Blogcritics was founded 18 months ago, and we have worked hard to keep our disciplinary hand as light as possible from the beginning. We're almost all adults, the reasoning goes, and so we should all know how to act like adults. There are now over 450 authors at Blogcritics, and while the vast majority of those people have never caused a problem of any sort, the problems that have developed over the last year have only gotten worse.
This leads to a difficult decision, one over which we have agonized for a long time. Many people have offered suggestions about what they felt would solve the problems, and most of those conflicted with each other.
We do not believe the problems are caused by any one person, and we're not going to kick out a half-dozen people to sidestep the current issue, because the problems will only crop up again eventually with another group of people. To use a metaphor probably borne from watching Deadwood late last night, the Wild West needs new rules.
We welcome suggestions about these rules, which can be modified if we've overlooked something. We want to make the site more pleasant to read and a more pleasant place at which to post. That's the goal, always.
House Rules for Posts and Comments
1. No more posts about Blogcritics.org.
By this we mean that the "Et Cetera" column should be reserved for items that aren't "Books," "Music," or "Video," but not for anything related to the operation of Blogcritics.org itself. While we truly appreciate the spirit of recent efforts to raise funds for Blogcritics, even those kinds of posts simply jar the readers of the site who are not Blogcritics themselves. We are working on an alternate method of letting Blogcritics communicate with each other out of the public view, and any site-related information should be kept there.
2. "Your" post is not entirely yours.
Regardless of the technical limitations of MovableType as currently configured, when you create a post it is not entirely "yours." That is, you contribute the content, and we will not modify it beyond correcting obvious spelling and grammatical errors. However, we may take various additional actions, including but not limited to: choosing alternate and/or additional categories, modifying and/or adding Amazon ASINs, re-formatting the Title and/or Excerpt, or anything else not related to the primary content of the post itself. You may not delete any post, though you are allowed to add additional notes to the post itself, so long as those are clearly marked with "Update:" or a similar designation. As an extreme example, let's say you post something and find out later that you were hoaxed. We suggest modifying the title to include '(HOAX)' and adding an update at the end of the post with whatever information led you to determine that the post was actually a hoax. While it is human nature to want to cover up our mistakes, you provide a more valuable service to readers in leaving the information there.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joe
I'd like to amend a 2 drink minimum, as well.
2 - boomcrashbaby
I'd like to point out that number 5 doesn't always work, unfortunately.
Example - someone offered a point of view recently. My response was that individuals with that point of view had physically attacked me before. Next thing I know, there was a whole new thread on the definition of hate and how dare I accuse said individual of being capable of violence. But the posts are still there, I challenge anyone to find such an accusation in my words.
The point is, how can you say a viewpoint is bigoted, to an individual who holds said viewpoint, without them making the implication that A=B=C? Or whatever, you know what I mean.
3 - Tom Bux
I think the respected blogger from Pennsylvania is an a-hole.
That's how the Senate does it.
hehe
Good ideas though.
4 - BB
Although I am encouraged with this turn of events I wish to add the following for clarification:
I can appreciate the more we become entrenched in our positions, frustrations do arise. And for others old habits are hard to break and those instigators take much enjoyment in stirring up the pot.
BUT we are not conducting private conversations on the internet, and it is NOT acceptable to say "so-and-so, your statement is stupid and racist".
The proper way to say it is "so-and-so, your statement is problematic. In my view it paints too wide a brush... etc., etc."
The difference should be obvious. The first statement invokes Newton's third law of physics - "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The second statement shows respect for your opponent and that his or her opinion is valued and will in turn invite positive discourse.
5 - Phillip Winn
boomcrashbaby (#2): And your response contributed to the conversation how, exactly? I would suggest that your comment already seemed certain to cause problems, and should be considered before the responses.
Tom (#3): "I think the respected blogger from Pennsylvania has missed this important fact: etc." would be better. The insult isn't any less a rule 6 violation when wrapped in political speech. ;-)
BB (#4): Agreed. There were a couple of more specific statement in an early draft of this list that didn't make this first cut, because I still have a naive belief that adults can act like adults. But labelling of people is a thing of the past, and blanket labelling of positions without consideration is sure to follow. The main issue I have with this is that some statements are simply too foolish to deserve a response, so I have to keep that in mind while writing the rules.
