Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Mimi and I had a long conversation about the tone and tenor of comments on this blog over the last few weeks and decided we had to do something about the lowering of the discourse around here.
Politics is very personal in Lowell, and a lot of emotions are tied up one way or the other for so many voters, candidates, and movers/shakers. It is clear that, unfortunately, the politics of personal destruction are a part of this process; however, on this blog, we aren’t interested in that. We are interested in spreading as much sunshine as possible onto city government and life. Contrary to some readers’ opinions, that is the be-all and end-all of why we write this blog. The day that is no longer the case, we will close up shop and go back to life in a more private space.
To that end, we are implementing a new policy around here. It’s one thing to discuss how some candidates are affiliated with those who wanted to “get those rats” and take back the city, with how this affects the future, and another to make the kind of personal attacks that have been levied by both sides, against both sides on this blog and elsewhere. I have already deleted and/or put people on probation for that sort of rhetoric.
Well, if Mimi and I are going to make more work for ourselves here, we might as well make it egalitarian.
We are turning the comments into moderated comments until this election is over. What that means is, all comments will go into moderation until approved by one of us. We will make every attempt to do this very frequently so that the discussion can be as lively as possible, and be an actual conversation. One of the drawbacks of moderated comments is a less immediate and timely sort of feel to the discussion.
We will be publishing a “rules of the road” page to outline more clearly what we expect of our commenters. Until then, here’s a list of things that will not make it past moderation without editing (or deletion):
Mimi and I are the final arbiters of what is appropriate. This is not a first amendment issue - the first person to claim they are victims of the curbing of their rights will be deleted. Hell, if we so desired, we could shut off comments all together on this blog, and it’s our choice whether or not to do so. (Of course, we don’t want to do that.) Posting on this site is a privilege, not a right. It’s more akin to you coming into my house and standing on my kitchen counter when I ask you not to (though, I hope we’re all more civilized than that!). I would have every right to ask you to leave my house if that happened.
This blog is my home, in many ways, and as the person who pays for its hosting, for the domain, and spends the most amount of time building it up, I have no problem with cutting off part of the discussion in order to further a more civilized place.
So, wipe your feet on the welcome mat, try not to spill the beer on my new couch, and if you play nice, you’ll have no problem getting your comment through our not-overly-onerous standards. Thanks so much!
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.632 seconds
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I’m sure you’ll get no objections to your policy. Unless, of course, you and Mimi continue to engage in personal attacks and accusations while blocking everyone else’s.
As for this being your house and you being within your right to kick us out of your house if you see fit; again, you’re well within your rights. Howevever, isn’t the point of a discussion blog to promote discussion, both pro and con?
I guess what I’m trying to say is; your blog, your rules. We all have to live with them. But I think you’ll end up bored if all you’re left with is you two preaching to the choir. Half the fun of politics is trying to convince the other side.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Except, your personal view of personal attacks appear to be very different from Mimi’s and mine.
Like, I dunno, some of the language that got your comments edited in the first place. I don’t know how anyone could think they were appropriate, yet you posted them.
And, like, I dunno, how you take any sort of opposition as a personal attack no matter how carefully it was made.
Seems to me, most of the people around here can handle it, so why can’t you? There’s lots of people around here who disagree with me (some of them pretty much 100% of the time) and yet they have never elicited the sort of need to curb them that others have.
It also appears to me you have a double standard - it’s OK to use the crassest, meanest language you can think of to insult people (much of which was edited or deleted), but you think you’re the perpetual victim when anyone opposes you. Rather hypocritical.
We’re not interested in people who cannot hold a conversation without using that sort of language, and frankly, I dare you to ever find a place where I have used it. Yet, you have used it multiple times.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I don’t know anything about Right in Lowell’s history but you do have a mouth on you, Lynne. You have made nasty comments, you swear, etc. I have never met you but my impressions (fair or not) are that you are not very civil.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
But she wants to try to BE civil, right?
I imagine many blogs will be facing this challange.
Lynne - you often do name-call without thinking, and really it’s not necessary. You have the intellectual - albeit misguided - chops to do better. Her house, her doilies, her coffee table. So play nice.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Certain people keep wanting to turn this onto me, which isn’t what this is about, but sure, I’ll bite, just for a second: Please, if you “have that impression” could you cite examples where I unjustly said something in an argument I was making? You seem to be quick to buy into “an impression” but people whose opinions I trust quite implicitly for their objectivity have told me otherwise.
I don’t back down, but I also make arguments as to why I am saying what I say. I would really like to see someone actually cite examples rather than invent a narrative out of thin air.
As to swearing (which is NOT what will get people banned, by the way), or passionate rhetoric, which also will not get someone banned, yes, it is a literary use of language which goes back centuries. However, there is a difference between some of the language we’ve been seeing used in comments (not just by one person) and our own. It is that language, things for instance you could never say to your sweet old grandmama, which has devolved this site into something of a slugfest rather than a conversation.
It is in the interest of that conversation that we made this decision (which is, hopefully, temporary, not the least in which because it’s a pain for Mimi and I to have to do). Again, if you believe that’s hypocritical that’s your prerogative, but it’s not about one person. And the fact is, that the incessant “well, you’re a jerk too” rhetoric that has not produced any productive discussion of the facts (of that seriously minor matter) when we have an election coming up, with weighty issues and very clear lines in the sand.
To my mind, there’s a set of people who’d rather attack my character because it’s distracting away from the real problems in our governmental system, and they keep at it like a dog licking a wound, instead of moving on, having a true discussion, or trying to figure out a solution to our problems.
As I have always said, I’d gladly pack up this blog and take back all the weekly hours I spend on it in a heartbeat if I thought what I was doing here wasn’t productive. The fact you’d rather spend time either beating a dead horse (trying to “point out” how “horrible” I am without citing real examples, just some “impression” which frankly, in Lowell circles could mean a friend of a friend told you so) than going back to a real conversation makes me wonder if what I’m doing is at all productive.
Of course, it’s also the case that certain circles of people would love to throw us off enough to quit which keeps me going.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
PP: thanks, but it would be nice if people would stop merely suggesting “it happens,” to actually citing examples. I bet in a heartbeat I’d take a look at those comments in context and cite justifications that are pretty logical in 99% of the cases.
However, I will admit to this: I’m a passionate person and sometimes certain people do really get my goat. Certainly, it’s not the mere thought of disagreement that does it, because there’s a ton of people here who disagree with me all the time and there’s no problem. Perhaps I should just let those types of disagreeable people flounder in a vacuum instead of feeding the troll tendencies, but at the same time, leaving off an argument just because someone cries “victim” irks me, because that’s not an honest discussion, and I abhor it when someone decides they don’t want to take an introspective look at their views just because it hurts their brain.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I don’t think we’re talking Patriot Act stuff here are we? Let’s hear what the rules are and it’s up to us whether we participate or not.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
RiL, Please name the individual that I personally attacked or made an accusation. We are not blocking anyone, we are moderating because too many people are writing things which are totally out of line.
We cannot win; we get grilled for allowing a free for all and we get grilled for trying to control it. There is no other blog which allows this level of democracy, some say, anarchy, so please understand.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Lynne, this is awful. How dare you, HOW DARE YOU, provide a blog and bandwidth for people to comment on? This is the definition of incivility. It’s just not enough, you give all these people ample space to comment and put up with them being rude, obnoxious, and insulting towards you, and to whine and complain endlessly about everything you do, you should be baking them cookies and providing free child care as well. For shame! This has gone beyond victimization and persecution to flat-out oppression.