(First posted April 23, 2003; last updated June 26, 2005); "Disagreement Hierarchy" added October 19, 2008.
Welcome, reader, to Winds of Change.NET!
The Comments sections were some of the things I most looked forward to when Winds of Change.NET left Blogger for Movable Type. Since then, our readers have been a frequent source of insightful and thoughtful discussion. That kind of conversation is important to me. So is the liberty of commenters to express their point of view, pro or con. That said, my moderation time is limited. Playing referee is something I'd rather reserve for the most serious situations only.
Authors as Moderators
As of today, therefore, each team member will be the primary moderator for comments to their posts. If it's Armed Liberal's post, the conversation is with him and so he's the Steward with the power of comment deletion. He can also escalate and request that you cease participating in his post's comments, or even ask you to cease commenting in any of his posts.
That way, each team member can pursue the kind of conversations they'd like to have. Readers, meanwhile, will decide whom they wish to engage in discussion and how.
Winds of Change.NET's Deadwood Marshals
In addition, we have our roster of Deadwood Marshals. They speak softly and tend to work by persuasion more often than not, but don't mistake that for docility or helplessness. Our Marshals carry large post-deleting cyber .44s to back up their diplomatic skills. They can also ask you to leave a specific thread, or call for reinforcements if necessary. You really don't want them to do that.
The Big Guns
Disobeying a formal request from a post's author or a Winds Marshal forces our hand - and a site-wide ban is the result. You can take up any issues back-channel with joe@... or armed@... or bill@... if you wish, but if an Author or Marshal calls you out, you need to comply in the meantime.
Finally, when it comes right down to it, the site admins. reserve the right of imperium proconsulare across all posts, and for site-wide issues like banning. It's not something we've used very often, but we have used it.
Da Rulz
Broadly speaking, here are the rules. There are very few.
Rule #1: Do not directly endanger or threaten others. EX: I've deleted posts about Salam Pax that discussed details - amazingly, in response to a post asking folks to put a zipper on the details because it may endanger him. Jeeeez...
Likewise, threats of violence aren't tolerated. Take a look at this comment, which crossed a line and prompted a Marshal's intervention. We won't go after people for figures of speech ("C needs a whack upside the head", for instance, which has Zen allusions, or a challenge to a duel, which has Zell allusions), but if a Marshal or Admin thinks there's something more serious going on they can act as they see fit.
Rule #2: Spam = Death. My anti-spamming policy parallels my anti-terrorism position. I delete commercial or denial-of-service spams, then go to the source and ban the IP immediately. In fact, I ban this category pre-emptively if I have reliable reports from elsewhere - and of course, we have a multi-layered anti-spam system. Apologies if your comments or trackbacks get caught by accident - write joe@... or tech@... if so.
Rule #3: Impersonate another poster by posting in their name, and you're deleted and site-banned on the first offense. No ifs, no ands, no buts - see this post as an example. If it seems appropriate or necessary, we'll even spend the time systematically erasing your comments throughout the site and complain to your ISP.
Rule #4: Our authors work hard to produce worthwhile, interesting stuff. The best way to respect that is to engage their material. They (and we) tend to be unhappy when people "hijack" the comments section to post unrelated material, especially material that is likely to take over that comments section. If a post isn't on topic and doesn't contribute anything worthwhile, I'll consider removing it. We still give pretty broad latitude re: relevance, and we'll usually try to steer things back on track with a simple request - but I must admit, I'm getting a bit faster on the draw with this than I used to be.
Rule #4a: In a related vein, we're not interested in the blog war you and so-and-so are having at some other forum. Leave it there, and respond to the arguments and issues here on Winds, or our Marshals have the discretion to shoot on sight and delete your posts.
Rule #5: We expect a certain degree of civility and clean language here, as part of intelligent debate. If you post comments that might get this site filtered at various firewalls for obscenity, for instance, we reserve the right to act in self-defense.
Beyond Da Rulz
"If dat bat comes down, you're outta da game."
-- Umpire Bill Guthrie, after a player heaved his bat skyward in response to a call
I'm Canadian. That means "peace, order, and good government." We strive to be fair here, mostly because it fits with our #1 priority: keeping Winds a good place with high-quality discussion and real debate. But that's our priority, not rules or regulations.
For instance, if you've built a negative reputation here or elsewhere, you're liable to find the Marshals are quicker on the draw with you than they are with others. Try to "lawyer" us over that, and it will backfire. Likewise, if we get a large traffic flood, the Marshals may draw/fire more and talk/explain less. You can accept it, or step up and try to help with your own powers of diplomacy and persuasion.
In general, try to be a good citizen of this diverse community, and look to the goal rather than the rules, and we'll all be fine.
Other than that, welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...
