I fully believe that a lively and diverse community of commenters makes a news site and/or blog a much richer and more valuable place for all concerned.
But I have reluctantly come to the conclusion during these last vexing weeks that a system of comment moderation—and a set of rules—is necessary for such a community to germinate, grow and thrive.
At times in the past we have had such a community here—as was evidenced most dramatically by the months of concern about and engagement with the plight of fellow commenter Richard Lo Cicero.
Of late, however, the comment threads have devolved into something far less productive.
Hence the following 10 RULES FOR COMMENTING AT WITNESS LA
Rule #1: Be civil to and respectful of other commenters. No ad hominem attacks. Discuss or argue issues, do not attack people.
Rule #2: When in doubt, use the Living Room Rule.
If you come into the house—AKA WitnessLA— and behave rudely to a guest at the nice party in the living room, I will ask you to stop. If you continue, you’ll be escorted to the door, and I will tell the big, bad, heavily armed bouncer not to let you back in. Basically, the living room rule means that you should behave as if you’re an invited guest at a lively salon in my living room. Don’t monopolize the conversation. Be civil. Don’t attack people personally. This is a dinner party. Don’t throw the food.
And just to be clear, if someone attacks you, you don’t have permission to start throwing crockery back. Ignore them. I’ll deal with them—either sooner or later. Send me an email, if you like. If you both trash the living room, I won’t care who started it. Both of you will get tossed.
Rule #3: Racist, sexist, homophobic or generally hate filled comments have no place here.
Ditto hateful or slanderous generalizations about one cultural group, religion, nationality, or occupation.
“It was only a joke,” and “You have no sense of humor,” doesn’t excuse hateful comments. If you were genuinely misinterpreted, a quick, sincere apology may set things right. A rationalization or shouts of PC Police! will not.
Demonization of any kind is what this site stands against.
Rule #4: Don’t attack the host.
Disagree with me all you want. But attack me—or any of the other regular bloggers and reporters that WLA will be adding— and you’re gone. No warnings.
Be smart. This is my house.
Rule #5: Be yourself. Don’t impersonate other commenters.
Rule # 6: Stay on topic, at least within reason. And don’t over post.
If you somehow manage to turn every topic into an opportunity to deliver version #479 of your favorite rant, expect not to be here very long.
By the same token, if you are posting five times as much as everyone else, you have likely just morphed into the loudmouth bore in the room highjacking the conversation. Dial it back.
Rule #7: Don’t whine about Rules 1-6.
Comment control is not “censorship.” As Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune put it, shooing someone from the room is not the same as trying to silence him or her. Don’t like the rules here? No problem. I wish you godspeed as you take yourself and your comments elsewhere.
Rule # 8: If you break any of the rules, I will likely (operative word: likely) give you a warning—and/or delete your comment. If you persist, I’ll ban you from the site.
This doesn’t mean I don’t like you. It simply means I’ve determined that—for whatever reason— you are not willing to be part of a lively, thoughtful, decorous discussion in which all members treat the others—even those with whom they passionately disagree—as they would wish to be treated.
Rule # 9: Enforcement of the rules will be subjective.
If I’ve had enough sleep, I will likely be more be tolerant. If I’m over-tired and you piss me off, tolerance vaporizes without warning.
Rule #10: In summation, to paraphrase what The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates said in his own list of commenting rules: Don’t be a jerk and we’ll be fine.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
It’s going to get mighty boring around here. When Celeste makes a politically-correct post, you better agree with it, even if you know that the truth might cause someone to claim offense, which some are quick to do.
Hey! Have you heard this joke?! …Never mind. I better not.
Nice picture. Roses for some, thorns for others.
Rule #5: Be yourself. Don’t impersonate other commenters.
***********************
Can I make many new different namesm that’s lots of fun?
While not explicitly stated, has trolling been banned?
Alex, trolling is variously defined. That’s why I made the rules very specific. Rules #1,2, 6,7 and 10 pretty much address the tolling issue.
