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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Phillip Winn
Oops, I thought I had made it clear, but I see now that I did not. The rules apply to fellow Blogcritics, not to public figures. You're welcome to rain invective on Tom Cruise, Lars Ulrich, or Slash all day long, just not on fellow Blogcritics.
Consider this -- and I know that this is a stretch: If someone is public enough to be considered a "public figure" in an American court of law, they're fair game. If someone is a Blogcritic, they're not. And if someone is just a random blogger (not a famous one) minding their own business, well, be careful -- they might decide to become a Blogcritic one day!
And yes, the rules apply to both posts and comments.
Sandra (#25): "Stupid" is different from some other labels in many ways. To name just one, Everybody has stupid moments, most of us have at least one per day. It's easy to follow up with, "Oops, you're right. Never mind." after a "stupid" label. Not so easy with some other labels.
Generally I urge people to be careful with all labels, for people, for statements, for anything. Sometimes descriptive words are necessary, but taking care will only enhance discussion and debate.
Sarcasm is splendid, though. Keep the teeth, but lose the claws. ;-)
27 - Dawn
Phillip,
I have more than one "stupid" moment a day. Does that make me Blogcritics fodder more than most?
Just checking.
28 - Shark
Sandra: "What's wrong in ignoring the offending post? I can not understand the purpose of these rules..."
Sandra, the new rules are a relatively benign reaction to some pretty malignant incidents.
You're only getting part of the picture, but suffice it to say that that's all you need to know: The New Rules.
PS: Meet me at Yahoo, *bee-atch!
(just kidding -- And I don't know about yall, but I won't be visiting that piece of crap site again: too many animated ads, or as Shark's rule of web design states: "The Universe is Over-designed and Underedited!")
29 - Sandra Smallson
I understand, Phillip. However, I still think it's unfair for people to be able to say derogatory things about "public" figures because we have assigned them fair game. If you post your opinions/comments on a public forum such as blogcritics, you and your opinions are fair game. From your opinion, we rightly or wrongly, judge your character and we lay into it or applaud it , whatever the case may be.
If some are so sensitive that they are unable to cope with attacks on their characters deduced from their opinions then perhaps they shouldn't post it on a public site where anyone in the world can come and take a "look-see".
Ah well..
30 - boomcrashbaby
I agree 100% Sandra. From people getting bent out of shape over a child in school's 'disruptive t-shirt' to people supposedly being traumatized by Janet's breast, to the introduction of the laughable V-chip, the list goes on and on, I really think this is an extension of that philosophy and it won't stop until we all are Father Knows Best clones, who can all hold hands and sing and dance together.
31 - Eric Olsen
The point is to address the statement, the idea, the opinion, not the person.
32 - TDavid
Shark - so as not to violate #1 in this comment, I just posted at the other place a possible solution, so maybe you can endure at least one more trip ...
Dawn - LOL!
Phillip - "lose the claws" -- love it!
33 - jaded naivety
Can I still write something like ( example) " Phillip is an asshole"? Or is that against the rules now?
I am uncertain as to whether or not I would be allowed to put that phrase in print here.
34 - jaded naivety
P.S. Can you please add a rule discouraging being extraordinarily pedantic and uppity to your rules list?
35 - Phillip Winn
You can write whatever you want to. Writing something like that again, however, will get you banned from the site, as I'm sure is perfectly clear to you and everybody else.
And no, the intent is not to make people into someone other than who they are, but to encourage people to treat other people with respect.
36 - jaded naivety
but if I write it again, it will post, then you ban me? "cause if it doesn't post, then your basis for banning me would be invalid.
Sad, though that this site, which I have been lurking on for a bit, is being treated like your sandbox. Well have fun Napoleon, it's your show.
37 - boomcrashbaby
For the record, my post was not directed at the rules, but at the sensitivities some people have. And I realize that my post wasn't being questioned though, but just wanted to add this afterthought.
38 - Sandra Smallson
Eric: The point is to address the statement, the idea, the opinion, not the person.