Addendum [Oct 19, 2008 observation & recommendation by Marshal Festus added to this entry by Marshal "Big Tuna" Maximus]:
For the record, here is a Disagreement Hierarchy from Paul Graham's March 2008 essay How to Disagree --
* DH0. Name-calling.
* DH1. Ad Hominem.
* DH2. Responding to Tone.
* DH3. Contradiction.
* DH4. Counterargument.
* DH5. Refutation.
* DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
As it pertains to Comments at Winds of Change, Resolved:
Higher on the Disagreement Hierarchy is Better.
Specific Authors Speak Re: Their Posts
Joe Katzman: For discussions related to my posts, you all own your own words (but can be quoted on them here and elsewhere). Whether your choice of words makes you look like a genius or a moron is entirely up to you; whether one's reputation attracts thoughtful responses or gets one ignored is the choice of other readers. My preference is to participate in the discussion while letting your self-created image and its consequences operate in the court of opinion, and I have broad faith in that process.
Works for me :)
IT IS TIME TO RECONSTRUCT AMERICA
{JK: is this a test of some sort? Comment deleted: no relevance, no value to the discussion. Warning conveyed.}
[JK: Somewhat interesting comment, but totally and utterly off topic. Zapped per rules re: relevance.]
I recently discovered this site by way of something I heard on 77 W.A.B.C. talk radio in New York. It seems like a very interesting if not busy site. Perhaps there should be a way by which bloggers not in association with this site could contribute opinion beyond the ability to comment on a post of a regular contributor.
If someone has something which they would like to say on a topic not being brought up then that is not a possibility at this time as far as I can see. If I have overlooked something I am sorry. Just my thought on the matter. Otherwise it is an informative blog.
Any thought on this issue? If anyone has any comments I would like to read them. How about it blog boss!
Wind Rider
Wind Rider, sorry it took a while for me to find this and respond.
If someone has something which they would like to say on a topic not being brought up, the best way is via emails to the site admins. and/or authors, whose email addresses are listed in the right sidebar. They may decide to post about the subject. Or, we may consider just starting up an "open thread" where people are invited to talk about anything at all within the limits of the policy above.
Aha, Now ive been man Immortal ( as a bad example )
Wonderfull
Regarding rule #3
Rule #3: Impersonate another poster by posting in their name, and you're deleted and site-banned on the first offense.
On a number of occasions when responding to a comment, I have typed or pasted the name of the person I am responding to into the "Name" field instead of the "Comments" by accident, thereby untintentionally impersonating that person. I have seen other people do this as well.
I think a "first offense" rule on this issue is overly harsh and will lead to banning people who did not intend to impersonate another poster.
HA,
But of course, you can immediately submit another comment at that point, noting the honest mistake and/or asking us to change it (and also, you can click the "remember info?" box so it's always consistent and you don't have to fill it in). If you correct the mistake before it becomes a problem for us, then no problem and no ban.
But the seriousness of the offense is too great for us to leave wiggle room for the malicious.
The rule stays.
Joe,
I don't disagree with the rule, just the threshold. It is the kind of thing that ends up being selectively enforced because a commenter you respect will make a mistake and you'll let it slide, while for others you will just pull the trigger. Just my opinion of course, but I think a "three-strike" threshold might work better on this issue.
Anyway, I just checked the "Remember Info?" box so I shouldn't make this mistake here.
HA,
It isn't our responsibility to avoid impersonating others and to check one's comment posts - it's yours. If you make mistakes like this and don't check or correct, I would question whether that level of carelessness on something so important is something we want here.
See also our "Beyond Da Rulz" section. It says clearly that we aren't limited by fixed rules, and that what we know about you will affect our treatment of you.
So, yes we have different standards. We say so, openly, and respond: why not contribute intelligently to the discussions and become one of the people we choose to cut slack?
Because...
It's good to be a good regular - and that's a philosophy with applications way beyond blogs.
Lighten up, Joe. I was just trying to offer a constructive suggestion. Jeez.
Of course, its your blog, so you obviously don't have to lighten up if you don't want to. And you can have any rules you want.
For the record, here is a Disagreement Hierarchy from Paul Graham's March 2008 essay How to Disagree --
RTWT.
As it pertains to Comments at Winds of Change, Resolved:
Higher on the Disagreement Hierarchy is Better.
Marshal Festus, that there's some might purty shootin'. I'm adding #12, slightly reformatted, to the top post -- so it will get a deserved increase in visibility.
Sometimes you encounter something that is so obviously true or beautiful that it startles you, especially in comparison to everything around it. Graham's Disagreement Hierarchy is one of those things. Thanks for putting it out where more of us can see--and maybe even heed--it.
You're welcome. The follow-up comments to Graham's article are also worth review. It's a living document! :)