Thanks P, very helpful

I have seen many instances of comments being closed by writers and in fact that is how I found out about the option to begin with.

So here are my questions kind sir:

If there is an option for NO comments and the writer expressly states in his post that he or she does NOT want any comments, do you have the right to arbitrarily change that?

If so, would it not be considerate of you to at least discuss with the writer his or her reasons before considering taking any such action? Or would that be considered too much to ask?

Don't want comments? Don't post. It's that simple. If you can't handle some disagreement, you're better off not posting it at all. This site isn't just about the reviews/rants, it's about the reaction to them and the interaction between commenters. What's the point of you posting something that no one can comment upon? That's a post that serves no point.

BB, if you read this post at all, I think it was pretty clear. You retain copyright of the content, and nothing else. It isn't a question of whether "we" have rights, it's a question of what control each individual poster has over the audience of Blogcritics. As has been obvious to 99.5% of posters, no poster should expect to be able to make proclamations and shut off or delete responses. If you want to make proclamations without feedback, feel free to make them on your own blog, but not here.

As they have always been, comments are on by default and we don't turn them off. In fact, since you left, I've removed the option for anyone to turn them off, so it is no longer an issue. You quit, so you haven't seen this.

If there are posts on this site with comments disabled, I don't know of them (save one I disabled myself), but since you mention it, I'll run a search and check.

Other than that, kindly grow up or bugger off.

Tom, there is a difference between making a statement or opening up a post for discussion. This is a publishing mechanism not unlike paper. When you pick up a magazine you will find static news and commentary, or letters to the Editor. Only the latter is open for discussion. Why do you think MovableType has that option? Should it not to be up to the discretion of the writer which format he or she so chooses?

All things considered Phill I don't think this issue is as black and white as you would suggest. Wouldn't it have been prudent for you to show a little more tact rather than ignore me or attempt to hide the truth that only served to fan the flames?

For the record, I just checked, and there were exactly thirteen posts with comments either off or closed: Jan Herman's bio was one, and I did that on purpose. Two others were created while I was in the process of tweaking things to disable the option, so that's probably my fault, and one of those is as yet unpublished. I fixed them both. That left ten posts where the comments were marked "closed." 10 out of 12824!

One of those was BB's petulant Dear John letter, one was the Ja Rule post which was closed by Eric, and then comes another post by BB, from the last time he acted out. Then there was a post of my own that was obviously done in error, so I fixed that. Then there were another five posts, all of which were marked closed, and none of them obviously so. That is, there is no indication that it was anything other than an accident, so I have corrected them.

For now, we've gone from thirteen down to three, and over time those might easily find themselves open to receiving comments again someday, too. It's like anybody other than you-know-who will remember any of this a month from now.

It just occurred to me why most of those posts have comments disabled - before recent upgrades to MovableType provided for better spam-protection, I believe Eric would identify heavily-spammed posts and close comments on them. Of course, that's no longer so much of an issue, since it is both slightly harder and much less profitable to post spammy comments here.

As an example of the sort of things Eric and I might do that posters can expect, occasionally we will disable comments on a post to allow people who should know better some time to cool down, maybe have a beer or a glass of wine, and relax. As Eric mentioned on another post, we tend to re-enable comments on those eventually, once we think a reasonable amount of time has passed.

Gosh, I'm really tired of having to explain to all the children that they can't touch everything they see! Fortunately the youngest of my own real-life children is three, so he knows better now. <grin>

Your records are in error and I will see what I can dig up. In the mean I will appreciate that you cease from making "petulant" comments and provide a reasonable response to my questions above. And, above all.. peace bro :-)

BB, it's really selfish and self-important to assume that you can come to a site like Blogcritics, which is a community and built upon interaction, and demand that you be given a soapbox with no ability for others to criticize (or even offer their support.) A post like that serves no one but yourself, and it gives far too much power to the individual contributors. Why should you need this site to make a statement like that? Why would you care if anyone commented or not? If you don't like what people are saying, your choice is to either ignore the comments or leave, if you can't handle it. You've chosen the latter. Let it go - it's over and done with. Move on. You're making a huge deal out of nothing - in a week no one is going to care about this.

Phillip, are you aware that comments are not available on most of the newest posts right now? Check Mark Saleski's Craig Taborn review, I know that one's definitely not working, and the video and etc. top-posts are not commentable either.

So much for my l33t haxx0r s3i11z. Or my ability to read the word "hidden" for that matter! Shoudl be fixed for new posts, will now go fix the ones that are set incorrectly. Sorry about that.

