New Banning Rules (or, Watching Sausage Being Made)

The ObWi authors have had a conference of sorts to discuss our current approach to banning commenters from the site and try to develop a better, more fair, more productive process. Unlike many other blogs, the success of Obsidian Wings depends upon a balance of authors and a balance of commenters. When the site begins to falter, it's almost always due to an unbalance one way or the other. The following process is designed to address that need for balance, as well as to be fair to everyone concerned.

The following policy was approved by us all and goes into effect immediately:

• Any ObWi author can recommend that a commenter be banned and should do so via email to the all other authors.
• One writer (but only one) from the other side of the fence must agree to the ban for it to move forward (Von can vote as either side of the fence as he wishes). For the record, currently Charles Bird, Andrew, and Sebastian Holsclaw are on the right; Von is in the center; and Hilzoy is on the left.;-) Yes, that's unbalanced...we're working on it.*
• To avoid the delay our busy lives can cause in moving quickly when a commenter is disrupting an ongoing thread, any writer can implement an immediate temporary ban (and declare it as such) until a banning request is resolved behind the scenes. Should the ban not be agreed to by someone on the other side of the fence, the temporary ban will be lifted. (The temporary ban will hopefully be a useful way to let folks calm down when a thread gets too heated. At the very least it will allow a derailed thread to get back on track.)
• If one author from the other side of the fence agrees to a recommendation, the banning goes into effect immediately and is permanent unless overturned on appeal initiated by the commenter.
• Any appeal by a commenter to a banning should be done via email. Commenters should not move to another computer to make their case on the blog. All appeals will be considered after tempers have cooled. Appeals will be decided via a vote of all writers, majority deciding. Commenters banned under the old policy can also appeal their banning now. We will not make public any appeal or its results unless the authors vote to reverse a standing ban.

Although pointing out when a commenter is violating the posting rules in an ongoing thread is every participant's best tool to help bring civility back to a discussion, if commenters wish to recommend a banning, per se, we ask that they do so via email. That helps take it offline and makes the roles of the authors in the banning process clearer to everyone.

We now we return to our regularly scheduled squabbling.

UPDATE: An appeal to a banning should cover 1) why the banning was uncalled for and 2) what the commenter will do to help prevent a similar situation from arising moving forward.

*And by "working on it," of course I mean dragging Charles, Slarti and Sebastian over into the light of liberalism. ;p Just kidding...a balanced board is important...stay tuned.

Comments

[Stan LS]

I didn't get the sausage part :(

[Crock Pot]

Two things you never want to watch getting made: Legislation and Sausage.

[Jesurgislac]

Looks good to me. I especially like the bipartisan rule (with Von as fence-sitter... you get a sore backside if you sit there too long... ;-) and the rule of temporary banning.

[votermom]

Rules are good.

Just random thoughts, as usual:
Can you get someone truly on the left? Far left? As in Communism-never-got-a-fair-shake and capitalism-is-a-synonym-for-greed left? :)
Barring that, how about a left-leaning religious person? Pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty, blessed-are-the-meek type?

[rilkefan]

Note that there's a left-ward power tilt still in the sense that a) CB and Slart aren't permanent powers (which I was sad to learn in the other thread) and b) Edward and hilzoy are more prolific (I think).

Re the temp banning - there's a problem if a poster bans someone then has to rescind due to lack of cross-aisle support - a loss of authority. Perhaps it would be better to announce a thread-specific or temporary general ban for cooling purposes, get consensus, then freely ban at next offense.

[liberal japonicus]

Does a temporary ban automatically entail a permanent ban (obviously if voted on) or can a temporary ban be used to just calm things down without needing to consider a permanent ban? I think it might be something to consider, especially if it were a person from the same side of the fence telling someone to basically go off and cool down.

[Dantheman]

Stan,

"I didn't get the sausage part"

It's an adaptation of a quote from Bismarck. The original is "People who enjoy sausages and respect the law should never watch either being made."

