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

[rilkefan]

Hey, mac, keep your policy - von and SH can discuss how SS reform will affect your opinion about the banning policy, slart can ... Ok, anyway, just poking fun, no disrespect intended, sorry to hear you won't be participating here at least for now.

[Jesurgislac]

Tomsyl: 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.

Oh, fair enough. I read your post a couple of times and decided that it did convey the impression that you'd a lot rather be hanging out somewhere else - kinda the "I'm only at this party because so-and-so's party doesn't start till midnight" thing. But if that wasn't intended, then I apologise. (It is hard for me to resist a straight line, but I've been trying... Very trying.)

Macallan: 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

Any organisation that let any one person get away with breaking the rules on a regular basis because of that person's standing is not an organisation I could support. I believe that an organisation (be it a blog, or a company) runs best when everyone has to obey the same basic rules or face the same penalty, whether that's "Don't indulge yourself with ad hominem attacks" or "Don't smoke at your desk".

[Jesurgislac]

Or, put another way "Too privileged to need to be polite" isn't an ethos that sits well with me: I prefer the tradition of noblesse oblige, where the more privileged you are, the stronger your obligation to behave well at all times. Precisely because Tacitus is blogfather to Obsidian Wings, my feeling is that he should have taken more stringent care to obey the posting rules, rather than presuming that he could break them and get away with it.

[tomsyl]

Can someone please point me to the thread in the archives that led to tacitus being banned from here? I don't understand and it sure bothers me.

[Jesurgislac]

Tomsyl: This one. It's (I think) a thread of record length for ObWing, but the point at which Tacitus got flame-y is fairly early on.

[tomsyl]

Thank you Jesurgislac. I'll read it very carefully. I have a great deal of respect for both Edward and tacitus.

[tomsyl]

I read the portion of the thread that lead to the banning of tacitus and have $0.01 worth of observations:
-the posting rules allow "speculation on personal habits and/or motivations" of politicians, yet apparently that does not apply to writers here.
-Edward was both the target of tacitus's "attack" and the person that decided to ban tacitus. That seems like a conflict of interest to me.
-I am a Bush supporter, and some posters (hi Harley &>) have claimed that colors my view of everything from the war in Iraq to the pronunciation of French pronouns. It never occurred to me that someone could be banned for pointing out my perceived biases.
-I thought Edward had thicker skin.

Like I said, my $0.00 worth.

[Edward]

your opinion devalued itself in the space of 10 or so lines tomsyl. ;-)

I value your opinion, but since this incident we've addressed your second (and IMO most important) observation (conflict of interest) with the new banning rules, which are retroactive. We do work hard to be fair to all here.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward was both the target of tacitus's "attack" and the person that decided to ban tacitus. That seems like a conflict of interest to me.

True. OTOH, Sebastian and Von both publicly agreed with Edward. (Their comments are a lot further down, and Sebastian's in particular are very much worth reading.)

[hilzoy]

For the record, I supported Edward's decision. I didn't post about it, because I didn't want it to seem as though the left was piling on in this thread.

[rilkefan]

tomsysl, please see liberal japonicus's January 25, 2005 03:01 PM in that thread if you missed it.

[kenB]

Re the first point:

-the posting rules allow "speculation on personal habits and/or motivations" of politicians, yet apparently that does not apply to writers here.

Correct, nor does it apply to any of the commenters. Different set of rules for public figures vs. members of the community.

[Macallan]

tomsyl,

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

[Edward]

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

Hitting the namesake so early? ;p

Must be 5:00 somewhere.

Crikey, look at that, it's past 5 here...bartender!

[Jesurgislac]

Macallan: The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

Then surely they'd have banned me, too? ;-)

[Macallan]

Hitting the namesake so early?

I bet you wouldn't say that if I weren't a lesbian.

[rilkefan]

Jes, but you're a female lesbian.

[Macallan]

Great, just because I'm lesbian you're calling me Shirley.

Sheesh.

[Jesurgislac]

Rilkefan: Jes, but you're a female lesbian.

I'm not prejudiced! I'm sure Macallan and Tacitus both own the "Nobody Knows I'm a Lesbian" t-shirts. ;-)

[cmas]

The only reason they banned Tacitus is because he's a lesbian!

I thought Tacitus didn't believe in special rights for lesbians.

[double-plus-ungood]

Jesurgislac is British?

[hilzoy]

And being banned from ObWi is a right?

[tomsyl]

Harley is a thespian too and no one banned him. Yet. Bartendress!

[richard cherry]

I know all this happened over a year ago, but I've only just evolved to this site (from reclusive leftist via Punkass blog). Does failure to understand the banning rules constitute a banning offence? and surely you must have to do very bad things to get banned when unfettered discussion of harry potter goes unpunished.

[Clark]

Wanna get a Typekey or Typepad account, just so's I can get banned.
Love your work! Hate your rules.
Rock on!

[Konrad Schwoerke]

I wasn't cruising the Web much in 2005, so I'm really hoping you don't ban for lateness, but here goes anyway.
Since there appears to be no requirement for commenters (or authors) to use their real names, what difference does it make? If you were to ban me, and I did not want to be, what would keep me from employing another user name and e-mail? In my opinion, if you are going to speak (or write) in a public forum, then you should stand behind your words. It takes no courage or conviction to say a thing when you hide under a user name. If you are too scared to use your real name, why are you even in public? Shouldn’t you be at home cowering under the bed?