[Tom Parker has issued a useful and perceptive Comment of the Day on a topic that has taken up too much space on Ethics Alarms lately: commenter behavior and my blog moderation practices.
A while back I predicted that “the most important election ever” would bring dedicated ideologues and partisan warriors to Ethics Alarms, and I could have predicted with similar accuracy that they would misbehave, requiring responses from me including admonitions, suspensions, limitations, probation, and banning. Sure enough, more commenters were banned in August than in any previous month in EA’s nearly 15 year history.
We have seen trolls, sealioning specialists, commenters here solely to discredit your host, and participants who qualified for “The Stupidity Rule.” Meanwhile, we have experienced repeated incursions by previously banned commenters, led by, ironically, the self-banned “A Friend,” previously EA’s resident New York Times apologist.
What readers don’t see are the first-time comments that never get out of moderation. Believe it or not, these are seldom critical comments or those that disagree with a post, unless the comment is non-substantive (“You are wrong!’). I ding insulting comments (you get some leeway in insulting me according to your status as a veteran and constructive commenter: at this point, Glenn Logan and Tim LeVier can get away with calling me “Satan”), vulgar comments, ungrammatical comments, racist, sexist and homophobic comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that are so factually wrong that I have little hope that the aspiring commenter can be trusted.
I never censor a comment from an accepted commenter, until that commenter’s banning, if that sad day comes. One famous (or infamous) commenter here, the legendary Ablative Meatshield, employed a style that mixed often abusive and obscene rhetoric with perceptive commentary. Imagine Newt Gingrich if he was addicted to adding “Eat a bag of dicks” to his trenchant observations. I allowed this to go on much too long in a misguided effort to support freedom of expression. I regret it. Blog moderation is hard; it is also an important part of defining what this space is. I continue to learn.]
Here is Tom Parker’s Comment of the Day on the comment moderation thread on yesterday’s open forum.…
***
A few years ago, I stumbled upon this blog and have been a devoted follower since. The regular comment contributors have a diversity of backgrounds. While many are from the legal profession we have representation from university educators, engineers, law enforcement, scientists, and business professionals. They seem to be of above-average intelligence. Most reside in the United States with a smattering of other countries thrown in. I would also guess that most active participants would be in the 40+ age category. I mention for the benefit of those new to this blog. It has been my experience that harmony can more easily be achieved when cultural differences are taken into consideration.
Occasionally, we have a new commenter enter the fray and they end up getting banned. Thor seems to be on his way. He laments “Seems there’s no real way to interpret the rules here.” In an effort at an outreach to Thor and future confused or misguided souls, I offer the following commentary. Much of this falls under the heading of common sense and decency. While that means none of this should have to be explained. I acknowledge I am in the over-40 retired group so what is obvious to me may not be so to younger people. Our culture has changed significantly over the years.
- Much of what is discussed in this blog involves people’s opinions and perceptions. Perceptions are neither right nor wrong they just exist. The “regulars” get that, the folks who get banned seem to feel their mission in life is to get others to agree with them and relentlessly hang on to their position like a dog with a bone.
- I consider discussions to be like baseball. If I don’t see both sides working toward a consensus chances, are it is not going to happen. It is time to move on and agree to disagree.
- Most commenters who get banned are engaged in political topics. Reread #s 1 and 2 above.
- If your goal here is to feed your ego by demonstrating your superior intellect, or how clever you are. You will eventually be banned. You were not put on this planet to make me happy. The converse is also true.
- You are not the center of the universe. There are many reasons why others may not agree with your position. One reason most people ignore is they did a poor job of articulating their opinions. Remember repetition, raising your voice or personal attacks of others rarely improves other’s comprehension or appreciation of your position.
- In the movie “The Bridge of Spies” Rudolf Abel, the Russian Spy, states, “Well, the boss isn’t always right. But, he’s always the boss.” This is Jack’s blog. It is not yours. You are a guest. Behave respectfully.
- Below are four comments from Thor on the open forum. To me, they are repetitive and whining. Reading them is a waste of time.
- These are my opinions and perceptions. Take them for what they are worth. They are either perceptive, stupid or somewhere in between.
