[photopress:St_Evil.jpg,full,pp_empty]
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" squealed LP commenter Evil Pundit. That was September last year. Before long Evil found himself banned from the purple blog.
Appealing the ban one commenter said:
Maybe we should do a democracy thing here in spite of the comments policy, and ask for a show of hands: who among you thinks Evil ought to be banned from LP?
Personally, I can't see any reason to ban Evil Pundit from Troppo. But maybe we should do a democracy thing here too. Who wants to ban Evil Pundit just for the hell of it?
***
Relax everyone -- I'm joking. We don't do majority rules at Troppo.
Comments are now closed. If you've got a problem with this you can discuss it with Dr Troppo.
I don't know about EP, but I am certainly leaning more toward banning commenters. Catallaxy comments have sunk to new quality lows this week, largely due to Graeme Bird. It's a case study in crowd behaviour. It only takes one individual to start acting aggressively, and others are provoked into also behaving badly. Before long you have threads that no sensible person would want to get involved in. Banning is, however, editing rather than censorship.
I wish to go on record as recanting what I said at JQ's blog with regard to Graeme Bird.
I said on that occasion He should be allowed as I only believe in banning bad language.
Alas as Andrew has stated and as Harry Clarke has said at Catallaxy the Bird man has taken over an interesting thread and is at present destroying it with the help of my dear friend Fyodor. ( I wonder whether this would have happened if not for Fyodor?)
My comments to JQ were wrong and I would put Graeme on probation.
If his behaviour improves then it is okay
Perhaps he should migrate ot Tim Blair's blog. He will be welcomed with open arms.
Even I know when I am being shown up to be a complete idiot!
On the other hand as was said at Saint's site EP was actually quite funny when he was banned at LP.
It wasn't called for and merely reinforced prejudices that the people at LP have no sense of humour.
It must be said EP appears to have gone off the deep end since then however that is neither here nor there.
I don't often read the purple blog so I don't know what EP did. I have read his comments at other places and while I don't often agree with him I have never seen any reason to ban him.
Oh, goody. A meta-thread.
"Alas as Andrew has stated and as Harry Clarke has said at Catallaxy the Bird man has taken over an interesting thread and is at present destroying it with the help of my dear friend Fyodor. ( I wonder whether this would have happened if not for Fyodor?)"
Most cherished acquaintance,
As you know, I am a right-wing troll, and derailing threads is something of a hobby for me. However, in this instance I believe the thread had lost momentum and was petering out, so it's arguable whether I (or the Birdman, for that matter) truly destroyed it. A rather ugly stoush ensued, to be sure, but nobody was forced to participate in that thread. Now, it's quite probable that Birdy might not have taken flight if I hadn't prodded him here and there, but how else do you floush out the grouse?
Anyhoo. Back to EP: I don't disagree with banning him, but I disagree with the timing of it. He should have been banned long before the actual deed, and the fact that he wasn't made a mockery of the comments policy. Ironically, the fact that the LP COLLECTIVE didn't come down on him harder, earlier, probably encouraged him to really push the limits of their tolerance. The lesson learned is that you either commit yourself to running an open bar or you enforce the door policy consistently.
Well I'm a 'door policy' guy, not a 'free speech' guy.
That's not to say I don't value free speech. But banning someone from your blog is no more an infraction of free speech than banning someone from your lounge room.
People who don't meet the dress standards can go to another disco. And someone banned from a blog can go blog to their heart's content - elsewhere. So I'm quite happy to get rid of comments if I don't think they're helpful. I've never done it, but I'd do it if I thought it would improve discussion. That's what I'm here for - decent discussion. I don't invite people who shout people down, or run off at the mouth into my house and I don't want them on my threads.
I recently went back to this thread http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2005/05/28/fighting-them-on-the-beaches-and-in-the-detention-camps/ and the commenters had piled into all sorts of shit. I was amazed at how much more low key TA (now CT) had become.
Being an occasional LP poster, I get about seven or eight e-mails a day from the LP collective agonising about this stuff, and it's a pain in the arse. They should delegate someone to enforce the policy and be done with it.
Anyway, I have a technogical solution to this if I can get someone to do it for me which solves the 'free speech' versus 'door policy' dilemma. We need a plug in by which a moderator can move a comment from the 'louge' to the 'saloon'. People would be asked to nominate where their comment went but it could be moved by a moderator. They can shout all they like in the saloon. And I'll just stay in the lounge.
