At Greenbelt, in the Summer, I went to a seminar entitled 'Can Online Communities be Real Communities' or something like that. On the panel were four people, including Simon Jenkins from 'Ship of Fools' and Andrew Brown from 'Comment is Free: Belief'. They were both very grave about how community can get destroyed on comments boards. I couldn't get a word in edgeways during the debate, but found myself increasingly concerned. The thing is I love the community on my blog. So I went and chatted to Simon and Andrew after the seminar. They looked at me with amazement that I hadn't really had any conflict issues, and that I hadn't insisted on any rules, they predicted that censorship would be required, along with groundrules. 'What rules?' I asked. 'These rules from the Ship of Fools', they replied:
1. Don't be a jerk
Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about. Jerkish behavior includes (but is not limited to): racism, sexism and all the other negative -isms, trolling and flame-baiting.
2. Engage brain before posting your message
Read the words you've written before you post them. Once they're out there, you can't take them back.
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
5. Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended
Disagreement is normal here. Try not to nurse hurt feelings, and, conversely, if you know you've stuffed it up, cop to it without excuse. We've all had to at some point.
6. Respect the Ship's crew
If you disagree with a member of the Ship's crew (in their official capacity), raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on hosts, admins and editors for their official actions will be treated as an attempt to disrupt the Ship itself.
7. Don't post illegal material
Posting libellous material, copyright violations or links to sites advocating illegal activities puts us in legal hot water, which makes us very unhappy.
8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
9. Don't advertise or spam
Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members.
10. Only one identity per member
We do not allow sockpuppets (multiple usernames). Outside of confusing everyone else, people who talk to themselves in this way are just too weird for words.All very well, but I am rubbish with rules. I carefully avoid environments with rules because I feel an overwhelming desire to break them. Sorry - it is a major character flaw. I could never be a Girl Guide, the thought of it was utterly ridiculous to me.
I suppose I think on this blog, like in churches or in families, we are adults and should be able work things out between us. (I know I am probably just being naive). I don't actually see conflict as a bad thing. They say that you aren't really friends with someone until you have your first fight, the relationship has never been properly tested. I think that is true - conflict shows us whether we value a relationship enough to continue fighting for it or give up.
So anyway... in the last week or so there has had a fair amount of conflict on my blog, and it caused me to think about whether that was okay or not. I don't want to censor people, I don't want a parent-child relationship with commenters, but I do want it to feel safe.
I'm just hoping it will all calm down and go back to the way it was. What do you think?
31 comments:
For what it's worth, it has seemed like a fairly safe space to me; any time I am biting my tongue it is because I have other people or my own professional reputation to consider, not because I am worried about a hurtful response from other blog commenters.
I try to follow about two rules:
1) Try to be kind (with all that entails, including apologies if we get it wrong)
2) Remember that on a personal blog like this, comments are entirely at the discretion of the blogger and may be deleted for any reason. Don't take it personally if this happens.
I find your assertion that you don't like rules interesting. Do you pay your taxes? Respect the property of others by not stealing it? Usually get dressed, brush hair etc before leaving the house rather than wandering out in pyjamas and dressing gown?
If yes -- why are each of these rules different than the ones you think you would have encountered at Girl Guides?
Hi Kathryn,
Thanks for your response. In fact I never have deleted a comment - there were one or two things said about homosexuals, using a pretty horrible term, that I wondered about deleting but in the end didn't..
Thanks for asking me about rules.. I did wonder that myself and you have made me ponder more. I think I struggle with very authoritarian situations - find that oppressive, I also struggle with situations where I feel individual self expression in thwarted, as a kid I always hated school uniform. Autonomy and freedom seem to be very high values for me, probably a reaction against feelings of coercion and being trapped as a kid.
Hi Lesley,
I'm with you on the freedom of expression and anti-authoritarianism. I think it's a character trait. Perhaps it helps develop it if there has been a little or a lot of authoritarian oppression. In my case I don't think I have that excuse, other than the odd teacher or priest - no more excuse than anyone and far less than many.