Tom it is not a matter of being "selfish" or "self-important". It is a matter of how much control should a writer have over his or her post, freedom of speech, expression and how a publishing mechanism should or should not work. I am merely posing the questions. Have you ever been an editor or published on paper? I have and it is all a matter of negotiation and interpretation. Since the issue has come up it deserves a precise and reasonable response (comment #5) from those who reserve the right to 'edit' so there will be no misunderstanding.

Tom, thanks for the heads up. Seven posts managed to escape while my buggy template was in place, but I think I've got it now, and all of those have been fixed.

This time I even - gasp! - tested it!

BB, I think all of the current members of Blogcritics who have read this post understand exactly what they can expect. New members will be sent a subset of the post above as well. I'm hoping that means we can get past 600 members before we have another incident like we had around 200 and 400. Thanks, and have a nice day.

No sir I beg to differ. We haven't heard from all Blogcritics, only the outspoken few that can't get beyond a sentence without resorting to stupid expletives.

Obviously you don't have the courage to answer my questions which in itself speaks volumes.

Phillip and Eric don't need to answer your question, BB. It's their site. If you don't like how it's handled you can go elsewhere. Personally, if I'm given the privelege of posting on their site, I'm going to bow to their demands. I'm happy having the ability to offer my thoughts to thousands of readers a day. Beyond that, I really don't care, as long as my original writing isn't mangled or misrepresented. And that is really all that matters. You're acting like there's a great conspiracy here, when, in fact, what you have is tremendous freedom. With that freedom comes a price - and that is having your writing open to comments. Big deal.

Tom I can appreciate the fact it is their site. If you feel so fortunate as to bury your head in the sand that is your privilege.:-)

But it is also your words, mine or anybody else that posts here and that accounts for something does it not? Amongst other things they have pledged non-interference and impartiality and there are unfortunately inconsistencies.

All that I have requested is clarification in comment #5 that are issues ALL writers have a right to know. They are reasonable questions and deserve a reasonable response.

Wow, BB, I didn't think you were quite that stupid, but I'll type really, really slowly so that you can understand the answers to your questions, okay?

Why do you think MovableType has that option? MovableType is "personal publishing software" that is used in many different ways by many different people. On some sites, no posts ever allow comments. On other sites, some do and some don't. Even on this site, Eric or I might occasionally close comments on a post to let things cool down, as I suggested earlier, or because a post isn't even being used as a post but as a bio, as I also suggested earlier. MovableType wasn't designed specifically just for us, and so the available features don't mean anything. Does the availability of a huge number of categories mean that you can pick any one of them and still end up with your post on the front page? No, they simply mean that this software isn't quite perfect for our needs, that's all. As I've already mentioned, I have modified the software so that option no longer appears, so this isn't even an issue any more. Golly, it seems I've already answered all of this, and now I'm quoting myself. I suppose it is convenient to have it all in one place so you don't have to bother reading, though.

Should it not to be up to the discretion of the writer which format he or she so chooses? No, it shouldn't, for all of the reasons and with all of the considerations I've already spelled out. You don't "own" the post or Blogcritics.org itself. For a while, you were one of 430+ contributors, and now you're not. That's all.

Wouldn't it have been prudent for you to show a little more tact rather than ignore me or attempt to hide the truth that only served to fan the flames? I neither ignored you nor hid anything, and the only fanning of flames that has happened has been a result of your multiple raving posts about a (former-)fellow Blogcritic. It would have been prudent of me to do... well, pretty much exactly what Eric did, removing your posting ability the moment you quit. Out of (I think) 600 past and present Blogcritics, only you and two other people have ever shown any confusion about the "ownership" of posts around here, and they both left the site as well, though came back and has abided by the policy ever since. It comes back to that 1:200 ratio that seems to be consistent so far. I'm hoping we can avoid it next time, and especially this boring old, "Hey, I saw a button, so I must have the divine right to use it and you must all live with the consequences" canard (paraphrased, of course).

Does that thoroughly answer your questions, BB? I get the feeling you won't keep your promise to go away until you're satisfied, so I'm working overtime to satisfy you.

BB, careful or you're going to put somebody's eye out with that. Look, you've already said you want to take your imaginary ball and go home to have mommy get you glass of orange drink. Fine.

But stop whining about it. The thing of doing a huff is that you are supposed to shout, stomp your little feet and THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!

The more you petulantly post, the more I think you are an absolute tool.

You probably encourage your dog to shit on your neighbour's lawn.

