Jeralyn, over at ‘Talk Left’ has a new comments policy in place.
The time has come to limit the “chatter” on TalkLeft–constant comments by those who disagree with TalkLeft’s positions, designed to overtake the discussion. I am receiving emails from TalkLeft’s loyal readers who say that they feel the discussion is no longer valuable because of the constant commenting by three or four of these individuals.
So, here is the new policy. The “chatterers”–and they know who they are –will be limited to four comments of reasonable length during a 24 hour period. All comments over this amount will be deleted without explanation. After the third violation, the chatterer will be banned.
This group includes the relatively new poster “ras” who I notified of this policy last Friday and has ignored it. It does not include Jim (poker player) or Cliff–who although they take the other side, in my opinion stimulate debate. They also are the first to respond every time I put out a call for contributions.
I’m certainly not shy about banning people who I think are here to piss in the punchbowl, as opposed to stimulate argument, but there’s something kind of creepy about this. As I read it, the plan is that those who disagree with the host’s positions are welcome to post three short comments every 24 hours. I’d think it was a bad idea even if they proposed to ban all those who commented more than three times in 24 hours, because in my mind it’s all about conversation here. I – along with the other authors here – may have the loudest voice, because what I write shows up on the site directly; but the contributions of the people who agree, disagree, or are just plan befuddled by what I write are what makes this worthwhile and not just a vast echo chamber for my writer’s narcissism.
I hope I misinterpreted Jeralyn’s intent. I hope the plan gets changed. It’s too bad it is even being considered, or that it has to be.
I had to implement a similar policy on my blog as well.
I recently developed my own metrics on the election, the more flaming comments, hate mail and death threats I recieved, the more I could tell how well president Bush was doing.
Of course, I had to write a post about it:
http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/discourse.php
I’ll try to be brief but comprehensive in my first comment. Which is controlling, freedom of speech or freedom of association? I imagine blogs are a bit like neighborhood taverns in days of yore where you’d meet friends to chew the fat. Would we let a gang of loudmouths go from tavern to tavern, destroy the atmosphere, prevent the regular clientel from enjoying themselves, disperse friends and then move on to the next target? Or do we have limits on what can be said and by whom? Does the librarian get to say how loud we can talk and the preacher what are acceptable topics of discussion? Bottom line is it’s Joe’s place. Don’t like his rules, don’t stop by.
err not surprising behaviour, the only thing that seems from the outside is that Talkleft doesnt have many host agreeing members posting. Since they arent being banned for being incorrect… that doesnt seem to compare with flaming etc.
You misinterpreted. A “chatterer” refers not to one who disagrees with TalkLeft’s ideology, but to one who both disagrees AND responds to almost every entry I write AND to almost every comment posted by others. The constant repetition of their views, sometimes ten to twenty times a day, discourages others from reading the comments. NO one wants to wade through them.
That’s the reason behind the “four a day” policy. No one said they have to be short comments. I said “reasonable length.”
Of the 45 readers who have commented on that post so far, several with opposing viewpoints from mine have asked if the policy applies to them. So far, I have only applied it to only two or three commenters.
Again, this is not ideologically based. It’s intended to stop those who are trying to hijack the conversation, stop it cold or dominate the site for their own purposes. Those people, not surprisingly, are one with opposing viewpoints.
TalkLeft has always encouraged, and will continue to encourage, all points of view.
The “chatterers”–and they know who they are …
Hey, my third grade teacher is policing comments at TalkLeft. Armed Liberal is right – this is creepy.
Here is an example of what I am trying to stop. I just went into the logs at TalkLeft and found:
Ras, a relative newbie to TL, has posted 375 comments in the last 30 days. He has posted over 500 comments in the past few months.
On some threads, he has posted ten to fifteen times in a matter of hours. Here is an example . Scroll down to around 12-1 pm and further. Every two or three minutes he has another comment.
Then there is this kind of chatter –a serious post that ordinarily would provoke discussion–but it got stopped cold by the comments.
I’m very tempted to do a mass delete of all of Ras’s comments and ban him permanently, but for now I won’t. Instead, I’m imposing this new rule. On Ras and everyone who engages in similar behavior. This has very little to do with ideology and far more to do with respect for intelligent discourse, TalkLeft and its readers.
If any of you have a better solution, I’m open to hearing it.
TalkLeft –
“A “chatterer” refers not to one who disagrees with TalkLeft’s ideology, but to one who both disagrees AND responds to almost every entry I write AND to almost every comment posted by others.”
So if I reply to every post and comment, but agree with you, and the bulk of your community, it’d be OK? Do you see why this metric – as opposed to one that was designed (somehow) to promote constructive argument – might be a problem?
Remember, I’m a leftist – in favor of redistributive government, etc. etc. But I’m critical of much of the Left because it’s become an echo chamber. That’s a problem both because it makes the left hard to sell (see my reply to VT’s comment below) and because it keeps the left from adapting to the conditions outside the bubble.
I’d like to be a leftist who could win…
A.L.
I’m not sure this is a better solution, TalkLeft, but “WoC’s policy”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003367.php seems reasonable enough.
TalkLeft –
I’d start by making it clear that the policy is nondemoninational; a discussion can be derailed by an obsessive “yes man” as well (I imagine, anyway, it’s not like I ever seem to get any of those…).
