The Moderation Policy
| April 17th, 2007There’s an interesting discussion of “Alas” comments and moderation in an older post; the current round of discussion begins with comment number 297 by Mandolin. Here’s the complete text of Mandolin’s first comment in that discussion:
I know this has been said before, but I guess I feel the need to add my voice to the din. For whatever reason, Alas, which theoretically has an emphasis on civil discourse, seems to host more vile sentiments than any other blog I read regularly (note: I dropped Hugo from my reading list for similar reasons*).
I like being here, and I like reading the posts, but the way Ann and Pheeno have just been attacked — really, dramatically attacked — is kind of galling.
Why does the emphasis on civil discourse create this feedback loop? Is it because the posters on Pandagon, for instance, are more comfortable mocking the creeps before they get so creepy? Is it just a different bannination policy? Is it an illusion caused by the way comments thread here? Do the comments get as vile in other places, but the reaction of the population is just different, so the scary stuff isn’t as clearly delineated?
If no one else is interested in opening up this can of worms, it’s cool. And I appreciate that Chris has been asked to leave. But, it still happened.
–
(*Leading me to be curious about why it is that the feminist blogs hosted by men have such an infestation, but with a group of 2, it’s hardly a real pattern.)
There’s a lot more discussion there, which I’m not going to attempt to summarize. However, since loading over 300 comments is a pain for some folks, I’m starting this new post for continuing that discussion. (Admittedly, people will have to reload that page initially to read the discussion, but eventually we’ll be able to move the conversation over to this thread).
UPDATED TO ADD:
I do have several ideas of what we can do, some of which contradict each other.
1) Stop having comments on “Alas” at all.
This is actually pretty appealing to me, in some ways; I’d miss some of the discussion, but having comments is also a major pain in the neck. But I don’t think other people would love it. I certainly wouldn’t do this (or any of the other ideas, actually) if Rachel and Maia disagree.
2) Get more folks to moderate.
But they’d have to be folks who “get” the idea of the site, who don’t hate the idea of the site, and they’d have to be willing to volunteer. (Feminists only, natch.)
3) Put a “email the moderators about this comment” link with every comment that appears.
One thing pointed out in the discussion is that people tend to hesitate to report comments they’re concerned with — but in fact, I’d find it very, very useful if people emailed me right away when things go over-the-top. (Maia, Rachel, would you mind receiving such emails?) The problem, of course, is that I’m not online 24/7, and neither is Rachel, or Maia. This is an area in which having more moderators might help some.
4) Add a “progressive anti-racists only” condition to some posts, similar to the “feminists only” rule condition some posts have.
This will definitely happen — we just need to work out the wording. (Just saying “anti-racist posters only” won’t cut it, because everyone considers themselves to be anti-racist.)
5) More “progressive anti-racists only” posts. More “feminists only” posts.
6) Create an “Alas annex,” meant for polite debate between different idealogical views, and outsource most of the non-feminist, non-progressive comments to the annex.
That’s some of what I’ve been thinking. A number of folks suggested various technological solutions, but I’m not sure those solutions are things I’m technically capable of implementing.
I’ll post more later, but right now I’ve got to go get my teeth drilled. :-(
April 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I don’t read a lot of blogs, but I’d agree that the tone of the discussion can get unusually nasty here, with a lot of personal attacks.
I don’t think that personal attacks are ever legitimate in this context. One may disagree with any statement without calling the good character of the other poster into question. It is especially important to remember that most of us have never met in real life, and that the person you are lambasting may be a perfectly delightful human being with whom you simply happen to disagree on some point.
As to why discussion here tends to degenerate, I have very few ideas. I do visit several very pleasant blogs where this kind of thing seldom happens. In all those cases, so far as I can tell, the moderator ruthlessly deletes any and all messages which contain personal attacks, and there is also a sort of three-strikes philosophy that if you are a repeat offender you get banned. After a very short time of this, bad actors get bored or get banned, and the rest of us can disagree in a civil fashion. (This is, of course, a lot of work for someone.)
It would be ideal if we as posters could police ourselves and our own comments, and not require Mommy (or Daddy, as the case may be) to come in a discipline us from Above, but I’m not sure how to produce that situation.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
#3 is used to great effect on Free Republic. Each post there is labelled with a few options, one of which is “Report Abuse”. Clicking there gives you a comment box. Filling that in and closing it alerts the moderators immediately.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
What’s the difference between “anti-racist” and “progressive anti-racist”, and why would you need to make the distinction?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
One last thing (sorry about the multiple posts); I think that the number of posts on here that strike me as abusive are not particularly high. I don’t see the need for extraordinary action. Of course, it’s Amp’s standards that matter, not mine - just my 2 cents worth. Me, I’d let a couple get though. That way, you know who the a$$holes are, instead of just banning them immediately.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
hmm. It seems like the the wording on the anti-racist thing needs to be worked out considerably. or a definition. I cant see anyway aroudn it:
“anti-racist posters only”*
*for the purposes of this blog, anti-racist posters are those who recognize and oppose both structural racism and white supremacy which are among the central organizing elements of the social world today.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
of course the group of intellectuals around Race Traitor mag of the 1990’s used the term “abolitionist” as opposed to anti-racist to make this distinction, both as a way of drawing on the legacy of radical abolitionists during slavery, and to put the “abolition” of whiteness front and center in thier political self-definition.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Bean, I read the discussion, and the arguments being made. I agree that my proposals aren’t responsive to your arguments, but I think they are responsive to what some other folks have said.
And I’m also discussing proposed changes that Rachel and I have been discussing in email.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Well, I don’t have any answers, but I too would hate to see the comments go away. Put me down as one more person who’s learned something about feminism here — although I’d also agree with others that that’s less true since the site was sold and a lot of feminists left. While I disagree with some feminist ideology, having many fewer feminist voices in the comments has narrowed the discussion and skewed it the other way, and that’s too bad. It’s also made some of the really creepy stuff seem closer to the mainstream.