[kenB]

I'm down with the new rules, although it strikes me as unfair that von gets to swing both ways as a reward for his inability to make a commitment to either side. ;)

Actually, I'm kind of hoping that the imbalance to be addressed is the strikingly low membership of Team Centrist.

[Edward]

Note that there's a left-ward power tilt still in the sense that a) CB and Slart aren't permanent powers...and b) Edward and hilzoy are more prolific

Each author gets one vote in the banning process, so CB and Slart have equal power in that department. Also they can post as many stories as they like (it's not my fault if Republicans are too busy making money to write more ;pp). Having said that, I'll try to limit my posts to one a day (not a sacrifice as much as a growing need).

The lack of balance is in the voting, where hilzoy and I are outnumbered. That's not really a problem though, as we agree with our co-authors and disagree with each other about equally on such matters.

Does a temporary ban automatically entail a permanent ban

That's a good question and by thinking it through with rilkefan's observation, I believe we have another improvement budding here.

A temporary ban (please note and correct me if you think I'm wrong, co-authors) should not be seen by anyone as automatically leading to a permanent ban request. The author who imposes the temporary ban should state for other readers that it was done to cool down a heated situation. The discussion of whether or not the same author wants to recommend that commenter for permanent banning should happen offline. That way, there's no loss of authority if the commenter is unbanned, because no one will know whether a permanent banning was recommended or not.

[Stan LS]

Ah! Thanks to all for the explanation.

[Edward]

Can you get someone truly on the left? Far left? As in Communism-never-got-a-fair-shake and capitalism-is-a-synonym-for-greed left? :)

Ahh...my dream blogger...

The problem with that is we'd then need a Pat Buchanan type on the right, and who wants that?

[liberal japonicus]

...von gets to swing both ways...

Maybe it's just me, but I would have said 'pick and choose'...

[Slartibartfast]

The problem with that is we'd then need a Pat Buchanan type on the right, and who wants that?

Not Buchanan; he's...stupid. Or at least, says stupid things. No, what'd truly balance out a communist is...someone like this.

[crionna]

Hmm, with Tacitus down is Trickster available? And/or perhaps Collounsbury although someone would have to censor his language, hehe.

[blogbudsman]

That's what you guys need, a retired general. First of all, there's plenty of them to choose from - they're everywhere. Secondly, they must have retired from a very lonely and repressed existence, because once they retire and get a microphone in front of their pusses, Katy bar the door. And third, doesn't the sausage comparison tell us something about ourselves. See no evil! Good job posters, fight for your existence. Good blogs are going to prove powerfully important from this time forward.

[Crock Pot]

Sausage isn't evil it's just, well.....

Ok, sausage is evil! Misakes are made, but it tastes good!

[von]

Ed --

I'll try to limit my posts to one a day (not a sacrifice as much as a growing need).

Just 'cause the rest of us are a little slower, don't slow yourself down. Fresh content is the name of the game.

[Jay Sundahl]

Edward
Your appeal-
"UPDATE: An appeal to a banning should cover 1) why the banning was uncalled for and 2) what the commenter will do to help prevent a similar situation from arising moving forward."

Shouldn't that be 1 or 2 not 1 and 2? Otherwise the appeal would be of a form 1. I didn't do anything wrong and 2. here's why it won't happen again.

[Jesurgislac]

Jay, I once posted a brief joke that was (on sober reflection) in poor taste: some Republicans had taken to saying that G.O.P. stood for "God's Own Party", and I found this amusing, because that's also the literal translation of "Hezbollah" - a group which, I dare think, most Republicans would not wish to be associated. Only I never thought to explain this - and Moe Lane thought I was genuinely comparing the Republican Party to Hezbollah, and very nearly banned me.

Under those circumstances, I would indeed have contacted the collective, saying "I don't think I did anything wrong" and "Here's why it won't happen again".

