Now and then when we're having dinner, my son, who is forty now, will eat his rice with a spoon.
June 30, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember everything my dad told me
:)
June 30, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olberman is a clown and a jerk. I never found him watchable. His only saving grace was his disdain for O'Reilly. That success has now made him equally odious. I learned from the New Yorker article that he's from my hometown, although he went to private school, and is just a few years older than I am. But Mr. Glad, did you not violate your recently minted rule by responding to Gasket?
I want to reiterate my endorsement of the link downthread to an article on how the internet is changing literary style. An excerpt (without the block quote - beyond my primitive capability):
"This willingness in readers to overlook form raises a question as to whether online writing entertains, in the traditional sense of the word. I am not sure that it does. Reading online does not seem to me to be a pleasure in itself but a response to irritation. That is, it is not like eating an ice cream cone; it is like scratching an itch. I am only reporting on my own feelings here, of course, but while I am doing so, let me report a further kink in them. Between us, my boyfriend and I subscribe to more than a dozen magazines, and if I pick one up, I know instantly that I am goofing off. Online reading, however, fails to set off my leisure detection system. Part of the failure may be perceptual—online reading takes place while I'm sitting in front of my laptop, immobilized, as I am when working. But I think, too, that online writing may, even in its supposedly silly moments, be covertly work-like: there is a fair amount of tedium in its unedited prose. Many of the jokes and references are only comprehensible to regular visitors. No one, my hit counter tells me, reads blogs on the weekend. And reading online prose is not refreshing. An action movie leaves the viewer juiced; a novel may leave the reader wistful. But reading blogs, in my experience, leaves me more addled and nervous than when I began. This work-like character makes the internet particularly corrosive , by the way, to the productivity of those who work at home, such as writers. Through web browsing, the freelancer communes with the procrastinating office drone—at his peril, because the freelancer receives no weekly paycheck."
June 29, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, for the record, I also think that part of the reason your posts generate so much discussion are because they lead to a heated debate, something which you generally handle well. Well, particularly when it's on a substantive level. So if the discussion molds into something else over the course of the thread it's okay. And while your posts always seem to draw a certain level of ire, I've only ever seen one that I thought really went over the top, i.e. at least 50% of it, particularly the first responses were without regard to substance and did lower the level of discourse. It was the only thread of yours I've seen where it truly hindered the discussion.
Quite a lot of the time, I don't agree with you, but I'd say that generally is what provokes the most thought and discussion. If I read a post where I agree with everything, I'm usually left with nothing better to say than, "Hey! Me too."
June 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like a thread, you don't have to comment on it. Seems quite simple to me. I don't understand why this evades people.
I hope your argument to not suppress voices is not an argument to suppress voices.
I know that Ripper does not have seven or eight psueds and he's not using them to beat people into submission or demeaning them in a fabricated setup which is nothing but a mobbing.
If someone disagrees, they can open up a brand new thread and provide a different voice, just as artappraiser has done.
Unless of course, some people are more equal than others and some people's pseud mobbing is ok but one person's monovocality is bad.
As for moderated comments, this is Josh's blog. If you want to moderate comments, get a blog of your own and moderate away, happily.
June 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rest my case.
June 29, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, Cricket -- I do love your bringing up the cliquishness of these boards. It's a point that needs constant repeating!
Thanks for wielding that sword...once again.
June 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too simple and straightforward. Too much common sense. Not gonna fly.
June 30, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
the problem here is the scarcity of a diverse sampling of voices, there are little to no poor Americans sitting at this discussion table. it's bad enough that they are not represented in the msm.. but here there should be, and other readers/commenters here shouldn't treat the concerns of those people so cheaply.
i have a friend in boston, who is episcopalian. she spoke with her minister after a service to express her hopes that she would speak to the problems of the poor in their community. my friend told me that she was shocked to hear her minister at first attempt to dismiss that there was even poverty present in their community. it is clearly long standing and much in evidence. the loss of jobs, and the strain of trying to find adequate work has destroyed the lives of many there. you would have to be blind or uncaring to be oblivious to it. then her minister tried to make a value judgement that treated poor Americans as less than deserving when there are so many poor elsewhere. her minister, she told me, self identifies as 'progressive', so she couldn't fathom her attitude.
hypocrisy seems to be rife in the progressive movement. there is ignorance of the fact that when you undermine the rights of others, you are helping establish a precedent that will ultimately undermine your own.
i do not place much faith in blogs or the netroots because it is almost exclusively a medium controlled by those who live above the glass ceiling. in some 'progressive' forums you would be hard pressed to find even one voice that understands what civil and human rights, or social justice truly means. the attitudes you find would be almost indentical to those at a freeper forum, with a few minor ideological differences.
