wow. Im impressed with your seriousness.

Thanks for noting this. I will cease from responding to any of the said persons comments, as he can no longer respond, and I would suggest that others do likewise, in the interest of fairness.

I hope he can find an appropriate place to express himself.

Finally. I think he needs help.

C'mon prak, that's unkind.

A.L.

I trust this will disabuse those who thought that Lukasiak was banned solely on account of his ideology ...

I often suspect that Raymond was just trashtalking, deliberately being outrageous to make points he holds less vehemently or extremely.

However, what counts is what he actually sends to the blog -- and those words were repeatedly unacceptable at Winds of Change.

He's welcome to go find the right-wing equivalent of, say, Democratic Underground if he really wants to continue to publish them. But not here.

I'm always more supporting of moves to ban tactless conservatives than tactless liberals.

The way I figure it is that a tactless liberal that is always making derogatory personal comments can only make himself and his own position look bad, whereas an offensive conservative makes me look.

Praktike, that was beneath you. Especially since he can't respond.

It was interesting that several of the Marshalls sepearately came to this conclusion at the same time. It is unfortunate this had to be done, but it was obvious the decision had to be made.

Unfortunate, but understandable.

>>I often suspect that Raymond was just trashtalking, deliberately being outrageous to make points he holds less vehemently or extremely.

Strange, I always considered him to be quite serious, although clearly quite enraged. We should consider the possibility that his clarity and cohesion will improve, at which point perhaps he should be allowed back.

He clearly understands at least some of The Score.

This has been coming for some time. I support the banning, because standards of civility don't exist if they aren't enforced.

RE: Raymond's ban
"...despite requests that he stop and warnings by the team, has crossed a final line."

Are your requests and warnings privately e-mailed to the respondent or are they posted in the comments section? There is only one caution from the Marshall posted. It is not explicit as to whom it is directed.

As I read it, it referenced the heated exchange going on and directed the posts back to topic. I did not think it was directed at Raymond for there many participants.

Subtle language that contains no exclaimatory words but sucks the life out of truth can move passion to hyperbole.

Raymond's language may be too course for you and his metaphor about lamposts and the media a little strong; he was no more inflamatory than many other more artfully phrased comments.

If the one warning by Marshall Festus "Marshal Festus on June 24, 2005 05:00 PM" about "Raymond June 23, 2005 10:55 PM the leftist media off lamposts" , seventeen hours after the offence, was the only warning, your banishment is inappropriate.

We need to keep things reasonable and welcoming of all political types. After all, if those opposed to the WOT stop coming here to debate the issues because of such comments, then we are nothing but preachers and a choir. There are plenty of outlets for that sort of talk.

It may have been hyperbole but hyperbole can be hard to detect over this channel. In the end the blog owner makes the call and I support this call.

Marcus Aurelius

To be yanked off the stage without a clear
"heads up" is a hook not a warning.

The "warning" appeared 17 hours after the infraction, it was not directed at Raymond and he made no inflamitory comments after the warning/hook. For all I knew it was me that the warning was for.

I agree the owner makes the call.

How about a "that's" 1, and identify to whom you are directing the call. If you are going to toss 'em out you should act like a ref.

[Marshal "Smokin' Joe" Katzman: gratuitous personal attack on a person banned from fighting back removed.]

Perhaps it was the second Baltic Porter (a fine style very much under-appreciated in this country, by the way).

In any case, I applaud the editors here for taking an action I absolutely did not expect.

For the most part I will admit that I disagree vehemently with most of the ideology of the posters at Winds of Change, yet I am continually curious about their viewpoints. Especially those who (which? Time to cut back on the porter) seem well-connected to the defense establishment of this Republic. Your efforts to make this site more conducive to sane discussion of the most pressing issues of our time is welcome.

Thank you.

Nat,

The point you raise about perceived fairness and how this was handled is a fair question.

I can tell you that Raymond has been engaged back-channel, at length, by more than one Marshal and more than one administrator over a period of many months. A comprehensive search would also find a number of comments by Raymond that consist only of a Marshal/Admin notice that the contents were removed.

Things finally reached the point where our Marshals were in complete consensus on taking this step.

We probably could have explained all that better, and we will be refining the process around this stuff to improve for next time.