C'mon any of your programmers out there. Is there such a plugin? If not, burn your name into programming and blogging history - write it.
this is LP's comment policy:
Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.
Please try to stay reasonably germane to the topic [although we recognise the anarchic nature of many comments threads]. General political remarks [ie denunciations of political parties, ideologies or politicians] unrelated to the topic will most probably be deleted.
Vexatious and purely abusive comments may be deleted at the discretion of moderators, and repeat offenders may have their IP address placed in moderation, or be IP banned from the site. No correspondence will be entered into regarding such decisions.
Individual thread authors have a wide discretion on the interpretation of these guidelines.
Commenters are also required to provide a genuine email address should we wish to get in touch with them regarding any aspect of this policy.
I would be obliged for my very dear friend Fyodor who I love like a brother ( I haven't seen him in twenty years)
could point out how EP violated them.
EP is entirely different to our friend Mr Bird.
for one thing I don't ever recall reading what EP ever said. Ipso facto He didn't stop me of reading and 'contributing' to a thread.
De-railing a thread is no bad thing. TA used to be famous for it and made you keep reading it.
I agree with Andrew and Nicholas. There's too much agonising about moderation.
Oh, and by the way -- this post continues a line of thought I started in the Tocqueville post below. Has anyone noticed that?
Nicholas,
You think that was bad? Now THIS was a dirty stoush, but not quite as bad as THESE TWO. And who could forget the "civility" debate?
I'll leave you to ponder why
TACT is so much tamer these days.Ban me! I need more oppression to complain about.
I actually like trolls. Arguing with them gives me something to do. Check out the Qantas or Peta threads on my site for the results.
That's the great thing about free speech. Give em enough rope and they hang themselves. The lefties at at LP would rather just hang people preemptively (or guillotine them, like their french forebears).
Homerkles,
EP violations:
1. off-topic rants on Islam and feminism [I'm guilty too. Not of that kind of rants, but general off-topickery].
2. off-topic denunciations of leftism, feminism, marxism, you name it [almost a compulsion in EP's case]
3. vexatious and purely abusive comments [tick, but mea culpa in extremis]
Basically, he violated them all. Problem is, so did a lot of people, including me. Bigger problem is that EP got banned in the heat of a particularly nasty thread, not after the many times he had previously violated the policy. In short, EP deserved to get banned, but the way it happened was inconsistent and hypocritical.
Personally, I agree that there's too much agonising over moderation, but then I didn't start this thread. I'm more in favour of an open bar, but then I'm a rude, blogless trouble-maker who should be thankful he's tolerated at all.
Yobbo,
to be consistent you would equally nay be more condemning of Tim Blair given the somewhat 'eccentric' interpretation of his comments policy.
Fyodor,
My young Austen loving friend. you think EP should have been banned earlier but other people have equally conducted such heinous practices but you believe in an open door?
I can't help noting the correlation of the vast decline in both LP and EP since the banning
Evil - If I agree to ban you will you agree to complain about it on your blog and link back to me?
If so, you've got a deal.
"My young Austen loving friend. you think EP should have been banned earlier but other people have equally conducted such heinous practices but you believe in an open door?"
Yep. If they were going to be consistent, they should have banned EP and me eons ago. That's naturally why I prefer the "open door" approach. Still see an inconsistency in my views?
"I can't help noting the correlation of the vast decline in both LP and EP since the banning"
I reckon LP was on the skids [i.e. "jumped the shark"] before EP's banning, but that's just a personal opinion. Never had much interest in EP's own site - too much predictable right-wing tosh and uninspiring "debate".
EP's role at LP was well-defined. It was established theatrical context. Everyone played his or her part. That's why his banning looked so inconsistent. The temperature of the role-play waxed and waned but for much of the time, EP was the not-unwilling foil for witty rejoinder, and rapier-like asides. Well, aspirationally rapier-like anyway.
Huffing and puffing about his lack of civility long after EP had become the established catalyst for LP collectivists to launch into thread long cannonades of incivility, looked like a sudden rush of thin-skinned selectivity.
If you're going to have to ban someone it's usually pretty obvious from the outset. Lay down some guidelines and use them - consistently and swiftly. Or don't bother.
Fyodor, if being off-topic was a banning offence the interwebs would have shut down long ago.
"Fyodor, if being off-topic was a banning offence the interwebs would have shut down long ago."
Kinda my point, too, Geoff. These rules are more observed in the violation than the enforcement.