[Dave Schuler]

One writer (but only one) from the other side of the fence must agree to the ban for it to move forward (Von can vote as either side of the fence as he wishes). For the record, currently Charles Bird, Slartibartfast, and Sebastian Holsclaw are on the right; Von is in the center; and Hilzoy and Edward _ are on the left.;-) Yes, that's unbalanced...we're working on it.*

May I have a clarification? Do you mean that the posters are unbalanced or that the sides or unbalanced? ;-)

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Yes.

[Slartibartfast]

Whatever Sebastian meant by that last, I agree.

[hilzoy]

Edward: don't slow down. Dave S: what Sebastian said ;P

[wilfred]

The new posting rules look fine by me, as long as they are NOT retroactive. If they are going to be retroactive, may i say ObWi would be no more than a collection of hypocrites who give special treatment to some which would make this blog no different than Washington back-scratching or Hollywood celeb velvet roping that both sides claim to loathe. As the last banning was the most egregious because it was particularly ugly and personal by someone who should know better followed by a subsequent attack post after banning may I be the first to say if this happens ObWi will show itself to be nothing more than 'House of Slytherin Jr.'.

As someone who was maligned in the subsequent illegal post i would like to cast my vote against retroactivity.

[dutchmarbel]

Sounds like a fair set of rules!

(and I hope this gets posted, otherwise I might conclude that someone banned *me*... since I was not able to comment elswhere on ObWi today)

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred, I think you're on a losing wicket here. Tacitus was banned properly, according to the past invisible rules and certainly according to the current rules (Edward, Von, and Sebastian publicly stated they were all in agreement). I presume that if Tacitus is willing to engage in dialogue with the ObWing collective, it's possible he could be unbanned. If that happens, well, one would hope he would not, a second time, engage in malign personal attacks. It's fair enough, I feel, for people who have been banned to be able to appeal against their banning. Indeed, it's hard to see how you could prevent that - anyone can send an e-mail.

[Edward]

since I was not able to comment elswhere on ObWi today

I wrote to our host to complain, but before they responded it seemed to have been resolved.

Sorry if anyone else experienced trouble today...technology, you know.

[praktike]

I could do without a communist. Trickster would be good but he disappeared after a brief posting career at ChezNadezhda. Don't know what became of the feller. Marcus Aurelius would be a strong addition to the blog, and I believe he still makes an appearance over at Tac's place from time to time.

[rilkefan]

How about luisalegria from tacitus? I often didn't understand his comments, but they seemed eloquent and conservative. I was also thinking of a liberal voice there - Traveller? - maybe I was thinking of Trickster.

[Slartibartfast]

may I be the first to say if this happens ObWi will show itself to be nothing more than 'House of Slytherin Jr.'.

If you're this serious about something that not only hasn't happened, but hasn't even been indicated as a remote possibility, I recommend you seek counseling at once.

[Jesurgislac]

If Obsidian Wings were the House of Slytherin:

Moe Lane: Salazar Slytherin himself, obviously (now absent)
Slartibartfast: Severus Snape
Edward: Marcus Flint
Hilzoy: Millicent Bulstrode
Von: Harry Potter*
Charles Bird: Tom Riddle
Sebastian: Draco Malfoy

Yes, yes, I am a sad, sad, sad person. ;-)

*(to honor his "swings both ways" qualities, obviously)

[rilkefan]

Though anyway there are enough powers - it's good that posts don't fly off the front page.

Slart: "If [...], I recommend you seek counseling at once."

Psych advice (even provisional and unserious) rubs me the wrong way.

[Opus]

You all are amazing and this is an amazing place.

[Edward]

Thanks Opus.

The ech-chay is in the ail-may.

e

[hilzoy]

Millicent Bulstrode?? "a Slytherin girl who reminded Harry of a picture he'd seen in Holidays with Hags. She was large and square and her heavy jaw jutted aggressively."

I cry foul.

[wilfred]

Slarti, you're attacks are growing increasingly tiring. If you don't think that my above post is a distinct possibility than i have some gorgeous lakeside Timeshares you'd just love in Baghdad.

