Policy Change
By Mitch Berg
I’ve run by far the most, er, liberal comment policy among Minnesota bloggers with traffic in my general weight class ever since I started carrying comments in 2002.
I ask for civility, as a general rule – but don’t require it, or at least not to a pollyanna-ish extent. Don’t get too pointlessly inflammatory, and don’t go too far off topic, and we’ll get along just fine.
Unlike many blogs in my general traffic class, I don’t censor comments, and I don’t block commenters that I find annoying, to say nothing of those that try to challenge me.
I welcome commenters who disagree with me – indeed, encourage them. In the history of this blog, I think I’ve actually banned a grand total of half a dozen commenters – none of them for disagreeing with me, or even being jerks about it.
However, the comment section has a goal; to serve as a forum for discussion. Which is to say, discussion of the topics I write about.
By extension, this means two things:
- By discussion, I mean a two-way dialog. Not repeatedly, constantly, very deliberately, dropping comments and running away without any further discussion, as if my comment section is your personal blog space. It’s not. You want a place to drop your comments without further comment? Get your own blog, and build your own audience.
- By the topics I write about, I mean “in relation to the posts I’m writing about”. Now, I don’t mind the occasional thread-jack; sometimes they lead me to a topic I’d have missed otherwise. But some thread-jacks just say “I don’t want to talk about what you’re writing about; I want to talk about what I want to talk about”. Which is your prerogative – on your own blog. Go out to Blogger.com or Tumblr or WordPress and start building your own audience. It’s harder than it looks.
So I’m changing policies; the following behavior will wind up with the commenter getting put in the moderation queue:
- Commenters who make a habit of leaving comments without discussing them, ever
- Repeated thread-jacking with an intent to turn the comment section into the commenter’s publication space.
When posts go in the moderation queue, they stay there until the offender contacts me to work things out.
I’m sorry it’s come to this.
August 8th, 2016 at 7:53 am
I can’t blame you, Mitch. I don’t have nearly the traffic on my blog that you do, but I have had to deal with threadjack commenters and the “I see you haven’t written about” types more than once at my place. These commenters usually seem to be liberals who confuse antisocial behavior with didacticism. Your miscreant commenters stick around longer because you have the audience they seek for their displays of moral vanity, but what I’ve found is the libs won’t stick around if you refuse to accept their faulty premises. It’s a shame, really. I’d love to have an honest discussion, but it hardly seems possible any more.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:04 am
pardon the diversion, which blog is that Mr D?
August 8th, 2016 at 8:05 am
I stopped by a all but unknown leftist fever swamp to check and compare their commenting rules the actual name of the swamp is edited as they do not deserve the traffic:
1. We are here for discussion and debate. [Evidently not, since there are no discussions taking place on any of the papspew deposits on the site.]
Citing factual sources is encouraged, and critical reasoning is prized here. Spam comments will be removed. Harassment, intimidation, or interference will not be tolerated. [By this measure, AC is the only lefty that would ever be allowed to comment here, or there]
2. Trolls and flamers will be warned; if they continue they will be banned. [You’ve been warning a troll for the past two months, haven’t you Mitch?]
Discourteous behavior discourages discussion and debate, and is contrary to sharing the widest possible range of view points. [I wonder if that includes describing the authors’ writing as “crap”?]
3. We will try to be scrupulous in giving credit and proper attribution, and also in disclosing associations that are a potential bias. [Like MediaMatters??]
We ask that you do so as well. [Emery wouldn’t last 5 minutes]
4. Courtesy is expected and required.
****** is NOT an ‘adults only’ blog. We deal with a range of subjects that include those which are controversial, and are of interest to mature individuals rather than young children.
We intend this blog to be suitable for readers under the age of 18. [The content is actually suitable only for children under the age of two, as long as they cannot read]
Therefore, a condition of participating here is that our comments be self-edited, avoiding obscenities or similarly vulgar, abusive, threatening, insulting, or otherwise objectionable language when expressing opinions. Substantive points can be made without it. [So no use of “shit”, “crap”, “FOS” “idiots” & etc.?]