Some time ago I was the target of some of that really creepy stuff. The discussion had nothing to do with racism and only indirectly to do with sexism, but I found it quite hurtful and I took a hiatus from “Alas” for a while (even though the commenter in question was banned). My choice, and I’m not saying that I or anyone else should expect to be “protected” or “safe,” just that I know how it feels.
I rather like Maia’s moderation style, although I was somewhat taken aback by it at first: she will say (both on a post itself and in comments) “I don’t want to hear/I’ve heard enough about x” and drag a discussion back on topic or away from potential vitriol by the scruff of its neck. As others have noted, that of course requires pretty close monitoring of threads. It does let me know where I stand, though, and helps me decide if I am feminist enough for a given thread. (Many feminists would not consider me feminist enough, or possibly at all, on certain topics, so I self-moderate.) It might — or might not — be helpful to take this approach in defining in some detail what is meant by anti-racist. I know we shouldn’t need to, but that’s true of a lot of things.
I’ve also seen Amp say in a thread, “N, you’re on thin ice wrt your remarks on xyz, back off,” but not as much lately.
I like the idea of reporting abuse, and I like the idea of multiple moderators. I’d have to think about the idea of having everyone rate comments: it could work very well or it could turn into a game of “The Weakest Link.”
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I’d stop reading if there were no comments; it’s the discussions that are interesting.
But sometimes blogs have a life span. Perhaps this one is winding down. It’s a tremendous amount of work to keep a blog going properly, and often sooner or later the people involved get tired of it or find something more pressing to do with their lives.
The two long-running still-vital blogs I can think of are both by writers, one a book writer, the other a newspaper columnist. These two blogs are intended to sell books and newspapers, at least indirectly, and to further the careers of the blog owners. If this works (and I have no idea whether it does or not) that would keep the blog going, I’d think.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“The two long-running still-vital blogs I can think of are both by writers, one a book writer”
Scalzi?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Pandagon is cleaned up weirdly because we get more hostile commenters. Which is to say that a lot of the people who can maintain a veneer of politeness on white male-owned bloges absolutely lose their shit on Pandagon, because they simply cannot find reserves in themselves to refrain from acting like utter fuckards to me, my commenters and Pam (who gets more abuse that gets deleted, I swear).
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Oh, so that means they get banned quickly. They just can’t skirt so easily on the edges of acceptibility.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I read Bean as saying that the comments here weren’t responsive to the other discussion. For instance, Susan saying, “The key is to reemphasize civility again,” makes it appear, to me, that she didn’t see the other discussion (though she might just disagree with it).
FWIW, your suggestions do resonate with the concerns I had, Amp.
Like others, I’d find it sad for comments to go.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I think you should get rid of the comment policy completely and do something like Bitch Ph.D–just say “my blog, my rules and whoever doesn’t like it will deleted at will.” I think it keeps people on her blog from getting too rowdy too quicky.
Overly elaborate moderation policies are a ton of work ( from what I hear) and it might end up being more trouble than it’s worth.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Hear, hear! Consider this a second vote for the marketplace of not pissing Amp, Maia or Rachel off enough to get deleted. (Although, I have no objection to the existing system. As a traditionalist, it is sufficiently non-evil to command my support by virtue of already existing.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Robert
Or Charles, musn’t forget Charles.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hear, hear! Consider this a second vote for the marketplace of not pissing Amp, Maia or Rachel off enough to get deleted.
That’s rather suspect coming from someone who, like me, will never be banned.
I see the problem more as a paucity of articulate feminist commenters compared to the number that used to comment here. As Lu says, the comment threads have been skewed to the anti-feminist and regressive side due to that loss.
Will more feminists start commenting here? I dunno. If not, it’s a shame. The education and direction provided here was much, much better than I have seen anywhere else. It would be, I think, a tremendous loss. There was a certain synergy between the posts and the commentary that may very well not be able to be duplicated anywhere else.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I rather like #6, and suspect that it would result in a higher quality of comment in both spaces.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Amp, didn’t you actually try a form of #6 by cross-posting on Creative Destruction? I don’t know that it helped that much.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I don’t know if it’s possible with the current software you’re using or not, but maybe you could keep the comments with a reduced workload by the following:
1) Have a list of people whose comments automatically go through all the time because their comments are always on point and add value to the discussion and you don’t usually have to monitor them; and
2) Everybody else goes into a moderation queue.
Or maybe you could have a second layer where the moderation queue depends on topic.
I appreciate the comments on this site very much - I have learned a lot about all kinds of things here, not just about different brands of feminist thought.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[…] going on at Alas, a Blog.The meat, so far, is in the older thread (linked at the top of ‘the moderation policy’ by a jump that will bring you to the most relevant/recent parts of the discussion).Interesting questions and discussion about how to moderate pro-feminist discussion.As I said there: I read and appreciate Alas primarily because I’m interested in seeing what’s going on in ally discourse. (Ampersand, the blog owner, is a man, and many of the commenters are pro-feminist men.) Being a believer that women changing their behavior is irrelevant to ending sexism, violence against women by men, etc., I’m damned invested in what men have to say about misogyny.And what’s put me off the most in Alas comments has actually come from women/theoretical allies, rather than the predictable shrieking of antifeminist trolls.Interesting stuff. If you’re an Alas reader, go add your two cents, for sure - and even if you’re not, the larger questions about civil discourse are useful. […]
This comment was written by theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“As for some sort of resolution, I don’t see one. Not one that Amp, Rachel, or Maia would probably agree to.”
FWIW, I offered to help moderate, though there are plenty of good reasons why Amp might not take me up on it, even if he does decide to go with the “more feminist moderators” plan.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
In the other thread, there’s been some confusion about exactly how long “Alas” has existed.