Jes, two things. One is that if you un-ban one, you must contact all previously banned people to offer them the same opportunity. We liberals have a thing about equality and fairness unlike the mink-clad side that roared during an Inaugural Ball last week when Rich Little said "There was a War on Poverty and the poor lost!". The second thing is you forgot who would be Voldemort.... someone that whenever he descends, chaos reigns. Hmmmmm, could it be someone banned at the moment?

[hilzoy]

I want to be Snape. Slarti can be, well, Crabbe or Goyle.

[votermom]

Who gets to be Lucius Malfoy? I need to know coz he's so hot. :)

[wilfred]

oops, meant 'your attacks'... preview!

[wilfred]

Jes, you forgot that Katherine is Hermoine and would you be interested in Prof. McGonnigle (a younger version of course).

Edward would have to be Ron (you'd have to meet him in person to know why!).

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred: you must contact all previously banned people to offer them the same opportunity.

No, why? Put it in the posting rules that if you've been banned in the past you can contact the moderators under the banning rules. I feel the moderators shouldn't contact any previously-banned people - if someone's interested enough to come back and check out the site, they'll find out they can get unbanned (maybe) if they appeal. If there's someone you'd like to come back, *you* contact them.

I cry foul.

She's a good Quiddich player, isn't she? ;-)

[Edward]

Hey,

I don't want to be Ron...physical similarities or not...I want to be Sirius Black ...

[wilfred]

Jes, if a person is banned and behaves accordingly then why ages later would they be here stalking (lurking) at a place that told them 'get out of here'? Sorry, don't agree that posting a 'come back if you want to appeal' somewhere on the site covers it at all. We can and should do better than something that lame or just make all bannings non-retroactive!

Edward, you would make a great Sirius Black. And Charles Bird would make a wonderful Draco. It's funny but i picture Moe as Hagrid, big and loveable.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti, you're attacks are growing increasingly tiring.

I'd have hoped they'd have been maximally tiring from the start. I'll have to work on that.

If you don't think that my above post is a distinct possibility than i have some gorgeous lakeside Timeshares you'd just love in Baghdad.

I'm not sure whether this was designed to give me more confidence that you were serious.

Jes, two things.

Uh, no. You can make make suggestions about lawmaking, but you're not yet an elected official. Wilfred, this is much ado about nothing.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW, at any time, as far as I know, previously banned people may lobby to become unbanned. It may be lobbying in vain, but I'm thinking that anyone who can state their case with sufficient eloquence can probably exert some leverage on the resident legal counsel (not to mention, the resident philosopher). I believe the email lines are always open.

[hilzoy]

Ah, if we're expanding outside Slytherin, then I want either McGonagall or Fawkes (Dumbledore's phoenix. I prize loyalty, though my tears do not heal wounds.)

[wilfred]

wow slarti, it took you only minutes to move from an accusation of psychological problems for addressing a problem you deemed not under discussion to making a case for said happening. That's a record, even for you. I'd be happy to send a neck brace for that whiplash.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti can be, well, Crabbe or Goyle.

You cut me, hilzoy. You cut me deep just then.

[hilzoy]

Slarti: since I thought we were restricted to Slytherin characters, I didn't have many good options to choose from ;)

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, wilfred, we will become positively hidebound (dare I say, conservative?) in our adherence to the rules, just out of deference to your concern that the world might end if things aren't done precisely so.

[wilfred]

thanks for the kind words as always Slarti.

really, who needs me when there's you to look out for the underdogs.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"One is that if you un-ban one, you must contact all previously banned people to offer them the same opportunity."

I don't think so. And while I love the service we provide, I don't think it is such a crucial service (yet!) that failing to actively ask banned people to reapply implicates fundamental fairness. You may not realize it, but there are hundreds of people (at least according to the IP logs) who read this blog every day without ever commenting. Perhaps some are those who were banned. If you have someone in mind whom you believe should be unbanned feel free to contact them.

[Slartibartfast]

really, who needs me when there's you to look out for the underdogs.

We're in agreement, then.

[Chuchundra]

More good stuff from the ObWi collective. Thanks to all for your fine work.

