Posting Rules Change

by hilzoy

We have decided to add something to the posting rules. Here it is:

"We have no desire to censor people whose views we disagree with. However, there is a difference between stating and defending an unpopular position on the one hand, and repeated drive-by insults on the other, and the fact that we welcome the first does not mean that we must accept the second. We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one's views or engaging in reasoned argument about them."

Speaking for myself: I really mean the part about not wanting to censor anyone's views. In particular, it's not an attempt to prevent people of good faith from engaging in discussion, even if the things they say might strike others as thoughtless or politically incorrect or the sort of thing you couldn't possibly say if you had thought about things at all, or whatever. The point is not at all to block discussion, or to set up a list of things people can't say, but rather to be able to deal with people who are insulting without having any discernible interest in defending or discussing their views. It's meant to target repeated drive-by hatefulness unleavened by any attempt at argument or discussion. At present, the rules don't give us any way of dealing with this.

For my part, I intend to be pretty sparing about applying this rule. I think of it as analogous to the rule about civility, which rarely leads to banning, but is good to have around on those rare occasions when there's a need for it.

Comments

[Anarch]

Seems reasonable though, of course, as with any such policy the devil's going to be in the enforcement.

[Paul Camp]

You believe in rules???

Definitely not a Republican.

I'm guessin that's what you were aimin for.

[benjamin]

I was going to try to make a funny by mock-leaving an "offensive" drive-by comment but I don't want to be banned and all.
I have to say I never noticed anything bad in the comments here - which is more than I can say for most other blogs - but I welcome the teensiest bit of moderation to make the experience even more pleasant if you think it necessary.

[CMatt]

lack of ... providing evidence for one's views or engaging in reasoned argument about them

Elitists!

[Slartibartfast]

Help! I'm being repressed!

[Jesurgislac]

Try Mr Barnard. Room 12..

[Sean M. Brooks]

Dear Hilzoy: I trust you are well.

A very fair and reasonable "laying down of the law." And your comment about wishing to enforce it sparingly reminded me of the fable of the frogs who had a log for a king. Iow, better am easy going King, Queen, or President Log than a King, President or Comrade Stork! ROFL.

Sincerely, Sean

[Hartmut]

Shall I make a (bad) joke about a ton of building material coming down or should I abstain from that to avoid getting burned?

[Dianne]

In particular, it's not an attempt to prevent people of good faith from engaging in discussion, even if the things they say might strike others as thoughtless or politically incorrect or the sort of thing you couldn't possibly say if you had thought about things at all, or whatever.

I agree with this philosophy in general, but it does lead me to wonder...are there any views that are simply so extreme that they might warrant banning of the view itself, no matter how politely it is expressed? For example, would you tolerate someone who expressed the view that the Holocaust was a good thing and would have been even better if Hitler'd gotten to finish it? Or that slavery was best for all concerned, including blacks? Or that women would really be better off if the marriage laws still defined them as their husbands' property? You might say that it's not a practical problem because no one who held either view would possibly be able to string a non-insulting argument together long enough to avoid banning anyway, but all of those views were mainstream once, at least in certain times and places.

[Jesurgislac]

Dianne - my guess is that this rule was decided on to provide grounds for dealing with a specific commenter who appears to have nothing to say except regular spouts of racism, like a little whale surfacing, except not so cute.

I could be wrong, of course, and perhaps Hilzoy intends to use it to ban John Thullen for being funny, Slartibartfast for being obscure and morose, and me for being just generally mean to everybody.

I await developments.

[Dianne]

my guess is that this rule was decided on to provide grounds for dealing with a specific commenter who appears to have nothing to say except regular spouts of racism, like a little whale surfacing, except not so cute.

That would be my guess too. I'm just procrastinating, bored, and hoping to get a free web ethics consult from Prof Hilzoy. And you're not mean to everybody.

[aimai]

Well, your site is your site and you can do what you want but can someone tell me when "military status" became a protected category that required protection from criticism or jokes? I'm asking because I note that in the real world there has always been a "republican exception" to this rule, observed wherever possible, that republicans may criticize or make fun of John McCain's service, for example, but not Democrats. Or Republicans can wear purple heart bandaids to mock Senator Kerry's war record, but Democrats may not averr that being a mere captain in the navy doesn't make you a great leader (can I still say that on this site?). I love this site, but I have always found the whole civility shtick that commenters enforce on each other greatly overrated. If it is now to be extended in a kind of taboo cicle around the military in general I think I'll pass.

aimai

[Brett Bellmore]

Be interesting to see how it's applied, the devil is indeed in the details. I've seen rules like this applied in a very (politically) discriminatory manner, elsewhere. But this place hasn't been bad in that respect.

[Slartibartfast]

Slartibartfast for being obscure and morose

I am NOT morose!

[Jesurgislac]

I am NOT morose!

What can you mean by that?

[Slartibartfast]

Just what I said! Can't you READ?

;p

[Ugh]

blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given . . . military status . . .

That's a, uh, peculiar category. Or is it aimed at people saying all the prisoners at Gitmo deserve to die?

[Dianne]

I am NOT morose!

...he said, morosely.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Perhaps some examples of previous ‘disrespectful’ speech could be provided to help clarify what is now verboten. Respect is a loaded word. See Cartman.