I started blogging around June or July of 2002, in a hand-coded page that was originally intended to present my then-weekly political cartoon. I first started using conventional blogging software sometime in August of 2002. (Or that’s the best I can reconstruct it, anyhow; I’ve got a terrible memory, and it’s been a long time.) So the blog is approximately four years and ten months old if you count from when I started blogging, or four years and 8 months old if you count from the when I started using blogging software and calling it “Alas, a blog.”
In the other thread, Bean wrote:
Those posts were written for “Alas” in August of 2002, and then somehow got misdated as April of 2002. I’ve just this moment fixed their dates.
There are also a couple of blogger biographies falsely dates in 2000. I forget now why I did those that way, but as Bean points out, the dating is false.
Most of the early “Alas” posts, and virtually all of the reader comments for the first two years or so (iirc), were lost in various moves from server to server, and from software to software. A bunch of the early posts have been restored by me “by hand,” but there are too many to restore them all, and restoring the comments would be overwhelmingly difficult.
(I have much more of an idea of what I’m doing now, so it’s unlikely that anther huge data-loss like that will ever occur.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
So basically Bean was right. She’s right too about the way people lose track of webtime. For instance, I could have sworn that I had been reading Robert’s comments since I was about twelve years old, but - as Bean pointed out - his presence on Alas doesn’t seem to predate early 2005.
Blog comments are like dreams, aren’t they? You can have the most vivid recollection of one without being able to locate it in time.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Well, in fairness to you Tom, I have been beaming my commentary directly into your sleeping mind ever since you were born. But don’t make a big fuss about it, or everyone will want the feed.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
If we decide to go with the “more feminist moderators” plan, I’ll definitely invite you to be one of the moderators, and I appreciate your volunteering. But I’ll definitely need input from Rachel and Maia before making that decision.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Oh, sure. Didn’t mean to come off as impatient, just responding to Bean.
[Edited by Amp to re-anonymize Mandolin. And don’t worry, you didn’t come off as impatient. :-) ]
This comment was written by Mandolin.[Edited a second time by Charles, ’cause I’ve never seen Mandolin put in a web link, and it isn’t pseudonymous either]
[Thanks, Charles! Sorry I missed that. –Amp]
Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
*cough*
That was me. Anonymity resumed. If any mods want to fix my slip up, I would appreciate it. (It’s not a big deal; I just like to keep a mild separation between “professional life’ and “commenting on feminist blogs.”)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Making Light has been talking about moderation lately, quite fruitfully:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008856.html#008856
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I have definitely changed my opinions as a result of reading Alas. The hard-core misogynists and quasi-trolls are not likely to change their opinions, but seeing people destroy their arguments politely but effectively has shown me that such arguments are worthless or coded misogyny, whereas had I not read Alas, I might have taken such arguments seriously.
However, one view I have not altered is on civility; I am still not at all convinced that civility is bad for women or bad for feminism. That’s a big part of the reason why I generally lurk here. It’s hard to contribute to a discussion if my views on the meta-issues of how a good discussion should happen put me into conflict with most participants.
Also, I suspect it’s not worthwhile for most feminists to bother convincing me of anything. Compared to many of the commenters here, I probably look like an anti-feminist who has become slightly less anti-feminist, thanks to Alas. Why bother arguing with hateful trolls for the sake of someone who isn’t among the Saved anyway?
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 12:46 am
[Thanks for the moderation help, Amp and Charles. :)]
Individ-ewe-al:
“Why bother arguing with hateful trolls for the sake of someone who isn’t among the Saved anyway?”
Do you characterize that as civil?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Yeah, the whole “Saved” comment was….I don’t even know how to put it. Typical of the low-level yet constant baiting that I was talking about on the other thread.
The implication behind it being that we feminists never have to deal with “the outside/real” world. As if we didn’t have to listen to viewpoints violently opposed to our own and deal with face-to-face sexism and misogyny on a daily basis. Complete nonsense.
I can’t help but believe that if I went to a conservative or white supremacist blog and parked myself there for a few years, commenting constantly, people–even those people who share my worldview–would wonder what the hell was wrong with me. *I* would begin to wonder what the hell was wrong with me.
Though of course the above scenario would likely never occur because my ass would get banned from any right-wing blog in pretty short order, and I wouldn’t be allowed to perpetually derail threads and bait right-wing posters.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Mandolin, I described trolls as hateful, but observe that I did not call any individual poster hateful. I assume that feminists hate trolls even more than I do!
Crys, I know that you have to deal with anti-feminists and sexists in daily life. I think part of the reason that this discussion about moderation is getting bogged down is because some contributors think that Alas should be a place where feminists can discuss things with like-minded people, and others think Alas should be a place where feminists can convince fence-sitters like me to commit to their side. I agree entirely that feminists need feminist-only spaces, and I certainly did not mean to imply that wanting such spaces means that feminists are unable to cope with opposing viewpoints. The debate here is whether Alas should be such a space.
Some feminists were arguing that nobody would ever change their mind because of the arguments on Alas. If that’s the case, there is no point in feminists going to all the grief of having the arguments; Alas should just be explicitly feminist-only and that should be strictly enforced. I was presenting myself as a counter-example: yes, I have changed my mind about feminist issues, and changed in a more feminist direction, because of Alas. However, I acknowledge that that’s a weak counter-example; feminists have expended a lot of effort and dealt with a lot of vicious attacks, but I have not changed to the extent of becoming a committed, activist feminist myself. I would understand perfectly if feminists felt the payoff wasn’t justified.