I will say on Raymond's behalf that he has always been cooperative in these exchanges, including exchanges re: deleting his posts. This does much to explain his longevity at Winds, as the vast majority of our Site-Wide Ban cases were people who wouldn't abide by direct requests from a post's author or moderator (Lukasiak being the most recent example).

I trust this will disabuse those who thought that Lukasiak was banned solely on account of his ideology ...

last time I checked, it wasn't necessary for Lukasiak to advocate murder for you to ban him....

...No, rsmythe, just refusal to obey an author or Marshal acting within their legitimate spehere of authority.

Such behaviour is still quite enough to get anyone at all site-banned here on a "one strike" basis.

As I noted in my comment, Raymond's more mature approach to such situations largely explain why he this step was not taken until now.

(Dan, I guess you have to take comment #4 back.... I figured you'd lose that particular bet, though I concede that I probably would have lost the pool on timing.)

[Marshal "Smokin' Joe Katzman": Ruth, I realize you and Raymond had a history, but this isn't the time or the place to rehash it. No class to kick him when he can't respond. Removed.]

Sorry, too, you had to ban him, but appreciate that you took the time and trouble to try straightening him out.

[...and save the jokes. Do it when you face a fair fight. Not impressed.]

Nat, I'm not sure how long you've been reading Raymond's comments here at Winds of Change. But I personally came very close to banning him permanently -- and he was told so -- months ago when he persisted in using hateful language despite private and public warnings.

I assure you, this action was not capricious or arbitrary, did not come out of the blue and is the result of a very long pattern of persistent behavior in the face of requests to modify his language and warnings of the consequences if he did not.

Now: having said that, I agree that there are more subtle ways to be provocative and some people use them. Praktike's comment about "needs help" edges towards that in my opinion - it strikes me as condescending and smug.

Where is the line? For me, it is a matter of whether or not this or any comment enables and fosters a serious discussion of issues. Raymond's deeply held beliefs were often potentially fruitful triggers for discussion, but his inability or unwillingness to moderate the language he used and his inability or unwillingness to discipline himself in how much of his belief system he put out there in every comment meant that that potential often went unfulfilled.

But a comment doesn't have to be long and rantful to shut down conversation or deflect it away from becoming a useful exchange of ideas. Short comments can do the same.

I should clarify here that Robin's criteria in #19 explain how she will moderate comments in her posts, which may even include deletion of comments. All Winds authors have that ability.

It's also the ethos that helps to guide her as a Marshal, in conjunction with Winds' comments policy.

Site-wide bans on commenters, however, are a different and much more serious level of response with a different set of criteria. Just because we decide your comments aren't "serious" or "helpful" doesn't mean we're going to ban you from the site. It has to be a bit more serious than that, unless you're a known troll from elsewhere on our "short leash" policy.

I know Robin didn't mean it that way, but I didn't want any of our readers wondering.

Well, if it was his real name, I don't think it was fair for Windsofchange to give Google a chance to turn his name into mud. I don't think we need to know his first and last name. After all, he was probably referring to what would happen to some of America's internal enemies after a nuclear attack on an American city, for instance. Now, I would understand that this website is not a forum for such conjecture, but it could become one at any moment. Look at the new terrorist leader in Iran! If that isn't cause for one to realize that war in Iran is likely...to include a WMD attack on the USA and heavy liberal "I told you so" thereafter...I don't know what is.

I live in Europe now because, as of 2004, I was starting to get close to getting into fist fights with the average obnoxious anti-Bush males over 35 in Northern California. I really wasn't looking for fights, but they were! Leftists in America totally expect to be considered correct, as time goes on, in the conventional wisdom saying "Iraq was a mistake." In the Blue States, they are more and more vocal about this and they want to make sure everyone around them "agrees" in the same way that the rest of us were pretty harsh after 9-11 with anyone who didn't "agree" with us.

They are religious zealots.