The rules, if we have them, need prioritising for me. And the perspective is important, whether you are the person making the post or comment, or the reader of the post or comment. (Lesley, my use of second person is general, not aimed at you or your blog).
1) a)Don't be easily offended, b) don't easily offend
1a) The first part has to take precedence! It's so easy to misunderstand because a comment that you're reacting to was badly worded. Or, you're own bias may be making you misread it. Or, a strong point is being made to route out your bias, to show that you don't have a privileged right to hold your views without criticism while you lay into other peoples views.
1b) It can't be helped if the topic is one we care about. If it isn't, why are we posting the comment. (1b) is ameliorated by (2).
2) Attack the issue, not the person
This goes hand-in-hand with (1). So many people are so easily offended that they take comments as personal attacks. You are not your views. We often think that we are what we say; our language is part of our behaviour, and how we behave determines how people see us. Some leeway has to be given online. We don't have the same opportunity to get to know each other in person. This is why (1) and (2) are the main ones for me.
One of my favourite quotes in this respect, Salman Rushdie, "At Cambridge University I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people's opinions. You are never rude to a person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say any idea system is sacred, whether it's a religious belief system, or secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
The rest are relatively superficial, and sometimes more inconvenient that the problem they are supposed to fix.
3) Respect the Ship's crew
One of the reasons I love Lesley's blog so much is that she doesn't take herself too seriously, and you can give Lesley quite a lot of stick. She has more balls than most men and takes it all very well and fairly - even when she is obviously hurt.
But some admins can get a little too pompous. I've not managed to get myself banned from anywhere, but I have had comments not posted. Clearly some admins don't get (1) and (2). So, (3) is only for pragmatic purposes only.
Kathryn's point 2 stands: Don't take it personally if this happens. But then if you're following (1) and (2) above you know this, right?
4) Engage brain before posting your message
Good advice. But come on. Is your brain so well tuned all the time? I don't kid myself that mine is. And even the most finely tuned Formula 1 brain out there can be running on the wrong tyres some days. And such a brain is often so used to being right that when they get it wrong they often lose a wheel completely.
So, (4) helps. But don't lose sleep over it if you've got it wrong. You can take words back. You can delete (if the board/blog allows it) or you can post an apology, if the admin hasn't banned you.
5) Don't post illegal material
Good advice if you're posting it.
Sufficient reason to delete if you're hosting the blog. For your own credibility you might want to explain in a comment why you are deleting it, less some conspiricay theorists gets the wrong impression. Having said that, it's your blog.
6) Only one identity per member
A minor issue. Sometimes it may be necessary for preserve identity. As Kathryn points out, we might have our own professional reputation to consider. You might not personally care that you might offend some bigot who is a customer of your employer, but there's not only your livelihood at risk when they take their custom elsewhere. You may be prepared to expose your principles, but it's for your colleagues to decide to expose theirs.
7) Don't crusade
Stupid rule on a serious topic. If we all care about the topic, then we're already crusading. If it's the blog of someone who wants to share with you their flowery garden or cute picks of their pussie, then this is a good rule.
The rest are relatively superficial, and sometimes more inconvenient that the problem they are supposed to fix.
3) Respect the Ship's crew
One of the reasons I love Lesley's blog so much is that she doesn't take herself too seriously, and you can give Lesley quite a lot of stick. She has more balls than most men and takes it all very well and fairly - even when she is obviously hurt.
But some admins can get a little too pompous. I've not managed to get myself banned from anywhere, but I have had comments not posted. Clearly some admins don't get (1) and (2). So, (3) is only for pragmatic purposes only.
Kathryn's point 2 stands: Don't take it personally if this happens. But then if you're following (1) and (2) above you know this, right?
