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

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.

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.