1

Joe, it's hard to conceive of how you'd make such a policy. I guess my approach would depend on the software, and I don't know how yours works.

Generally, I'd suggest that you reverse your policy that "the comment section belongs to the readers." The comment section is still part of your blog, and your reader's experience of your blog is shaped by the comments. I've found it difficult to enjoy your blog's interesting posts, or to participate as much as I'd like, because I just don't need the increased blood-pressure from sorting through the dross to find one or two interesting thoughts to respond to.

I'll make a suggestion, just to start the ball rolling, though I doubt this will be the final policy:

If you reach the point where you have stopped reading a particular commenter's remarks altogether, for whatever reason, ban that commenter (or routinely delete those comments, depending on how easy your software makes it).

Folks can always appeal to you, and you may from time to time relent. But it's your blog, your bandwidth, your reader goodwill, and no one has a right to hog it for their own purposes.

Cheers,
PGE

2

I agree with PGE -- you can only control the comments section if you claim complete ownership of them. Think of them as your house with an open door -- everyone is welcome to come in, but those who cannot behave will be thrown out.

3

Bad comments contain an indirect element of truth. I would suggest coloring bad comments/commenters in gray, so that reader could easily skip over them.

4

Someone suggested this in the comment section of the other post, but this would require some time on your part.

If the comments start getting out of hand (name-calling, off topic, etc.) give them one visible warning and then ban them for a pre-determined and established length of time. With each offense, the punishment gets worse, until you possible have to ban someone forever.

But at least that way, you warn them about your policy without kicking someone out with no set policy.

Decide what is a punishable offense and the set punishment for each offense and then write a post on that, with maybe a link in your sidebar to your comment policy. Then everyone has fair warning.

But again, beyond anything else, this is your blog and you can basically do whatever you feel is necessary.

5

I agree with Aaron. An escalating series of sanctions will let offenders determine for themselves whether they will be able to post here, based upon clear ground rules.

I would limit the offenses to attacks on individuals or groups and attempts to hijack a thread, and not punish viewpoints on issues. That way it's about civility, not censorship. Anyone who claims that it's censorship to not allow trolling likely isn't contributing much anyway.

That said Joe, it's to your credit that you've endured so long those who show no interest in honest discussion. If all someone wants to do is express hatred of Christians, Blogger accounts are free.

6

My experiences at Obsidian Wings (a group weblog with six posters spanning the political spectrum and a very diverse set of commentators) suggest that maintaining civil debate takes a significant amount of work. Following a major blow-up a few months ago, we implemented a posting and banning policies that seem to be working (i.e., the tone of conversation has improved). Not all of them are applicable to you, but, FWIW, they're available here: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/01/new_banning_rul.html (banning policy); http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/12/the_longawaited.html (posting rules; greatly influenced by Tacitus's rules, who, in turn, cribbed off The Agonist.)

7

I think maybe the best solution is to block people who attack others without any provocation. It's one thing to attack someone after they have done something to you, such as consistently misrepresented your ideas in a series of comments and they won't respond to a polite rebuke. It is quite another to just come out with ad hominems right away. I haven't seen any debates on your blog that could justify that. That's not to say your blog is at all dull, just that it's a few steps over the head of the average piece of trash from FreeRepublic or Democratic Underground ;)

8

Well, now that you mention it...

9

Can someone here cite an example of a 'bad comment'? Really? There are a few trolls here and some namecalling but most of the lists (and people here know I comment on most of Joe's posts) contain pretty interesting debates.

My vote: Delete profanity & obvious spam. Leave everything else as it is.

10

I think that we can all agree that part of the problem is some of the hateful language in the comments. I know some have said in this thread, and yesterday's, that they consider this "pithy" or "sharp witted," but, bottom line, it's hurtful to some folks, and in a lot of ways, fundamentally unfair since many of the attacks are made by folks who really know very little about the people that they are attacking (this coming from someone with first-hand experience). I just think that decorum and civility is the key, and it needs to be maintained. We can have a discussion, even a disagreement, without having to get personal and hateful. It's just uncalled for. That's where I'd draw the line.

I really do like the free exchange of ideas, and I like being challenged to think deeper about my faith - those non-Christian posters who are here force me to do that.

Personally, I've been avoiding commenting lately because I'm frankly tired of being called names, being put down, called stupid, or backwards (or any number of different explatives), simply for my beliefs. I want to have an open exchange of ideas, but, without having to worry about someone lashing out at me simply because I follow Christ.