4) Engage brain before posting your message
Good advice. But come on. Is your brain so well tuned all the time? I don't kid myself that mine is. And even the most finely tuned Formula 1 brain out there can be running on the wrong tyres some days. And such a brain is often so used to being right that when they get it wrong they often lose a wheel completely.
So, (4) helps. But don't lose sleep over it if you've got it wrong. You can take words back. You can delete (if the board/blog allows it) or you can post an apology, if the admin hasn't banned you.
5) Don't post illegal material
Good advice if you're posting it.
Sufficient reason to delete if you're hosting the blog. For your own credibility you might want to explain in a comment why you are deleting it, less some conspiricay theorists gets the wrong impression. Having said that, it's your blog.
6) Only one identity per member
A minor issue. Sometimes it may be necessary for preserve identity. As Kathryn points out, we might have our own professional reputation to consider. You might not personally care that you might offend some bigot who is a customer of your employer, but there's not only your livelihood at risk when they take their custom elsewhere. You may be prepared to expose your principles, but it's for your colleagues to decide to expose theirs.
7) Don't crusade
Stupid rule on a serious topic. If we all care about the topic, then we're already crusading. If it's the blog of someone who wants to share with you their flowery garden or cute picks of their pussie, then this is a good rule.
Starting to get to the trivial stuff now.
8) If you must get personal, take it to Hell
Go for it MP. I honestly didn't have a problem with anything you said. I just wanted to address the issues. Sometimes personal comments can be really funny, and "You're just a twat, aren't you, Ron?" is my type of language, and I've been called better (or is that worse). And Lesley, maybe I did deserve it. I don't think I did, but given (1a) takes presedence over (2) for me, I'm happy for others to vent their feelings. It shows they care. Open invitation: if anyone doesn't like what I say and doesn't want to disrupt the good humour on Lesley's blog, drop a comment on mine, or ask for my email.
9) Don't be a jerk
Unimportant. If you can't take a few jerky comments on your blog, or if you don't like getting jerky comments in response to your comments, why are you engaging in a public space. If as the blogger/admin you don't like jerks, then filter comments and lose the freedom of expression and enjoy your placid little space all you like - it's your space.
Given (4) and (8) we can all be jerks sometimes. We can all react and get it wrong. And sometimes being a jerk helps make a very good point.
Personally I try to avoid gratuitous remarks about people. If I'm being a jerk I'm trying to make a point that people aren't seeing; usually because they don't get (1) and (2). Sometimes this doesn't work, precisely because they don't get (1) and (2). Can't win 'em all. As an occasional jerk I accept this. And, of course, it could be me getting it wrong. Some days you don't win any.
10) Don't advertise or spam
OK, but if you're doing this you obviously don't give a toss about rules and internet etiquette. The rule is wasted on you.
11) Get a life, get some perspective
As we all know, turning the dial up to 11 makes for a more powerful set of rules. Rules are most required for those that don't follow rules. WTF? If you're blogging on hot topics and you want honest opinion, you're not going to like some stuff that's said.
Kathryn made another good point, "I find your assertion that you don't like rules interesting. Do you pay your taxes?..." -
Rules help in many circumstances. They help with the smooth running of life. But sometimes it's good to break them, to avoid having those rules attain some grandeur and divinity of their own. My personal view is that is what religion does with rules - so for some the Ten Commandments become sacrosanct. If we have rules at all, we must keep challenging them to make sure they are remaining useful. And as I've mentioned above, the very people that could do with following (my/your) rules don't follow (my/your) rules.
Don't be obsessed with rules, and don't get your knickers in a twist when someone doesn't follow yours - they may live by different rules. Argue the issues.
"Ad Hominem" is such a middle class term. I hadn't even heard of it until I went to college in my mid thirties. And those who say no ad hominem attacks are usually far nastier and manipulative in their attacks on other people than those they try to censor. Thisis because they are usually speaking from a position of assumed superiority. For example, when I call Ron a "twat" I am speaking to him as an equal - it's the language of the shop floor and the pub which are egalitarian environments. On the other hand, Canada Tim's comment was patronising and pompous and so middle class as is The Ship Of Fools website.