Does that make more sense? It wasn’t intended as baiting, I was just trying to express that I don’t expect feminists to fall over themselves to change my mind at any cost. Not that I think feminists are lazy and stupid because they can’t be bothered to argue with me.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Individ-ewe-al, I think it was probably the “Saved” that bothered people. It struck a sour note (even with me, and I’m by no means a dyed-in-the-wool feminist) because it implied that feminists are holier-than-thou, self-righteous, my-way-or-the-highway true believers eager to jump on anyone who deviates one micron from orthodoxy. (I base this description on my acquaintance with far-right Christian blogs.)
My experience here has been that (with very rare exceptions) that’s not the case. I’ve certainly learned a lot more here than I ever could on any of those far-right blogs. I’ve found feminists to be occasionally impatient and irritable — news flash! feminists are human beings! — especially when beset by trolls. And, after explaining (again) in the Duke thread how the deck is still stacked against a woman who wants to report a rape, never mind seeing the ugliness that went on there, I frankly understand those feelings.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Is the goal to change people, or to change them so that they reach a certain level?
Anecdotally: Irrespective of where folks might classify me on the various political measures, it is 100% clear to me that my perspective has changed quite a bit over the last year or so. And I credit much of that to Alas (the primary blog on which I participate) as well as some other blogs.
In other words: while I clearly haven’t reached a level of feminism that Q Grrrl, say, would classify as “fully feminist”, nor a level of race awareness that Rachel, say, would classify as “fully anti-racist,” the reality is that both those posters have affected my bottom line quite a bit–disagreements notwithstanding. And of course those are only two posters of many.
So, does Alas want to view that change and similar changes as successes or as failures? It seems like a fairly high bar to only look at whether the people change into a given category or not. Social change is a gradual process. I think this has been a very successful blog in that respect.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:03 am
To be blunt, in order for it to be a success, the changes need to be more than private, personal realizations. When those men on this blog, such as yourself or Individ-eww-al, start challenging other men on their misogyny or sexism, then I will consider it a success.
Moderation in the form of top-down control of trolls is limited in its functionality. A larger pool of men who will challenge trolls or MRA’s on their assumptions will be more effective.
As long as the “converted” stay silent in the pews, your change is mostly a selfish exploration of personal beliefs. Put your money where your mouth is and start politically supporting women and feminism.
edited by bean to correct blockquote, cuz it was driving me a little crazy.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Individ-ewe-al: I take your point, but I’d like to make a clarification, at least for my own personal position (and please note that the “you” I use later on is a general “you,” not you specifically). I’m not saying that there is no chance of ever changing anyone’s mind here, but that there are a number of people who’ve been here for a good long time, commenting regularly, who show no signs of really engaging with debate, let alone change. And I have to wonder what the attraction is of coming to a place day after day, month after month, year after year, where you are opposed to the basic principles and know (because it’s been stated repeatedly by a number of people) that your presence is disruptive and inhibiting to others.
I don’t know how to illustrate it any better than I did in my previous message. Yes, we’ve all been guilty of the drive-by where you go to the blog of someone whose views are repugnant to you and leave a comment, or maybe even a few comments over a short period. And yes, we’re all guilty of all of that sadistic pleasure when we see how our words have made the regulars jump up and down. But after that short period of time is up, we go away, usually feeling a bit dirty.
But there are a whole handful of guys here (maybe a few women, but mostly they are men) who have been doing this NON-STOP for months or years. That to me is not only off-putting, as their continued tolerated presence here makes it seem as if this is a blog for right-wingers to comment on left-wing ideas while left-wingers are less and less welcome, but it is also disturbing.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Lu, thanks for explaining that. I was using “among the Saved” as a short-hand for the group of people who are accepted as feminists by most here, the people that feminists would feel comfortable having a friendly debate with and devoting their feminist engeries to. I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about the constant demarcation of the in-group; often, instead of opinions being addressed directly, posters are classed as feminist or anti-feminist and judged accordingly. And it’s likely that that bias prompted me to choose a more negative term than I might have done. I apologize if the analogy to a certain type of Christian attitude caused offence.
Q Grrl, I think we agree. I am in fact female, but I don’t think that matters; I don’t expect you to care what my personal political views are, unless I do something active to fight misogyny and sexism. That’s what I meant by saying that it probably isn’t worthwhile for feminists to try to change my mind. I think I do challenge sexism (as I see it) in my speech and blogging, and make political choices which I think will benefit women. But I don’t align myself with the feminist movement, and I often disagree with feminist opinions expressed here. I don’t bother arguing with them very often, because I don’t want to be intruding on a feminist discussion. I just read and learn and come to my own conclusions.
Perhaps that para will clarify for you, crys, why I read Alas at all. I don’t consider myself opposed to feminism. I have been called an anti-feminist for what I thought was honest disagreement about what is most beneficial to women. I get a lot from Alas, and part of that benefit is from seeing the response to the persistent anti-feminist noise here. I don’t know why people insist on making the same stupid noises over and over again for years. I am trying to avoid being part of that noise by lurking unless I have something directly relevant to say.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Yeah, this would greatly help. And I agree with some of what bean said about coming here to read what anti-feminists feel about feminism(and race apologists feel about racism). There’s still a lot of good comments and commenters but a dearth at times of the feminist commenters who used to be here. That’s one reason why I mostly lurk, but I’ve been busy too so.
The articles and topics are good. And I like the discussions except when there’s a dynamic that feels like anti-feminists say something, feminists disagree sometimes vigorously and then get scolded for not being civil. Or how many of the threads on feminist issues and racism issues become threads that are about, “what about men?” or “What about Whites”. There’s enough of that offline and certainly a lot of it online as well, not just here but there’s only a certain amount of hours in the day and a lot of this has to be dealt with offline.
I thought how Ann was treated was horrible.
As far as commenting, I met up with someone in real life who reads my site who said that there’s people who will never change but there’s people who read it and it makes them think and apparently most of the discussion of my blog and its issues occurs off-line from what I’ve heard. So there’s different venues where discussions might take place and not just online in the comments threads. I don’t know if it’s typical.