Trickster would make a fine poster. Anyone booted from Tacitus.Org's front page for being insufficiently anti-communist is OK in my book.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: And while I love the service we provide, I don't think it is such a crucial service (yet!) that failing to actively ask banned people to reapply implicates fundamental fairness.

Exactly.

[wilfred]

I respectfully disagree completely Sebastian. Either do the work and get the word out or make all previous bannings non-retroactive to new posting rules. If memory serves correctly the vast majority of banned people were from the left so remarks like yours from the right seem self-serving. I saw Moe repeatedly ban many from the left on their first post when it wasn't to his liking. As lovely a person as he was he could be quite capricious and moody and a bit Queen Victoria-ish about his bannings. I would confront him then about it so this is not something new with me.

Let's pull the curtain down here and show this whole thing is about giving Tacitus the opportunity to peddle his wares here, an opportunity given to no one else in the history of this blog. Special favors for the well-connected do not sit with me. If others benefit down the line then great, make it non-retroactive and show that this is not what it is about. If this new set of rules is not retroactive, then it shows this to be exactly about that.

[Macallan]

Just curious, but can people be banned for just being a total tool?

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred: Let's pull the curtain down here and show this whole thing is about giving Tacitus the opportunity to peddle his wares here, an opportunity given to no one else in the history of this blog

Oh, for heaven's sake, Wilfred. If Tacitus is unbanned, that might be an appropriate reaction. Given that AFAIK he's still banned, it's not.

[rilkefan]

"Let's pull the curtain down here and show this whole thing is about giving Tacitus the opportunity to peddle his wares here, an opportunity given to no one else in the history of this blog. Special favors for the well-connected do not sit with me."

Mind-reading, and unnecessarily contentious, esp. for a rules thread.

Why don't you assemble the names of a few banned lefty posters you think could contribute to this site and, if they agree, make a case for them by email? The powers could give you a list, and I don't see why they wouldn't.

[hilzoy]

wilfred: "If this new set of rules is not retroactive, then it shows this to be exactly about that."

Respectfully, no. There are other reasons why we might make the rules retroactive. Two that occur to me off the top of my head are, first, Sebastian's point, and second, the fact that we have never said that no one can write to us and ask us to reconsider a banning. Sometimes, in the past, people have done so (I think I'm remembering right; it might just have been writing to us to ask us to reconsider some less drastic decision. And of course people have written to explain why they did whatever it was that they did.

So if someone writes, which would be a perfectly normal thing for someone to do, are we supposed to refuse on the grounds that we have no policy for appealing bans, and/or that we don't know how to contact all the people we have banned? If not -- if we get to consider appeals at all -- then why would it be wrong to use this procedure, which, after all, we instituted because we thought it was a good one?

Plus (exit serious mode, enter snarky mode) do you think we have to contact all the spambots? After all, when someone posts ads for drugs that designed to 'make your little soldier stand at attention', as Gen. JC Christian would say, we don't actually know that they're spambots, nor do we usually take the trouble to find out.

If we do have to contact them, can I do it using your email account, so they can decide that you're the one who wants all that Viagra and Cialis??

(hides)

[wilfred]

Just curious, but can people be banned for just being a total tool?

well of course not Mac, your post answered it.

[Iron Lungfish]

Just curious, but can people be banned for just being a total tool?

Mac, if that were possible, most of us wouldn't be posting here.

[hilzoy]

"Just curious, but can people be banned for just being a total tool?"

and

"well of course not Mac, your post answered it."

We are now in violation of posting rules territory. Please stop it. Thanks.

[Edward]

Yup...for a post about rules, this is surely becoming unruly.

I had thought about posting this without comments being open...guess I should trust my gut on such things.

[xanax]

Banned. Unbanned. Temporarily banned. Why stop there?
There's always:
Pseudo-banned, Semi-banned, Quasi-banned, Neo-banned, Meta-banned, Preter-banned...etc

Or, for fund-raising purposes:
ObWi retail:
head-banned
arm-banned
rubber-banned

Entertainment?
Rock-banned
Reggae-banned
etc, etc...