Comment #1: “You told me to stop commenting so I did.” What did you expect? “Oh the blog owner told me to shut up, let me merrily go comment on another post now”
Comment #2 “I’m thinking “why keep commenting if this blog owner just shuts down the conversations I want to have, maybe he’ll shut down the next convo too” My point is it’s stupid to think that telling a new commenter to stop commenting or they’ll get banned is a good way to get them to keep commenting on other posts.“
Comment #3: “Sure but why shut it down at all? Someone else responded to me who I was previously not talking to, so I responded to them.That’s how conversations work. Then I was told I wasn’t allowed to respond anymore on that post. Why would engage with a blog that does that?“
Comment #4: “I’m also slightly annoyed I was told to stop commenting on that topic but then expected to comment on other things. Seems there’s no real way to interpret the rules here. How am I to know the host is sick of a conversation? Why would I keep engaging with a blog where I have to walk on egg shells and worry about annoying the host when I’m just defending my position? I wasnt even talking to him when he chimed in and told me to stop or I’d be banned. And this is after someone else who I wasnt having a discussion with made a comment.“
Ethics Alarms 
I’m sure a good chunk of the stuff that doesn’t make it out of moderation is garbage, and a lot more of it is just partisan talking points which most of us here already know and don’t need to hear again. Ablative Meatshield isn’t what I’d call legendary, since most of the synonyms for that word that don’t have to do with being part of actual legends are positive, like renowned or illustrious. I’d call him more infamous, since he was as much renowned for bad behavior as for any perception he might have added. Sorry Scott, wherever you are, but the truth is the truth, and the truth isn’t always nice. I’ve been just as guilty a few times, partly because I thought I could achieve notoriety by acting the same way, partly from seeing him (and some other folks, who shall remain nameless) getting away with that kind of behavior, partly out of getting angry enough fast enough to “snap post” and spew hatred and attacks a few times. The thing is, doing things like that generates a lot of heat, but not much if any light. A few more generally applicable rules would be:
1. Don’t post immediately after seeing a post you consider offensive or triggering. Whatever you post that quickly is going to probably be more of the same.
2. Don’t resort to insults. They won’t change anything.
3. Don’t look down your nose at anyone. Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean that person is an idiot.
4. Sometimes it’s better to just disengage rather than feed the fire.
5. Don’t deliberately set out to be a jerk.
6. Get treatment for the woke virus or get outatown…🤠
An excellent post and well worth COTD status. If I may, I would like to relate some of my experiences on other fora that both reinforce and contrast with your main points.
I get a goodly number of “Quora” questions sent to my email. Inevitably a fair number concern Trump and the election, but a goodly number are about military topics, prime amongst them the Civil War and especially Gettysburg.
As far as the Trump topics, there is little to be said. I occasionally look at them but never comment. I’d say 90+% of the persons answering the questions would consider Liz Cheney a moderate regarding Trump. The commenters are an endless procession of the worst of the worst that we ever see here (thanks Jack for sparing us), both pro and anti and many times they don’t seem to be actually replying to anyone, just putting out whatever their talking points are.
I do find it interesting that a significant portion of the more rabid never-Trumpers disable comments to their posts, to prevent anyone from disagreeing with them.
————
The Civil War/Gettysburg/Lee/Grant posts tend to be more rational, as a general rule. Of course, even for a subject 150 years in the past, there are the extremes — you have both the fanatic lost causers and the all confederates were traitors and should have been hanged people. There is no point in engaging with either of those — if you do, they tend to either talk right past you or just reiterate their points. Sound familiar?
I will say that it is amazing, in the decades since Appomattox, how many people have written long, long (agonizingly long) treatises on how bad a general Grant was.
But then there are genuine discussions on many aspects of the Civil War, and real attempts to educate folks and discuss why some things worked or didn’t work. I will admit to having learned things about the war, and it is an area of American history I think I am better versed on than most folks.
Those are the kind of commenters that tend to stick around on Ethics Alarms. Sure, everyone has their biases, but they are willing to listen to and engage with other people. Rationally.
Jack, Thank you for the COTD. The motivation behind my post was to vent my frustration with individual commenters who essentially take over your blog to advance their agendas. They hijack the discussion drowning out other’s potentially meaningful comments.
I am at a loss whether they should be pitied, despised, or both. Is their motivation caused by a character defect, deficient intellect, or ignorance? Regardless I doubt my words will have much of a positive impact on their behavior. However, I believe it is better to try, but fail, than to not try at all.
Keep up the good work.
Tom, yours is a great synopsis of good etiquette. The COTD was well-earned.