And your earlier comments are spot-on. There's something vaguely pathetic about the whole episode - like a misbehaving pet was abandoned.
As I have said elsewhere I agree with my very dear Friend.
My memory hasn't been the same since I swapped the red pills for the blue ones but there may have been some humour involved when EP peeked his head.
Perhaps Fyodor's grandad can help us.
Chris Shiel acted just like Andrea Harris of who he justly criticises. The justifications he gave as as feeble as hers and his sense of humour matches hers. She may even think neo-classical economics is the same as monetarism!
Altogether too many words have been wasted over this incident. Here am I wasting some more.
With regards LP and shark jumping, perhaps its true, but I think little to do with EP presence but perhaps a small part due to the disgruntlement of several regulars. There is no doubt that it changed with multiple contributors. I'm not sure it changed for the worse, but less of Mark's contributions also weighs against it.
Yes derailing can be fine, however persistantly doing to turn it into the same old debate is incredibly booring and irritating if it essentially ends discussion on particular topics.
As for the rules not being enforced. Obviously you have rules, but you let them slide to try to make the conversation fairly free flowing and hope that people will stick roughly to them. I agree with Geoff's points about EP's role at LP, it was true for the most part but then at times it strayed to the edge of behaviour that some found unacceptable. In the end that happenned once to often.
Why should bloggers have to have a comments policy? Why can't I just arbitrarily refuse to publish comments I don't like?
I'm asking seriously here. I never explain myself to spammers when I delete their comments. Why should I have to be accountable to someone who is wrecking my comments thread?
But who is wrecking your comments thread that is the point my dear Don.
Don,
I don't know that the "should". Obviously you don't have to, but I think that having guidelines about what is acceptable helps set some boundaries.
I think people who want to go off topic or get personal or use bad language should be permitted to do so as long as it is in verse that both rhymes and scans.
I'm with Rafe
(But just to be safe)
It would be a curse
To be anything worse
Derailing a thread Should be an Olympic sport! Right, Greek Adonis?
Haiku doesn't count Scanning and rhyme are absent. It's cheating Liam.
I support banning, when due to unfunny and constant distractions.
EP shoots the breeze But who is watching whom - doom? And who will hike who?
Banning Evil was both dumb and inexplicable. As Geoff remarks, he'd been around from the beginning (and before that at Troppo). Everyone knew where he was coming from and LP'ers up to that point had treated him with a kind of exasperated affection.
Then we had that series of posts on rape, including the 324-comment monster. Kate and some of the other LP collectivites got angry and abusive when others weighed in with unpopular opinions (generally quite reasonablyy expressed). Kate closed a couple of threads down when they got overheated. Evil made some sharp remarks abuiot that which seemed to particularly upset Kate, and voila - he was out, for good.
The rest of us were not even told about it until I asked. And it's worth pointing out that on that thread Evil had been the subject of some pretty nasty abuse himself.
btw, thanks for the trip down memory lane, Fyodor. Those were the days.
Evilpundit was banned primarily because LP instituted a policy whereby dissent on certain topics was disallowed (the rape post Rob mentioned being one of the primary ones). He refused to shut up and so to maintain the echo chamber, Sheil banned him. Since that period nobody has even bothered to attempt a real debate on LP, since it was obvious they are not interested. The End.
And a Haiku before I go:
What sort of a name
Is Larvatus Prodeo?
Wankers one and all.
Aye, Robbie, aye.
Yobs, Rob's take is, I think, the correct one. There was no policy about dissent, AFAIK; it was all about the Weevily Won.
Yobbo on display,
Spanking the monkey again.
Where is Girl Friday?
My site has been down But Gary has now fixed it Girl Friday up soon!
Yobbo,
Those with only six syllables in the second line of a putative haiku risk being placed in moderation.
Gary has gone down, And fix'd your site?! You don't say? Goodbye to holding your own!
Count again, Nickless, There's seven in them thar 'bulls! My, this is silly.
Oops . . the commenter unable to count and yet Ran off at the mouth
Have you been drinking?
What's the punishment, Otto?
A Rafe at the mouth?
[P.S. otto = 8 al italiano]
Sheil banned him
Complete nonsense by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. I've never banned anyone at LP or BP, (except Tim Blair once, and that lasted about an hour).
Homer, I can't ever remember criticising Andrea, justly or unjustly, and think this might be the first time I've ever typed her name.
Broadly, I agree with Don, Andrew and Nicholas; yet I also think banning is bad for readership, and can be a badge of honour for the banned, and therefore should only be a last resort. This policy would mean that the objection Fyodor raises would be kinda inevitable.