If Macallan's 2:57 post was a suggestion, I second it.

Now, can we move on?

[sidereal]

I heartily encourage profligate use of a one-day ban. I could even code it for you as an mt plugin if you want it automated. One problem is that the only tool in the arsenal on blogs has typically been the manual, permanent ban and moderators are understandably loathe to pull that one out. Which means that a bunch of crap that demands some response short of that doesn't get a response at all because there isn't one available. It should be the equivalent of 'take it outside' at a bar. You don't have to go home but you have to get up out of here. I've earned my share.

[wilfred]

Listen guys, i woke up this morning and read this thread and through the whole thing all i could read between the lines was that this was all about giving Tacitus an avenue given to no one else, especially when his exit was the most egregious one i've seen here. It struck me as hypocrisy. My work trains me for exactly this kind of thing so I trust my sense here.

If you guys disagree fine. But the proof is in the pudding. I will not comment on this again but if what i suspected comes to fruition this blog will have jumped the shark officially. Goal Post moving is something i'm personally tired of. If i'm wrong here you will all get my apology, but if i'm right?

[Edward]

sidereal

mt plugin?

will typepad allow that?

e

[Crock Pot]

Perhaps you are seeing what you want to see Wilfred?

Banning Tac was a 'big deal' to everyone and the collective felt a need to promulgate some formal rules so when it happens in the future (and it will) they have set rules to point to and won't have to deal with 'he said/she said' and posts about favoritism.

I doubt very much that the impetus of these rules is about bringing Tac back but about what to do in the future.

Which would also explain why many posters are annoyed about your posts because you tend to be looking back while they seem to be looking forward. <-- Could be wrong about that easily, but that is my take on it.

[xanax]

If i'm wrong here you will all get my apology, but if i'm right?

What do you want? A cookie? OK, if you're right you get a cookie. Now can we move on?

[sidereal]

wilfred: I don't get it. Every other day's there's an on-board argument about banworthiness. Occam's razor says that's what the thread's trying to address.

Edward: Doh. No, but it'd allow a Typepad plugin. Tomato/tomato.

[Macallan]

"Just curious, but can people be banned for just being a total tool?"
….
We are now in violation of posting rules territory. Please stop it. Thanks.

Really? Seems perfectly on topic to me. Oh well.

[Anarch]

I'd have hoped they'd have been maximally tiring from the start. I'll have to work on that.

For shame, Slarti. There's always room for improvement.

[hilzoy]

Mac: right. I was imagining that this was less an abstract question than a specific suggestion. If I was wrong, then I apologize. The answer to the abstract question is: no, though one can be banned if one's total tool-hood manifests itself in a violation of the posting rules.

[double-plus-ungood]

While we're discussing tools and plugins, could someone do something that would close all unterminated HTML tags in a comment? A mini HTML purify or something? I keep getting the sneaking suspicion that ObWi could be brought down by something like unterminated Javascript in the comment or some other equally nefarious hack.

[Macallan]

or some other equally nefarious hack.

Hey! Can he call me that?

[Macallan]

I was imagining that this was less an abstract question than a specific suggestion.

I can be banned for your imagination? Holy cripe! I don't stand a chance... and stop looking at me that way!!

[rilkefan]

mac: "Hey! Can he call me that?"

I think you dropped the "and get away with it unscathed to a chorus of cheers". And isn't "nefarious" praising you with faint damns?

hilzoy, looks like those flowers you sent worked.

[dutchmarbel]

Listen guys, i woke up this morning and read this thread and through the whole thing all i could read between the lines was that this was all about giving Tacitus an avenue given to no one else, especially when his exit was the most egregious one i've seen here. It struck me as hypocrisy.

Wilfred, I never thought that that was the case. On the whole my experience with ObWi is that they work their hardest to be fair and if you politely point out that you don't think they are they (all) will reconsider to make sure they are fair.

