Ta-Nehisi Coates joins the Atlantic stable of bloggers, and feels compelled to put this p.s. on one of his posts:
I have one request guys. Please, please, do not respond to any trolls. You will only make it worse. Frankly, there's little that can be said to offend me--I grew up around people who would snap on your dead grandmother. But what I really hate is to see a conversation get eaten by two or three people who are attempting to argue with a guy who's basically just baiting them, and not really arguing in good faith. Have some sense, and don't fall for the con.
Ross Douthat has given up the comboxes on his great Atlantic blog, I hear because policing them to keep the foulmouths and the trolls out became too burdensome, and good people who wanted to have an honest debate/discussion quit coming around because of the atmosphere there.
Today I've heard personally from several of you regulars that the tone in the Crunchy Con comboxes has gotten uglier of late, and you hate it. A couple of you have even said to me that you're disinclined to come around because of it. This really bothers me, not least because you are among the more balanced and intelligent commentators, the kind of readers who make this blog an interesting and pleasant place to talk about ideas.
Not long after this blog started, I decided, after beseeching my Bnet bosses, to start being a hard-ass about comments here, precisely because I was hearing from so many of you who said you hated the spiteful, screechy atmosphere in the comboxes. After I started pruning trolls and being more intolerant of uncivil discourse, the blog numbers started taking off.
Now I'm wondering if it's time to tighten the reins again, not for content, but for tone. I don't want to lose readers, but if I have to lose readers, I'd rather lose those who come around for nothing more than griping and sniping than lose those who actually want to use this space for discussion. True, I get paid by the number of page views, but trust me, I'd happily take a smaller monthly check than to have to police these comboxes so diligently to keep this a relatively civil space.
What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Michael, that was a funny comment about "deranged men" far above in the thread.
I am only an infrequent commenter, whether here or elsewhere on the Internet.
I wouldn't call the problem nastiness per se (and I wouldn't have shut down the earlier John Edwards thread--but I would have shut down the Myers thread and several threads earlier this year about gay marriage, where the comments numbered into the 300s, repeating the same points (often very off-topic) by the same few people over and over and over and over again).
I do think Rod attracts some very determined provocateurs.
What I've found most objectionable are a handful of very abrasive commenters who have dominated threads in the past and have come back twenty or thirty times to argue the same point in a very bullying way. Couldn't these people have been told to stop or been denied access earlier?
I wouldn't mind a word-limit per post. I also think an ISP block will not work in most cases.
So what you're saying is that we should all click "refresh" a whole bunch if we want your kids to go to a nice college? :)
I second elmo (first comment, first paragraph.) If I could never comment again, I'd be okay with that. I very rarely read the comments, unless I think they might be interesting (recipes, etc.) or funny. I guess I don't care that much what other people think unless I'm actually having a real, live conversation with them.
"Babydaddygate
Silky Pony
Intellectual Autistics
Democratic Bedwetters
Obama Christ
At the risk of being banned, might I suggest that you reap what you sow, Rod."
To this list we should add:
Lavendar jackboots
Marryin' a plant
Marryin' an animal
Marryin' a child
Marryin' a desk
Judge this 13-year old kid a schmuck
sluts
The list is long indeed.
Alicia's defence of Rod says: "I agree that there are some who seem to have nothing better to do than make personal attacks."
Sorry, but I agree, it's sowing what is reaped, or just plain doin' to others before you shut the comboxes down. I'm used to Rod's personal attacks, yet all Alicia sees is those who dare "attack" back.
"eventually the trolls will go away. And start blogs. Which approximately six people will read"
Hey, that's triple the average on God-o-rama, and about double what Waldman gets. Yer point?
"And thanks to Don F for providing an example of making Rod the issue."
Wrongo, Erin. DonF simply made a (very incomplete) list of the things Rod has blogged about. The list is of Rod's topics (and slants on the topics), notRod himself.
"Rod, like every other blogger, writes about things he thinks are interesting and worth commenting on. If you disagree, skip that post and go on to one that is interesting to you or that you'd like to comment on."
IOW, you should really only bother to post a comment if you agree. If you disagree, go some place else. Erin, we find many things interesteing, and do not agree with them all. Why should only those that agree be allowed to post? That'd be pretty boring.
Hey, REP, you forgot to sign your post. :)
I'm only addressing the last paragraph: you've taken my quote a bit out of context. I was specifically referring to people who only post a comment to complain about what Rod has chosen to write about or find interesting. Thus, what I was saying was that if a poster disagrees *about* something being interesting/post or comment worthy, he can go post on something he *does* find interesting. He doesn't have to keep posting in various threads "Rod, why did you write about this? It's not interesting!!"
That's all.
Erin,
Still waiting for your response to my question about Rod posting on the alleged affair McCain had with Vicki Iseman.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.