11

In such situations there's nothing better than "X, I agree with your point but you are wrong to resort to name calling and insults against Y" In some cases, however, debating is a bit like a boxing match where you want both sides to use their best skills to make their arguments.

12

All I really mind is the off-topic business.

If some clowns want to call names, I don't necessarily care because it makes them look foolish, which is a victory for their opponent.

What I don't like is when the topic is about something like Purgatory, and then the first comment is about Jeff Gannon or No Blood For Oil or any other nonsense.

I say just delete any posts that are off-topic and warn people.

13

Joe,

I agree with you generally and disagree with you strongly on a few issues. It's a real credit that you do allow strongly worded comments in opposition to your own opinion--a rarity among bloggers.

I think you have to be ready to delete/ban hijacked threads

You should delete/ban obscenity profanity (no brainer)

After that, I think you should be gnerally guided by Christian principles of civility and generally require others to do the same. Putting that into practice is difficult, but Jeuss endured reasonably harsh words throughout his ministry (and later much more). A desciple of Jesus would be able to tolerate a fair amount of modest invective.

It's also fair to be able to call someone's argument "horse do-do," or words to that effect when the argument is, in fact, green mushy and smells bad. Bit I think there's a reasonable limit to that. I know I sometimes cringe at some comments made by people I agree with, and I frankly think they should be deleted.

Again, I commend you you on a mostly open door poilcy, very refreshing. I think you can retain all of the benefits of the free exchange with some specifically targeted guidelines.

14

Emmaus:

I haven't been commenting lately because I haven't founda skillful way to get through to people, to get beyond their biases, and actually have a real discussion.

There's blame to go round all around. And I mean all around.

My recommendation is what I do on my blog: If you're going to get shown the door saying what you say in my house, expect to get the comment deleted or banned; it's my perrogative.

15

I think I’ve posted a total of two times to the EO, so maybe that skews my opinion, but I would like to see no change in the comment policy.

One of the unique things about this website is the wide range of comments. For many blogs, the comments are simply cheerleading for the site owner. Other sites might get a total of 7 comments for a given blog entry. I enjoy reading the diverse range of opinions, because this is one the few sites where I can find them all in one location. I’m not really interested in trying to change other people’s opinions, but I would like to know what they think.

Also, Joe brings up hot button issues that are going to generate strong opinions. If he was simply discussing sports or movie reviews, I doubt his entries could long sustain interest to generated 50+ comments.

I know ‘world view’ is a phrase that irritates some, but I think it is a valid consideration for this blog. As a Christian, I agree with a lot of Joe’s ideas and I can understand his point on others. That is because we both believe in God, and Jesus Christ as a personal savior. A Christian tries to use this basic belief as a cornerstone for all of their opinions. An atheist does not have this belief, so a lot of Christian view points are going to seem strange or even silly. Many arguments between Christians and atheist are probably futile because they are not arguing from the same set of core beliefs or assumptions.

16

Joe,
There's no way you can do it all, I doubt you could ever read every comment... so we'd have to live with a sometimes inconsistent application. But you should just reserve the right to delete comments or posts as you come across them, whether they be hijacking, profanity, lewd innuendo, or whatever you decide.
Replace the post with a one-line or one-word explanation. If there are some extreme repeat offenders, you may have to hammer them for a while, but eventually they and everyone should get the picture of what you want to see for healthy discussion and disagreement in the comments.
There must be a judge (you), and not just a standard. Some topic veering is a normal part of any conversation, but repeated hijacking into the same beef the poster has is counterproductive. Sometimes we just need thick skin if someone attacks what we've said, other times the attacker goes over the line. Depending on your patience, you can always reserve a 3 strikes and you're out rule. Or 10 strikes, or 25 strikes.

17

I wouold like to see a registration system where everyone's real email adress had to be displayed. That way twirps like Larry Lord wouldn't be anonymous bomb throwers, but might have some accountability for their comments. It would also allow us to take things off line when they get off topic.

18

Joe:

I can appreciate your desire to give the comments section a communal atmosphere. But I think, as history shows, communes only work if the members are all of the same mind. Being that we all come from different backgrounds, Christian and otherwise, perhaps it would be best to have a benevolent dictatorship in this case.