It’s up to the administrators and moderators to make a decision on what they want to do, though thanks for allowing for feedback.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:08 am
This is a completely unfair description of how I moderate, Radfem. At no time [*] have I ever moderated someone merely for offering a “vigorous” response to anti-feminists. (Unless by “vigorous” you mean a post that essentially says “fuck you, you misogynist shitbag,” in which case I think you and I have different ideas of what vigor is.)
I agree that the treatment of Ann was horrible — which led to several racist and racist-apologist posters being banned from “Alas.” We’re discussing ways that we can make it less likely that such a thing happens again (although the essential problem of my inability to be online 24/7 won’t go away). But can you please point to where I even once told people criticizing Ann’s attackers to be “civil”?
[*] Actually, I can think of one time I did do this — but I was in the wrong, I admitted that, and I apologized. It was caused by my failing to read a comment which set essential context. One time in nearly five years isn’t so awful. It’s certainly not typical.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
As far as what the purpose of “Alas” for me is:
1) I do this as a hobby, because it entertains me, and makes me feel like I’m not the only one in the world who can see that the world sucks.
2) I want to provide useful arguments and data for feminists and progressives who are googling for ammo for debates they’re involved in.
3) I would like to contribute to changing people’s minds. But I think occasions in which anyone’s mind is changed by a single argument or discussion are rare to the point of practically not existing at all. What happens more often, I think, is that people’s minds are changed (when they’re changed at all) through the cumulative effect of dozens of different arguments, experiences and discussions.
I don’t really expect to persuade Robert, Branden or RonF of very much (although I think it has some impact). But I do think that if I and other posters here do a good job debating them and others, it has an effect on fence-sitters. A small effect — at best, one of dozens of discussions and experiences having a small effect — but still worthwhile.
I don’t find it a bad thing, therefore, that “Alas” often tends to be a “feminism 101″ site. In the other thread, Q Grrl said (paraphrasing) that we shouldn’t have to defend the basic premises of feminism, because by now they should be a given. Yes, they should be. But they aren’t. A lot of anti-feminist views still have credibility in mainstream US political discourse, and must be addressed. We don’t get to decide what is and isn’t part of the mainstream political discourse; just because I think that pro-life views should be marginal views that no one takes seriously, doesn’t mean that they are.
I also think that Robert, Branden and RonF help me by keeping me honest, by forcing me to consider how my views look to someone who doesn’t share my ideology and viewpoint. I realize that many of the other folks here don’t find that valuable, but that it’s valuable to me is enough. It also helps to keep me from completely dehumanizing people who disagree with me. When I deal with people more abstractly — reading what Bush has done, reading the National Review, reading anti-feminist books, etc. — I tend to get consumed with rage at them, and to think of them as simply evil. Dealing with people in a responsive way, in a forum in which I have to address people directly — helps me to think of my opposition as people.
Again, I’m not saying that anyone but me needs this. I’m just talking about what having conservatives here does for me.
Of course, I realize that other people have other reasons for wanting to read or post to “Alas,” and that’s fine. I’m just speaking for myself.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:23 am
True, but are we addressing them or are we endlessly chasing our tails?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Q Grrl, I don’t know. The only way to answer that question would be to jump forward 40 years and see how the culture has progressed (or regressed).
Probably we’re doing both. Probably some of the debates we’re in are pointless tail-chasing exercises, because cultural momentum or whatever has already decided what’s going to happen, and resistance is futile. And probably some others are ones where, if enough people speak out in whatever forums they use (water cooler chats, blogs, family dinners, whatever), the momentum could be positive.
But I think most successful arguments are repeated ten thousand times over in order to have impact. I mean, how many times do you suppose the emancipationists made their arguments? It was literally generations of repeating the same damn arguments before women were able to take the vote.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
crys t:
I don’t know much about conservative blogs, but I do read many libertarian blogs, and only on one (a very obscure one) have I ever known anyone to get banned simply for expressing dissenting opinions. Banning tends to be much rarer than it is here and at the other major feminist blogs, and it’s generally reserved for flat-out nastiness. A left-wing analogue of Michael or Tangoman would probably not be banned at your typical libertarian blog. Tuomas, maybe.
It’s generally just accepted that there will be leftists among the commenters, even among the regular commenters, and nobody really thinks that there’s anything strange about it. Disagreement is more interesting than agreement. Actually, we’d like to have more intelligent, left-wing commenters at Catallarchy. Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
Also, for those who are wondering, I come here because Ampersand’s the best left-wing political writer I know of. Then I stay to comment because I feel a strong compulsion to correct things which I think are wrong. And because disagreement is more interesting than agreement.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
All this goes to the question, “What is the purpose of this blog?”
Some blogs, as noted above, are thinly disguised self-advertisements or advertisements of one’s product. (This usually by professional writers.) Some intend some sort of social or political change. Some seem to be merely places for people to blow off steam.
The “purpose” for which this blog is maintained in existence can only be determined by Ampersand (and perhaps his small group of co-moderators). We out here can make suggestions, but theirs is the final decision.
Then, there’s the question,”why am I [are you] here?” I don’t know about any of you, but I’m here to learn, not just from reading what other people say, but from saying a few things myself, being the kind of person who hardly knows what she thinks before she has to articulate it.
For that kind of goal it’s most useful to find a place where you agree somewhat maybe with the people there. If you right off the bat agree with everyone on everything you’re just going into an orgy of mutual stroking, which is OK but not too educational. On the other hand, if you violently disagree with the whole premise of the place, you’re going to just scream at everyone and/or everyone will scream at you, and you’ll be banned, as crys t points out.