[von]

It's meant to target repeated drive-by hatefulness unleavened by any attempt at argument or discussion. At present, the rules don't give us any way of dealing with this.

For my part, I intend to be pretty sparing about applying this rule. I think of it as analogous to the rule about civility, which rarely leads to banning, but is good to have around on those rare occasions when there's a need for it.

The new rule, though well-intentioned, is unnecessary because the behavior you describe is not civil. But, regardless of the specific rules in place, the devil is in the application.

[hilzoy]

von: the idea was that civility, at least as we tend to use the term, applies mostly to things people say to, and about, one another, and not to, say, hourly rants about Swedes and how stupid they are, when not said to a Swede (or a semi-Swede, like me.)

Diane: "are there any views that are simply so extreme that they might warrant banning of the view itself, no matter how politely it is expressed?"

Personally, when the head of the American National Socialidon't want this to be googlable Party showed up, I for one was glad that the posting rules said: we don't ban for controversial opinions, unless you're a Nazi or something like that.

Aimai: I think that the conduct in question is reprehensible when directed against any group. If someone came by regularly and just spouted off about how everyone in the military was a stupid undereducated sociopath who just plain liked killing innocent people, I think it would be completely hateful. *Asking* why someone would join the military if they didn't just plain like killing people, by contrast, would seem to me to be a dumb question but one someone might ask in good faith, like "why do gays care so much about marriage? why can't they just live together without making such a big deal about it?" or something. I think someone, maybe someone who hadn't spent a whole lot of time really trying to put him/herself in others' shoes, might ask either question in good faith, and I have zero desire to prevent anyone who is puzzled on either score from asking such questions.

I included that because I thought: it would be easy to take this as a leftist thing, and I don't mean it that way. And the easiest way to make that point seemed to me to be to include groups that people of quite different views might be inclined take offense at drive-by hatefulness towards (oh dear, grammar). I also found it useful, in thinking this out, to consider a whole range of groups.

(I left out the caveat: of course you get to criticize groups of people who are identified specifically by their badness -- the group of murderers, for instance. That seemed to be too much philosophical pedantry for too little pay-off.)

[Dianne]

Personally, when the head of the American National Socialidon't want this to be googlable Party showed up, I for one was glad that the posting rules said: we don't ban for controversial opinions, unless you're a Nazi or something like that.

Much as I don't like They-whom-we-don't-want-to-find-this-thread-by-Google, that does mean that you're willing to censor by ideology. So some ideas are unacceptable*...then where do you draw the line and how do you know when someone has gone over it? What does "something like that" really mean? Advocates of genocide? Advocates of racism in any form and to any extent? Advocates of violence? (If you're bored, annoyed, or disgusted by this line of thought, say so and I'll drop it.)

*The idea that some ideas are unacceptable makes me nervous. Despite the obvious paradox of the statement. I've never quite trusted any person or group of people to be able to distinguish completely reliably between dangerous and non-dangerous ideas. Hence the problem: is censorship less dangerous than allowing craziness to flourish openly?

[hilzoy]

Dianne: honestly, I don't know. I do know that in all the time I've been here, that was the only person who provoked that response in me. And it has something to do with the thought: you couldn't be a that in good faith. Not now, at any rate. (Maybe if you were, oh, twelve and not a student of history. Not as an adult.) You might be sincere (not consciously lying), but in that case you'd have to be wholly taken over by hatred, a desire to shock no matter the cost, or some such thing.

That's a view I take only very, very rarely. I tend to think people can hold all sorts of views in good faith. Not everyone is informed about everything. People say dumb things, and I (for one) count on other people's charity daily. My limits are pretty far out there. But in that particular case, I thought: honestly, what are the odds that that person really was arguing in good faith?

Pretty low, I thought. Odds are, letting him go on commenting here would not lead to an interesting exchange of views. (And nothing in his comments suggested, even remotely, that it would.)

Which is all to say: it was a pretty exceptional case. The "something like that" clause was here when I arrived, and I have never found myself having to call on it.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

WELL, I THIMK THAT YOU SHULD BAN ALL CAPS POSTTINGS, AND REQIRE THAT PEEPLE TO USE A SPELL CHEKKER!

[hairshirthedonist]

Might I suggest a posting rule requiring a link to a Monty Python video in every post a la slarti and jes? I think that, if this site is best to serve the public good, it must reinforce the ability of it readers to recite MP dialog verbatim on demand at parties, regardless of even the most extreme intoxication. I would also suggest that the sort of insults used in the abuse room early in the paid-argument sketch be carved out of prohibitions in the posting rules. What sort of world would it be if we couldn't call each other toffee-nosed twits and vacuous perverts?

[Dianne]

hilzoy: In case this wasn't clear, I didn't mean my comments to be in any way a criticism of you or the Obsidian Wings comment policy. I apologize if I came off sounding critical.

[Turbulence]

I've never quite trusted any person or group of people to be able to distinguish completely reliably between dangerous and non-dangerous ideas. Hence the problem: is censorship less dangerous than allowing craziness to flourish openly?