Carruthers perhaps you should learn a few more words than "tool", fuck... Is that the "professionalism" Eric keeps talking about? Maybe Eric will loan you his thesaurus. If you don't like it then change the channel fool.

Phillip "WOW", perhaps you are as "stupid" as you appear to be. It's unfortunate you took so long to finally spell it out for us pea-ons, albeit grudgingly. Thank you, thank you and thank you.

Next time read the entire thread bro. This is not just about software but integrity, honesty and such. I sent you several emails yesterday that you conveniently ignored when this all started. Shall I publish them for ya pal? Have you banned me yet?

BB, I've answered the questions in comment 5, even though I had already answered all of them before. I've read every inane and immature comment you've written, and I've spelled everything out so many times that other Blogcritics are starting to quote me and answer you themselves. Everybody gets it but you, okay? Have a drink, take a nap, and come back tomorrow, or don't.

You can publish whatever you want — you wrote them — wherever you want, but not here.

I will not ban you unless you violate the comment policy, and you have not done that yet. Nor have I threatened to ban you, so you question is a non sequitir.

You want to talk about integrity and honesty? Try this: you promised to leave, why haven't you? You said that all you wanted were answers to your questions, and I've given them to you, so why are you still whining? What is your problem now?

Anybody (other than BB) who read my post at the top of this page and didn't already know the answer to BB's questions before he even asked them, please speak up. Did anybody find my answers in comment #19 surprising, or did they sound like copy-and-pasts from other comments I had already made?

Good, steadfast, simple, solid Anglo-Saxon words have always been my foundation. And upon that rock I will, well, rock.

So it's good to know you do encourage your dog to shit on your neighbour's lawn. And probably steal his newspaper and Girl Scout cookies, too, since there is nothing too low for a lawyer.

Golly Winn, BUT we legal types are sticklers for details. Sorry if that bugs you. A word to the wise. Be up front at the beginning. And next time respond to your emails in a more timely fashion, especially when you're screwing us around.

And when you (and Eric) respond be sure to get your facts straight the first time. Contradicting yourself doesn't help for credibility. As for immaturity, look in the mirror pally. Have a great day and see you around. :-)

Here's a detail: You said you weren't coming back, and you won't stop coming back. Here's another: The only damages anybody has done to anybody else is you to yourself. Every comment you post makes you look more and more immature, as I'm sure you'll recognize in another week when you're the only one revisiting these posts to see if anybody has noticed you're gone. Bug me? Sticklers for detail don't bug me. When people pretend to be incapable of understanding plain and simple English, that bugs me. When you can read the post on this page and still ask questions that are clearly addressed within the post after that, that bugs me. That you're such a smart feller but insist on wasting my time rather than reading already-available information bugs me. But sticklers for detail? Ha!

No, I have not responded to your emails, nor do I see any reason to. You had already been told by Eric that comments would not be deleted, and they will not be no matter how many times you demand it. Sending me and email after Eric has already said no doesn't mean I am obligated or even inclined to answer you in any way. Here's another detail: I don't have to answer any emails of yours, ever, if I don't want to.

My facts have been straight since day one, it is your decisions that change with the shifting wind. You quit, Eric disabled your posting ability, and there is no problem and no contradiction. You called Eric a "hypocrite" because of this, but it seems pretty common sense to me. Did you expect to post about quitting and then go on posting and posting? Was it a bluff that we took seriously, perhaps? Were you hoping for an outpouring of people begging you to stay? Oops! I know, I know, you never intended to even come back once, and yet here you are, with 20 (!) comments since that post.

You read the same comment everyone else did, and you alone thought you saw things Eric didn't say. Stickler for detail? You have consistently jumped to false conclusions, made accusations that were simply untrue (I'm waiting for the list of posts that didn't allow comments.), and continued to go on and on long after everybody else has made it clear that your dramatic death scene has gone on too long. Has anybody stuck up for you? Has anybody suggested that they, too, felt that they had the right to delete other people's comments as you've demanded that we do? Has anybody begged you to come back? No.

I suspect you're a last word freak. Your departing post is prime evidence of that. So I'll give you the last word. From now on, as long you don't ask any questions, your summation can stand on its own. As long as you continue to ask questions, I'll continue to answer them. I certainly don't want you feel as if you've been ignored!

Well, then Phil.. which is it? Am I just pretending to be "stupid" or am I the real deal?

Um, with respect to your "stupid" diatribe about the emails.. watch it buster or I may decide to publish the WHOLE schmozzle in all its (gory) glory. So ya gotta ask yourself - do you really want to suffer that indignity - so do ya.. punk? :-)

Obviously you have no sense of humor Phil and still don't get it. But, shucks now it's my turn to give you the last word.. so please humor me.