5. We welcome suggestions and corrections, either through our comment option, or by use of the above contact email.
This is a moderated blog; there may be some delay between writing a comment and when it is posted by an administrator. We will attempt to be as prompt as possible, but ask your patience. [So this moonbat agrees that putting comments in moderation is the thing to do, Mitch!]
We hope that you enjoy reading ******, and encourage you to share your thoughts with us and the ****** readers in turn, even if you disagree with us. _________________
The opinions expressed on this web log are the personal opinions of the authors. No reproduction or re-use of these personal works or articles published on ******.blogspot.com is permitted without the expressed written consent of the author; they are intellectual property, and so is this blog. [Take it from me, there is nothing intellectual going on at ******. Zip, Zero, Nada, Bupkis.]
No rights of privacy or ownership by the commenter exists over comments. Once they are submitted to ****** they become an integral part of the ****** content and become part of our intellectual property. [Well there you have it, Mitch; right from the moonbat’s yapper. Feel free to toss comments into binary purgatory at your pleasure!]
Say, wouldn’t it just be typical of leftist slobs if the authors of that fever swamp shot over to a conservative blog and violated every single one of their own rules? Naah, not even a lefty slob is that crass.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:08 am
This one. Thanks for asking!
August 8th, 2016 at 8:35 am
Wait a cotton pickin’ minute..
****** is NOT an ‘adults only’ blog. <—Children welcome
We deal with a range of subjects that include those which are controversial, and are of interest to mature individuals rather than young children. <—No Children
We intend this blog to be suitable for readers under the age of 18.<—Children welcome
Cheese and rice, these people are really fucked up…oops! There I go, violating the TOS again.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:46 am
I think I am literally banned from commenting on every liberal facebook page I’ve ever been on. My record I think is 15 minutes from a site called Everyday Feminism. Yes its as cancerous as it sounds and frankly some of the articles are so self-unaware its damn funny, and incredibly depressing at the same time. 3rd wave feminism is just behind Islamic terror as the biggest threat to our current way of life. And yes Mitch, I agree its sad its come to this but its only funny for so long.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:48 am
Mitch;
I’ve noticed a few of my recent comments have been noted as awaiting moderation. I don’t think that I’ve violated any of your policies, at least not intentionally. If I have, let me know and, you can do so here as an example to others, if you wish. I’m big enough to take the heat.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:51 am
POD, I was banned from Planned Parenthood sites for extolling the virtues of abortion, and suggesting Margaret Sanger be nominated for the Medal of Freedom and sainthood.
Reprobates; ya just can’t please ’em.
August 8th, 2016 at 8:54 am
Don’t forget she was pro eugenics and basically laid the groundwork for Hitler and his ‘master race’ idea. She was a basically a nazi in the teens and 20’s. They studied her. Not to mention she was a virulent racist too. Remember Hillary was proud to get that award named for Sanger. She said it in a democratic debate back in 2007-8 I believe. Ironically learning about Sanger is what flipped me from pro-choice to pro-life
August 8th, 2016 at 8:58 am
swiftee
“[So no use of “shit”, “crap”, “FOS” “idiots” & etc.?]”
on the blog without a name there are 41 articles that contain multiple uses of the word “shit” alone 12 more with usages of the word “f*ck” – very child friendly!
peevish must be very proud of his creation.
August 8th, 2016 at 9:02 am
PENIS blog? Good old peeve.
August 8th, 2016 at 9:11 am
Boss,
The moderation queue traps:
Not sure why your comments are getting moderated, Boss, but it’s not actually me doing it.
August 8th, 2016 at 9:15 am
kell, a closer examination of that sewer will reveal the presence of feces in every nook and cranny.
It’s turtles all the way down.
August 8th, 2016 at 9:24 am
Thanks for the explanation, Mitch.
Didn’t occur to me that it might be filters set up by WordPress.
August 8th, 2016 at 9:42 am
Now I’m going to be looking for a good looking commie babe so I can say:
She puts the “cialis” in socialist.