If the post is meant to be funny, Don, it's not your best work. Though at least the discussion is relatively constructive. But I don't think it's good form to start debating another blog's policies and decisions. I'm sure no one would appreciate it if I put up a post about the affaire Sophie at LP. Don't worry - I'm not planning to, but I'm hoping that gets my point across.
In my view, the decision to ban EP was taken reluctantly. It's fair comment to say that the comments policy should have been applied consistently at the outset. But it's also fair, as Steve says, to say that you do give people a lot of leeway, and that's generally not a bad thing. The particular context for EP's removal was extremely heated discussion on very emotive topics, and in my opinion, his continued comments in the same tone could have been totally destructive to a space where women feel free to comment. No doubt this will start another stupid controversy, but if we're going to talk about it, you might like to compare the gender composition of commenters and bloggers at any other major political blog.
EP said it himself, a long while back, on his own blog where he said he believed that bloggers were perfectly justified in banning people from their blogs for breaches of the comments policy.
It's always been open for EP to apologise. I'm personally quite fond of him, and I wish it hadn't been necessary.
Broadly, You're a Tool. Nobody would really care, If you died at birth.
Mr Yobbo (see I can be civil), haven't you got some pictures of Asian women to look at on the interwebs or something?
This response to Yobbo - on the assumption his haiku is directed at me - is meant to illustrate through example the need for a comments policy :)
Oh, and thanks Fyodor for your comments. It's a pity you don't come round and visit us any more :(
Technically, a haiku poem requires a seasonal reference in order to be true haiku.
It might not be a bad idea, Kim, if you did put up such a post (on l'affaire Sophie) It was a bad episode, like the recent contretemps at C.L.'s place. The bad odour still lingers, and a forthright post from yourself might help to clear the air.
Be more specific, Jacques. They should include kigo... although even in the early 20th Century, Japanese poets began to omit seasonal references, and it is now pretty much optional.
Perhaps, Rob. Sleeping dogs don't seem to be lie anymore! But I think it's probably a good principle to restrict commentary on other blogs to matters of substance contained in posts, rather than metacommentary on their comments - you're quite right that C.L.'s thread left a sour taste in its wake (is that a mixed metaphor?).
Should read "to lie anymore".
Kim, I agree to the extent that it would have been better had one of the LP'ers posted something at LP along the lines that Don posted here. Like it or not, the banning of EP will continue to rankle. IMHO it puts a big question mark over the integrity of the site.
It was a mistake - like invading Iraq - that's very hard to come back from. Who would have thought the LP collective and Dubya would ever have had something in common? :-)
Rob, it was thrashed out at length on a Saturday post a while back in response to Homer's campaign. Obviously I disagree that it was a mistake - or I wouldn't have sought to justify the decision above. Metacommentary is an easy temptation to yield to, but the blogosphere, and LP, and Troppo in particular, are best served by continuing to focus on quality substantive posts and good civil discussions.
Popper. (For old times' sake).
If a haiku poem requires a seasonal reference, that gives Anna Winter an unfair advantage.
Don, it isn't that easy to get a link from me. LP didn't manage it with an actual banning, only with the comical Chris Sjiel power trip.
Kim, I can understand why you would like to see less discussion of LP on other blogs, since it invariably reflects badly on the inconsistent and biased comments policy on that blog. But I don't think such discussion will cease while the root cause -- an inconsistent and biased comments policy remains.
As for "a space where women feel free to comment" -- are women so weak, fragile and cowardly that anything said by a bloke will shut them up? That's a pretty misogynistic attitude you're showing.
Kim: My Haiku was directed at CS. Your comment wasn't even there when I typed mine (note the time of posts).
"Oh, and thanks Fyodor for your comments."
Your servant.
"It's a pity you don't come round and visit us any more."
Oh, I visit occasionally, but silently.
P.S. further pangs of nostalgia over Kim & Rob rockin' after midnight.
Kim - You say "I don't think it's good form to start debating another blog's policies and decisions".
I don't agree. All of us have to deal with comments threads that turn nasty. I think it's reasonable for us to look at what other blogs do and discuss this with readers.
The point of this post is get readers to ask themselves what would happen if decisions were made by popular vote by commenters. It could cut both ways. Big Brother works by popular vote -- great for tv but not a good policy for a blog.
Here's my take on the broader issues. If you're running a blog where you discuss social issues and politics you want to create an environment which allows commenters to talk without being threatened, ridiculed, or disturbed by attention seeking behaviour.
I think your point about creating a space where women feel free to comment is a good one. Don't you think this implies an obligation to ban abusive commenters quickly? Why agonise about it? You don't justify yourself to spammers when you delete their comments.
You are not accountable to trolls like Graeme Bird. You are accountable to the serious commenters who he is driving off. You are not obliged to warn trolls, explain your comments policy at length, or run an appeals process. Since when were blogs run like government departments?
Read the troll threads carefully -- even they don't think they've got a right to post.
And yes, sometimes it's more fun to banter with trolls than ban them. I guess you have to decide whether you want entertainment or serious discussion.
Don and other Club Troppo people, I hope you won't mind me shoving in an oar on what's really my first visit to your blog.
Every year the gap between the alternate universe of the blogosphere and the ordinary world narrows. There are more blogs and they are more firmly engrafted into real people's real lives.
When visitors make such nuisances of themselves that the host is rendered miserable by their behaviour, there can be no good reason for allowing that behaviour to continue. It's not about differences of opinion; it's about aggression and psychic violence. Why persist with that? Especially when the person in question doesn't change, ever
Since EP was ejected from Larvatus Prodeo new people like Pavlov's Cat have arrived on the scene and others who have been around for a while - Elsewhere, for instance - have returned. I'm not saying EP's presence kept people like that away from Larvatus Prodeo (although that is the effect it had on me for quite some time) - I'm just pointing out that, well, the blogosphere moves on, and talk of shark-jumping seems curiously irrelevant.
Apologies to Fyodor, but I also think there are few things more boring and pointless than nostalgia for old spats. I've been blogging for exactly one year today, and I have only a very faint idea who this Sophie person is. I'm not terribly interested either since whatever the scandal was it seems to be well and truly over. When people I'm otherwise interested in begin to talk about her I generally move on to fresher and livelier parts of the infinitely expansive blogosphere. I imagine that even newer blog people might feel the same impatience coming into conversations about EP's barring from Larvatus Prodeo.
Laura - I agree "When visitors make such nuisances of themselves that the host is rendered miserable by their behaviour, there can be no good reason for allowing that behaviour to continue."
In my experience there are some commenters who alternate between provocative but interesting comments and abusive stirring.
I guess what we all want to do is create an environment that encourages the first kind of comment but discourages the second. I'm not sure how to do this so I think it's worth discussing it openly with other bloggers and our readers.
Yes. In my experience there are some commenters who alternate between provocative but interesting comments and abusive stirring. I have one of those at my own blog at present (though his good side is better described as tolerable rather than outright interesting).
In that case I have thought about posting ground rules and various other tactics. But the bottom line is that I can't control his behaviour, I can't shame him into behaving himself, I certainly can't reform him, and any attempt to draw him into an actual polite conversation invariably just makes him worked up and brings on fresh deluges of nonsense.
I think with people who alternate between decency and abusiveness you have to either just give up, draw a line under that engagement, and move on -- or else just suck it up and take the whole package. Going with the latter option as a first resort seems preferable but shouldn't rule out returning to the first.
What I know is a big mistake is making a big fuss and production of whatever course is adopted. It just confirms to the nuisance that acting like an idiot will get them lots of attention. So I don't know that open discussion is all that productive really.
That said I'd be grateful if someone knows of a way to bar individual IP addresses off Blogger blogs.
"I also think there are few things more boring and pointless than nostalgia for old spats."
They weren't always spats, Laura, and nobody would expect you to find other people's nostalgia interesting. It's a boring and pointless comment in itself.
Don, but the choice of topic and the timing are not neutral. Inevitably people are going to read it as not just an opportunity to reflect on conventions, discusssion, civility, etc.
I'm sorry if I bore you Fyodor, but I don't think it's a pointless comment. The point is clear enough to me: long, specific and pointed discussions about stuff that happened long ago and far away has a gatekeeper effect - it alienates readers who don't have the background by making them feel like "new chums."
Should I then apologise for boring you with a short statement of opinion, Laura? Don't be sorry, just stop doing it.
My comment was not long, not terribly specific and nor was it pointed. If you feel alienated by one sentence I recommend you visit Dr. Troppo.
Your comment was not long, etc, Fyodor; indeed I was not really thinking of you at all; what I had in mind there was this several-months-protracted discussion of the pros and cons of banning Evil Pundit from Larvatus Prodeo.