Then I’d personalize it to people who really disrupt the wa. I think a mechanical system likie that offers the superficial appearance of fairness, but in fact is worse for the community than something more personal and direct (and where the host is more accountable).
A.L.
I’m glad you find our policy reasonable, Bob. I for one value greatly the diversity of thoughtful dialogue here.
My own observation is that it is always hard to ‘legislate morality’ with rules that don’t become awkward to enforce or arbitrary in their effects. What makes WOC work, I think, is that the norms of appropriate discussion are understood by most participants, and applied via individual team members’ judgement rather than with the rigidity of detailed guidelines.
While the line may be fuzzy a little, I think (hope) that our commenters buy into the intent that we treat one another with respect and treat the important topics of the day with some seriousness. And that’s what really counts.
I think I would simply delete any comments by Ras that don’t bring some substance to the discussion at hand. Hostile snarky substance = okay; snarky trolling to capture discussion threads = not okay. As things stand, s/he has no incentive to stop hijacking your site, so I understand the frustration. I wouldn’t count to 4 however – this person either is willing to participate in a conversation or not. If not, s/he has no need to be there.
JMO.
I’m more interested in the content of their ideas than the quantity or if they agree with me.
I had one troll who was a complete idiot and would never say anything even remotely clever. He gets deleted often. He whines that it is because he disagrees– conveniently ignoring I leave everyone else who disagrees. He can’t come to terms with the fact he gets deleted because he is a jackass.
I had another one who posted the same comment no matter the topic. He thought he had the world’s best talking point and wanted everyone to hear it. He got deleted until he backed down.
I have yet to find a lefty who would disagree with me AND have a rational discussion. I’m not sure they exist.
Free speech doesn’t include the right to comment at will on others blogs. This sounds like a reasonable first stab at solving a problem. If the trolls don’t like it, they can start their own blogs.
I would agree with Lurker. Though not repeatedly, or obsessively, or without at least a weak pun, or some other stab at irony, snark, rhyme, or humor.
Robin Burk: “What makes WOC work, I think, is that the norms of appropriate discussion are understood by most participants, and applied via individual team members’ judgement rather than with the rigidity of detailed guidelines.”
Situations change. As a site grows in popularity it attracts more people who aren’t interested in open discussions. Or if a site promotes an unpopular point of view it will attract people dedicated to disrupting the site.
My view is that the host sets the rules. Guests should accept the rules and understand the difficulties a host faces. Each host has to explore methods that best fit their own desires and the goals of their blog.
Blogs serve different purposes and require different rules.
Policies I’ve seen:
Anything goes.
Host moderates discussions.
Ban disruptive posters.
Pool of “accepted” poster ID’s and new posters are screened.
LoginOn required for commenting.
No comments allowed.
“So if I reply to every post and comment, but agree with you, and the bulk of your community, it’d be OK? Do you see why this metric – as opposed to one that was designed (somehow) to promote constructive argument – might be a problem? ”
No one except people with opposing views have ever done it. What some who agree with me do, and it isn’t ill-intentioned, is go on too long, interminably so, which also deadens the thread cause no one will scroll past. I have always deleted what I consider the excessive part, indicate that in the comment, and save the entire comment on my computer, offering to email it back to the writer.
Trolls don’t usually visit sites they agree with. And who but a troll would comment multiple times to every post?
So while your question may make sense logically, or in theory, it’s not a real scenario.
Thanks for your other suggestions, I’m considering them and appreciate the feedback.
You have a duty to list who is on the list and who is not.
It is the only fair course of action for those who are on and not on the list.
They all have a right to know.
I’ve been naming the people on and off the list and will continue to do so. thanks for the input.
And since this is my foruth comment, I’ll go home now.
FWIW, I think Jeralyn has been misunderstood here.
I think her policy is basically: “I know a troll when I see one, and will act accordingly. So if you don’t want to be a troll, here’s what you have to do.”
I think she’s just trying to keep her comments section from descending into Kevin Drum hell. In his case, a few trolls (on both sides) have ruined what used to be a lively and bipartisan comments section. I can’t think of a good bipartisan site that has unpoliced comments. Without rules, people just can’t control themselves. Think “Lord of the Flies.”
What’s the big deal? It is a lefty blog. They never have anything important to say, anyway.
On the thread Jeralyn cited, people seemed interested in debating Ras. Under the new policy, they can challenge him to respond to their points, and he can’t. Perhaps that will make some thin-skinned leftists happy, but it’s no way to run a blog, in my opinion.
I am a sometime commenter on TalkLeft, and I occasionally get the leftist who gets upset at me for commenting on a left-wing blog when I am a conservative. “What are you doing here if you don’t like our opinions” and all that. Until now, I was confident that TalkLeft spurned such silly thoughts. Now I’m not so sure.
I can’t see the point in limiting people just because they post a lot or post a particular point of view. It seems to me that real troll behavior is (1) saying the same damn thing over and over, (2) constantly hijacking threads with off-topic posts, or (3) being abusive. At that point, you are better off just giving people a warning and then banning them.
Part of Drum’s problem – and why I stopped commenting there – is just that he has too many commenters, as well as the fact that a lot of them just sneer instead of arguing with facts. The combination means that you have to scroll and scroll looking for something intelligent, plus Kevin has to some extent been taken hostage by his commenters to the point where anything moderate he says is couched in apologies for his heresies. It’s a shame, a good comments section can be entertaining and Kevin is still the lefty blogger with the most maturity and perspective.