I distrust slippery slope arguments like this in general. Sure, people can't be trusted to reliably make these distinctions at arbitrary levels of precision, but the criteria in the posting rules deals with extrema. I don't trust myself to reliably differentiate between very small temperature gradients, but I'm damn sure when my house is or is not on fire.

[Erasmussimo]

I heartily applaud your policy. In the vase range of Internet discussions, the great majority are tainted by nastiness, and I have NEVER seen a discussion that was cramped by overmuch civility. I have also observed a sort of Gresham's Law for discussions: bad commentators drive out good commentators. What's the point of preparing a carefully reasoned, well-documented comment when some ass is going to respond with a snide one-liner?

I say, don't be ruthful in dealing with jerks. Hang 'em high!

[Slartibartfast]

Might I suggest a posting rule requiring a link to a Monty Python video in every post a la slarti and jes?

You're a cruel man. But fair.

[hilzoy]

Diane: I didn't take it that way.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have also observed a sort of Gresham's Law for discussions: bad commentators drive out good commentators."

Really? The law I've seen in operation is, "Censorious hosts drive out everyone who disagrees with them." The nice thing about this site has been that it doesn't censor disagreement.

[Model 62]

I'm with von on this -- the Civility Rule covers this territory well enough. Specific smackdowns targeting actions on the fringes of Civil Blog Browsing can be accompanied by thoughtful explanations.

But, whatever. It's your show. Carry on.

[Jesurgislac]

Does it have to be a relevant Monty Python quote? Or will the posting rules just assume that any Monty Python quote, selected at random, will have relevance to any blog thread, no matter what the ostensible topic?

All right, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, 'Jehovah'.

[Erasmussimo]

Really? The law I've seen in operation is, "Censorious hosts drive out everyone who disagrees with them." The nice thing about this site has been that it doesn't censor disagreement.

Yes, I've seen some of that, but mostly it's right-wing sites and normally they just let their attack dogs deal with the matter.

[Gary Farber]

"WELL, I THIMK THAT YOU SHULD BAN ALL CAPS POSTTINGS, AND REQIRE THAT PEEPLE TO USE A SPELL CHEKKER!"

I agree with the first, but advocate banning of people who use spell-checkers, on the grounds that anyone who relies on them is guaranteed to make homophone spelling errors. The only reliable spell-checker is to proofread one's self.

Now, on with the banning!

Dianne: censor:

1cen·sor Listen to the pronunciation of 1censor
Pronunciation:
\ˈsen(t)-sər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, Roman magistrate, from censēre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit śaṁsati he praises
Date:
1526

1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful 2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct3: a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
— cen·so·ri·al Listen to the pronunciation of censorial \sen-ˈsȯr-ē-əl\ adjective

The strong definition of a censor is that it is a governmental official using power of law to prevent publication or distribution of something.

The Roman censors spoke for the government, and only for the government.

Since words tend to lose and change meaning, it's been the case in recent times that confusion over this has led to the weak definition of "censorship," as in anyone anywhere ever limiting any distribution of something.

Obviously, censorship in general by a government is something that affects everyone, and should be viewed with the gravest alarm and skepticism.

On the other hand, if a private entity such as a publisher decides not to publish something, that's considered an anodyne editorial decision.

On the third hand, if a non-govermental organization or business or entity, or collection of entities, is of sufficiently large scope in a society that their actions significantly limit the distribution of something in that society overall, clearly those decisions are, while not governmental in scope, sufficiently significant to be of concern.

But when an entity on the scope of, say, a private bookstore, or someone in their home, or a single blog, or a single small entity of any sort, puts limitations on what they will and will not publish or allow said within the scope of their home, that's usually merely a perfectly legitimate free choice.

I suspect you wouldn't regard it as abhorrent censorship if I entered your living room at 3 a.m. one night, and began yodelling at the top of my lungs non-stop, while playing the Mighty Mouse theme over and over, to a heavy rhythm track, at top volume, indefinitely, and you then woke and informed me that I had to shut up.

As for a private blog, like this, the situation is no different than one's private home. People can make up whatever darn rules they like. And people who are deeply worried, concerned, or bothered, can start their own darn blog. That is freedom of speech.

Myself, speaking as someone who grew up in the book world, and as a fanatic defender and explainer of the First Amendment, I prefer to discourage conflation of actual censorship (governmental action) with legitimate editorial decisions, of the kind made by necessity by every publishing house and book store in the world every day when they reject a manuscript, or choose not to add another book to their shelves. I find the resulting discussions, as a rule, confused, tedious, repetitive, and unproductive.

YMMV.

And I'd suggest that a more productive approach would be to avoid the theoretical, and wait for a decision you practically object to to come down the pike, in which case object, and see if you have trouble expressing your views about it here.

[hilzoy]

I want to be a hypothetical psychic agency!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, I've seen some of that, but mostly it's right-wing sites and normally they just let their attack dogs deal with the matter."

LOL! Censorship by failing to censor those disagreeing with the person claiming to be censored, who still gets to speak if he cares to. That's a pretty weak form of censorship.

Actually, I was thinking of one of the posters over at Crooked Timber, you can probably guess who.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm fairly sure what Erasmussimo was referring to was the habit on some right-wing blogs that still permit comments, of the attack dogs piling on someone who expresses disagreemnt with some Republican dogma, not with disagreement, but with extreme personal attacks of a kind actually banned at Obsidian Wings.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"I distrust slippery slope arguments like this in general."