Kim - You're right " the choice of topic and the timing are not neutral". They always influence how a post is read. I don't have a good track record of predicting how people interpret my posts or what tangent they choose to discuss in the comments thread.
EP - Help me out here. You call yourself 'Evil Pundit' (could you be more obvious?), you deliberately and transparently wind people up, but still they end up taking you seriously. What's with that?
You've said yourself that bloggers can decide not to post comments. As far as I can tell you've never claimed that LP has an obligation to publish everything you decide to send them. All you're saying is that you think they're being hypocritical. Am I right?
Ok, Don, but I'd just point out that it stirs stuff up that's about us not about Troppo. So maybe that's why my rule of thumb about leaving commentary on other blogs to substantive issues rather than meta-comment on policy, comments etc. has some warrant.
Just a comment on regulating comments. Going back to the top of this thread, where Andrew referred to Graeme Bird, and I observe that even Homer is reluctant to defend his purported right to free speech. I've just noticed that Mark has allowed through a comment he made on LP, because it's not characterised by the sort of vitriolic abuse that was typical of his auto da fe yesterday.
The problem is that a lot of the time on long threads, no one is watching. We all have lives outside the blogosphere, and we're not running professional operations. So unless you go the Tim Blair/Andrea Harris route and have someone delegated to keep an eye on every single comment (and I assume that Tim pays her to do this - maybe I'm wrong), there'll be a lot that moderators simply miss because they're not there. So any intervention when they are there often looks belated and inconsistent. Unless you want to run up a Margo style deficit, or unless people who complain about comments policies are prepared to make donations via PayPal to fund someone to watch the comments all the time, it's inevitable.
Oops. Forgot to close tags. Can someone please close the italics tag after "fe"?
Is there a moderator currently looking at this thread?
See my point? :)
Also, thanks for the clarification above, Yobbo, and my apologies for the mistake.
Thanks, Nicholas.
firstly the Graeme bird phenomena is a once-off.
He neither possesses EP's humour nor his intelligence if he is serious!
If the Fyodors of this world ignored him I suspect alls well that ends well. Yobbo's theorem of people becoming more stupid the more they comment will eventually win out.
The banning of EP has become an embarrassment to LP. They have merely become the mirror image of Tim Blair's blog and as equally boring except when Facelift, Whyisitso, joeC or the incorrigible CL comment.
there is no humour there now without my great genius or Fyodor's quick-witted austenisms.
This bodes badly for the next election.
Homer, I doubt the next election will turn on whether you're punning at LP.
But the point you make defeats itself. It's obvious to anyone who reads just about any thread on LP that the accusation (made by others as well) that there's no disagreement on LP is just patently wrong. Indeed, there are some threads where RWDB comments outnumber lefty comments.
And on a related note, we've just let Mr Bird out of moderation after he made promises of future good behaviour. People might be surprised how reasonable and fair a MONOLITHIC LEFTOID COLLECTIVE can be when people accept that there are rules to the game :)
I think most (or much) of the time Evil was just sending himself up, anyway. Most of the commenters on the thread in question (apart from the LP'ers) disagreed with the ban - that's one reason it's not gone away.
OT - why doesn't this blog have a comments counter?
It does, Rob, move your mouse over the timestamp under your name.
Homer, Yobbo was vary critical of Blair's comments policy.
There are lots of blogs that achieve what LP claims to wish for. Done with out endless proclamation but by not joining in or dog whistling others.
Kim - You say that "even Homer is reluctant to defend [Graeme Bird's] purported right to free speech".
Hang on... a person can be banned from LP and still enjoy the right to free speech can't they? There's a difference between a blog people can choose to visit and a state.
It's thinking like this that allows malicious commenters to manipulate bloggers so elegantly. While they might think your self-imposed standards are crazy they realise they can use them against you. If you believe in the right to free speech AND you think that it's within your power to grant or withhold it by allowing or deleting comments, then you're snookered.
Yes, Don, I was adapting Homer's framing of the argument in terms of free speech. I agree with you.
As to Gary's point, we only have to defend what we do because we regularly get our practices called into question at places like Tim Blair's joint and C.L.'s (as you well know, because you've been on those threads). How anyone could claim that "disagreement is not tolerated at LP" if they read a thread like this is beyond me. Sheesh, even members of the MONOLITHIC LEFTOID COLLECTIVE are disagreeing with each other on that thread. Which is good, because on the whole, it's a good and civil discussion which is making people think.