June 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem here is the scarcity of a diverse sampling of voices, there are little to no poor Americans sitting at this discussion table.
Well, though they may lack sufficient trust fundage to join us, at least these poor of whom you speak can take comfort in knowing that many a latté has gone cold as their rights to sue the telecoms have been championed.
June 29, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, there is this policy posted by management, and the link is above every comment box. It must be there for a reason?
June 29, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was meant as a reply to Cricket4's comment @2:02 PM.
I got logged out by this dang software and lost the reply setting in the process.
June 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, and I agree it's my shortcoming, I did not think to see you hiding behind that old hoary of the - rules dictate, thusly we will - argument.
Should I then also deduce that you view pseud mobbing with approval, distant albeit, but monovocal assertions as bad? I note that it was a monovocal blogpost which sent you here post haste to post about rules. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous comments on other threads where you wrote against exclusions of "other" voices through mobbing.
June 29, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just came to TPM in the last 10 days. I chose a penguin-with-a-buzzsaw avatar and had no problem dealing with personal insults - I just insulted them back. Sort of establishes boundaries.
But there are personality types out there who get off on that kind of thing, and you play into their little game when you react to their being crude and offensive.
Lightens up their dull little lives.
I say, moderated post would be okay. But allow people who get insulted to fire back once! Then cut off all further posts.
For myself, I am trying to kick my habit and get to be more peaceful. Threw away the buzzsaw.
June 29, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you threw away the penguin too!
June 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't stand the buggers, ever since watching March of the Penguins.
Nasty little brutes!
June 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only threw away the avatar, but threw away the name! New one is more congruent with the new avatar. Same attitude however...
June 30, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean we can't say "Obamanoids?"
June 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're mostly preaching to the choir. Was this a reply to Ripper McCord's "On PA troll?"
Somewhat appropos, I came across this very smart piece on how the internet is changing literary style. Makes for interesting reading for those who frequent this and other similar sites. Here's the link. (Of course, I haven't mastered the complex code necessary to link in a comment yet; probably never will.)
http://steamthing.com/2008/06/how-is-the-inte.html
June 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
rec'd.
i read these when i opened my account, and i've tried to follow them.
i'll admit to calling at least one person a troll though. she spammed her comment (typos and all) in at least 10 different places, instead of simply starting her own thread. she earned some abuse.
i'll also admit to doling out abuse when it's given. others have to instigate it, though.
June 29, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
#3 isn't enforced worth a damn.
June 30, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the doldrums of summer. Nothin' much goin' on these days. Nothing much to talk about. May as well spend a little time reviewing the rules. Perhaps do a little gardening. Anybody got any weed?
June 30, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious, hrebendorf. artappraiser sometimes says stuff that's valuable, but is also an obsessive compulsive churchlady. I finally quit visiting the blog s/he moderated because it became nothing but a discussion of the "rules". That said, sure, we should all refrain from ridiculous postings of any kind.
June 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA:
Thanks for posting this. I think it all comes back to the distincition you have consistently pointed to between activism and analysis. It's just hard for a website like this to be both. And it's important for you to remind us what we're supposed to be all about. There are threads about this FISA thing that reflect this confusion I think.
Bruce
June 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce...as if the great Joad needed any reminding of this. :) You always uphold the standards. Even in the heat of the I-hate-Hillary postings.
June 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish everyone could see things the way you do Hilary. I'm taking quite a beating on some of the other threads lol. But thanks. From someone like you, it means quite a bit. Really.
Bruce
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ran across elaboration on the rules in an old post, plopping them here for reference.
September 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink