Against comboxes

Rod, it's your blog, your call. I won't stop coming around if you police harsher or even get rid of the comboxes altogether. You have a unique way of thinking and writing which is compelling even to those who disagree. Not being able to post my two cents wouldn't detract much from the overall quality of your blog. Do what you need to do.

Mostly, I love reading your thoughts on the Orthodox church and your own faith. Threads on crunchy foodiness rank high with me, as well. But much of the time I disagree with you as in the "silky pony" and "autist" posts. I try to keep my tone civil in the comboxes but sometimes the desire to be noticed takes hold, and more sarcasm than is warranted drips in. Sorry, if I offend.

I think the atmosphere around these parts changed for the worse after trolls wandered over from some of P.Z. Meyers fan blogs. Hopefully, after a few weeks of increased patrolling things will calm down and we will all feel the combox love again. ;)

I think -- or, at least, hope -- that I act on behalf of every-one who visits this web-log when I offer a tip of the hat, to you, Rod, for being willing to take a pay-cut in the name of civility. Where civility is usurped, intellectually degradation soon follows.

I would miss posting on your site, but if you feel you need to get rid of the comments I would still read your blog.

I ignore the offensive comments, which do seem to generate responses. Some of the comments, though, are very thoughtful on this blog, so I would miss them as well.

In the end, you should do whatever is necessary to remain comfortable doing this blog.

I'm waiting for the first earnest comment to the effect that Rod is blind to the irony of using an anatomical reference in a post about improving tone and fostering civility.

Sigh.

Seriously, I'd hate to lose these comboxes, naturally. One way we can all help keep things civil is to refuse to let the trolls make Rod the issue.

Rod is not the issue. His glasses, alleged passion for Swiss chard, way of life, means of employment, occasional use of slightly more colorful language than the average liberal can stand (unless the word is winning the Rory for the most gratuitous use of the word in question in a Serious Screenplay)--none of these are the issue. If we refuse to get roped into conversations that are just the troll's personal venting of his wholly irrational dislike for Rod, eventually the trolls will go away.

And start blogs.

Which approximately six people will read, all of them to complain about random bloggers whom they dislike.

IJS.

But they'll stop haunting the comboxes for their glorified gossip-sessions, which is the main thing.

The best thing about Google Reader is not being tempted to look at the comboxes.

And thanks to Don F for providing an example of making Rod the issue.

Don F, the thing is, bloggers are people who have opinions on things. They write about those things. Sometimes they write with academic disinterest, but often they write somewhat provocatively, if only because in these enlightened days offering one's opinion tends to be taken as an act of provocation.

If Rod, for instance, writes that he thinks someone has made a good case for the MSM to take an interest in the alleged Edwards baby, you're free to disagree. You can say that the case has not been made, that there is no possible case to make, or that even if a case could be made, consideration for Mrs. Edwards just now would make the exposure the act of a cad. And other people could disagree with you, and a good conversation could be had by all.

But saying, in effect, ad infinitum to Rod "You shouldn't write about a, or b, or c, or d unless it involves a Republican, or e except on odd-numbered days, or f unless f is a pet issue of mine, or g through y unless I tell you to, and z only if you're going to stay focused on z-1 through z-9 but avoid anything higher than z-9 and also leave out z-5 as a personal favor to me," well, then, you're probably too sensitive a person to spend much time reading blogs.

The point is, 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. There's no need to complain endlessly about Rod's choice of topics, choice of words, occasional choice of colorful metaphor etc., and doing so tends to have a freezing effect on conversation.

I would dump them. You can't have a blog of any level of real popularity and have a decent commentariat. Fewer than 1 in 20 readers offer comments. You won't lose many clicks except from the commenters who stop by every 15 minutes to see if someone has responded. Life goes on. At least Internet comment sections put the lie to the self regulating market.

Erin, my only point in the post is that there are times that Rod's tone seems to invite a similar tone in response. Referring to people as "Democratic bedwetters" would seem to invite a similar ad hominem attack, would it not?

Rod legitimately complains about the tone of this blog, and he has every right to police it as he sees fit. It is, after all, his blog. However, should he not also entertain the thought that, just possibly, some of his own rhetoric is adding to the problem instead of alleviating it?

Why not have user moderated forums...not where all of us moderate...but those who post the most frequently and responsibly. I'd be fine with that.