Hiya,
1) MadPriest: I sent you an email.
As someone who is More Prole Than Thou, it would be bloody nice if you answered it. Just saying.
2) Ron, I like you. You usually make comments far too long, but by god, your comment about Lesley was spot-on. More balls than many men.
3) Ron: "But some admins can get a little too pompous"
I'll have you know, Ron, I am NOT pompous, it only looks that way. Damn you!
*shakes fist in rage*
I'll ban you if you bring up pomposity again!
4) KathrynRose brought up an extremely important point.
5) The Ship Of Fools rules look good, but in practice, there are big problems. I will not say more about SoF here.
I would strongly advise in general looking into problems, such as amplification of narcissism and resentment, along with hatred.
6) MadPriest: bullshit.
Working-class can be every bit as twisted as middle-class.
There is a good reason for saying no ad hom's; the problem is not in saying that, but if people try dressing up ad homs as something else.
Twisted? Of course. But what has that got to do with the price of fish? This discussion concerns the style of ad hominem attack, as you yourself point out in your last sentence. And when you add patronising to the equation you end up with nastier. To be called a twat is a lot less hurtful than to be "put in one's place." It's a punch in the face rather than a knife wound. Basically, it's more honest and more easily forgotten as it's not meant to cause lasting damage.
MadPriest, I took it as abusive pub language.
I have to agree with another point to some extent. Though I appreciate Lesley's good will in slapping your wrist, it wasn't required from my point of view. There is a risk of being condescending, though I'm sure that would be the last wish of any of those that chipped in on the BHA post, or the porn one, to defend anyone so abused or perceived as being abused.
If I am defended, even when I didn't feel the need, I'm always tempted to let it pass graciously. I'm sure I don't always succeed at that either.
Gurder,
"... I bet you think this song is about you..." I honestly wasn't thinking of you, until I re-read it, when I thought, bugger, I bet Gurder thinks I'm having a dig. And posted it anyway :)
I'll stick with Rushdie's advice on ad hom's.
As to length of reply. OK, I have trouble being concise. But if people put stuff out there I feel obliged to give their thoughts full consideration and a thorough response. I'll sut up now. :(
MadPriest:
"... And when you add patronising to the equation you end up with nastier."
You may well be seeing patronization where there is none, MadPriest. In fact, you seem determined to see it. You saw a previous comment of mine as patronization, which was bullshit, and you don't reply to emails, despite you claiming to be all in favour of cooperation.
So I am asking you flat-out: are you more interested in seeing yourself as a victim than in actually exploring reality and getting to know others? Serious question.
" To be called a twat is a lot less hurtful than to be "put in one's place."
Overall, you cannot demand others accept your own scale of things, except on your own site.
And in specific, you're bloody well seeing things very wrongly, and taking offence unnecessarily, and hugging that offence to yourself, while rejecting those who reach out to you.
Ron and MadPriest:
No. Like it or not, good intentions are bloody necessary.
If someone cuts up malicious, they don't have any excuse to be allowed to do so.
Here is something the blogger The Last Psychiatrist said, and it's bloody true and important:
"An interesting experiment is to open a forum to solicit practical ideas for reform that takes into account the unintended consequences of the reform, and accounts for them. To crowd-source a crowd's problem.
It's an experiment because -- hypothesis -- people don't actually care about practical solutions, they are much more interested in their own anger, and will sabotage a potentially useful forum in order to vent it. They will sabotage the country, just to be able to yell."
Overall, you cannot demand others accept your own scale of things, except on your own site.
Not even there. But it's an explanation not a demand. And you have as much right to patronise me as I have to call Ron a twat. What annoys me is the scale of offence being skewed to middle class norms and being dissed for imposing my scale as if the different scales of others hadn't directed the course of the thread well before I claimed the right to speak from out of my culture.
