Winds of Change.NET: Winds of Change.NET Comments Policy

April 23, 2003

Winds of Change.NET Comments Policy

by Joe Katzman at April 23, 2003 4:17 AM

(First posted April 23, 2003; last updated June 26, 2005)

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...

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.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1126

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Winds of Change.NET Comments Policy"

Comments

#1 from Inscrutable American at 4:36 am on Apr 23, 2003

Works for me :)

#2 from Debbie at 7:36 pm on May 06, 2003

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.}

#3 from Gunnar Henrioulle at 7:22 am on Sep 09, 2003

[JK: Somewhat interesting comment, but totally and utterly off topic. Zapped per rules re: relevance.]

#4 from Wind Rider at 6:07 pm on Oct 22, 2004

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

#5 from Joe Katzman at 12:55 am on Jun 05, 2005

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.

#6 from Raymond at 6:20 am on Jun 05, 2005

Aha, Now ive been man Immortal ( as a bad example )

Wonderfull

#7 from HA at 1:01 pm on Jun 05, 2005

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.

#8 from Joe Katzman at 3:18 pm on Jun 05, 2005

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.

#9 from HA at 2:37 am on Jun 06, 2005

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.

#10 from Joe Katzman at 3:16 am on Jun 06, 2005

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...

If we don't know you and impersonation happens, and you don't catch it and apologize very quickly, we'd rather pull the trigger than put our existing comment base at any risk. We value them too much.

If we know you and your reputation is shady, we may not choose to listen to any explanation, no matter how persuasive. The flip side of reputation.

If we do know you and have good grounds for believing it was a mistake, you get a backchannel discussion, and probably a lowered reputation. The mistake is still serious, and there are consequences re: our trust.

It's good to be a good regular - and that's a philosophy with applications way beyond blogs.

#11 from HA at 12:21 pm on Jun 06, 2005

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.

#12 from Freedom Now at 12:10 pm on Jan 14, 2008

Thank you Avedis. Your response is appreciated and I look forward to moving the conversation forward.

You asked, “How do you propose we pay the $4 trillion or more that it will cost to keep our troops occupying Iraq for the next decade or so? What domestic policies would be involved. Please spell out in detail. Please detail your related cost/benefit and risk/benefit analysis.”

That’s a really heavy question to ask someone who has never done these types of analyses before. It is a bit over my head. While I have always mastered history courses, I have never enjoyed any study of economics.

I will try my best to talk intelligently on the subject, but it is too much to ask for my response in the format that you demanded.

As I mentioned above, on social domestic issues I line up more with the Democrats than Republicans so I have no problem raising taxes to help pay the cost. Yet I have developed an appreciation for the Bush tax cuts because I have personally benefited. Therefore I would like to see those tax cuts continue for the poor and middle class and increase the tax burden on the wealthy. I admit that this is slightly unfair because the wealthy already pay a larger percentage of taxes, but the truth is that they can afford it and Taxation with Representation is legitimate.

Another means of addressing this point would be to issue War Bonds. It worked wonders during World War II.

In any case, I would never put a price on freedom. The benefit of an Iraq that no longer represents a threat to its neighbors or its own people is priceless.

I have been a big champion of our military’s humanitarian efforts in Iraq. I have even donated and volunteered my time to assist “Spirit of America”:http://www.spiritofamerica.net/. It is a very worthy charity that contributes humanitarian aid to civilians in war zones and is distributed by our troops as a means of supporting both parties. So I have thought of your concern before and sought to personally contribute to our country’s war effort.

Our greatest weapon is not our military. Even though it is the world’s most powerful, experienced and efficient. The economy of the United States is the most powerful weapon that we have. When we wielded the Marshall Plan in the forties our government took full advantage of the leverage that we could gain from such an effort. The modern-day Morgenthau Boys who want to destroy Iraq by divesting from the country and splitting it apart cannot grasp this point.