So, YES, I agree that this guy needed to be told to go post elsewhere for awhile...but let us not hide our heads in the sand about the real potential for violence between reasonable people and anti-Americans in a post-nuclear America that can easily happen in 2005 or 2006 or soon thereafter. I think we can avoid this, but we must also remember that JFK and RFK died in what was obviously a civil war between leftists and conservatives before 1969. The race riots of the 60s through 90s were also part of a civil war. It may just come to blows between white people now that we can clearly see that the fall of the Soviet Union did absolutely nothing to end the Cold War divide among Americans. Let us not promote that concept of violence, but let us not hide our heads in the sand either. I know for sure that the female Marines were killed recently in Iraq precisely because the leftists have recently been trying to revive the insurgency with moral support. If that isn't inciting violence, what is? Lincoln said that Congressmen who supported the enemy needed to be hanged or shot. Would you ban Lincoln from commenting on this website? Answer: Yes, and I would agree with you only because there is no hot civil war as of yet in America and I hope there never is again.

Actually, Joe, I wasn't even trying to lay out criteria for policing comments on my own posts. I have a pretty wide tolerance for most things, although threats and hate language step over the line for me. It was more a reflection about what makes a blog with comment threads work vs. turn into shouting matches that don't advance anyone's understanding or insight.

But yes, you are certainly right that I wasn't laying out grounds for being banned here. For all the warnings Raymond got, it was the comment policy Rule #1: Do not directly endanger or threaten others. that the Marshalls felt was violated - and more than once.

Nat (#11):

If the one warning by Marshall Festus... , seventeen hours after the offence, was the only warning, your banishment is inappropriate.

I'm glad that you, along with readers and commenters of many stripes, are auditing what goes on. So here's a longer explanation.

Well before Joe thought up the Marshals, I directed some of my comments at WoC to coaxing wayward discussions back to the matter under discussion. This was (is) usually done with an attempt at humor, or failing that, via petulant whinging. Now that I can sign in as Festus, you might think that an implied threat has been added to that mix--and you'd be right.

The unusual and unhappy decision under discussion in this post stemmed from the use of incendiary language that could be seen as incitement. I delayed making a direct comment on that more serious issue until the other Marshals finished weighing in.

As Robin and Joe pointed out above, there is a history of email communications that preceded this action. While Raymond conducted himself creditably, this is ultimately about words that were used online at Winds of Change--Joe's virtual living room.

That said, we will aim for greater transparency in the (hopefully far-off) occasion of a matter like this next arising.

#21 Jim Peterson

I live in Europe now because, as of 2004, I was starting to get close to getting into fist fights with the average obnoxious anti-Bush males over 35 in Northern California.

Wait, wait, wait. You were sick of anti-Bush stuff, so you went to Europe? Rather than a red state?

I agree with Jim Peterson that it was a second-best piece of judgment to use Raymond's full name - unless he told you to use that name now?

We needed to know Raymond had been banned, and we needed to know why and that fair procedures had been followed. More than that is not my business.

I liked Raymond, and I also like a lot of people that Raymond tended to get cross-ways of. This is a familiar experience to me, here on the darkling plains. Things get too bitter and personal at times.

So if this is how it has to be - and the Dodge City Peace Commission says so - I hope Raymond won't be angry. And I hope people here won't be angry at Raymond any more. Forgiveness is a good kind of thing.

Hey, whose blog is it? Blog writers rule; any and all rules they create are what readers and commenters have to abide by. Some trolls make a practice of circumventing bans etc. in order to s***-disturb, and this sometimes results in closing of comments, or even the blog itself in extreme cases.

Better to clamp down early and hard, IMO.

I hope this is on topic:

"Every once and a while even a straight man must spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats." -H. L. Menken

I guess Raymond's problem was all the time vs. Every once and a while.

David & Jim,

Don't think the "first and last name" thing was deliberate policy. Now that it's up there...

There's a school of thought here that says leave it, because other blogs may need to use a positive ID in future, to know if it's the same person. It's a necessary consequence of actions that were wrong - if ya didn't want that, ya shouldn't have done that, sorry if it bleeds into other departments of yer life.

There's another school of thought that says here's a person who was always cooperative with the Marshals and Admins, even when his comments were zapped. Removing the last name (Google will refresh this post eventually and then it will be gone) is a consideration Raymond has earned in return; perhaps this incident will teach him something.

Good arguments to be made for both sides. I'll come down for the second argument, with the caveat that if you're a blog admin. and want to know that last name, email joe here at winds of change dot net.

"perhaps this incident will teach him something."