I think that all previous banned people can write emails to management here (ah, Carnivale...), but it would be slightly absurd to write to all banned people (if such a list even could be made). Maybe a general amnesty once the temporarily ban is introduced, since both rules and punishments are adapted??

I appreciate your voicing your concerns, but I think discussing them might benefit from a slightly less hostile tone.

[xanax]

Holy cripe! I don't stand a chance...

WRT hilzoy, do any of us?

[hilzoy]

Mac -- yeah; sorry about that. I was going to nominate myself for a Karnak award, but I thought that joke might be getting old, so didn't make it, and stupidly forgot to put anything in its place.

[Josh]

One problem is that the only tool in the arsenal on blogs has typically been the manual, permanent ban and moderators are understandably loathe to pull that one out. Which means that a bunch of crap that demands some response short of that doesn't get a response at all because there isn't one available.

This is precisely why I suggested disemvowelling before. It allows for far greater precision than a ban (even a one-day ban). It's even easy to do semi-automatically.

But really, if people want this place to be more civil, the real key is taking action on the posting rules, not just warning people, and I think the new banning rules will work for that purpose.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I guess I came into this food fight late, and I have no clue as to what it's about. The post seems straghtforward and reasonable enough to me.

Returning briefly to the subject of balance: No Communists please. Perhaps instead of seeking more balance along the American political spectrum it would be worth adding a non-American poster. Trying too hard to have a US left-right balance may easily lead to too much artificial categorization and a (more polite) Crossfire tone.

[crionna]

But really, if people want this place to be more civil, the real key is taking action on the posting rules, not just warning people

Then again, maybe we could all just, you know, be more civil.

[Macallan]

Mac -- yeah; sorry about that.

Goodness, no need to apologize. Your Carnacness might have been correct.

Or not.

[tomsyl]

Wilfred said

"Let's pull the curtain down here and show this whole thing is about giving Tacitus the opportunity to peddle his wares here, an opportunity given to no one else in the history of this blog. Special favors for the well-connected do not sit with me.

FWIW, the only reason I came here is because tacitus.org is down, and I suspect that holds for some others too. You can reply "Snark you and the horse you rode in on" but I read your post as contrary to the sense of my sense of community I see here. Maybe that's just because I'm too new and need a little history lesson or something . . .

[Jesurgislac]

Tomsyl: FWIW, the only reason I came here is because tacitus.org is down, and I suspect that holds for some others too.

*said with sweet seriousness*

I do hope it goes back up soon.

[Jesurgislac]

(Sorry. Never could resist a straight line.)

[tomsyl]

It was said in all expectation of replies like yours. Does that make is straight or curly? Or Shemp?

[tomsyl]

But seriously, I see I worded my post in a way that could be taken as disparaging our fair hosts here. I was aware of and lurked on this great site ever since it was formed by a bunch of taciturns (seems like I used to see 'slac venting over there on occasion, too) and I certainly didn't mean to brand it as some sort of second fiddle. I am just surprised to see that the founder of that site has been banned from this one, which has clearly gone in its own direction(s).

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Anyone booted from Tacitus.Org's front page for being insufficiently anti-communist is OK in my book.

If only that was the case, but then again it wasn't. Sorry

[Jackmormon]

Okay, I'm late, as usual. And most of the time I'm one of those hundreds who read and don't post whom Sebastian referenced.

I like this place. I used to enjoy tacitus, although the members-only clause was a real impediment to my pleasure there (that and the virtual testosterone I sensed from the screen). Obsidian wings should have politeness standards that are enforced strictly, and while I can tell you are all nervous about this debate, I'm glad you're having it out front.

That's why I think that the decisions about un-banning a commenter should be a little more public. Someone above, Edward, I think, wrote:

there's no loss of authority if the commenter is unbanned, because no one will know whether a permanent banning was recommended or not.