Sandra: Poppycock! Can I say poppycock? ;) If I think Joe bloggs is a fool and I can no longer say so on Blog..how does that make me a better person? How does that encourage me to treat anybody with respect. You will find people like me saying.."Oh, what a foolish statement. What a daft opinion. What a ludicrous idea" I clearly mean, that Joe bloggs is stupid and daft and that is why he has this ludicrous opinion.
Ofcourse, it's a correct and wonderful sentiment to encourage people to treat others with respect. It is also an admirable trait if you can always treat people with respect. Some people however, deserve no respect at particular points in time. If I go to the centre of town and say George Bush is an imbecile, who's to say there are no Bush fans around who will call me a lunatic and insult me? That's the real world. Why should Blog be any different? Why should people be protected, cuddled and kept away from real life? In real life if you make comments about things in public, you will get a reaction. Some good. some bad. You live with it. If I am insulted here, how does it affect my life?
You can not ask people to detach the maker of the comment from the actual comment on a site such as this. Especially because of the topics we debate. It's all personal. It's personal what type of music you like. It's personal which Political party you support. It's personal whether you agreed with the War or not. The comments you amke are your personal point of view. To ask one to refrain from making an observation that might be seen as insulting and restrict criticism to the actual comment is truly just encouraging a fallacy more than anything else.
39 - Sandra Smallson
amke=make...a thousand apologies.
40 - Hal Pawluk
"Sandra: If I think Joe bloggs is a fool and I can no longer say so on Blog..how does that make me a better person?"
It doesn't, but it certainly makes the thread more interesting reading for everyone else.
41 - Dawn
Phillip,
If I say (for example) "jaded navelty is a retarded douchebag," would I in fact be breaking the rules?
I am not saying that he/she is, just want to make sure I understand. I thought we just couldn't insult other BC members.
42 - bhw
Well, I thought we could still insult each other, but that we couldn't call each other names. So I could say that Dawn picks her nose and eats it, but not that she's a f*(&%$#$# d*&^%$#@!@.
43 - Sandra Smallson
My point exactly Hal. If I want to make myself a better person I will purchase a self-help book. I am not sure that it is the job of Blogcritics to help us along. It's all about keeping it interesting:)
44 - Phillip Winn
Sandra - keep your own site "interesting," and behave yourself here. Is that so much to ask?
45 - apparent bad guy
Now we're talking... Sandra, you have been warned, don't make Phillip have to help you conform to the standards that were set for our own good, so that we can all just get along.Any freedom that you may have thought that you were entitled to ( even though yes, I realize that it is not technically a public website, but that could be argued also) is now under the control of the powers that be....do not push your luck....you have been warned....
46 - Eric Olsen
The silliness of arguing with this is that we have avoided making any rules like this for over a year, while the cry for - specifically - action against direct personal attacks has grown louder and louder and more and more members have become disgusted with the rancorous tone. So now we finally have acted and we are stifling despots.
The bottom line is: no more name calling.
47 - Phillip Winn
Yeah, I was trying to avoid comments here as much as possible, but frankly, anybody that chafes at these mild rules needs to grow up or move on. You should have seen the first draft I didn't even show Eric!
I'm actually inclined to temporarily close comments on this thread so that people can think things through. We have an environment set up for Blogcritics to talk about this kind of stuff off-line, and non-Blogcritics don't care about this garbage -- they just want results.
48 - apparent bad guy
Wouldn't it actually be more of a forced exile from the fiefdom, rather than a ban?
BTW, forget that proposed rule against Pedanticism.
49 - Jim Carruthers
What you might consider is a penalty box, where we can see offenders sitting (and in the words of of "Slapshot") "feel the shame".
50 - boomcrashbaby
Going along with the theme of creating an area where some can go and others can't, I'd suggest creating the ability for registered bloggers to have an 'ignore' list, where they can put people they just don't like. This would also encourage commenters to become bloggers so they could have the option too. Then when they go look at a thread, all the 'ignored''s comments are stripped out just for them, but available for everyone else who chooses. I don't know if it's possible to create on a blog, but I know chat rooms do it.