Alas is interesting to me, although feminism/non-feminism isn’t a big issue for me or in my life. I’m a woman; I’ve done my share of butting heads with misogynists; I succeeded in what used to be a male-dominated profession in spite of the best efforts of the latter. So now I mostly just ignore them. The issues that are really important to me are elsewhere.
Still, I’d be sad if Alas went away, or if comments were shut down. The quality of commentary here is unusually high (though I am occasionally bothered by the degree of personal attack). People here, of all views, seem to be intelligent and articulate. I’d personally vote in favor of a bit more civility, but on the whole a positive experience which I would miss.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
What Amp says, in 43, is pretty unassailable, to me - and FWIW, I do find valuable ally discourse here in addition to the troll stuff, which is why I come back.
Whether Alas is a 101 feminism blog or something larger and more complicated doesn’t strike me as the salient question - Alas is Amp’s blog, made for the reasons he states above, providing a discussion forum/community which then takes on a life of its own, which is what we’re talking about here, and which he and Rachel and Maia then have to figure out how to moderate within the reasonable constraints of time and living.
Commenters can play an essential role in moderation without necessarily imposing an easily corruptible flagging/blocking system.
One constructive idea, addressing one thing, anyway:
Over on the other thread (I’ll move the links here in case people want to click), I mentioned the new-ish site Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. It’s a FAQ and 101-level compendium of info created for the express purpose of supplying a place to direct people who have basic (redundant, dismissive, obnoxious, or plain tiresome) arguments, questions, or blind spots about feminism.
It’s a site-in-progress, and will only be as good as we collectively make it, since that, too, is part of its express purpose (Tig Tog, the site’s crafter, asks for links and improvements to each resource category and post).
The post I asked some feminists a question and instead of answering, they sent me here - why? could be a great resource to address some of the recurring problems people have commented on here.
It says, straight up: ‘Don’t waste thread time and be a self-centered creep demanding feminists drop their discussion to take care of your ignorance: educate yourself a bit before declaiming. Here, have some resources.’
A real troll isn’t going to use it, obviously, but a person interested in actually participating in a discussion will, and will come back to the discussion with more of value to say. So it’s a potentially valuable tool for respectfully, usefully re-directing a commenter who’s behind the curve of discussion while keeping the thread on track.
Not only does it save time - ‘Commenter X, please read whatever link before commenting again’ - but the referral resource grows for all bloggers.
Now I feel like I’m making a pitch or something. It does seem a useful tool, to me, though.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“A left-wing analogue of Michael or Tangoman would probably not be banned at your typical libertarian blog.”
Which is what, exactly? I’m serious. What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
Depends on what lines you want to draw the analogy. If you want a direct “holding objectionable views about a group” analogy, the view that white people are naturally oppressive and violent, perhaps? Or the view that men are naturally evil, or whatever.
(I recognize that these aren’t universal themes/beliefs among leftists, just as not every conservative believes what Tangoman believes.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Which is what, exactly? I’m serious. What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
I may be wrong, because I haven’t read every comment Tangoman ever posted here, but that’s not, to the best of my recollection, an accurate summary of the views he expressed.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Hey Robert,
“(I recognize that these aren’t universal themes/beliefs among leftists, just as not every conservative believes what Tangoman believes.) ”
Sure. I’m not sure I really believe the idea that anyone thinks white people are naturally oppressive and violent? At least anyone over 18? But then again, I was rather shocked to find anyone would argue what Tangoman did with an apparently straight face.
I was looking for something where the leftists would be denying the humanity of the rightists. After some thought, I’m wondering if the analog isn’t someone with my perspective on abortion. If people really do think it’s murder, then I’m pretty strikingly scary, so that makes sense to me.
Of course, a pro-choice position is relatively mainstream, where a belief that intelligence is race-based is (I hope, I hope) on the kooky side, so it’s not a direct analogy… but I think I understand better what Brandon Berg meant.
*
FWIW, I’m not actually arguing that you (Robert) and Daran and Brandon Berg should be forced to go away (though I admit I wouldn’t mourn you much, and also that I’m still not sure I get why you hang out, even though you’ve explained. Clearly, were I the moderator, I’d ban you. Just as clearly, Amp doesn’t want to). I’m not arguing that all dissent should be shuffled away, either.
I’m not even really arguing that the civility has to stop — though I’m damn curious about what creates the recursive effect where the civility facilitates Chris being a bastard. I think we’ve heard some ideas about that which are probably a good part of the truth. I wonder if another part of the truth isn’t just that people struggling to be civil trigger something bloodthirsty in people who are like Chris. Each new concession seems to make them bolder. Maybe that’s a worthwhile price of civility, although it sucksuscksuscks that the people who are choosing civility actively (e.g. Amp) aren’t the ones who pay for it in the threads. (I’m aware Amp pays in other ways — moderating isn’t easy, and he sounds very tired.)
I think all the arguments that people have made are really interesting, and really valid, and I think they need to be made as a reality check for all of us. Nevertheless, personally, I’m willing to accept this as a space that’s designed for Amp to pursue his goals, rather than for feminists to pursue a deeper feminist conversation. (Which doesn’t mean I don’t think we should keep pointing that out.)
What I would like, personally, is just a way to keep the Chrises and Michaels at arm’s length rather than close enough to kiss.
I don’t know what that entails. Maybe that means calling everyone on their shit earlier. There seems to have had a much more productive discussion with Individ_ewe_al after it was directly said that “this is an offensive phrase” than might have occurred if her words had fomented unspoken resentment. Some number of people will react as Individ_ewe_al did. For those who go nuts when someone questions their words — well, maybe they’ll go straight to bannable behavior instead of dancing on the edge, as Amanda says her trolls tend to.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“I may be wrong, because I haven’t read every comment Tangoman ever posted here, but that’s not, to the best of my recollection, an accurate summary of the views he expressed.”