The nature of blog comment threads is for the warnings, threats, counter-threats, and final banning to occur in full view of the reading public. Although I didn't comment on the thread,
I read what happened to Tacitus (nice posts, by the way, Sebastian). If Tacitus were to reappear on a comment thread, I would wonder what machinations had occurred behind the scenes to un-ban him. I know that you guys have more involved relationships with him, and of course much of what happens here--on your bandwidth--is your business, but if you're formulating general rules to be applied to anyone, it seems to me that a little transparency in adjudication wouldn't be amiss.

I'm absolutely in favor of the one-day cool-down ban. Most people will understand such a warning, and if the ban is lifted after the day, most commenters will have received the message. With this serious warning-stage in place, the process of lifting the more serious total ban requiring email pardons should then be more transparent--unless of course Obsidian Wings wants to assert its private-website-we'll-do-as-we-please privilege, which of course you're entitled to do.

Your authority as moderators and keyholders shouldn't be (and I don't think can be) in dispute. Make your rules and stick by them, sure, but let the general reader understand what they are and how they're being applied.

[Opus]

Chances are, if someone has demonstrated difficulty with impulse control while posting in the past, that person is going to do it again. So, if the mods decide to un-ban someone, it's likely that person will find him- or herself banned again, sooner or later. Anyone who tries to bait that person will be banned, too.

So I wouldn't worry too much about what the mods decide. It'll all come out in the wash.

[Chuchundra]

Timmy, sorry but that was exactly it.

I remember it because I considered bailing on the site at that very moment. I didn't. I was too addicted to the conversation. Luckily for me Tac himself made that decision for me a short while later when he invited me to start a DKos diary.

I could dig through the site, find the thread and link it back here, but frankly it's not worth my time. However, I invite you to do so and prove me wrong, if you so desire.

[Macallan]

OK folks, it looks like this thread has played out…

I know this is all a tough thing for everyone involved, and you all are, I'm quite sure, acting in good faith. However, as I said earlier, any blog that would ban the guy who was instrumental in getting it going in the first place in this way just isn't something I can support. He will likely not appreciate my sharing this, but after I posted that, Josh e-mailed me and said that though he appreciated my comments, he said ObWi deserved my support. So given his urging, I did reconsider my view. However, that bit of class on his part ended up only making my original view seem more certain.

This was handled poorly and publicly, when it should have been handled with more respect and perspective. I'm not saying your concerns weren't legitimate, I just don't know enough about the whole deal to make that judgment. Though this may insult the sensibilities of your more populist commentators, Tacitus' status here is unique, more unique than any other commentator. I would urge you all, Tacitus included, to get your acts together and work this out. If you do, let me know and I'll be happy to suck and ruin your blog. Until then, I'll bid you all cheers and bye.

Be well.

[Chris in TX]

Good grief Mac,

Banning Tacitus, blogger-celebrity that he is, was going to cause a big ruckus no matter what the circumstances. But if he deserved to be banned, and at least two authors think he should have been, then he deserved to be banned. He doesn't get any special permission to break the posting rules.

And at the thread that started this, most of the authors have said that they had discussed this issue prior to this incident and that is wasn't the first this happened. That sounds private to me. Perhaps he used up all his "blogfather" clout the first (or 2nd or 3rd..etc) times this kind of thing happened.

[Macallan]

Chris in Tx,

[sigh] ...celebrity has nothing to do with it. And if this were about consistent application of the posting rules, a couple of people would have been banned today. Perhaps you're correct that he used up his clout, what does that have to do with it?*

*that's rhetorical by the way.

[rilkefan]

mac: "Until then, I'll bid you all cheers and bye."

mac: "Chris in Tx [...]"

Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the a-a-air...
Sure you don't want to stick around?

Far as I can there's been some grumpiness and rudeness and the usual briefly misinterpreted zaniness or imprecision on the site today, but no personal attacks, to say nothing of deliberate thread-wrecks; but if I missed something there's always Email Me under the kitten...

[Macallan]

rilkefan,

I've always had a policy of monitoring and being willing to respond to any story I post or comment I might leave. However, your point is well made so perhaps I should eschew that in this instance.

[hilzoy]

Guess I'll have to cancel the flowers.