51 - Ms. Tek
That would require some functionality that MT doesn't have. I don't see it even in the current MT3 Alpha.
Now, there is a way for comment registration but I don't run this site and well.. I don't care so... Phillip and Eric can think about that.
52 - BB
I think Austin Powers said it best. Oh behave pullease.
53 - Sandra Smallson
I do not have a site Phillip. I do not have the time to run one. I note that you made no comment to the person who actually mentioned the word "interesting" in the first place:) Hal, suggested that "name calling" made it an interesting read for everyone. I agreed:)Not to worry, Your response doesn't surprise me.
It is a lot to ask..so many here leave me with no choice. We'll see how it goes. i have no doubt you'll be on patrol.
Apparentbadboy..was that a warning from Phil? I did not see it as one. It was a suggestion. I still have two warnings to go..I think.
Eric: The bottom line is: no more name calling.
Sandra: LOL..Calm down Eric. I know power is intoxicating;) But please, look around, this is not the White House and you are not the leader of the free world. Chill out. You make rules, people are entitled to question the advantages or disadvantages of the rules. People still debate the Constitution of several countries. That is why we have constitutional amendments. Why should Blogcritic rules not be discussed at all? It is not the time to start pushing your weight around. Save all that energy, sugar pie. I'm fixing to give you a great opportunity to exercise that power in due course:)
54 - BB
The new world order is a long time coming and has been discussed to death (believe me I know :). I don't think they're perfect by any means, but nevertheless (hopefully) point towards some semblance of civility.
55 - sheri
And the plot thickens!!
56 - Al Barger
Miss Sandra- It would not take that much time for you to maintain your own page. You could have one set up in 5 minutes at Blogger. After that, it's no harder than posting a comment here. It'd be a good outlet for you.
Let me know if you do. I'd be happy to try to send you at least a little handful of visitors to get you started.
57 - Roger
Too bad this policy wasn't in place before I was banned. Uh oh! I'm leaving. I promise...
I am however starting a web page on blog history and other interesting topics.
Stay tuned!!!
58 - Sandra Smallson
Al Barger: Miss Sandra- It would not take that much time for you to maintain your own page.
Sandra: Mr Barger, how many times do I have to flush before you go away? I do not have the time or desire to run a site.
Al Barger: You could have one set up in 5 minutes at Blogger. After that, it's no harder than posting a comment here.
Sandra: I am not taking advice from you. You can't count to twenty-one unless you are naked. 5minutes? That's 5 minutes too much.
Al Barger:It'd be a good outlet for you.
Sandra: why do people with closed minds always open their mouths?
Al Barger: Let me know if you do. I'd be happy to try to send you at least a little handful of visitors to get you started.
Sandra: And your completely irrelevant point is?!
59 - Ms. Tek
Sandra: I am not taking advice from you. You can't count to twenty-one unless you are naked. 5minutes? That's 5 minutes too much.
OMG...
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, that WAS FUNNY.
60 - Shark
Eric: "The bottom line is: no more name calling."
How about "Fatuous Flanagan"?
(fatuous: 1. "Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish. 2. Delusive; unreal)
see MacDiva comment #23
Is that a violation?
If not, why not?
If so, is she banned?
If not, why not?
Thanks in advance -
61 - sheri
Shark, your teeth are ugly, you smell funny, and your talking to yourself.
I want my spankin now.
62 - Shark
I'm assuming it's still okay to ask for legitimate clarifications in this thread?
And Phillip, Eric, I'm not trying to open a can of worms here; just trying to sort out the can that's already been opened.
(original)
"I began using "Fatuous Flanagan" before I had the complete picture of what the specimen would be publishing here. I do indeed now believe he is purposely deceptive. Therefore, future references with be to "Flatulent Flanagan."
A fellow BCer is now a "specimen", not to mention a "Flatulent Flanagan."
And is calling someone "purposely deceptive" the same as calling them a "liar"?