August 8th, 2016 at 10:18 am
Stealing ^
August 8th, 2016 at 10:22 am
DMA wins the internet today.
August 8th, 2016 at 10:27 am
Didn’t occur to me that it might be filters set up by WordPress.
I actually use a third-part plugin, Akismet, that handles my spamproofing. It has a list of common spam terms and sites (updated in maintenance releases), as well as add to myself. I’ve added a few people to it over the years – my stalkers, mostly.
To completely ban a user, I usually just remove their account in WordPress. I’ve done this maybe half a dozen times.
August 8th, 2016 at 10:54 am
Not to get specific Mitch, but did you have to involve the authorities or courts? Or was it not that bad?
August 8th, 2016 at 11:37 am
Mitch stood up and stalkers slinked away with tails between their legs.
August 8th, 2016 at 11:40 am
That doesn’t surprise me in the least, it’s not often someone is at eye level with me being 6’4
August 8th, 2016 at 12:08 pm
“I don’t block people” – BS. You’ve blocked me twice for saying things FAR less offensive to you than you’ve said to me. You block people when you get mad, but have no accountability for your own mouth.
Mitch, if you want people to come back and reply to your reply, then make your comments on point rather than attacking them personally OR going after someone for typos. Your replies aren’t worth responding to. Frequently, as well, you don’t reply. How long should people wait for you? How many times should you have to be asked to address a question and for how long are we expected to wait around for an on-topic reply?
As far as “running by” liberal blogs, HA! You’re blog is a fact light propaganda site for the conservative view. There are dozens of stronger sites, sites you don’t frequent because you can’t control the discussion. You want folks to engage you in a discussion, then don’t sit and cherry-pick points to myopically focus on, don’t fling pooh about typos and instead address the larger arguments, not just your cherry-picked points. I come here because other conservative sites, by and large, are so facile they don’t even allow comments and you conservatives don’t have the guts to visit liberal sites. You certainly don’t have the balls to show up on mine.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:09 pm
So, no Mitch, I’m not going to engage you in discourse because you don’t engage in discourse or your reply is so off-base it’s not worth it. You’ve excused your prior lack of reply using the EXACT SAME argument.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:11 pm
By the way, I’m already in the “moderation queue” so this is no policy change at all.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:39 pm
You certainly don’t have the balls to show up on mine.
LMAO!! Is that a challenge?
August 8th, 2016 at 12:40 pm
So, no Mitch, I’m not going to engage you in discourse because you don’t engage in discourse or your reply is so off-base it’s not worth it.
Looks like Maligna is validating Berg’s Seventh Law.
While I would never dream of speaking for Mitch, I will surmise the reason Peev isn’t banned now is due in large part to his being the dictionary definition of “useful idiot.”
August 8th, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Mitch, if you want people to come back and reply to your reply, then make your comments on point rather than attacking them personally OR going after someone for typos.
DG routinely opens with a barrage of scornful language.
I’m impressed that you have the gall to make that request. Did you not just say Doakes was “FOS” the other day?
Or does FOS stand for something else? “Full of Spirit”, maybe?
August 8th, 2016 at 12:47 pm
By the way, teh Peevee….don’t look now, but “your” little bleeg has been completely jacked by some brain dead asshat who pastes moronic, lefty memes all over it.
I don’t see your fingerprints anywhere on “your” little bleeg. Maybe you should go over there and take care of business, clean that mess up. Then we’ll come over and visit; it’ll be fun.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:48 pm
Lets all flood Pen’s blog and do what he does. See how long before were banned. Swiftiee, I’m game if you are.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:48 pm
By the way, teh Peevee….don’t look now, but “your” little bleeg has been completely jacked by some brain dead asshat who pastes moronic, lefty memes all over it.
So in other words a massive content upgrade?
August 8th, 2016 at 12:49 pm
LMAO!! Is that a challenge?
Either that, Swiftee, or a thinly veiled attempt to drive traffic to his site.