MadPriest, ffs. I am not patronizing you, nor have I ever done so. Can you please ffs get that straight?
As for things being skewed; you know, sometimes you would have a bloody point. But not here on the specific matter you keep on bringing up.
And for bloody proof of that, see the rest of what I bloody wrote, and how you simply ignore it.
BTW, spent most of my working life as an unskilled manual laborer, and done stints of homelessness, incl. 1 and a half yrs on streets. So, do I qualify to be accepted into the Saved Of The Proles? Do you think you might like to look at people instead of your conceptions of them?
I found the best way to avoid saying anything unfortunate was to make no secret of my identity. Writing a blog which was read by members of my congregation, and my family, moderated what I said on many occasions. At the same time, tempermentally I just hate upsetting people, so my instinct was always towards peacemaking. The same doesn't always go for commenters, and I had several sleepless nights based on things people had posted as comments.
My unwritten rules were:
- delete any comment which seemed to be trawling for business or traffic by posting a web address
- delete any comment which didn't seem to relate to the topic
- put all comments on moderation, so I had time to think about whether I wanted certain things to appear on the blog. For example, I had a personal rule about not using bad language on the blog, so any comments which breached that were deleted.
Sorry, I'll let you chaps get on with your argument now. Keep up the good work Lesley.
I don't think I have mentioned you on this thread, Gurdur. You're projecting. My beef is with Canada Tim and his holier than thou style, which I have been the "victim" of on many occasions over many years and Lesley's partiality. I accused you of being patronising on a previous thread but that had nothing to do with "ad hominem," which is what this thread is about, so far.
Blimey, I didn't mean to start another argument.
MadPriest, I dunno about Middle Class-ness. I just feel very uncomfortable about you attacking Tim. I would like this to be a place where people can have an argument but feel reasonably safe. I thought all that Ron said about occasional jerkish behaviour etc is fair enough, but at some point it becomes unsafe for others and very unhappy for me.
For my sake, I am asking you please to in general not have a go at people but try to keep it to behaviours and issues on my blog.
You can have a go at me though if you like - what partiality have I shown - quite willing to learn from your observations.
Thanks for your thoughts David... I guess my issue is it annoys the hell out of me when my comments disappear for moderation and I had hoped that it wouldn't be necessary..
I am wrong in what I said earlier - I do delete the spam comments, but as Ron said, there is no point in have a rule saying 'do not spam'
I'm finding bad language irritating because I keep having to fish things out of the spam filter.. along with some of Ron's comments which I can't work out why they end up there!
Lesley - as you know with Blogger everything either gets through or gets moderated. I started off with a free for all, but then stuff started appearing on my blog which I didn't want getting any airtime anywhere, so I started moderating everything. Apologies for any annoyance that caused! Trouble is, if there are one or two commenters who you've got to screen, then everyone ends up getting screened.
There is certainly more of a debate when comments aren't moderated, which might be why I didn't get so many!
Gurder,
Sorry, can't shut up. But, you're the man to ask, is there an OCD relating to commenting on blogs?
In the context of a set of people struggling to understand each other in a forum of diverse views, and who individually have good intentions towards each other, then displaying good intentions overall is helpful. But it's not always necessary, or always sufficient. Venting one's anger can be both cathartic and informative.
Having said all I have, there is one consideration Lesley pointed out to me, which is a good point, and I must be honest I hadn't given that as much consideration: newcomers could be put off if they find the language
intimidating.
I would definitely delete any personal, cowardly anonymous posts like the(pathetic)one above.
Really enjoy your blog, Lesley. Thank you.
Jonathan, I don't think there's anything I can say to you that will make things better. You seem to think that I make a career out of persecuting you. I don't. However, there are a couple of things I need to say to others on this thread, by way of explanation.