Sure, the value of calling a spade a manual excavating implement is of inestimable value.

Your place, your rules, no one can deny it and you're perfectly and well within your rights to exercise the owners perogative concerning use of the premises. Turning it into a "teaching moment" is a bit much.

Actually, Rick, it's integral to the argument. If you don't believe the person will learn anything, you have a greater duty to leave the full name out there as a resource for other blog administrators.

This isn't about liberal "re-education" buls--t, it's about conflicting duties.

Joe,

Pray tell, where might I find a copy of the official and universal Blog Administrator Duties? What you are telling every anonymous commenter who posts here is that, if in your opinion the publication of their full name is "justified in the name of a higher duty" then you will publish.

Now, that's what I've learned from your lesson but are you sure that's what you want to teach?

"I'll come down for the second argument, with the caveat that if you're a blog admin. and want to know that last name, email joe here at winds of change dot net."

Thank you Joe. I think that editing was a nice little good deed for the Sabbath day.

I would have been more impressed with Raymond if he had actually bothered to cite facts in support of firmly asserted but shaky claims.

I'm happy to see WoC assert a need for roots in values; perhaps the next step will be to bring the more wild assertions down to earth by asking for roots in facts.

I was the person who posted Raymond's full name.

It wasn't a deliberate act of administration on my part - Raymond uses his last name in his email address and I forgot that he didn't link to that in the comments as you all see them.

That said, Joe is correct that there are two competing concerns here. The privacy of our commenters who choose to post anonymously is important to us.

So to is avoiding a potential lawsuit for fostering threats of violence against 3rd parties.

It is the latter that Joe has in mind when he says that other bloggers may have a legitimate need or desire to know who we banned and why.

There are a lot of blogs that ban commenters with far less explanation and transparency. There are others blogs that don't allow comments at all. We hope that our regular readers and commenters will appreciate our attempts to make this an open place for serious discourse -- and to prevent that from degrading into abusive language or threats of violence, implied or explicit. But give that there are two legitimate concerns in tension with one another, any action we took would have entailed some degree of compromise. Sorry you didn't like the one I made, Rick.

I'll just add what a few other people have said: blogging, and managing a blog, looks easy if you've never done it.

[Wait, wait, wait. You were sick of anti-Bush stuff, so you went to Europe? Rather than a red state?]

Americans really need to wake up to the fact that the rest of the world generally sees that Bush was right about democracy in the Middle East. Nobody on the left in Germany wants to talk about Bush anymore, especially because the Lebanese are getting their liberty more and more every day (it is not total yet because Syrian intelligence and Hezbollah are still able to hang around).

Germany is extremely pro-American right now. So is England (although they might say they don't like Bush for being religious). The most anti-American country on Earth now is the USA itself. Agreed: mostly in the Blue States and then only the metropolitan areas. But the daughter of a Virginia industrialist walked away from me at a trade show the other day when I told her that I sold food to the US forces in Iraq. She came from a Blue State but she was basically a liberal enemy of everything we are doing. Daughters in the red states are too often turning traitor against their own fathers, families, brothers and potential husbands...all beacause of some moron professor at the University of Red State who tells "the other side of the story". It is going to take a lot to convince me to ever date another American woman again. They are just too beautiful and pro-American over here.

About removing the last name: Google has crucified me for 5 years because I said I was 4 years older than I was to a journalist once (with my real name). Since then American women who "Google" the men they are dating have twice "discovered" that I "lied to them" with disastrous results to the relationship.

People are dumb enough to think that Google always leads to the truth. I have learned that my drivers license isn't even as credible as a link to a false or out of context page on Google.

That is why, if Raymond had been dumb enough to use anything but a pen name (there is no way in the world that I would subject my real name to a possible attack by others on the web) then he could be denied employment by liberals or denied sex from a liberal in the future...all because of something he once said but probably only meant conditionally. Remember that the majority of Americans approved of what happened at Kent State and would approve if the same thing happened again.

Back in 1994 I used my real name in a Usenet discussion on feminism. Unfortunately, everything said on the Usenet in 1994 has been recovered and is now on Google. I have buried the use of my real name back then, by commenting on 1000 Amazon books and getting 6 pages of my name filled up with these neutral, non-political comments.