I think we have already seen your willingness to tolerate those with different views so I don't forsee any of the regulars thus far accusing you of censorship. But, even if they did, its your blog. So I suggest a comment policy against profanity and abuse and, as someone else noted, a polite warning before someone gets booted. Obviously this is more work for Joe, but being a dictator comes with its responsibilities.

19

IOW, anarchy with you in charge. I'm not sure if your software supports TypeKey, but that's what Ed Morrisey at captainsquartersblog uses. To post, you have to register with TypeKey. Seems to work reasonably well, though he doesn't get a whole lot of thoughtful dissent for some reason.

I enjoy the iron-sharpens-iron give and take here when all are engaged, thoughtful, and respectful. Insults and ad-hominems turn me right off. I know to expect to take a certain about of abuse just because I'm a Christian, but I can get that in any nummber of places.

Being a Christian is about wrestling with big ideas, despite the misconception that we're mindless dummies who need to be taught what to think. EO makes a good wrestling mat. Not a mud-wrestling pit.

Ban the trolls, the terminal jerks, and the hopeless hijackers. Let the grownups have a grownup conversation, and let's agree to keep it civil. Even the hardcore atheists should be able to agree to the Golden Rule, right?

20

I think that the idea of censorship is abused a lot anyway. The word means the government deciding what ideas people may or may not be exposed to. It is not censorship for private individuals or organizations to be selective in what is communicated in media under their own control. It's not censorship if blasphemy doesn't get government funding, or if I'm not signed to a lucrative book contract, or if Ward Churchill's ideas are condemned as a big steaming pile, or if posters on this Christian site may not promote hatred against Christians.

That said, there is value in honest debate, and Joe is doing a great job of providing a forum for that. I'd hate to see the well get poisoned.

21

Commenting Policy:

My advice is to simply be flexible without implementing a blanket policy. Just ban the people you don't want to read, either for awhile or permanently as you wish. This is your blog. You are under no obligation to hear all sides of an issue or attempt to be "fair". In fact, even trying to determine whats "fair" as far as commenting goes is an almost hopeless task anyway.

Of course, you could just let me moderate the blog comment sections......;-) MuuHwuahahahahaha....

Although, having a third party moderate the comments isn't such a bad idea. Then you can avoid banning someone who is correct, but has ticked you off.

As for going off topic, that is also almost impossible to avoid. However, I'd be curious if whether people go off topic more often when discussing a single-subject post from you, or when you have made one of of your compound posts consisting of many different subjects. I'd guess that the tendency to go off the track is easier with one of the latter.

Wasn't the subject gerbils?

22

For the most part, I like the open comments the way they are; but I think guildlines and post deletions are entirely acceptable. Certainly swearing should be nixed, but we don't seem to have a problem with that. I'd love to see ad-hominem attack posts nixed, as well as off topic thread kidnaping, but that's your call.

But how would you enforce bans? Since the forums are currently open, an offender just has to post under a different name, correct? Which probably means you are contemplating registration. (Which I have no problem with...)

It's the lure of disagreement and participation of people with different views that leads me to read the commentary; I would hate to lose that baby with the anti-Troll bathwater. =]

23

Unless you really want to, I see no reason to write up some extensive 'policy.' Too much work! Then you have to enforce it!

Remember, this is your private property; so, ultimately, it's a dictatorship, thus far, reasonably benevolent. If you suspend or ban someone, you really don't have to follow any 'due process.'

So: if you want to post something, post that bad behavior brings sanctions, determined by you, the absolute (benevolent) dictator of this blog.

I don't favor the idea of showing email addresses. I am under the impression you, yourself, know my email address, and that's fine. But offering ones views under a pseudonym is an honorable tradition in discourse; and besides, its easy as pie to create an email address, so trolls would still be trolls; this policy would only be an inconvenience for non-offenders who prefer more anonymity.

24

Controversy is a big reason that anyone has any comments.

Is someone really feels the need to censor then I think they should warn and then warn again, all the while demonstrating their case for it based on the text at hand. The way that some censor sans reason by arbitrarily banning or attacking a person is quite different.

And yes, it is censorship sans the issue of government, "rights," etc.etc.. Ever been to the video store to rent the uncensored version of something? It is not necessarily wrong to censor. But it is something to be careful about, in my view.

It's a stupid argument to try to deny that censorship is what it is. (Will I be censored for using the word stupid?)