August 8th, 2016 at 12:50 pm
you conservatives don’t have the guts to visit liberal sites.
No we just get bored and reading those sites has been statistically proven to lower IQ’s
August 8th, 2016 at 12:51 pm
“How many times should you have to be asked to address a question . . . ?”
Where the question was inane, asking it repeatedly does not increase the urgency of response but merely underscores the witlessness of the asker.
.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Pen,
You make a few good points, and a few that need responses.
Mitch, if you want people to come back and reply to your reply, then make your comments on point rather than attacking them personally OR going after someone for typos.
I’ll give you half-credit for this one . Dinging on typos isn’t entirely productive.
But I have never, not once, willfully attacked someone personally (at least before they started it up with me).
We’ll come back to that.
I don’t block people” – BS. You’ve blocked me twice
Three times, actually. You’re one of the perhaps half-dozen people that, as I noted in the past, I’ve ever blocked. I didn’t want to go into details, because, frankly, as someone I’ve considered a friend (or at least a friendly acquaintance) for close to 30 years, I’d hoped we could turn over a new leaf, here.
And I’ve specifically noted by name that you are one of the lefty commenters who are welcome here because you largely do behave as I ask (i.e. with a modicum of common sense, usually).
Which is all I really ask.
You block people when you get mad, but have no accountability for your own mouth.
No, actually, I almost always block people when they get mad (or, in the case of two stalkers, downright deranged).
And I absolutely do have accountabilty. It’s my blog. I do it under my own name; I have never, not once, blogged anonymously or pseudonymously. If I defame someone, I’m easy to find. I have always stood behind what I write, as me – Mitch Berg. If I make a mistake – it’s rare, but it happens – I correct it and admit it.
As I have, on at least one occasion, with you.
Your replies aren’t worth responding to.
Pen, you’ve left well over 300 comments here under IDs that weren’t wiped, and at least as many more under several that were when they got banned.
You can respond, or you can not. But clearly something draws a response.
Frequently, as well, you don’t reply.
Sure. That’ll happen.
I don’t expect every commenter to respond to every response to their comments.
Making a long-term, systematic policy of dumping comments that are more like blog posts, and never, ever responding to the responses, is the issue here.
Fact is, the change in policy is not aimed at you.
How long should people wait for you?
That’s their call, and is utterly irrelevant in this case.
As far as “running by” liberal blogs, HA! You’re blog is a fact light propaganda site for the conservative view.
You are welcome to your opinion.
There are dozens of stronger sites,
Not on the left, in the state of Minnesota. Not a single one. Bluestem Prairie is the only liberal blog in my weight class, traffic-wise, that isn’t a complete fever swamp.
sites you don’t frequent because you can’t control the discussion.
Nope. Sites I don’t frequent because they bore me stiff.
At any rate, Pen, the policy change is aimed at behavior. And, as it happens, not your behavior.
Hope we can move on from this. And since it’s my blog, we will, one way or the other. 😀
August 8th, 2016 at 1:09 pm
*cough* DG *cough*
August 8th, 2016 at 1:16 pm
By the way, I’m already in the “moderation queue” so this is no policy change at all.
Interesting point, there, Pen.
I don’t as a rule edit the list of spam keywords that gets trapped. So –
…it’s possible that Akismet – my spam screener – has “Penigma” on one of its gray lists supplied to its clients.
Of further interest – at one point, I used to find comments from your associate DG in my “Spam” folder. This was a while ago. I had to specifically note that the comments were “not spam” to get them off the list (to which, again, I had not added them).
So it’s a possibility that the open-source spam tool I use treats the word “Penigma” as spam.
I’ll look into it.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:19 pm
You’ve excused your prior lack of reply using the EXACT SAME argument.
A) It’s my blog.
B) If I don’t reply, it’s a matter of circumstance – things get busy sometimes, and believe it or not this is not my living. I DO answer most people who disagree with me, most of the time.