WTF, Good point. If that becomes a problem again, I’ll deal with it as it comes up. I consider it covered by rule 10.
Put it this way: if people insist on being disruptive, for disruption’s sake—which that shape shifting routine tends to be—then they aren’t going to last.
First comment of the day, Woody attacks Celeste. We’ll see if he gets banned and this thing really has any teeth. I doubt it.
Be careful, Wally. Celeste will ban you if you talk about Woody. I sense some Carville/Maitlin action going on baby….YEAH!!!! wHOOOOOOOO HOOOOO! Ha ha ha.
(was that ok?)
Can I talk shit about Mexico all day, even if it’s not even close to being on topic? I hate Mexicans.
Woody, I admire roses. They’re wonderfully decorative, forgiving to the gardener who makes any kind of good faith effort, but possessed of big ass thorns so one is unwise to mess with them. My kind of flower.
Also, civility and political correctness are not one in the same.
If you’ll notice, the first person banned last week under the new rules (or the pre new rules) was a liberal.
For the answers to any other questions, see Rule # 7.
I can’t count to 7. I just want to know, can I use your blog as a forum to talk shit about Mexicans?
Wally, Horatio, “WTF”, Out of the Hat and Lone Cabron, you’ve used five identities in 24 hours and impersonated a regular commenter and, in general, broken rule #10.
Banning you is a no brainer.
I think we’ve just witnessed commenter’s suicide. To paraphrase: No Comment is usually a safe comment.
“civility and political correctness are not one in the same”
I applaud the new rules. Too bad it had to come to this.
Celeste,
Good for you.
Some people are upset they can no longer come here and throw a fit. I say good riddance. Nice call Celeste.
Celeste: “civility and political correctness are not one in the same”
You’re the one who linked those two words, Celeste — not me. Then, Jeff joined in, as if you made a valid point. But, I agree with you that dicussions should be civil, but I also know that you are a strong advocate for political correctness, which makes discussions uncivil.
Isn’t it true that political correctness allows…no, demands…that its followers act uncivilized themselves and attack and throw false accusations at those who want to discuss issues open and honestly, despite possible unpleasant conclusions? Political correctness demands destruction of any individual who breaks the code. (Example – See William Shockley)
I can be perfectly civil but say someting politically incorrect, and people like you go ballistic. Political correctness stifles discussion rather than enhances it. It prohibits unpopular research. It stifles civil disagreements.
Political correctness insists on excusing problems or bad behavior on OTHER groups or entities that have nothing to do with whatever you’re excusing. In your world, blacks, illegals, women, gays, Indians, welfare moochers, women who put their happiness over the lives of their unborn children, etc. are all victims, and any defense that you make for them, no matter how stupid or radical, is noble.
And, everyone has to be equal with equal results rather than equal opportunity. Yours is a make-believe world. (Note: Taxpayers are never victims but are greedy for not giving more for your causes, and big government is always a solution.)
To suggest that segments of society or individuals got themselves into their own plights because of bad decisions, such as drugs, or an inferior culture, such as fathers abandoning kids, or that their actions offends one’s moral code, such as deviant homosexual behavior, or that, horrors!, genes may be a factor sends you up the wall, even though some of whom you might defend are just plain crazy.
I’m not changing. I’ll state the truth whether it’s acceptable or not, so let me know when you want me to go, and it may be right now, because, to me and especially on important matters, the truth is more important than feelings and refusing to accept realistic solutions.
Now, it’s okay to say that certain pants don’t make a woman look fat when they do, if you want to enjoy the night, but it’s counterproductive to blame society or capitalism or white males for someone being a thief. Sometimes, you have to come to realize that some cultures and some individuals bring problems on themselves. But, you want to defend and excuse everyone, whether they deserve it or not. You’re such a mommy.