I really hate comboxes -- and the comments here tend to be of a higher order. But I never read them. I come for the posts, not the comments. -- Just cuz you ax'ed.

I am not at all a valued commenter or anything.

One thing that does bring me down about the blog at times is when Rod himself acts harshly towards people in policing the blog comments. I don't know, that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to read the excellent things he writes in posts and then see him fall to a level or even exceed people in harshness or meanness. I would honestly be happier to see a ruthless deletion policy where he keeps only the comments that he feels add something of meaning and substance to the topic. If 3 out of 10 comments here were never posted it would not matter to me because the overall quality of the content would be higher.

I don't see what obligation there should be to provide the comments section as a place for people build up comments just arguing among themselves. Let through the thoughtful, quality comments on what Rod actually wrote, and maybe limited follow ups to each other. I don't know how representative I am but I don't read here because of the long strings of comments and drawn out conversations between commenters, I don't even come here to satisfaction in my own words on the occasions I do comment. Simply trim it back and delete ruthlessly, without engaging the ugliness at all. People who like to actually think about what you write, whether agreeing or disagreeing, won't go anywhere.

If I had the gumption to run a blog, and knew how, and had anything to say, I'd welcome invective. But it'd have to be beautiful invective. The French are, or were, masters at that. But it's your bar....

If it weren't for the comboxes, I would have never learned of Rod's love of Swiss chard. One year I dug up a flower bed and planted just Swiss chard. Finally, some common ground with Rod Dreher.

I read this blog because it raises great questions, not because it is holy dictum.

I can understand your reaction to some comments, Rod, including my own, but I also hope you'll benefit from them. Please take me seriously, because I take you seriously--and when you're concerned the conversation is going off point, like my comments on Clayton Williams with another poster a few weeks ago, just say so. But please don't limit comments to those who always agree with you, or come to you to be instructed. And please let the people who disagree with you get just as ticked off as you are. You might just convince someone like me you're right by giving them the space to believe you.

Does this mean I have to change my name? ;-)

DonF, you're raising an interesting point here.

If Rod, in the body of a post, writes the phrase, "Democratic bedwetters" I'd take that as an intentionally humorous phrase; certainly I wouldn't suspect him of actually believing that the Democrats who choose to post here are suffering from nocturnal enuresis.

And if a poster chose to respond with the phrase "Republican thumbsuckers" in the body of his comment, I'd probably give him a point for cleverly reflecting Rod's tone.

But responding in apparent white-hot rage that Rod is a sham Christian and a nasty person for using such language is missing the tone completely; it's taking the phrase as a literal insult instead of understanding it to be a literary device.

Now, you can think the words aren't all that funny, or that Rod is being insensitive to the people in the word who do suffer from nocturnal enuresis regardless of party affiliation, or that such jokes aren't in the best of taste, and that's fine. But in that case it's simply evidence of a failed joke, not evidence that Rod hates Democrats, bedwetters, liberals, people who don't appreciate chard, or the great masses of theology and geometry-deprived citizens who huddle to the virtual shores of this blog only to have their kidney functions questioned.

Well,
As someone who rarely comments except to disagree with you, may I explain the mindset of at least one of those people. If we're in agreement, what is there to say? Slap you on the back and tell you how right you are? I don't see the point.
If we disagree, it seems that I might be able to point out another side. Hopefully, I'll be able to change your mind. One of the things I like about this blog is that your views don't seem to be set in stone and, to some extent, you seem to be "thinking out loud" in print. Even if I can't change your mind, I might be able to change the minds of some of your other readers.
On the other hand, I do think you are somewhat thin-skinned, especially when accused by commenters like DonF of having a double standard, whether it's for Republicans vs. Democrats, Christians vs. other religions or the non-religious, or crunchy cons vs. other cons.
That being said, I would probably come here still, though less often, if you shut off the comboxes. As is, there are certain posts I just have no interest in...so I skip them.
Oh, and I find the most interesting posters usually disagree with you...even when I agree with you. If you're going to police, make sure you don't just leave an Amen Chorus.

JohnE,
I definitely agree with you re: the coarsening of the comboxes via the language used in the posts. What I find funny is that the people who consider this a vital, lively, intellectual commenting community seem to be the most likely to want to shut off discussion by those who don't agree. What's vital and lively about an Amen Chorus? Its the exchange of ideas that interesting, even when I disagree.

I don't think Rod has ever wanted an Amen chorus, or tried to stifle dissent or disagreement! But there's a difference between reading a post and saying, "I disagree for reasons a, b, and c," and saying "Why are you posting stuff like this, Rod? It's tabloidish, it's beneath you, it's not in the Crunchy Con bible, etc."

As for the "bedwetter" thing, how does Rod's use of that term coarsen the comboxes? He's not calling a specific individual a potty-mouth name on the playground, after all. You can decide the joke's not funny, but there's a whole lot of illogic in going from a) Rod used the word "bedwetter" to b) therefore it's okay for me to call people names and engage in other acts of comment box incivility.

Now, if Rod did nothing all day long but sing the praises of every two-bit Republican and solid-fools-gold rightwing wannabe on this blog, while bashing and disparaging Democrats and leftists without mercy and shutting down disagreement, you might have a point, because then the Democrat readers (assuming any were left, no pun intended) would have no recourse but to resort to combox aria retorts of scathing rage and questionable wit. But Rod's hardly so partisan as all that, and gives people plenty of space to tell him he's wrong and back it up with footnotes--provided they realize that "You're *wrong*! You're WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG!!!" isn't actually an argument.

I'm only an occasional commenter, but I always read the comboxes for the interesting discussions. It's been very off-putting, however, to see (as has been the case quite a bit recently) the first ten comments of posts all being derisive of Rod as a writer, as a person, as a Christian, as a father, etc. It's eminently possible to disagree with Rod on given opinions - I do often - without getting personal or so nastily sarcastic. So, I'm definitely in favor of a heavier hand in the comboxes. No real worries it would be an "amen chorus" - that's not the way it was before anyway.

but there's a whole lot of illogic in going from a) Rod used the word "bedwetter" to b) therefore it's okay for me to call people names and engage in other acts of comment box incivility.
Posted by: Erin Manning | August 5, 2008 9:15 PM

Erin, you are seriously claiming that it is illogical to infer a connection between the author of a post using uncivil language and uncivil behavior in the comments on that post.

Okay, let's try an analogy - suppose you are at someone's home and your host lights up a cigarette. Would you be shocked when one of his guests lights up a cigarette?

Taking the analogy further - suppose someone then told the guest that his sort of smoking was not allowed - it seems the the host smokes low - tar filtered cigarettes, but the guest lit up an unfiltered heavy - tar cigarette.

Would you think that there was something strange about that scenario?

Erin,
Was that last post sincere? You say that if Rod were overly partisan that the Democratic readers on this blog would have no option but to resort to "retorts of screeching rage and questionable wit." Couldn't some Democratic readers respond intelligently? It's that sort of assumption that the Democratic readers are not capable of more that is so frustrating.
Oh, and I don't think Rod does nothing all day long but sing praises of all two bit Republicans and bash Democrats no matter how reasonable. If he did, I wouldn't come here. But he does seem to have a double standard about what is insulting and out of place.

As an example, frankly, the closed comboxes on "Babydaddygate" post had nothing really offensive. Some of the commenters didn't get the point that Rod wanted to talk about the propriety of reporting on the story rather than whether or not other politicians do similar things. But speculating whether or not Rod would have reported on a similar story regarding McCain IS talking about the propriety of the discussion. Now, I don't know of anything to support the speculation (ie. that I know of Rod hasn't lambasted stories regarding McCain's indiscretion in the MSM). But, the LACK of stories regarding McCain's indiscretions is some slight evidence that Rod might not be entirely fair on this. (To be clear, I don't think it's convincing evidence in the slightest. I just don't think it's out of bounds to mention it.)

"But responding in apparent white-hot rage that Rod is a sham Christian and a nasty person for using such language is missing the tone completely; it's taking the phrase as a literal insult instead of understanding it to be a literary device."

I'll take one more shot at this, Erin, for I see it as something more than just the use of a literary device.

For context I offer the following post from Rod, way back in 2006, that gives a glimpse into his thinking behind this blog at that time.

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2006/04/and-furthermore.html

"I am preoccupied with questions of our social and cultural character, and how the freedom and material abundance we all live under now affects that character."

And certainly Rod has written much about the social and cultural character of our nation, and other nations of the world. He has consistently spoken out against what he sees as the moral shortcomings that undermine what, in his opinion, preserves and nurtures our society.