BB, you tell me. You're a lawyer, and yet can't seem to figure out pretty basic things.

As I've already stated, you may publish any emails you wrote. Publishing emails from Eric might be a problem, though. I haven't written you any, so you don't need my permission in any case.

Now that every question of yours has been answered and every ridiculous accusation you've made has been demolished, now you fall back on some sort of "aw-shucks, I was only funnin'" shtick? I had a sense of humor back when you were boldface-upcasing ridiculous demands to delete the comments of other people. I still have a sense of humor when it comes to other people. With you, now, I am simply answering any questions you ask, as promised.

I "get it," all right. You have made clear that you consider posts published here your own property, but they are not. It is that simple. That's just the way Blogcritics works, and the way it always has. Only one other person has ever expressed the same type of mistaken belief, and he had the good sense to go away and not come back.

I just want to point something out:

(1) When you own the copyright to a written work it simply means you retain the rights to it (i.e., you can publish somewhere else for payment, etc.). It does not mean you own the rights to the publication, or in this case to the website, web log, web magazine, web community, whatever you want to call Blogcritics.

(2) When a writer publishes his or her work in a publication, be it Internet-based or print, he or she does give the editor or publisher the right to make any necessary changes for it to fit said publication, although some publications do have more lenient guidelines than others.

(3) Publications, be they Internet-based or print, set their own editorial guidelines. In most cases the writers, unless they are contributing editors, do not have the authority to dictate editorial guidelines (i.e., comments boxes, letters to the editor, magazine or website layout, etc.).

While I have not had any of my poetry, columns or short fiction work published in quite a while, I still remember the rules, and I still realize how much easier it is for all contributors when everyone follows them.

In closing, remember, when you publish a written work or a public comment and the feedback policy allows for more comments in response to what you wrote, expect both good ones and bad ones, and don't take the bad ones personally. After all, everyone may not understand or interpret what you wrote in the same context that you wrote it. On the other hand, if you aren't able to not take the negatives personally, the best thing to do as long as the First Amendment exists is write and speak not, because Heaven only knows what someone will think, good or bad, based upon anything that anyone says.

Cheers.

Thanks John. Finally a voice of reason.

Nobody here is trying to dictate terms except for God, er I mean Mr. Winn. The problem is he changes the rules as he sees fit. Hence the further clarification was requested.

But God, um I mean Mr. Winn doesn't like that very much. So as my penance I'm banned from BC. But wait a minute. I remember Mr. Winn saying that I was still welcome to comment here. But he keeps calling me names like his good buddy MD and saying nasty things like go away and such. So now I'm really confused. And what does that say about his 'new improved' policy? Guess we'll find out tomorrow and the next day, and... Stay tuned folks. This gets more interesting by the minute.

BB:

Mr. Winn is the Webmaster for Blogcritics, therefore he does have the authority to implement terms created by his Editor, Mr. Olsen, or create terms if Mr. Olsen has given him such authority.

Cheers.

B.B Are you an Attorney? If so what State? I'd like to speak with you briefly.

Nobody here is trying to dictate terms except for God, er I mean Mr. Winn. The problem is he changes the rules as he sees fit. Hence the further clarification was requested.

BB, when will you understand this: you are the ONLY person who does not understand the 'terms' under which we post. The terms were made quite clear when I signed up - my writing is mine, but it will be posted to BC forever. I was never under any other assumptions. Why were you? How is it possible that you, as a self-described lawyer, could not understand the very, very simple agreement? Or maybe it's just that you're bitter and want to make trouble? I speak only for myself, but I think that's the truth - others probably do too, but, again, I speak only for myself.

You yourself removed yourself from the site - you have not been banned. If you'd been banned you wouldn't even be able to post comments. Regardless, it would be in your best interest to MOVE ON. Get over this, take a week away from BC, and come back when you're not hot-headed. You're just making yourself look like a fool throwing these childish tantrums.

And to think, I come to Blogcritics to get AWAY from children.

For all the shite you have given MD, BlogBloke, you are some kind of hypocrite.

Please shut up now.

Thanks for the advice Tom and Dawn, BUT you just can't leave well enough alone can you. It seems my point was again lost in the translation. If the hypocrisy of certain people around here is not evident by now then you deserve each other. I wanted to leave BC without any fanfare BUT Eric and Phil had other plans. By arbitrarily opening up the comments section they intentionally subjected me to ridicule by certain trolls around here. And of course Eric needed to put in his two cents worth. And he added injury to insult by trying to cover up his involvement.