From the sidebar quotes on my blog:

"We don't live just by ideas. Ideas are part of the mixture of customs and practices, intuitions and instincts that make human life a conscious activity susceptible to improvement or debasement. A radical idea may be healthy as a provocation; a temperate idea may be stultifying. It depends on the circumstances. One of the most tiresome arguments against ideas is that their "tendency" is to some dire condition -- to totalitarianism, or to moral relativism, or to a war of all against all."
-- Louis Menand

Diane, I hadn't read your 10:03 AM when I wrote my previous comment; my apologies if I was in any way over-strong in my response.

[Sebastian]

"I want to be a hypothetical psychic agency!"

I don't want to bother if it is hypothetical.

[Brick Oven Bill]

I am still confused about the meaning of the term ‘disrespect’. Disrespect has often been deemed something on the order of not clapping long enough after a speech.

Disrespect could mean:

times 2.7.08 reporting bh dayorder doubleplusungood refs unidentical plastic minds refs traits are inherited refs groupwise statistical data rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

I disagree with your policy Hilzoy; Thomas Jefferson’s policy was better:

"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.”

I guess that asking for examples of the current interpretation of the word ‘disrespect’ is asking too much.

[Jesurgislac]

BOB: I guess that asking for examples of the current interpretation of the word ‘disrespect’ is asking too much.

Not at all, BOB! You should feel free to provide such examples...

...and no doubt you will.

[Brick Oven Bill]

I think that Jesurgislac just disrespected me. Note her tone.

[Jesurgislac]

I fear so, BOB, and alas, it's not even the first time.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Warning: In accordance with the updated posting rules, this disclaimer is intended to demonstrate that my opinion below, while potentially unpopular, does not constitute a ‘drive-by’ insult, which may cause the silencing of this man’s opinion. The evidence to support this particular viewpoint includes:

(1) Jesurgislac started it.

Feedback as to potential errors in my judgment and/or knowledge are earnestly solicited, and may be included in the comments section below, or, if a greater degree of privacy is desired, by clicking on my screen-name. I wish to grow as a person. Sensitive people should stop reading now.

Jesurgislac; I know you are disrespectful, but what am I?

[Catsy]

Jes beat me to suggesting the BOB review his own comment history for answers to his question. Frankly I'm a little amazed that he even surfaced on this thread, let alone had the nerve to ask that question. Surely nobody is that devoid of self-awareness?

With that said, I'm of mixed feelings about this new policy. I agree with von and others that the existing posting rules (particularly the "don't disrupt meaningful etc" part) already cover the transgressions in question. I'm skeptical of anything that opens the door to banning by ideology, particularly since some of the justifications and examples start to remind me of the toxic moderation environment on right-wing blogs--they justify most of their bannings by pointing out (not entirely unreasonably) that rebutting the same arguments over and over and over gets tiring and disruptive.

Hilzoy, the line in the sand that you seem to be aiming to draw here is when someone stops advancing an argument (however controversial) in good faith and appear to be either intentionally disruptive or possessing a worldview so extreme, toxic and impervious to falsification that whatever value they bring to the site is outweighed by the way they consistently derail the threads in which they participate. Is that about the size of it?

If I'm not too far off there, I'm not sure I see how "don't disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake" fails to cover it. I could see your "new rule" being an explanatory addendum that expands on the ways in which one might be disruptive, but I don't think it needs a new rule.

[Sashi]

First, to me it makes sense that whoever owns the site sets the posting rules. Folk who don't like rules of a specific site are free to move on to someplace else.

Second, I think the rules and management of this site are superb. This is a site of thoughtful, informed, intelligent, and varied discussion. I learn a heck of a lot here.

Big thanks to those who run this site!

[hilzoy]

Sashi: thanks. ;)

Catsy: I was aiming for this: "possessing a worldview so extreme, toxic and impervious to falsification", where the toxicity involves hatefulness to people. There was a point when I was looking at the existing rules and thought: someone who was, say, outrageously and insultingly sexist, and who said so often and without any interest in discussion, would in fact disrupt conversation, but might well not be doing it for its own sake. (E.g., if that person really believed what s/he said, but wasn't the least bit interested in discussing it.)

There are people who are trying to derail conversation. There are people who insult specific commenters here. But there are other people (not necessarily on this site) who totally derail conversation, over and over, without doing either of those things.

I don't think I'd mind if they did it by, say, insulting the theory of evolution. People are a different matter.

[Catsy]

First, to me it makes sense that whoever owns the site sets the posting rules. Folk who don't like rules of a specific site are free to move on to someplace else.

Is there ever really a good reason for writing nonsense like this? Both statements, while 100% true, are entirely without relevance or value. Folk who don't like rules of a specific site are also free to provide feedback about these rules and suggest improvements. Site owners who don't appreciate that feedback are likewise free to ban them or ask them to stop.

I've rarely ever seen the formulation "if you don't like X you're free to go somewhere else" used outside of a desire to silence dissent. When it comes from an authority figure in a community it's merely a contemptible sign that said person is incapable of maturely processing criticism--and for what it's worth, Hilzoy has not once displayed a shred of this sort of tendency, much to her credit.