BTW, I’m offended by profanity. No one would come into my living room and use foul language. Such language accomplishes nothing and there are acceptable substitute words or phrases that can be used. Foul language indicates an improper upbringing, bad friend associations, or a lack of character…if you don’t mind me expressing my values.
But, don’t worry about that here, or you wouldn’t have any liberal commenters left. Yeah, almost all liberals are pretty much the same to the core, even though you don’t admit it. And, liberals have no sense of humor.
I may have just gotten myself banned on day one.
Well, it’s your site, so enjoy the silence or the phony, surface discussions that result.
Trow hem out by da ears, Celeste
Woody,
I like you a lot and have enjoyed your presence on WitnessLA these past years, although we disagree on so many things. But if your response to the rules I’ve set down is to attack and lecture me then you are simply saying that my rules and requests are of no consequence to you and you won’t abide by them. That’s your privilege. But, unless I hear something very different from you, that means you are off the list for this particular floating cyber party. And please be clear, you have called the play.
Most blogs—liberal or conservative, or neither of the above, simply movie blogs—are finding they have to set down rules to have civil conversations. You and GM have your own rules.
Why in the world you can’t respect mine is beyond me. But if that’s your choice, so be it.
Mrs. Salazar, nice to have you back. But please pick an identity and stick with it. Thank you.
Thanks for laying down the rules Celeste. I look forward to future comments and shared discussions.
sometimes I THINK I understand what certain people are saying, then there are other times when I don’t have a clue. I didn’t know that “liberal vs conservative” … oh I give up!!!
Celeste, your rules tie my hands but give full range for liberals to say pretty much what they want. It doesn’t make for a fair or intellectually honest discussion when I’m not allowed to express myself adequately under your limitations. I don’t fit in well when overly-sensitive and jump-to-wrong-conclusions people are in full control of what may be said.
You can have your rules, and I respect that, but I might as well not comment if my comments have to be so self-censored to avoid a hint of conflict. Basically, you’re telling me not to speak rather than providing a platform where I and others may speak openly. That was your decision.
At G.M.’s site, the rules are basically to conduct yourself in a gentlemanly way, but we don’t censor the intentions of the commenters. That has worked. Your’s goes further than mere civility.
You know, I thought that we were having pretty civil discussions once reg and Rob took off. You’ll notice that most of the bitter fights started and continued with them.
But, in seeking your civility, you failed to notice that you had already achieved your goal and proceeded to chop off the head of your blog to end up with what could likely become either, at best, a sanitized, one-sided comment section or a crude, profanity laden one, which is generally what you get when liberals, like reg, go unchecked.
I’ll monitor your site, but I don’t think that you want me commenting here unless I play nice with bullies and selfish idiots, neither of whom have my respect.
Still, you are my friend and I meant no offense to you personally, although we disagree once more.
Wouldn’t things be nicer if only women listened to men?
Take care.
“Wouldn’t things be nicer if only women listened to men?”
I am reminded of my favorite Dan Hicks song: “How can I miss you when you won’t go away?”
I am reminded of my favorite Dan Hicks song: “How can I miss you when you won’t go away?”
That comment reminds me of another song, by the Notorious Cherry Bombs: ” It’s Hard To Kiss The Lips At Night That Chew Your Ass Out All Day Long”
I am reminded of my favorite Dan Hicks song: “How can I miss you when you won’t go away?”
That comment reminds me of another song, by the Notorious Cherry Bombs: ” It’s Hard To Kiss The Lips At Night That Chew Your Ass Out All Day Long”
sorry about the repeat post
Oh, Woody, come on–don’t be melodramatic. You’re an intelligent and astute commenter, and you bring a valuable point of view when you want to. Just follow Celeste’s rules–you don’t have to like them. You’re a creative guy, and I’m sure you’ll find a way to get your point across within the rules. Up and at ’em!
I’ve got to agree with Tomas, just mix up your pitches anyone can hit a 95mph fastball if that’s all they ever have to worry about seeing.