I think we still need to publish the names of people who have gone on record as supporting the Iraqi insurgency. They need to be denied a few jobs and dates and told exactly what the reason was.

I want to be very clear about something: By 2005 you can be sure that smart American employers and potential dates WILL CHECK GOOGLE before they commit to you. Anything you say with your real name can and will be used against you if the person does not agree with it.

Welcome to the brave new world. This also explains a little why I prefer Europe where people are more trusting and, maybe, naive. America is paranoid about the "truth."

A great example of why American's "respect for the truth" is bad would be as follows:

Everything Bush has done in the WOT has been seemingly in the face of the threat of a terror nuke existing in NY or DC. Bush telegraphed the Iraq War and bluffed about the reasons enough to give the other side hope that they could beat Bush politically and conventionally and not have to explode their suitcase nuke. Bush has let Iran and Syria murder 1500 extra of our servicepeople in the past two years because he is obviously afraid to attack Iran and Syria. Why? The only answer, to me, can be a WMD (nuke) in an American city. But Bush CANNOT admit the truth for two reasons:

1) If the liberals knew there was a nuke in DC or NY, they would immediately call for a Cold War policy of appeasement. There could be civil war over this issue. So Bush has had to keep the truth to himself.

2) If most Americans, and not just liberals, knew for sure that Bush and Rumsfeld have done what they said they would do (strategically lie to us in order to strategically lie to the enemy) then the Americans' overconcern for "truth" would make Bush and the Republicans pariahs for being admitted liars.

It is a pathology in the American culture. If the Republicans get rejected in 2006 because Bush lied about the terror nuke in NY, it is almost the same thing...a complete inability to understand that the truth would not have been good to tell upfront (smart people have already sold all their real estate in likely fallout paths and moved out of concentrated population centers)...plus a complete inability to even DISCUSS how the truth is often not the right thing at certain times.

Nixon got shafted with Watergate because "Republicans" weren't able to say "Of course he lied. We are not going to throw him out of office because of it." Meanwhile, Clinton got off the hook because liberals were actually able to say "Of course he lied. We are not going to throw him out of office because of it."

Republicans have got to learn to play hardball like the Democrats do. Republicans have got to be ready to say "Of course Bush lied about the reasons to go to Iraq. He really wanted to give the Shiites power over the Sunnis and create the Flypaper Effect to kill 40,000 Jihadis who would come to Iraq like moths to a flame. We didn't really care about specific WMD. He lied about that. So what?".

Robin,

Perhaps I haven't been clear. WoC can ban whomever it wants, whenever it wants and for whatever reason it wants and I won't say a word.

Allowing anonymous comments creates a presumption of confidentiality. Publishing an anonymous commenter's name makes that presumption invalid. Proceeding to dress up the error with exculpatory explanation does not encourage belief that the error will not be repeated.

I would have banned Raymond for any number of reasons but I would never have published his name. If I were an anonymous commenter here, I would carefully consider the actions of the administrators before posting again.

hmmm...Raymond was a character. His comments always entertained me--i thought of him as analogous to the rustics in Midsummer Night's Dream...he had a grasp of the essentials, and sometimes was unintentionally brilliant, but Joe and Robin absolutely did the right thing, even if a lot of his judgemental bravado was just bluster.

Being a blog administrator is a lot of work. And like everything, comes at a price. I agree that the marshall's keeping the peace is important, and most especially preventing other commentors from being attacked. I have seen blogs degenerate into low-IQ block parties that just host trolls and promote attacks on other blogs and other commentors. I would hate to see that happen at Winds. Interestingly, some of the conditions at one blog like that have resulted in innocent parties names' and addresses' being published on the web.

Winds is unique in the blogverse in the makeup of its commentors, and that creates some tension. Joe has always managed this with consummate grace and skill, and i am grateful for that. This is a wonderful place to be able to exchange ideas.

But i guess i will miss Raymond.

Bottom: I see their knavery! This is to make an ass of me, to fright me, if they could. But I will not stir from this place, do what they can. I will walk up and down here, and sing, that they shall hear I am not afraid.

Interestingly, some of the conditions at one blog like that have resulted in innocent parties names' and addresses' being published on the web.

I meant to add, that if the attacker's name had been published by that blog administrator, and the attacker banned, the harm to the innocent parties could have been avoided. So I really think Joe and Robin did the right thing.