But when it comes from participants with neither the authority or standing to shut down discussion, it's merely unthinking sycophancy without substance.

If I've misinterpreted this, I do apologize. You may want to consider in the future how that particular turn of phrase comes across.

[Catsy]

My apologies for the double post. Hilzoy's reponse slipped.

Hilzoy: I think at a certain point that becomes a distinction without difference. Our hypothetical sexist might not be disrupting meaningful conversation "for its own sake"--a qualifier I take to mean that this is not their intent, their design.

But if our hypothetical sexist refuses to subject their views to falsification, routinely ignores contrary data and links presented, and continues to advance their own arguments without any sign that they are willing to process opposing arguments on any level deeper than is necessary to pick out bits to respond to, doesn't the disruption of meaningful conversation become a predictable result of these behaviors?

Perhaps I'm being unclear. The perspective I'm thinking of is your 2005">http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/11/failures_of_wil.html">2005 essay on how "this is a test of how much people do want something: are they careless about the task of getting it, or do they work for it as carefully, as thoughtfully, and as hard as they possibly can?"

I submit that at a certain point, it stops mattering whether someone is disrupting meaningful conversation by design or by indifference; by action or by inaction. Either way, the ethical burden of said disruption lies on their shoulders.

Perhaps the disruption rule should have the "for its own sake" part stricken, and "consistently" added after "don't". That one-word addition would ensure that people who inadvertently derail a thread in good faith are not within scope, while making the spirit of the rule a little clearer.

[Phil]

I think part of what this gets down to is something I've touched on before, which is the difference between "civility" and "decency." Contra the comments here by von and others, one may be quite civil while repeatedly expressing ideas of the nature of "Pip pip let's round up all the wogs and put them in camps eh wot?" or Jews have a genetic defect in their brains or Let's machine-gun all the Gitmo detainees to death, but these ideas are fundamentally indecent, no matter how civilly they are expressed. They simply are not concepts that decent people may hold; they're not ideas subject to the maxim, "Reasonable people may disagree on this point." They're the opinions of the sick and immoral, and I see no reason for hilzoy et al. to let this place be a playground for the sick and immoral.

I am frequently uncivil. I try my best never to be indecent.

[Bruce Baugh]

That's very well put, Phil.

[liberal japonicus]

Hit the nail on the head, Phil. I would just point out that some people who don't click on the links might think that both of the ones you have are from the same person when they aren't.

[Sebastian]

It would be better to be uncivil at other blogs.

[Phil]

Perhaps. You're welcome to ban me, Sebastian, if you think the frequency is problematic.

[Sebastian]

I suppose, but it would be better if you were just uncivil at the other blogs and more civil here.

It is the whole societal norms vs. hyper-legality thing. As long as you don't technically violate the posting *rules* you won't get banned. But this blog imperfectly tries for more than that. And I certainly have had my bad days so i won't pretend to have perfectly implemented it. But I would say that frequently uncivil but try your best not to be indecent isn't really embracing the spirit of what we are trying to do.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Is there ever really a good reason for writing nonsense like this?"

Of course. I've been in hundreds and hundreds of conversations in print and person over the past thirty-five-plus years in which innumerable people don't understand the point.

It's perfectly common, alas, for too many folks to confuse a private endeavor, be it a party in a home, a private fanzine, a bookstore, a website, a blog, a private club, whatever, with a public or governmentally-run endeavor, and not understand that the owners get to set the rules, and to not understand that they're free to create their own such endeavor.

It's frequently necessary to remind or inform such people that this is the case. I can't begin to number the vast number of times I've seen this be the case.

"I've rarely ever seen the formulation 'if you don't like X you're free to go somewhere else' used outside of a desire to silence dissent."

Odd; I've yet to see a single person's dissent silenced by someone else's opinion or statement, and I've rarely been able to discern, for sure, people's inner desires, and I've rarely seen such formulations expressed out of any desire to silence any dissent, as opposed to respond to some confused and pompous sillyass, myself.

But, then, I'm not overly worried that setting rules on a blog is going to Silence Anyone's Dissent. Oh, the horror.

[Catsy]

Oh, good grief. I can see where this is going.

You can save the melodrama for someone on whom it has any effect other than mild eye-rolling, Gary. Maybe in your own personal lexicon the phrase "silence dissent" has some comically over-the-top meaning that would make this particular adventure in Farbering in some way appropriate. But from where I stand, and in the context I wrote them, the words have a face value meaning so plain that I can't believe I'm actually having to explain it to you.

Sure it's common for people to mistake the public for the private, particularly when it comes to online communities. But there's plenty of ways to correct their misunderstanding without resorting to the internet equivalent of "love it or leave it", the use of which is pretty much a surefire sign that you've got nothing else.

I stand by my assertion that I have yet to hear that turn of phrase used in a constructive, justifiable way. Typically it's used by those with authority (be they mods, admins, or what have you) who can't cope with constructive criticism, and by non-authorities to inflate their own importance or suck up to the powers that be by telling some uppity denizen that their input is not desired. It's a noxious little bit of phrasing that escalates, not resolves, the mismatch of expectations.