I'm well aware that by answering Gary, I'm falling into the trap you've just outlined, Don. But anyway, I'm off to enjoy my Saturday night, so see youse!
I'm not the one that claimed that and I'm trying to be none confrontational hear,Kim.
But if you insist. Yes disagreement at LP but at times it seems that dissenters are herded like sheep.
Andrea may have control issues but it doesn't spill over to other blogs like it has with you and Mark
Graeme Bird is just a strongly opinionated commenter. I don't think he's any worse than Chris Shiel who is one of the most objectionable people in the blogosphere. Of course if you're "of the left" you don't mind, you love it when he serves it up to people you like to call RWDBs. And of course Graeme's a lot more civil tham Alan Ramsay and Mike Carlton in what the latte set like to call "the quality press".
There may well be disagreement at LP -- but only those on the right side of the fence are censored when it becomes uncivil.
In the discussion that led to my banning, nothing I said at any point approached the vileness of the comments by an LP blogger, Flute, who got started even before I joined the thread.
Don: EP - Help me out here. You call yourself 'Evil Pundit' (could you be more obvious?), you deliberately and transparently wind people up, but still they end up taking you seriously. What's with that?
There's a serious side to my stirring, and most people with above-room-temperature IQs perceive it. I use shock tactics initially, slaughtering sacred cows in public, then when I've got people's attention I slip in the logic and evidence. When some people try to dismiss me with ridicule or ad-homs, they find it doesn't work because there are always others who can see the serious issues. It's a divide-and-conquer tactic.
You've said yourself that bloggers can decide not to post comments. As far as I can tell you've never claimed that LP has an obligation to publish everything you decide to send them. All you're saying is that you think they're being hypocritical. Am I right?
Yes. LP's comments policy states clearly that purely abusive posts will not be tolerated; yet they are tolerated when they are made by a lefty. I was banned not for being abusive, but for being provocative and challenging sacred idols.
So while LP has a right to ban me, there is a price to pay in terms of declining credibility.
EP - If I ask you to explain how you do the conquering thing at LP are you going to accuse me of being stupid?
Can you give me an example of how you've moved the discussion from cow carnage to serious issues?
EP says: "when I've got people's attention I slip in the logic and evidence."
OK, you've got some attention, maybe it's time to start with the logic and evidence now?
Sorry, Don, I've already spent enough time battling LP's crappy archiving and dodgy search function for one day.
"...of course Graeme's a lot more civil tham Alan Ramsay and Mike Carlton in what the latte set like to call "the quality press"
Unbelievable, Gary! I have very little interest in debating these issues on other blogs. The only reason anyone does so is that other bloggers such as Tim Blair, C.L., and now Don put up posts about LP.
whyisitso, Anyone should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the term RWDBs was invented by RWDBs.
Vary ego centric Kim. No its Mark and your irritation that people comment out side LP's control. As if LPers don't post/comment about other blogs sure!!
Gary, I don't recall an LP post about another blog's comments policy or its practices. Sure, we link to other blogs, on issues of substance, and very occasionally criticise the substance of a post on another blog. But we don't make a habit of posting stuff about - for instance, what C.L.'s commenters say or Troppo's moderation policies.
So you've never referred to Tim or Andrea on anything on other then the substance of a post, Kim. Correct? How about Mark?
How controlling is this.
"If people want to take issue with my post, I think it would be courteous to Andrew and Catallaxy for them to do it at LP rather than here."--Mark Bahnisch
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1410#comment-32270
Predictably, I support Evil on this. The thread that saw him get banned was a shocker. A score or so comments into the thread and flute weighed in with his insults, and Amanda was telling the rest of us to fuck off, just because Razor and Russell had chipped in with a couple of different opinons. The story on which the post was based was a total beat-up anyway, as I tried to point out at a couple of points when the temperature seemed to have dropped a bit.
I felt sorry for Russell, who came in from left field and probably scuttled off, never to be seen again, because of the treatement he got. As he said, the LP'ers response to his wholly innocent contributions was spiked with real hostility and contempt. .
EP, google for the cache, it's a lot better than LP's own search facility.
Gary, I can't understand your logic. On another thread here (which I suspect prompted this one by Don), Ken said he didn't want to discuss the merits of EP's case because it was irrelevant to the substantive thread. All Mark was doing was suggesting that Andrew might like Catallaxy to be focussed on discussion of its posts, not those on LP.
I just don't get what you're trying to suggest.