He repeated, here and at Happy’s, that he thought they were mentally less able than whites. That’s what I meant; I apologize for my sloppy phrasing.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, I’ve seen feminists checked for not being civil who most certainly have not said anything like the example that you gave.
And there have been different discussions on different threads here on the “civility” issues in terms of how that type of behavior here is defined, who defines it and how women have felt that this is used to limit or restrict their ability to express themselves. Maybe these are discussions you don’t remember because they didn’t have the same impact on you that they did on some of us, including those who no longer post but still lurk? The civility debates and discussions here did have an impact on me. Maybe I’m the only one.
And yes, sometimes it does feel that the anti-feminists get away with making personal attacks against feminists more because they are there to provide the resources in part to “keep me honest” and I’m not saying that to be insulting, because I’ve found myself doing the same thing in different venues online and off with my opposition. I think often there’s an important purpose in doing that and I think that it’s also an attempt to consider perspectives different from your own. But sometimes it does feel that the feminists are held to a higher standard of conduct most often, ironically on “feminist” threads.
You’re right. It’s your blog, it’s your decision. I’m just giving my two cents like everyone else. However you choose to take my input is your decision as well. If you think that what I have said is unfair, then that’s your right too. But honestly? It feels like i’ve broken another civility rule.
That said, I think I’ll lurk on this thread. I hope it and the situation works itself out.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
FWIW, I’m not actually arguing that you (Robert) and Daran and Brandon Berg should be forced to go away (though I admit I wouldn’t mourn you much, and also that I’m still not sure I get why you hang out, even though you’ve explained. Clearly, were I the moderator, I’d ban you.
There’s a market solution. (There’s always a market solution.) Pay Amp to ban me. He’s said he won’t, but perhaps if the price were right he’d change his mind.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
” He’s said he won’t, but perhaps if the price were right he’d change his mind. ”
I *have* grown to enjoy your sense of humor. :-)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
It’s not the case that I moderate feminists more strictly than non-feminists. It is quite the opposite; I routinely ban non-feminists and anti-feminists for things that feminists get away with dozens of times. Look at how far Ginmar had to go before I banned her (and even then, I eventually unbanned her); no anti-feminist would ever get away with that kind of behavior for that long.
So if I even disagree with what you’ve said without moderating you in any way, you imply I’m treating you unfairly and you’re going to withdraw to lurking.
If you “feel like” a civility rule has been applied to you when no such thing has happened — or, rather, when all that’s happened is that I’ve failed to agree to your every word — then maybe that explains how you feel constantly moderated here when in fact I’ve rarely said a word to moderate your posts, ever. (Because I think your posts are virtually all excellent, btw.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Mandolin, do you see these as mutually exclusive possibilities? I realize I haven’t been reading Alas for that long (under a year), but based on that limited exposure, they definitely don’t seem like incompatible goals, to me.
Unless by ‘deeper’ you mean high-level/feminist & ally-only conversations free of redundant or offensive questions/points, or of hate-speech (which doesn’t even exist on the well-established feminist women-run blogs, sad to say).
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Radfem:
Let me add, however, that although I find this conversation really hard to be in (and I virtually always do, contrary to what you think), I also am really concerned by what you’re saying, because the last thing I want is for you to always feel in danger of being moderated here.
Regarding Lee’s suggestion in #22, if I were going to make a list of posters whose posts always automatically go through, because I know there’s virtually no chance I’ll need to moderate, you would obviously go on that list, Radfem. Your posts are always great: You know a lot, you make really great arguments, you’ve obviously got passion for what you write, and you don’t make personal attacks on other posters.
So if you feel like you’re constantly being moderated here, that is a real problem. But I feel like I hardly ever moderate you; on the contrary, when I see you’ve posted, my reaction is “oh, great, a Radfem post!,” not “uh-oh, time to put my moderator hat on.” So that we have such radically different perceptions, and that you feel very constrained by the moderation here, is a very big worry for me.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“Unless by ‘deeper’ you mean high-level/feminist & ally-only conversations free of redundant or offensive questions/points, or of hate-speech (which doesn’t even exist on the well-established feminist women-run blogs, sad to say). ”
I see them as pushing against each other, if not exclusive. Reteaching feminism 101 is tiring; it’s a job. After a certain point, it becomes wearying to the point where it makes me, at least, feel pessimistic about the world. (I have an essay about this coming out in a couple weeks, actually.) And then I have to take a break and let other people do it. In the feminist blogosphere, it’s great, because other people do (which is one reason why I comment here in bursts, and frequently not at all; my energies are direct elsewhere). In my professional life, there are only a few of us who speak, and often when we tire, our silence echoes.
Retreading feminism 101, therefore, drains energy that I could use for other activism — although I gravitate toward teaching, so that doesn’t bother me so much. Further, it drains energy that could be used for deeper discussion, and we’re all familiar with derail where the rehashing of feminism 101 literally replaces the space where that deeper conversation might take place.
More, though, I think there are several feminists involved in this conversation who *do* see them as exclusive, or mostly exclusive, and I think that’s a valid perspective, and one I think has a lot of weight. I understand where you’re coming from too, or I think I do, but I also want to signal to them that I hear what they’re saying, and agree with part of it.
I actually don’t think your position and their positions (as I understand them) are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I’m deluding myselgf, but I feel like I agree with both of you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
and
Yes, me too. I share the frustration. That’s why I appreciate what Tig Tog’s trying to do (comment 43), since it offers a way to refer out the rehashing, or at least some of it, without shutting down commenters who could potentially be allies.
It doesn’t address the trolls, but if widely adopted, it becomes a good tool for saving some time and energy. Also, if people continually fail to ‘please go read x link before commenting again’ it’s a good cue for moderation.
In ordinary reality, I spend a lot of time teaching and writing at the 101 level, so I have plenty of moments of getting irritated by rehashing, and feeling selfish - this is supposed to be where I get to take it to a next level, dammit!