25

Finally! I thought it was just me thinking that your comment section is one of the biggest wastes of bandwith in the history of man. Even Worldmagblog was never this bad. Do whatever it takes, man, but do something!

26

I think your post itself and all these comments should just about take care of it. Consider all your readers fairly warned. (Besides, I've seen you censor and delete in the past.)

'Nuf said.

27

Joe, I really appreciate your sensiivity on this topic, but in this case you must rule by fiat.

A couple of commenters compromise the effective dialogue on this site by constantly spewing their vile invective at a captive audience. Fear of the editor's pen will either force them to make more focusced, on-topic points with more decency, or be chastised/kicked out. They will then run off to find some other antinomian place where they will be suffered gladly.

Even if they feign hurt and slough off, there will still remain several very good but civil antagonists that we can cross swords with and who will be more than happy to keep us fans on our toes.

Manage your house.

28

Yes. I know that some of the most prolific but least enlightening commenters here may not believe it, but if we *weren't* forced into a defensive posture ("don't disagree with Joe, he's got enough stuff to deal with!"), there are quite a few of us who would have strongly-held views that run contrary to yours, but which can be stated in terms that allow for meaningful discourse.

When someone opens from the premise, "People who believe in Jesus are stupid, and this post is another chance for me to show you how," there is no meaningful discussion possible.

It is your choice. Just bear in mind that the reader-attention market is, like any market, self-correcting. If you ban too freely, then the debate will be stifled and your readership will shrink; if you don't ban at all, then the debate will be stifled and your readership will shrink.

Again, I recommend:

1) "It's *my* blog. You are welcome, but you are not entitled."

2) "If I decide I never want to read your post again, I'm sure not going to publish it for the rest of the world. I'll let you seek other avenues for publishing your thought. Be banned!"

Cheers,
PGE

29

Joe,

Your world, but you asked for 2 cents on the policy. If it were my world, I would ban profanity and clearly bigoted posts. Otherwise, a great deal of the trolling is done based upon what the topic of the post happens to be. As an example, you had a great post last Christmas about the Virgin Mary which had none of the usual trolling about Bush and Iraq. On the other hand, if the post is about ID or the Daily Show, the comments will degenerate into open name calling and race baiting faster than you can say 'mumon' or 'larry lord'.

Undoudtedly, it is tiresome owning a free speech venue, but the openness which you have shown to this point is commendable.

30

One disadvantage to disciplining or removing posters...you become that much more accountable for those you leave untouched.

31

Septimus, that's why I said it's ultimately Joe's call. The final decision on what's fair and right will be his, and it's certain that whatever he decides some will disagree. There aren't easy answers, but a decision will have to be made on whether to discipline or remove some or none.

Of course, it's theoretically possible that everyone will behave like a responsible grownup...

32

Joe - I don't think you need a written policy; if you decide that a poster deserves to be banned for some reason, that's good enough for me. I have read EO long enough to trust that posters will not be banned for disagreeing with you, even if that's what they claim. But something needs to be done - until you raised this issue I had gone from scrolling past certain notorious posters to giving up on reading the comments altogether because they were overwhelemingly dominated by troll/hijackers and their feeders. Life is too short

33

Since the forums are currently open, an offender just has to post under a different name, correct?

Usually "banning" and is done by preventing comments originating from a particular IP address. So posting under a different name wouldn't help.

It can still be easily bypassed, by simply making your comments from a different computer or by changing your IP address.

34

Emmaus:

I'm frankly tired of being called names, being put down, called stupid, or backwards (or any number of different explatives), simply for my beliefs. I want to have an open exchange of ideas, but, without having to worry about someone lashing out at me simply because I follow Christ.

Your problem comes with the territory, Joe. It's hard to have an unfraught exchange of ideas about whether one who professes to be following Christ actually is following Christ.

35

This reminds me of the good old days on USENET. Back then I read news with a blacklist (don't show me any articles by this author), and eventually moved to a whitelist (only show me articles by these authors). I'd love to have that capability when reading the comments here. Then I could choose to automatically skip Larry Lord's posts (something I have to do manually today), without inflicting my preferences on anyone else. No need to listen to whining about censorship, and (even better) no work for a censor.

I don't suppose the blog engine has this capability. Alas.

In that case, I join with several others: Joe, you know who is causing trouble. Ban them. The rest of us will thank you for it.

36

No comment by Larry Lord?

37

Amigo beat me to it!!