Please, feel free to read through the entire thread leading up to this little kerfluffle. When you've done so, look at the comment that employed this rhetoric, and ask yourself if the tone of the replies to Hilzoy and the feedback given to her really required anyone pointing out that if they don't like the rules, they can go somewhere else. Ask yourself if it contributed anything of worth to the discussion.

And while you're at it, ask yourself if maybe there's a reason why around here the neologism "Farbering" refers generally to the derailment of a thread by zeroing in on an unimportant side matter and beating it to death with smug pedantry and a habit of stubbornly twisting the plain meaning of what someone writes by insisting on the most narrowly literal interpretation possible (viz. the true-but-pointless observation that you've yet to see anyone's dissent silenced by an opinion, as if that possibility were even remotely close to being the point at hand).

The term exists not because people here are mean, but because your near-legendary inability to leave well enough alone when presented with an opportunity to show someone else up, merited or not, has made your name synonymous with this odious bit of net behavior. You can take that as a personal attack if you insist. It's certainly not complimentary, nor should it be. But I'd take it as a great kindness if you'd try interpreting it, for once, as a meaningful suggestion to alter your behavior if you don't like the kind of response your pedantry predictably and consistently elicits from people of all sorts of folk.

[Phil]

I will give your suggestion due consideration, Sebastian, and note that the times I have been given notification/warning for a posting rules violation -- discounting for my own purposes the self-serving ones issued by Charles Bird -- amount to probably less than ten. I am also, whatever the frequency of uncivil remarks, rarely uncivil to those who do not express opinions of the indecent category.

[Sashi]

Catsy:

My post relayed an understanding of reality, and an appreciation for what it takes to run a superbly high quality site like this. Your response to what I posted was:

A. "nonsense" or
B. "unthinking sycophancy without substance"

Catsy, I would be interested in learning more about your experience at running a high quality interactive site like this.

1. What was your purpose/mission?

2. What were your costs? (All costs -- indirect financial, direct financial, social, emotional, etc.)

3. What were your results?

Once I understand a mission similar to this that you have undertaken, the price you were willing to pay to meet your mission, and how effective you were, I can better understand and respond to your comments.

Thank you.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"this particular adventure in Farbering in some way appropriate."

"And while you're at it, ask yourself if maybe there's a reason why around here the neologism 'Farbering'"

Gosh, speaking of the posting rules:
a)turning to a personal attack with no provocation at all is a violation of the rules.
b) your statement turns out not to be true.

Both these things are quite regrettable; I've never had anything but considerable admiration and respect for you, Catsy; what provokes you into personal attacks, I have no idea.

"The term exists" only in your head, other than as a complimentary term. The variant "farbered" got the one person trying to use it a posting rules violation warning.

Yes, I do know how to use Google, not make personal attacks, and support my statements with cites.

"I stand by my assertion that I have yet to hear that turn of phrase used in a constructive, justifiable way."

That's inarguable. However, holding a different view than than yours isn't, as it happens, definable as "pedantry."

HAND.

[Gary Farber]

About said term: Google don't lie.

Interesting how people can confuse their own imagination/projections and objective reality, though.

[magistra]

This rule does seem to be trying usefully to discriminate what are acceptable and unacceptable attacks on groups of people (rather than individuals): that they have to be specific and they have to be argued, rather than asserted. If we want to keep lively discussion and multiple viewpoints, people need to be allowed to say 'pro-lifers are evil because X, Y, Z' or 'people who want gun control are a threat to us all because A, B, C.', because you can debate that. In contrast if someone persistently just says 'Republicans are evil' 'Liberals are traitors', the thread gets derailed in trying to argue about who should be included in this category and why. I'd take it to be a generalisation of the rule about 'Left' and 'Right'.

And, much as I disagree with him, I think Brick Oven Bill mostly stays on the right side of that line, particularly since there are signs that he's starting to accept that not all Muslims are the same (and that a distinctively US Muslim identity is a possibility). I suspect the target is DaveC who seems to be more prone to drive-bys.

[von]

von: the idea was that civility, at least as we tend to use the term, applies mostly to things people say to, and about, one another, and not to, say, hourly rants about Swedes and how stupid they are, when not said to a Swede (or a semi-Swede, like me.)

I don't think the posting rules define civility narrowly; it seems that such a person would not be civil even if no Swedes (whether semi-, quasi-, or alleged) were present. Disruption of conversation is not civil.

But, again, at lot of the folks commenting on this thread are getting worked up over what is probably nothing. I don't think ObWi is announcing a new banning policy, but rather clarifying what I had understood to be the policy all along.

[von]

Gary & Catsy, LET IT GO.

[liberal japonicus]

It wouldn't be a posting rules thread if someone didn't get a warning...

[von]

That's it, LJ. You're banned. ;-)

[Catsy]

Per von I am disengaging from Gary.

Sashi: My post relayed an understanding of reality, and an appreciation for what it takes to run a superbly high quality site like this.

Which by itself would have been unobjectionable. What I don't get is why you felt the need to tell everyone offering feedback to go somewhere else if they didn't like it. It adds no value whatsoever. I get that your intended tone was probably not to tell a thread full of people offering constructive feedback on the posting rules to STFU or GTFO. But that's the message you sent.