So excuse me for being fed up with the virulent culture around here. All of the stupid comments I received only proves my point. I made my stand and Eric made his decision. It wasn't a power play - at least from my perspective. It was a statement that I'm disgusted - period. You see Tom, regardless if they had the right to override my settings was NOT the point. I made it clear that I left because of the shite that rules BC. So it seemed to me if they love MD and her ilk then I can play the game as well as anybody.

So it's clear that is the way the game is played. And If somebody should dare to ridicule BC he is forced to run the gauntlet of every neurotic, hateful jerkoff that hangs out here. It is our right to leave BC and make a statement with our reasons if we so choose. But typically, certain morons around here just can't resist the temptation to show off their skills at being ignorant. And Eric and Phil were leading the charge.

Is that the professionalism that Eric so heartily preaches? I didn't see him or Phil ridiculing anybody else. No, in fact they revelled in the poo that was flung about in my direction. So the message is loud and clear. Integrity and honesty are a convenience only to be used at the discretion of the powers that be. Whomever has access to the switch gets to play God. My reasons for leaving have been all the more vindicated and I don't need another week to catch my breath.

So if you want to give advice then kindly point it at the perpetrators that started it. We have a choice here. This could be my last statement about the matter, OR some asshole can comment after me here and start it all up again. No doubt Eric and his hacks are chomping at the bit to add something cute here and prove my point all over again. As they have made it so resoundingly clear - it's their choice. And if that's the case then Tom you had better be the first to come to my defence or kindly keep your advice to yourself. Best...

asshole

It is our right to leave BC and make a statement with our reasons if we so choose.

And it's everyone else's right to make a comment, good or bad, about your post. That's how the site works.

My reasons for leaving have been all the more vindicated and I don't need another week to catch my breath.

No, you misread - you need a week to COOL OFF.

I think you believe this is a really big deal. No, let me restate that: you think this is a REALLY BIG DEAL, not realizing that, essentially, it doesn't mean anything to 99% of the posters and visitors to this site. I urge you, BB, to stay away from BC for a week or so, cool off, and then come back and re-read your statements. I think, if you're properly cooled off, you'll be thankful for the time away because every time you post, you make yourself look worse and worse. Do you really, honestly, completely believe that there's a conspiracy between Eric, Phillip and others? Do they have secret meetings to discuss you? Don't be ridiculous. And don't be so self-centered - you actually think you're so important that all of these people are conniving to bring you down? Why would they bother, when you're doing such a good job of it yourself?

I'm just trying to help you save face. Dude, seriously, take a break - turn off the computer, take a walk, and go get yourself a good soft pretzel and an ice cold Coke.

"I made my stand and Eric made his decision."

Eric reacted to your decision as an operator should when someone QUITS THE SITE.

"It is our right to leave BC and make a statement with our reasons if we so choose."

Not without comments from the rest of us. Who do you think you are?

"This could be my last statement about the matter, OR some asshole can comment after me here and start it all up again."

No, no no. If you want the last word, you better say something I agree with. Maybe an apology for being ignorant and accusing? Maybe an apology for torturing two guys who ALLOWED YOU TO POST AT A SITE THAT THEY RUN. Nobody did anything to you, except you by leaving in such a high profile manner. Now either leave or ask to be reinstated.

I just wanted to say that people like Mr. "asshole" above only proved BB's point. And Tom leave it alone. BB has made his case and doesn't need you stirring it up. At least BB had the character to apologize to Diva but she didn't reciprocate did she? He had the courage to say it like it is and there are many like me who think BB is right but are afraid to speak up and enter the fray.

All the best to you BB. I hope this will be the last of this saga and you will come back again soon.

Anonymous people who call me an asshole really don't have much credibility. You can reach me at www.filteringcraig.com

I welcome your comments, mr. anonymous.

I think the Mr. Asshole is the person who left comment #35.

I guess I have a guilty conscience. :-)

Why would anyone be "afraid to speak up or enter the fray"? And what is BB right about? I don't believe I have ever tried to quell any manner of free speech or expression of opinion.

In fact, the few policies we DO have are directly in response to the wishes of the members. What would any of you "silent majority" figures have us do differently?

I say to thee my children, be at peace, for I am always with thee, and thou maketh my head hurt when thou fighteth amongst thee. Please, be at peace, my children, and don't forget to go and see my movie. Amen.

Dear Lord,

I am waiting until it's out on cable.