First of all, some time ago on Jonathan's blog I made the mistake of mentioning the fact that my daughter is a lesbian (she has since married her partner). Since my own views on the subject of homosexuality lean toward the conservative end of the spectrum (I'm not fudging by using this language - I have some conservative friends who think I'm dangerously liberal on the subject), Jonathan seems to have gotten it into his head that she and I must have an awful relationship and that I must view her (in his words) some sort of 'evil freak'. Despite the fact that she appeared personally in the comments on his blog to assure all and sundry that, in fact, we get along fine with each other, Jonathan will not budge from this line. And I have to say that I resent having to drag her back into an argument with him yet again, and I think it's very wrong of him to hide behind working class values and claim that it's acceptable in pubs in Newcastle to insult a man's relationship with his daughter, and therefore he should be able to get away with it here. And for what it's worth, I was born in inner-city Leicester in a working class family.
Second, Jonathan seems to think that I am a habitual hypocrite ('your usual standards of phoney niceness'). I can't deny that as a Christian and as a parish priest I make a point of trying not to offend people unless the issue is really important. But since he has never met me in person, I think that sort of a judgement is beyond his competence. And if he claims that he knows me through the Internet, I can only point out that others who also know me though the Internet do not agree with him.
Finally, I'd like to ask you a question, Jonathan. When you said "I'm sorry" in the previous post, did you mean "I'm sorry" in the sense that people here have taken it (an apology), or in the sense I took it ("I hate to have to say this, but...")? Just curious.
Tim
(not 'Canada Tim', by the way).
Ok, new policy for the moment, from this post onwards I'll delete what I find offensive and moderate what goes on here.
I hope this won't be forever, but lets see.
I wasn't going to comment but I want to say that Tim is the only person with a conservative view on homosexuality I genuinely and hugely respect and whose internet friendship I value greatly.
Unlike many he has never tried to impose his views on anyone else and he adores his daughter and his beautiful baby grandson.
He has left lovely comments on my Facebook when my partner and I had our blessing and I uploaded some photos.
If anyone else was like Tim homosexuality would not be an issue in the church.
I wish I found it as easy to respect those who hold a different view as Tim does. To me, he's always been a great example of the kind of Christian I'd love to become one day.
One good rule I have found is never post anything on a blog as a reply to someone, that you wouldn't say to their face.
Iconoclast
MP
I know you meant it as an insult, but I shall take it as a compliment.
Thing is, I talk a lot, but Tim actually lives what he preaches. That's hugely admirable from where I'm looking.
Tim. I meant "I'm sorry that I lost my rag, but your pomposity and holier than thou remarks pushed my buttons as usual."
I'm sorry but I really don't handle passive aggressiveness very well and you are the most passive aggressive person I have ever come across. What's worse is that you think it's the Christian way to argue. You are not humble, you are manipulative.
Sorry.. slightly messing up this moderating lark! I'll get there!
Hi All:
I think I owe an apology to everyone for jumping into the scrap (or, if you prefer, the 'vigorous disagreement') between Ron and Jonathan. It really wasn't my business and it simply imported into the argument a rather difficult relational dynamic that just made things worse.
I also owe Jonathan an apology for the superior and patronising tone of my original comment, which was not helpful either.
Apologies all round.
Tim
Very interesting post Lesley - you might be interested in this link:
www.michaelhyatt.com/how-to-keep-the-conversations-on-your-blog-civil.html
It's shame that so many sites need to implement some kind of policy along these lines. Inevitably there are people who delight in being aggressive or unpleasant online - and I'm not sure that they will be persuaded to change because of behaviour guidelines. That aside, I guess it proves the rule about how so little of what we communicate is in the words compared to body language etc. And that's a big disadvantage in communicating through type alone - it's sometimes so difficult to really read someone's tone.
Emoticons are a poor substitute - :-)
Hi James
Thanks - yes I read that yesterday with interest.
On the whole I have been pretty lucky and I love the community here, it is just occasionally we have an issue when good discussions get derailed.
Post a Comment