Not that there’s anything wrong with wanting to be able to come to the nets for a deeper level of discussion, there isn’t. It’s one of the glories of blog communities.
But here at Alas, and re: this discussion, I wonder if there isn’t a civil medium to create; one coherent with Amp’s goals and the diverse brilliances and blind spots of the commenters.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
She only comes out at night. Or after my fifth shot of Bushmills’ 16-year-old single malt.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
I used to be a leftist. I suppose I could roleplay it.
No blood for oil, you Halliburton fascists!
Yeah, it’s coming back to me.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Mandolin said:
I’m not sure I really believe the idea that anyone thinks white people are naturally oppressive and violent?
IIRC that’s a central tenet of the Nation of Islam.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Robert, wasn’t that you with us when we made all those crosses out of slats from a snow fence and stacked them up on the steps of 77 Mass. Ave.? I know you couldn’t have been the classic tool (what we called what is now called a ‘geek’) who got pissed off and stomped all over them. Or were you one of the guys running in the crowd with me one of those two times I got gassed by the Cambridge police? I can’t grow the hair back, but I think I could still outrun a Cambridge cop. Yeah, I was the “direct action” type.
Let’s see. “Power to the people!” “Hell, no, we won’t go!” “Gimme an ‘F’! Gimme a ‘U’ …” Hey, I haven’t lost the voice - when I do the announcements at church they make me step away from the microphone. I’ll need all new T-shirts, though - I”m afraid that I can’t fit into a “Large” anymore.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Well…damn. Both of you? Does this mean that I’m going to grow up to be a lefty?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am
You see, Amp? Brandon, RonF and Robert are currently having a big old laugh fest while the rest of us are feeling angry and frustrated. They’re enjoying the fact that they’ve managed to stir up such bad feeling amongst us.
The fact is that Alas has become a comfortable home for anti-feminists and anti-progressives while feeling restrictive and increasingly hostile towards feminists and progressives. How is that a good thing?
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:53 am
fwiw
This comment was written by Joe.Robert does make jokes in arguments but I’ve never gotten the impression that any of them are trying to make people angry take pleasure at upsetting people they’re arguing with. But perceptions a personal thing.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Joe, what you may not know is that Robert and I have a history of conflict here. A small, limited history, but it exists nonetheless.
It’s very telling that most of the people who claim that Robert is just a joking kind of guy who’s really good at heat “just happen” to be men. Of course he treats you all okay–you have penises! The rest of us don’t get even a fraction of the consideration you all do.
I’m beginning to believe that you really just don’t register the nastiness he’s constantly dishing out to the feminist women here.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:48 am
God, what use is “preview comment” if you’re no damn good at spotting the errors???
Men tend to insist that Robert is “good at HEART” of course.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:57 am
[…] Don’t mock the comments you eliminate or whose posts you moderate. This aggravates the commenter and others. Don’t let your commenters mock others either — unless that is your policy. Alas has an interesting thread on this line of thought. […]
This comment was written by Ponderings and Wanderings » Blog Archive » Blog Comment Moderation.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I don’t know whether Robert is “good at heart” or not. I’ve never met the guy. I haven’t been attacked by Robert personally, and while I often disagree with him he often has interesting things to say. I fully realize that while I am a woman, I’m not feminist enough for some people here, so probably my voice doesn’t count. But really, I don’t have a penis.
crys t, do you mean that your history of “conflict” with Robert is on-line, or do you know the man personally? If the latter, your statement implies that you may have some personal issues with him which are part of your judgment of him.
At any rate, we are all here at Ampersand’s sufferance, and Amp hasn’t seen fit to ban Robert or his cohorts (if they are a cohort). I don’t know that we’re here on this thread to discuss the banning of particular individuals.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Robert does make jokes in arguments but I’ve never gotten the impression that any of them are trying to make people angry take pleasure at upsetting people they’re arguing with.
There is little doubt that Robert has tried to make people angry on this blog in the past.
crys t makes an excellent point about the jokes here, though. This is where I think that uncivil civility gets past Amp. I could analogize those jokes to various racist or sexist jokes, but what’s the point? The fact is that they are in no way appropriate in this thread. But if crys t were to respond by writing, “Fuck you. We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do,” she may very well get warned to tone it down. Judging from the past, anyway.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Damn it, did my jokes use up all the electrons again? I hate it when that happens.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I’m with Susan on this one. Robert, RonF and Brandon were indulging in a bit of comic relief that as far as I can see had nothing to do with the rest of us and that we could (and can) feel free to ignore and continue the serious discussion.
You may say that their having, in effect, a private snicker among the three of them was rude — but it was quick, it’s over, and conversations between two or three people happen all the time, both here and elsewhere.
If they (or anyone else) continued the joke at length and well past any remaining humor after others had picked up the thread again and repeatedly interrupted the serious discussion, that imo would be rude and worthy of rebuke.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Hmm.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I really feel that you and other posters are attacking me for hypothetical moderation decisions that I haven’t actually made. It’s unfair, particularly coming from someone like you, who regularly breaks the moderation rules without being criticized by me in any way.
At the point where you’re making up fictional moderation decisions I’ve never made to attack me over,
it’s obvious that you won’t consider giving me or my view any sort of fair hearingit makes me feel like you and other posters aren’t being very fair to me.But let me ask you: Why is it so completely awful for you to be asked to tone it down? Why is it so completely horrible to think that you might give enough of a shit about my preferences to say “We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do. I think that’s totally inappropriate”? Is that SO much harder than typing “fuck you”?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Okay, here’s a point of view from a reader outside of the various histories in play.
Is anyone else getting frustrated with the fact that in this thread, every time a commenter addresses the apparent topic at hand of how to moderate threads effectively and create a more civil discourse on Alas, the discussion veers insta