Is there a special name-calling thesaurus we don't know about? Looks like the "House Rules" might be defeated by it on Day Two.
"5. Do not label people -
This is very serious; labeling of people will not be tolerated in posts or comments. You may be convinced in your own mind that so-and-so is a xenophobe, a thief, a racist, or dangerous to society, but you may not say so. You may address statements or ideas, and are certainly welcome to debate issues all day and all night. Simply be sure that you are debating the ideas or policies or statements, and not the person...
6. No ad hominem statements
Yes, this is exactly the same as rule #5, but many people are confused about the definition of ad hominem, and this principle is important enough to merit two rules. No Blogcritic may attack another Blogcritic, period. Debate the idea, debate the statement, make accusations with documentary evidence, or simply express your disgust, but with the statement, not the person. It is not acceptable to say, "You're just saying that because you're XYZ." People are more complex than any labels, and labels serve only to derail serious debate."
Just wondering if this applies to any of the above.
63 - RJ Elliott
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath.
The rules were meant to decrease the number of mindless personal attacks on this site, not to censor any opinions.
With the rules, there is finally an enforcement mechanism for those who repeatedly behave badly. I doubt a one-time transgression will get anyone banned.
At some point, someone is going to get snarky enough to booted. And then the cries of censorship will be bellowed far and wide. Which is exactly why Eric and Phil did not want rules in the first place.
But there were a number of BlogCritics who either directly or indirectly demanded such rules be put into place. Now they have been. I think we should just get used to it, and deal with it.
This isn't an attack on anyone's First Amendment rights. This isn't a public Website.
I suspect, after the initial grumbling about it, these new rules will be a boon for BlogCritics.
Anarchy doesn't work very well. The center cannot hold.
64 - BB
Um... wait a minute RJ. You are back-pedaling here. I hope that you are not SERIOUSLY implying the person in question is a first-time offender, OR that it has not broken the House Rules. Because if you are you've lost me. Shark is correct in his observations and deserves a proper response.
65 - RJ Elliott
Sorry. Let me be clearer:
I mean "first time offender" in the sense that [this individual] has offended only once (or relatively infrequently) since the new rules were adopted, and therefore applicable.
You know, retroactive rules are the hallmark of despotic governance... ;-]
66 - RJ Elliott
I am a firm believer in the ability of humankind, as well as individuals, to better itself/themselves. At the same time, I think most people are pond-scum.
So, I'm contradictory here. So what? I contain multitudes. See: Walt Whitman... ;-]
67 - BB
RJ, you're OK in my book but way off base here. Either the Rules are the Rules, or just electrons flapping in the ether-wind. There was no discussion of first offences, and in this respect this is clearly but one further example committed by the record-breaking offender of all time. It is an obvious in-your-face violation of the rule - THOU SHALT COMMIT NO NAME-CALLING. I rest my case.
Now either this Rule is for real or it isn't. This will be the litmus so we shall see what happens.
68 - RJ Elliott
BB:
I don't know exactly what posts will cause "enforcement" of the new rules. I suspect enforcement will be tempered with a warning or two.
I agree that certain posters are walking a fine line. If they continue to do so, I suspect they will be banned.
But why the impatience? Do you honestly think such creatures will abide by the new rules for long? And if they do abide by these rules, why the push for banishment?
I am a more forgiving bloke than you, perhaps. Some individuals opined that you were faking your stroke. I, personally, found such comments to be foul and inhuman.
But I ain't in charge here. And those comments were posted before the new rules were official.
If your goal is to get [certain people] banned from here, I encourage you to just wait. Given enough rope, such people will likely hang themselves...
69 - BB
RJ, that is a very unfair statement to make. You forget - I did NOT make the Rules. NOR did I put the words into the offenders mouth.
Regarding your comments about my stroke. You know those callous comments were made by the very same person we are discussing and was to be expected. Do I care what she or others think? Frankly I could be dead now and nobody would have even noticed. So do you really think I care what small minded people think?