Catsy, I would be interested in learning more about your experience at running a high quality interactive site like this.

Since you asked nicely: said experience includes, over my lifetime, administering an online translation project from start to finish; developing and hosting out of pocket the site devoted to hosting said translation project; coordinating the many people contributing to it; content production, chat room moderation and data center ops for a large interactive multimedia site; administration or primary ownership in one form or another on a number of domains and BBSes; development and player liaison/management duties on several multiplayer online games; forum moderation gigs too numerous to count or care about. That's setting aside all computer and internet experience not related to managing a community or web property in some way, and all positions of significant responsibility not related to the internet.

It's also in addition to my day job in operations for one of the world's top multi-$M web properties, a nontrivial responsibility which has largely consumed the energy I used to direct into net communities.

In the interest of not making this comment longer than the thread itself, I will not dignify the request for an itemized list of my financial, emotional and other burdens in the course of all these responsibilities. On reflection, this line of questioning is really just a lengthier (and mildly insulting) variant on the original comment that started all this. For some reason you seem to think that in order to make an informed comment on how a site is run, one has to have a lengthy resume of having done just that. I always find it baffling when I encounter people with this attitude on blogs, which are populated primarily by people who have come to express opinions on an array of complex subjects with all of which they can't possibly have had firsthand experience.

Not that it matters, since this is a textbook appeal to authority; my arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, not the size of my e-peen. I don't make a habit of trumpeting my qualifications, but since it seems to matter to you, why yes: I have more than a little experience being on the other side of this table, and I yield to no one on the question of whether or not I have a proper appreciation for how difficult it is. It is those experiences and responsibilities that shaped the opinions I now hold about people who abuse or assume authority in order to avoid dealing with feedback from their community.

A trait, it bears saying again, that Hilzoy has never evidenced, much to her credit. Which makes it all the more jarring when someone else not empowered to speak for her does it in her stead.

[John Redford]

These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.

[John Redford]

These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.

[discountcilis]

1 cialis tadalafil difference between viagra and cialis

http://discount-cialis.msk.su>http://discount-cialis.msk.su/dicialis.jpg

cialis cupons
cialis free online
cialis presription
generic cialis pills generic viagra levitra
cialis sudden hearing loss
female response to cialis
super cialis
prescription for cialis
life cialis phone
1 generic cialis
30mg cialis
cheap generic cialis pills
drug interaction cialis benedryl
discount generic cialis pills online
cialis hearing
cialis contraindications
off shore cialis
cialis wholesale online
generic cialis overnight cheapest
3.99 cialis order
cialis europe get
lowest prices cialis
back cialis guarantee money
sexual health drug cialis dysfunction information
marketing viagra vs cialis
cialis the new viagra
cialis sside effects
low cost cialis
cialis and violent sex
cialis w
cialis injury lawyer columbus
cuba gooding jr cialis video
christian cialis
cialis blindness
generic cialis
cialis new york
cialis samples
cialis duration
cialis levitra vs
cialis cialis drug generic levitra
cialis fda approval date
generic cialis w master card
generis cialis
men taking cialis and ambien
viagra cialis desire
cialis and grapefruit juice
cialis us
viagra cialis
cialis israel
buying cialis
qu bec cialis
prices soft tab cialis
cialis eye damage
viagra levitra cialis side effects
q cialis restrictvalue web
cialis effects side
cialis doseage
ordering information of cialis from canada
buy cialis online pharmacy
generic cialis overnight delivery
keyword cialis
description of cialis
gay men viagra vs cialis
cialis dosages
cialis nabp certified online pharmacy
medical cialis
cialis pills premature ejaculation
cialis canada generic
failure of cialis to work
cialis info