Jinn,

We've seen a LOT of blogs degenerate, and noted that it's very nearly a Power Law phenomenon. That's why the Marshals exist. Kevin Drum is a nice guy, f'rinstance; but he took a non-policed approach, as many do, and his comments are a cesspool. C'est la guerre.

Now, we're going to see our share of attacks on other blogs here, and other commenters. That's the nature of discussion. And IQs involved in that process will vary.

Here's what WON'T be tolerated here, and will result in "shoot on sight" from the Marshals and, if necessary, the admins: using Winds as a forum to continue a personal grudge or violent disagreement involving some other forum.

You're correct to note that this sort of thing has spilled over into other blogs. It will not happen here.

We have more than enough in our own posts to argue about, and bigger issues to tackle than the kind of high-school flamefests we've seen elsewhere.

Comments policy amended accordingly

Yes, Joe.
;-)

But i really have no problem with Raymond's name being published. I think blog adminstraters should have a master list of trolls that are deliberate agents provateurs that should be banned on sight, and their comments deleted. Isn't that one responsibilty of a blog adminstrator, to squash that stuff and prevent it from migrating to other blogs?

For example, some blogs with a no ban policy just encourage troll attacks and flame wars, IMHO. It is like they are promoting them.

The case i am remembering was Double Standard--a lot of us knew him from other blogs. He was even at winds for a while. Wretchard tolerated him for a very long time, but he never changed. He just took advantage of Wretchard's tolerance--if his ISP was known, it would have saved a lot of wasted threads at Belmont.
I think deliberate, unredeemable trolls should be banned and have their ISP published. But that is just me.

I really enjoyed Raymond's creative spelling. It is truly a mavel. It somehow plays into...

[ Marshal Festus commenting at 2005-06-27 05:45 --

lurker,

Please recollect that Raymond can't respond to this thread. What you wrote here doesn't advance this conversation. Thoughts directed at a third party's shortcomings invite a cut-and-parry session. So before going there, refer to Joe's comment at #41, above, and to the linked Rule 4a.

Because the comment was civil, even rather 'tame,' you can repost it if you really want to. But I'm not recommending it. ]

Too bad. Raymond was an institution. I usually didn't read his comments in their entirety, but what I did read was usually interesting to say the least. I'm with Jinnderella. I'll miss him.

My first post on WoC was also my first encounter with Raymond. I found it startling to say the least, to be subjected to ad hominems right from the start, on a technical discussion about EMP pulses. Nevertheless, it is my style to argue facts, and I tend to ignore rhetoric. In the end it was a very stimulating and interesting debate.

Actually the ad hominems didn't really offend me that much anyway, because I am probably not much less conservative in most areas than Raymond. So not knowing me, his jibes were pretty wide of the mark.

If an opinion is worth stating, I believe it is worth defending in reasoned debate to the maximum extent of your abilities. In this respect, Raymond is a formidable debator. And his rhetoric should be seen, I think, as part of his debating technique. He uses it to disconcert and distract his opponent. The flourishes and fiery language, are employed for their imagery and emotional power. As lawyers and preachers know very well, it is entirely possible to win an argument purely by overawing your opponent - even when his facts are far stronger than yours.

On the whole I would far rather debate with Raymond, than with some whiney person who posts or comments, and then gets offended or goes off in a huff if anyone dares to disaggree with anything they say. Such individuals are only seeking approval, not the truth. When people partake good-naturedly in the thrust and parry of heated debate, and give as good as they get, we all end up learning something. And of course the participants get a chance to show off how good they really are.

Regarding the specific infringements that got him banned. Blogs are private property and the owners make the rules. You don't like it, set up your own blog and do better.

Oh and Jinnderella,

Here is a suitable song for you to sing, while you are walking up and down in your Midsummer Night's Dream:

The ousel cock so black of hue,
With orange-tawny bill,
The throstle with his note so true,
The wren with little quill,--

The finch, the sparrow and the lark,
The plain-song cuckoo gray,
Whose note full many a man doth mark,
And dares not answer nay;--
for, indeed, who would set his wit to so foolish
a bird? who would give a bird the lie, though he cry
'cuckoo' never so?