You don’t have to like the response – you usually don’t – but then, you are not the one abusing the comment section, either.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Peev, I can’t think of any times when Mitch didn’t respond to comments germane to the topic of one of his posts, whether he agrees of disagrees with the comments made. Now it may be a different matter when the post is high jacked or spun into some kind of diatribe having little or nothing to do with HIS post topic.
My thoughts go like this: I’m a guest here and Mitch is gracious enough to allow me to participate. I’m not the most frequent commenter here because I feel other commentators express some of my thoughts equally and probably more eloquently than what I might be able to offer. I login to SITD pretty much daily, and I’m grateful that he does what he does.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:21 pm
POD, trust me; those two nimrods wouldn’t post a single comment from anyone here. Besides, having just gone over there for a peek, what are we gonna do, make fun of the stupid Facebook memes dog has pasted all over the walls? It looks like a moonbat day care.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:24 pm
So it’s a possibility that the open-source spam tool I use treats the word “Penigma” as spam.
Penigma is what uncircumcised guys create when they don’t tend to their personal hygiene.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:25 pm
I believe that peeve is the only SITD commenter to have had his nick name bestowed on him by James Lileks.
Anyhow, if peeve could write a single comment without pitching for ci@lis, he would not get stuck in the moderation queue.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:52 pm
Penigma is what uncircumcised guys create when they don’t tend to their personal hygiene.
I just laughed and threw up in my mouth a little. Oddly enough it does rhyme with penigma.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:53 pm
peeve whinged ” OR going after someone for typos.”
peevish,
that’s usually me because a) you never proofread your comments (you should learn to its a good professional skill) and b) you’re so exceptionally thin skinned its like watching a brown trout go after a water-bug – highly amusing. If you don’t want me jerking your chain learn to proofread.
August 8th, 2016 at 1:53 pm
It looks like a moonbat day care.
You should see some of the facebook groups I follow…
August 8th, 2016 at 2:00 pm
nota bene: since 7.18.2016 peev’s blog has had 724 hits, compare that to the 400+ hits this thread has garnered since this morning. They are starved for attention over there.
August 8th, 2016 at 2:39 pm
When I saw the new policy I thought, “Well, say good-bye to the 60+ comment threads.” To get that much back and forth usually required a couple of steaming heaps from One Who Won’t Be Named.
And yet, look at this thread go!
August 8th, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Actually, our biggest recent thread – this one, from last month, with 168 total comments, and the #3 overall comment total in the history of this blog, featured not a single comment from the person to whom you allude, IIRC.
August 8th, 2016 at 3:03 pm
Holy hell, that has to be one of the longest timespans I’ve ever seen in a comment section, June 30th to July 18th
August 8th, 2016 at 4:37 pm
It’s not just the Penultimate Peevish dude, I wind up fairly often in the moderation queue for some reason even when I respect the one-link rule and avoid mention of the medication-which-shall-not-be-named. Multiple comments in succession to different threads may be one thing that triggers the moderation script (or it seems that way to me). Doesn’t particularly bother me, but Mitch must get pretty bored with it.
And I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on responding to every comment. It’s pretty rare to go back to a post more than once, or indeed after a day or so. Who has that kind of bandwidth? I’ll typically read this maybe twice a day, maybe, depending on how things are going in real life.
August 8th, 2016 at 7:14 pm
I never get stuck in the moderation queue. Let me do a little investigating . . . Ah-ha! I think I see the problem, Nerdbert.
Nerdbert:
t’s not just the Penultimate Peevish dude, I wind up fairly often in the moderation queue for some reason even when I respect the one-link rule and avoid mention of the medication-which-shall-not-be-named. . . .
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.1
Grade level: Eighth Grade.
Now Penigma:
“I don’t block people” – BS. You’ve blocked me twice for saying things FAR less offensive to you than you’ve said to me. . . .
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 7.1
Grade level: Seventh Grade.
Now one of mine:
I am not a Republican.
But any discussion that the GOP is weak as a party needs to take into account that they control a large majority of governorships and state houses, as well as the federal House and the Senate. . . .
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.4
Grade level: Tenth Grade.
You have to up your game, Nerdbert.