http://discount-cialis.msk.su/generic-viagra-26-cialis.html>generic viagra 26 cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/buy-cialis-no-online-prescription.html>buy cialis no online prescription http://discount-cialis.msk.su/keywords-cialis-levitra-vs.html>keywords cialis levitra vs http://discount-cialis.msk.su/order-generic-cialis-softtabs.html>order generic cialis softtabs http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-online-order.html>cialis online order http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-from-canada.html>cialis from canada http://discount-cialis.msk.su/online-prescription-for-cialis.html>online prescription for cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-two-bathtubs-fear.html>cialis two bathtubs fear http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-uk-online.html>cialis uk online http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-free-online.html>cialis free online http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-withdrawl.html>cialis withdrawl http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cheapest-cialis-venezuela.html>cheapest cialis venezuela http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-levitra-vs.html>cialis levitra vs http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-best-price.html>cialis best price http://discount-cialis.msk.su/discount-cialis-pill.html>discount cialis pill http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pill-cutter-cialis.html>pill cutter cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-and-food-consumption.html>cialis and food consumption http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-diabetes.html>cialis diabetes http://discount-cialis.msk.su/generic-cialis-uk.html>generic cialis uk http://discount-cialis.msk.su/new-erectile-drug-cialis.html>new erectile drug cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-recovery-time-after-ejaculation.html>cialis recovery time after ejaculation http://discount-cialis.msk.su/iwant-to-buy-some-cialis.html>iwant to buy some cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-safe-secure-online-shopping.html>cialis safe secure online shopping http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pm-10kb-loading-cialis.html>pm 10kb loading cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-ingredient.html>cialis ingredient http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-and-grapfruit-juice.html>cialis and grapfruit juice http://discount-cialis.msk.su/index11.html>cialis neil novak uc http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-free-consulation.html>cialis free consulation http://discount-cialis.msk.su/headaches-or-heartburn-taking-cialis.html>headaches or heartburn taking cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialises.html>cialises http://discount-cialis.msk.su/levitra-vs-cialis-viagra.html>levitra vs cialis viagra http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-trial-pack.html>cialis trial pack http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-levitra-xanax-us-approved-pharmacies.html>cialis levitra xanax us approved pharmacies http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-therapy-after-prostatectomy.html>cialis therapy after prostatectomy http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-canadian-generic.html>cialis canadian generic http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-valtrex-alesse.html>cialis valtrex alesse http://discount-cialis.msk.su/sublingual-cialis-online.html>sublingual cialis online http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-for-sale.html>cialis for sale http://discount-cialis.msk.su/geneic-cheapest-cialis.html>geneic cheapest cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-and-levitra-ventajas-desventajas.html>cialis and levitra ventajas desventajas http://discount-cialis.msk.su/directions-on-using-cialis.html>directions on using cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-problems.html>cialis problems http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-launch.html>cialis launch http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pill-splitter-cialis.html>pill splitter cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/las-vegas-cialis-and-flomax.html>las vegas cialis and flomax http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-online-nz-new-zealand.html>cialis online nz new zealand http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-cardiac-risks.html>cialis cardiac risks http://discount-cialis.msk.su/can-i-cut-cialis.html>can i cut cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-attorney-columbus.html>cialis attorney columbus http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-or-vardenafil-20mg-tablet.html>cialis or vardenafil 20mg tablet http://discount-cialis.msk.su/relationship-between-the-prostate-cialis.html>relationship between the prostate cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/reegalis-cialis.html>reegalis cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/generic-cialis-no-prescription.html>generic cialis no prescription http://discount-cialis.msk.su/order-viagra-cialis-levitra-pharmacy.html>order viagra cialis levitra pharmacy http://discount-cialis.msk.su/viagra-cialis-levitra-buy-viagra.html>viagra cialis levitra buy viagra http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pharmacy-india-viagra-cialis.html>pharmacy india viagra cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-levitra-versus.html>cialis levitra versus http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-mg.html>cialis mg http://discount-cialis.msk.su/problems-with-cialis.html>problems with cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-does-not-work.html>cialis does not work http://discount-cialis.msk.su/buy-cialis.html>buy cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-sudden-loss-of-vision-etiology.html>cialis sudden loss of vision etiology http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pharmacy-cialis.html>pharmacy cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/phentermine-cialis-tramadol-effexor-celebrex-lexapro.html>phentermine cialis tramadol effexor celebrex lexapro http://discount-cialis.msk.su/generic-cialis-overnight-shipping.html>generic cialis overnight shipping http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-erectil.html>cialis erectil http://discount-cialis.msk.su/fed-ex-overnight-delivery-cialis.html>fed ex overnight delivery cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/91-oldsmobile-cialis-side-marker-lens.html>91 oldsmobile cialis side marker lens http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-half-life.html>cialis half life http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-perscriptions.html>cialis perscriptions http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-tadalafil-rausch.html>cialis tadalafil rausch http://discount-cialis.msk.su/angioedema-and-cialis.html>angioedema and cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cons-of-cialis.html>cons of cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cheap-cialis-32.html>cheap cialis 32 http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-5mg-cheap.html>cialis 5mg cheap http://discount-cialis.msk.su/order-cialis-pills.html>order cialis pills http://discount-cialis.msk.su/identify-real-cialis.html>identify real cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-levitra-viagra-vs.html>cialis levitra viagra vs http://discount-cialis.msk.su/buy-10-mg-cialis.html>buy 10 mg cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-viagra-differences.html>cialis viagra differences http://discount-cialis.msk.su/index6.html>sample pak cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/ditka-sound-clip-levitra-cialis.html>ditka sound clip levitra cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-generic-uk.html>cialis generic uk http://discount-cialis.msk.su/vicodin-and-cialis.html>vicodin and cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/pharmacy-cialis-silagra.html>pharmacy cialis silagra http://discount-cialis.msk.su/generic-pharmacy-cialis.html>generic pharmacy cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/su-cialis.html>su cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-uk-cheap.html>cialis uk cheap http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-shipping.html>cialis shipping http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-tadalafil-php.html>cialis tadalafil php http://discount-cialis.msk.su/natural-cialis.html>natural cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cheapest-price-for-viagra-and-cialis.html>cheapest price for viagra and cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-free-sample-coupon.html>cialis free sample coupon http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-multiple-attempts.html>cialis multiple attempts http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-generics.html>cialis generics http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-and-levitra-viagra-price-online.html>cialis and levitra viagra price online http://discount-cialis.msk.su/cialis-soft-gel-pills.html>cialis soft gel pills http://discount-cialis.msk.su/lily-lcos-cialis.html>lily lcos cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/arginine-and-cialis.html>arginine and cialis http://discount-cialis.msk.su/index24.html>cialis medical information