My struggle then comes when, especially in the past 6 months or so (at least according to my admittedly brief scan of the archives), I find that Rod is turning to more sensationalism in his postings. Posts on the admittedly stupid actions of P.Z. Myers juxtaposed to Rod's specualtions on gossip surrounding John Edwards seem to grate against his stated concern about the social and cultural character of our nation. With Myers he legitimately decries the sensationalist disregard exhibited towards Catholics by the destruction of a blessed host. And then he turns around and participates in sensationalist (and as yet unproven) attacks on John Edwards.

Set aside the person of John Edwards for a moment. Let him be anyone or nobody in particular. How does the spreading of what is still an unproven rumor from a disreputable source square with the call for a return to traditional morals?

In my mind it raises this question...if the person in question had been Republican X instead of Democrat X, would the rumor have even been mentioned here? Even if there were alleged pictures and witnesses, would it have even been given acknowledgement here?

And the follow up question...for someone who decries the decay of morality, the tawdriness of our culture, and the nastiness of public discourse, does the passing off of rumors like this not seem the least bit hypocritical?

JohnE/hattio:

I think you'd have a hard time arguing rationally that Rod's post here is calling for anything like an amen choir (but feel free to try). What seems to be in question are the increasing number of comments that basically amount to some variation of "tu quoque a-hole" or "up yours you Christianist fascist" directed personally to Rod and the various personal insults between commenters that more and more threads are devolving into.

I agree with your point, though, that phrases like "Democratic bedwetters" exacerbate (but don't generate) the problem. They also usually weaken the point Rod is trying to make.

forestwalker,
I don't think Rod is trying to make an Amen Choir. I think he might wind up doing that, even though that's not what he wants, unless he uses the "increased patrols" judiciously and wisely.

Oh, and who has ever just called him a Christian fascist???

Oops--last paragraph, third sentence, after "and so forth" should be "the media will be forced to cover this, or whether it will remain unsubstantiated rumor."

Sorry about that.

Erin,
Like I said, I don't know whether Rod would be commenting on a Republican or not, I haven't been around that long. As I mentioned before, it's just speculation on the part of the poster. To me it's not very convincing speculation. But should asking the question be out of bounds? I don't think so. BTW, I didnt' mention the gay Republican rumor from comment 6 because I have no idea what they are talking about.

But bringing up McCain's past infidelities is definitely NOT out of bounds. Yes, they were a long time ago, and I personally don't care that much about them. But there really is no statute of limitations on mud-slinging...unfortunately. And, more broadly, I don't think it's "attacking Rod" to ask whether there's a reason that he hasn't posted on McCain's past infidelities. Personally it seems better to explain the reasons; it's long ago and in the past, it's well-known, in short it's not news.

As a complete aside, and to go totally off-topic, I don't know why it's not news. The reason we're told that infidelities are important is because they say something about a person's character. Rod and other conservative commenters bring up positions Obama took years ago, and connections with fund-raisers and donors. Why? Because they think it shows something about Obama's character. Why is infidelity from long ago no longer relevant to character, but fundraising is?

In your opinion is Obama's connection with Rezko news? It's old, it's widely known, does that mean it isn't news?? If not, why the difference.

Rod, if you want to stick to food criticism etc. I think you'll find this quite easy to do. If you want to keep poking around at questions of race, birth control, whether liberal Catholics are full of beans and/or ruining the Church or not, John Edwards' adultery, etc. - I think you'll find it harder.

Me, I hope you keep poking around.

Hattio, nobody said discussing McCain's adultery was out of bounds. But it's highly irrelevant in the post Rod wrote about the Edwards question.

Rod is asking whether the Edwards story should be covered by the MSM. Saying "Hey, you conservatives refuse to talk about McCain's adultery!" is not only untrue, it's a complete non sequitur, because McCain isn't, so far as anyone knows, currently involved in an adultery/baby scandal that has yet to be broken by the press.

Talk about McCain's adultery. Talk about Rezko and Obama. But don't think that shouting "McCain! Adultery! Evil Republicans! Gay Republicans! Evil Catholic Priests/Evil Conservatives!" is any kind of an answer to the question: should the MSM look into this Edwards matter, or not?

Sorry, that last post was mine.

I do think the Edwards post and comments were all superfluous. But we all have our off days. I too wish for a better quality of invective, though I am rarely temperate enough to pull it off. But I would miss the comboxes sorely. They're the main reason I hang out here. As for people who wish to waste our time with idle speculation about the sex lives of not-very-public figures, may they all be reincarnated as a box of used kitty litter.

"You, and all the commenters, kept feeding the trolls. I pretty much stayed out of that mess. What was the point?"

Well for me normally I find atheists interesting to talk to. They have a very different perspective that I find educational and at times helps me think about my beliefs more fully. These atheists were admittedly different so perplexed me and maybe I should've given up on them.

This blog has the best comboxe conversations of any of the 'big' public blogs. It has civil, interesting and informative debates between people of different opinions. It has recipes!

I must admit I hadn't noticed the nasty comments. I think I didn't notice them because they are so comparatively rare, in comparison that is to most other blogs.

The only problem with the comboxes here are these jackasses who hit 'post' twice for good measure :)

Please tighten the reigns! I have reduced how much I come here lately simply because of the tone of the comboxes - people insulting the newly dead, engaging in ad hominem, etc.

I like the idea of having comboxes on some and not others, but I'm not sure if you can do that. Basically don't have comboxes on anything involving atheism or people you think are ruining America. I think that should reduce the noise a bit.

Love the comboxes. I frequently find myself re-evaluting my opinions as a result. It reminds me of my time spent covering courts for a daily newspaper. I always found both the prosecution and defense closing arguments persuasive. Perhaps I'm just unusually open to ideas from all sides.

I don't post often, but I always read the comments if it's a topic that interests me. Frankly, I hadn't noticed the negativity, but it seems to be on posts that I didn't spend much time reading, like the one on Edwards and the multiple ones on P.Z. Myers (I skimmed those).

Finally, I'd like to concur with previous opinions that this is one of the most intelligent discussions of politics on the web (no matter one's point on the political spectrum). I have little use for hard-left or hard-right blogs; I don't find them particularly stimulating or interesting. Keep up the good work and keep the comments coming.

"You have no idea what tone is if you can't see the writer's face, hear his voice or give him a chance to write another 100 or 1,000 words to convey those things in the inadequate* substitute of text....

Rod, my two cents, change gladly accepted: stick to the letter of the Rules of Conduct. Force your combox contributors to learn the skill of recognizing provocateurs (not all of them can be called trolls) and to acquire the impulse control to simply ignore them and continue the discussion."

Franklin Evans sums things up rather tidily here.

Also, many of you will be interested to note that this week's New York Times Sunday Magazine posted an entire feature article on Trolls. Yes, there are people who do nothing but drift around message boards and comboxes trying to set people off. Provocateurs, as Franklin called them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?ref=magazine

The ISP block won't work, I can think of three ways around it off the top of my head.

Better if we all keep a feeler out and try to distinguish between comments that merit discussion and argument, and those that are really just trying to draw a reaction out of us. We shouldn't bother giving them the pleasure, as a general rule. All but the ones who have the least to do will get bored and go away. Mr Dreher can deal with the ones inadvertently stay behind, as Tolkien once put it. Hopefully this will also encourage thoughtful comments and discourage illogical or irrelevant ones.

I'm Swedish, making a concerted effort to understand the American political process while I'm in the USA. Printing out the comments and then going back to see what you left online, I notice you've begun deleting the comments that undermine your positions, some of them, in my foreigner's view, quiet germane to the discussion. It will be interesting to see if you leave this comment on your blog.

Further to Franklin's last point about feeling better: try typing out the response you'd like to give, but delete it rather than posting it. (This is the "rub the spot that itches, instead of actually scratching it" approach. It doesn't feel as good as using nails, but you'll be glad in the long run.)

You can't count on coming out of combat, or being kept POW, entirely sane. Trust me on this one. Some pretty stupid thoughts have passed through my head, and all I do is sit on a FOB and stare at a computer screen and occasionally dodge incoming.

Not saying it makes leaving your wife okay, I'm just saying your mental state can easily take you past the point where you have any kind of perspective or understanding of the consequences or causes of your actions. We cannot control what we think or feel, only our actions, it is true. But our actions are impacted by what we think and what we feel, PARTICULARLY if we think (rightly or wrongly) that there is no way out of a given situation or mindset.

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.

"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.

Erin,

Still waiting for your response to my question about Rod posting on the alleged affair McCain had with Vicki Iseman.