As to Tim, I have no idea. I'm not that interested in Tim, and I'm certainly not interested enough to go and see how many posts mention him and in what context.
Rob - you should at least admit that a thread about rape, and one on which several commenters admitted that they themselves were victims of sexual assault, should not be the forum for spiteful discussion. EP more or less admitted above that he was trying to push the envelope and stir people up. I suspect a number of others were too.
But the spite and hostility was overwhelmingly on one side, Kim.
Anyway, I'll leave it.
To the degree that that's true, Rob, I think it's fair to recognise that people can get very emotional about these issues, for the reasons I pointed out just before.
But, honestly, I think we're demonstrating why re-playing these battles on another blog doesn't get anyone very far.
No, I think we're demonstrating that the only place anyone can have a reasonable discussion about LP's comment policies is one that is not subject to censorship by LP itself.
We've had quite an enlightening discussion, but the LP apologists haven't gotten very far -- because they can't control what is being said.
I think almost everyone who has contributed here except for the LPers has said LP was WRONG!
This is a similarity with Tim Blair. The excuse for banning EP was as bad as any of Andrea Harris. The bad language was as equally bad.
This goes back to my original point of only banning foul/bad language.
If people are going to put people down then it should be done stylishly. Fyodor is a good example of this. He can be brilliantly asutenish at times but quite harrisian at other times.
If a blog has a comments policy then it should implement or ignore it.
Selective interpretation leads to declining standards. Both tim blair and now LP are shining examples of this.
The reason why LP is being debated is because we expect more of LP than Tim Blair.
There is or was sensible discussion on LP albeit from an acknowledged left wing perspective.
One last point.
Whyisitso has stated Chris Shiel is worse that Graeme Bird.
We must acknowledge Mr Shiel has no musical taste and has peculiar vies on economics but he doesn't compare to Mr Bird.
Unfortunately he has acquired blairitus. He has a glass jaw when it comes to criticism and sometimes responds in an unfortunate fashion.
Chris ,
Backpages was easily the best blog on the last election ( and LP approached that at some stage) because of the humour, insight and contribution for various commenter's ( where for art thou Fred?)
Get back to those standards and style!
"Backpages was easily the best blog on the last election ( and LP approached that at some stage) because of the humour, insight and contribution for various commenter's"
Though slightly off the money in terms of it's electoral prediction as i recall - and the one about the imminent total mental collapse of J. Howard. Still, it was brilliant fun. Everytime I recall Chris' rallying cry - "go Latho, you good thing!" - I go all chuckly.
Anyway, Homer, what the hell is "asutenish?" It sounds like a cult.
Rubbish Homer. There are lots of ways to be obnoxious/insulting with out sware words. In context its more an excited utterance then anything to do with the original meaning. And being direct is a more homiest and far less tedious then constant obtuseness.
"I think almost everyone who has contributed here except for the LPers has said LP was WRONG!"
Just for the record, I haven't said that LP was wrong.
I remember what used to happen at school. A few of smarter stirrers realised that they could use the teacher's sense of fairness to get other kids kicked out of class - even the teacher's pet. The trick was to wind the other kid up while the teacher wasn't paying attention. The good kid would then lash out by hitting the stirrer and an inexperienced or weak teacher would then kick both kids out.
More experienced teachers would just deal with the stirrer and ignore the feigned moral outrage -- "but he hit me miss! It isn't fair! You said...". Experienced teachers didn't allow the stirrers to make and interpret the class rules.
"Just for the record, I haven't said that LP was wrong."
You're a sock puppet.
Very perceptive Mr Honnor. Are you making a philosophical point about the truth conditions that attach to this statement?
Correction to my last comment.
And being direct is a more honest and far less tedious then constant obtuseness
Dr Troppo,
go to the Oxford dictionary and look up almost!
Geoff,
I never said BP was accurate but the best. you have essentially strengthened my argument.
Asutenish, the ability to put down someone in a very elegant English way alah any Jane Austen Novel.
By the way Geoff when are you going to write next!!!
Stop bludging the blogosphere needs you.
Gary, read what I said.
BP was certainly the most reliable predictor as far as elections went. You could guarantee that whwnever Chris predicted a specific outcome, or even speculated about it, the result would be the opposite.
Readers with a predilection for wagers might be interested to know that a few months ago, cs predicted that the Government would lose the next federal election.
I've read nothing elegant or sophisticated in the people I'm referring to Homer. Just children playing dress up.