6 - Ken Edwards
I like the new rules Eric. Good job!
I, for one, am getting very tired of the personal attacks. They look childish. And look, there is a personal attack here in the comments!
7 - Jim Carruthers
I think there should be a "no brown Smarties (tm)" rule. A pointlessly nitpicking rule which means people have to pay attention to it.
It comes from the Van Halen clause in their rider, which as Diamond Dave says in his book, was to ensure that promoters paid attention to all of the contract (especially the parts which outlined hanging tons of stuff over the stage, and putting many volts through wires)
But then, I'd probably be the first asshole to get bounced.
8 - Phillip Winn
Down here, we call those "M&M's," because the name "Smarties" is taken by sugar little tart things.
9 - Jim Carruthers
So what do y'all call a "Coffee Crisp"?
And does this have anything to do with the weirdness of the Mars family?
10 - Phillip Winn
Sadly, we have no Coffee Crisps here, nor Aero Bars. At least not in Texas - they may sneak into the Northeast somewhere.
At least annually, we have Coffee Crisps and Aero Bars carried across the border for my wife (an ex-Canuck) and I.
11 - Jim Carruthers
Phil writes: sugar little tart things
Up here, we call that Britney Spears or Hillary Duff. But then there's butter tarts, mmmmmm, butter tarts.
12 - boomcrashbaby
boomcrashbaby (#2): And your response contributed to the conversation how, exactly? I would suggest that your comment already seemed certain to cause problems, and should be considered before the responses.
Hmm. Well, I was specifically asked if I knew where he (i.e. the ideology) was coming from. In my point of view, I did follow rule #5 to the letter.
13 - Phillip Winn
Okay, you've pressed me. I looked into this a while back because of a bet over "which came first." and here is what I found:
1937 - Smarties (the chocolate kind)
1941 - M&M's (sweeter than Smarties)
1949 - Smarties (the U.S. kind)
As to why the original Smarties weren't introduced in the U.S. in time to beat the 1949 variety which put a lock on the name, well, that's a slightly longer story.
14 - Phillip Winn
BCB (#12): If your chief concern is following the rules to the letter, you're likely to encounter problems from this point forward. Please try to discern the spirit of these rules at this time and act accordingly. We are trying to eliminate the acrimony which has been too prevalent on the site. There aren't enough electrons to spell out the exact limits on civility under every circumstance, but I hope that most people can figure that out on their own with these guidelines to help.
I haven't read the entire thread you mention, but the bottom line is this: If you have something to say about a statement, feel free to say it. But trying to determine a person's motivation is unlikely to shed any real light on a given statement, which is either true or false (or neither) regardless of who makes it.
Specifically suggesting that inviduals holding a particular view might be prone to violence (the heavy implication of the statement as you've represented it here) is much too thinly-veiled a personal statement. Pigeonholing someone a half-step removed is the same as labelling them directly.
Here's a good rule of thumb, which I might eventually add to the rules above: Always assume that the statements that anger you most are made in innocence, regardless of the context or the person making them. If there are factual issues, correct them. But don't attempt to judge intent. That's hard enough to do in person, with all of the visual cues that go along with face-to-face communication, and it's much harder on the internet.
15 - Al Barger
To those who will feel restricted by this attempt at getting some civility: I feel your pain.
As the official White Devil of Blogcritics and all around #1 bad egg, Decent People need to express their Outrage at my continuing existence. Feel free to flame me viciously in private email. I promise not to accuse you of stalking, etc.
Also, of course, flame away on your personal web sites. I won't be mad. Indeed, if you let me know, I will probably happily link to your flame from my morethings domain.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, please feel free to open up on me in the new Blogcritics mailing list at Yahoo. I don't mind so much if we're arguing amongst ourselves some- I just hate doing it in front of the neighbors.
Just trying to do my part to help out.
XOX
16 - BB
One further thought on the matter. Rules are ineffectual unless there are consequences to back it up. Are you considering specific measures for habitual offenders that continue to spew hateful comments? Just wondering (smile).
17 - Shark
BB, Keep it up, and you get a timeout with Boomcrashbaby.
Better yet, Bloke, let's make it real simple:
Just assume you're banned for asking questions before getting out of the starting gate.
"Sir, you need to put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard. 'kay?"