But I digress. The bottom line is the Rule has been violated and we shall see what happens. My only issue was with your back-pedaling and denial of the facts. Nothing more and none personal I can assure you so please don't attempt demonize yours truly because it doesn't wash.
All the best my friend.
70 - Corinna Hasofferett
It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding here, as if people are encouraged to move their attacks from their fellow/enemy commentors to the outside world and it's public figures.
If it were so then it would have been like a Mafia protecting it's members and killing it's group enemies.
A blog is a place to share ideas and knowledge, to be enriched, not depleted.
Now, a blogger invests a lot of time and caring in writing an article. She has a point to make, an understanding to share. She puts on a white dress and looks forward to comments that will contribute to a deeper understanding for both herself and the readers.
There comes the joy-killer and throws some mud. Why? Because it takes less time than relating thoughtfully to the issue? Because the color white reminds him of Bergman's "The Virgin's Fountain"?
Immediately everybody is busy throwing mud back and forth while in the process the post, the white dress, the chance to have a friendly intelligent encounter - all is lost as in a Kristalnacht.
As I was reading your comments I came to realise that actually violent language on the net equalls physical violence in a school-yard/war camp. You cannot hit or kill The Other, so you kill them with violent words and then, being frustrated by their frequent Ressurection, you increase the violence and its frequency, to Doomsday.
All this while debating against Violence and Injustice...
May I suggest not a rule but a point to figure: Whenever one feels like getting nasty, imagine yourself in Eric's living room, warm and cosy and friendly, while a debate is going on. Communicate your ideas and intelligent responses as if you were there. I assume you won't get violent, in speech or in action. Otherwise you'll be breaking the party and losing face and friends.
It's that simple.
71 - Corinna Hasofferett
It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding here, as if people are encouraged to move their attacks from their fellow/enemy commentors to the outside world and it's public figures.
If it were so then it would have been like a Mafia protecting it's members and killing it's group enemies.
A blog is a place to share ideas and knowledge, to be enriched, not depleted.
Now, a blogger invests a lot of time and caring in writing an article. She has a point to make, an understanding to share. She puts on a white dress and looks forward to comments that will contribute to a deeper understanding for both herself and the readers.
There comes the joy-killer and throws some mud. Why? Because it takes less time than relating thoughtfully to the issue? Because the color white reminds him of Bergman's "The Virgin's Fountain"?
Immediately everybody is busy throwing mud back and forth while in the process the post, the white dress, the chance to have a friendly intelligent encounter - all is lost as in a Kristalnacht.
As I was reading your comments I came to realise that actually violent language on the net equalls physical violence in a school-yard/war camp. You cannot hit or kill The Other, so you kill them with violent words and then, being frustrated by their frequent Ressurection, you increase the violence and its frequency, to Doomsday.
All this while debating against Violence and Injustice...
May I suggest not a rule but a point to figure: Whenever one feels like getting nasty, imagine yourself in Eric's and Dawn's living room, warm and cosy and friendly, while a debate is going on. Communicate your ideas and intelligent responses as if you were there. I assume you won't get violent, in speech or in action. Otherwise you'll be breaking the party and losing face and friends.
It's that simple.
72 - Shark
RJ: "But I ain't in charge here."
Which is why it would be nice for you to withhold your comments for a few minutes and let management respond. This is not really an issue that demands a response from you.
RJ: "And those comments were posted before the new rules were official."
NOT TRUE.
73 - Phillip Winn
BB, I don't know if you remember or not, but you're not a Blogcritics any more. If you would like to join again, email Eric and I think we are open to that. In the meantime, however, this is the sort of discussion that I would like to see only on the other site.
As for enforcement, give things time. Mighty ships don't turn on a dime, and momentum is a powerful force. In due time, all things will be resolved.
74 - Shark
Phillip: "...however, this is the sort of discussion that I would like to see only on the other site."
Will do.
Thanks
S
75 - BB
Phillip I tried joining the "other site" but was greeted with this reply: "The moderator of the blogcritics group has denied
your request for membership."