(Anyway, hope yer feeling better ...physically, I mean.)
xxoo
yer eternal nemesis,
Shark
18 - Jim Carruthers
So, Philip, can you also clarify which came first: the Krustyburger or the Royale wit' Cheese?
19 - Stately Wayne Manor
"Oh comedy,thy name is Carruthers"...
20 - BB
Tanks Shark. Feelin stronger every day.
Looks like I missed all the fun. Dat's what I get for dozin on the job.
BTW, what's a Crashboombaby?
Crikey -- I'm banned again!
...your fan, BB
21 - Jim Carruthers
While I think about it, you should start the rules with: "The First Rule of Blogcritics.org is you don't talk about blogcritics".
But then, I'd probably have to punch somebody in the face. And I don't think my hands could take it, I might have to play piano someday.
As for chocolate bars, I thought the Cadbury factory just the other block over might make Smarties, but they don't - though they do make Mr. Big, the compensating chocolate bar.
I think Smarties are made over on Dundas near Roncesvales the other side of the train tracks yonder.
22 - Corinna Hasofferett
We had the same problem at the Hebrew blogs' Site ("Notes" - "Reshimot" - URL listed above /beneath?), where all the participants are highly educated persons (which shows not always one can find a correlation between education and communication skills) - but a few were using some disturbing language.
Finally a forum was established for Reshimot bloggers alone.
At the beginning the slandering was indeed moved to the forum but then some of us made some firm friendly-funny comments and now the forum itself is clean of those as well and concentrates on sharing technical and writing issues of our ohh so secret sect. No more crucifixions!
To the best of my understanding - and since the visitors might still feel frustrated by not having a forum of their own to vent their beer ladden rage - it might be helpful to remember that the best way to stop attacks is to ignore them since:
a.
Nothing hurts a troll more than being ignored;
b.
What's the fun in talking to the wind?
c.
You need at least two parties to a war. No one likes to attack oneself (actually this might be a major motive for attacking The Other);
d.
a friendly response focusing attention on the rational component of the attacking comment and commentor will in the end be returned in kind and then finally both Joseph and Elliahu along with all the 72 virgins will come back to us and bring about total Salvation.
Amen
Halleluyah!
Happy Holiday Season!
23 - RJ Elliott
I agree fully with the new rules.
(I recall predicting that the comments section would turn into a cesspool without an enforcement mechanism designed to prevent that eventuality. Sadly, I gleefully wallowed in the filth. I vow not to do so in the future. Mostly because, you know, I don't wanna be banned...heh)
In the spirit of "A New Day", I would like to extend the hand of, not "friendship", but spirited and enlightened debate, to those I have had recent personal disagreements with.
The "Road-Map To Peace" post did not work, because it did not originate from a position of authority. This post does, and therefore it will work.
24 - Corinna Hasofferett
Let's extend the rules to the posts as well, JR. Have you read your last post?
25 - Sandra Smallson
Oh Damn! There goes the fun in the neighbourhood. So we can't call anybody names anymore? I mean, most of it is characterisation of the person from my point of view. We can't do that? I understand the whole racist/violence part..but good old stupid, daft etc surely can still be said if the evidence is there?
Besides, what is the point? If I can say that statement is very stupid and a complete nonsense..it still reflects on the maker of the statement, does it not?
I hope the houserules apply to the topics as well? There is no point in calling John kerry a waste pipe, or Britney Spears a tart/whore or Mel Gibson an antisemitic nutjob and then expect to get away with it because of the house rules? Civility begins at home in this case. If your post in itself is not civil, You can't possibly expect a civil response?
Aww..pish posh! let's call the whole thing off. What's wrong in ignoring the offending post? I can not understand the purpose of these rules..we are not kids here, and if someone wants to call me a skank ass whore, i don't see why they should be stopped from doing so. I will either respond, or I will ignore it..eventually it all blows off and we move on. What a shame Blog is going to loose it's freedom to become some fake place. I don't see how my calling Mr X a complete imbecile, and he calling me a complete idiot affects madame Z?
Why can't people become less self important/obssessed and stop shaking their heads when they see posts with people going at each other. It's not about you. What's the point of getting eric&Phillip to make rules? This is some high school nostalgia going on here. Finally have the freedom we all once craved but we just miss those rules:) Oh well, it does give me a challenge. See how long I can last before I am booted off:) Anyone want to take bets?;)