More than one FrontBurnervian has asked about our policy on moderating comments. So here goes:
We are truly happy you’ve joined us. Over the years, our site and all its blogs have attracted an intelligent — and, we assume, good-looking — group of people who post comments that sometimes make us feel not worthy to be here. These people are funnier and better-informed than we are. They expertly employ quotes from arcane movies. They understand convertible arbitrage. These people keep us honest and entertained. They enrich this online outpost.
Then there are the jerks. We’ve attracted some of those, too. They are not witty. They are not well-informed. We assume they are unattractive. They post mean and/or vulgar comments. They make noise.
Please, don’t be a jerk.
We do not edit comments. But we do delete them. Which comments do we delete? The ones we don’t like. It’s as simple as that. We don’t delete comments just because they disagree with our point of view. Those are fine and, in fact, encouraged. We’re up for a lively debate or even just a snarky shot across the bow. Bring it. But bring it with style. Don’t be mean. Don’t be a boor.
If we do delete one of your comments, please understand that we are not taking away your right to free speech. When we shut down your blog, then you can gripe about free speech. We own this site, and we will do what we can to make sure everything posted here meets our standards.
52 comments
“Please, don’t be a jerk.”.
Well there goes my entire strategery.
What a great movie.
“I was born, a poor black child………….”
At first, they deleted my comments and I said nothing because I had no comment. And then they… nevermind. I got nothin.
Please, don’t be a jerk.
I used to think my grandmother and I were the only ones. But there are other folks — though mostly, they don’t know it or don’t believe it.
So how long you been able to do it?
Into the mud, scum queen. {yeah, different movie. So shoot me}
but a great movie nonetheless with maybe the best character name ever: Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr
I’m a jerk, not at all good looking, and pretty un-interesting. This is D’s playground, for which I am a guest. If I want to run my mouth without moderation, I can start my own blog. I’m sure my dog and chldren will be the most frequent commenters.
I absolutely love when people debate with style over vulgarity. It’s impressive. I watched a man light into a clerk at the tax office for 3 mins straight once… without a single nasty remark. His points were valid at every turn. When he finished dressing her down all the people in line applauded him. His tact was much more memorable than if he’d spewed out a bunch of cuss words.
Now I wanna see you and Shutze get into it!
just for fun…. IJS.
-mikeo
How is a jerk different from an asshole or douchebag or just mildly irritating? I need clearly defined limits!
[deleted for trying to be a bad example]
Two chicks.
One cup?
There are other reasons you delete posts that are not enumerated here. Chief among them: When someone tries to hijack a thread. Prime examples are the Obama/Bush posts that were deleted from yesterday’s discussion about the D layoffs. There’s a time and place people.
I think that falls under being a jerk.
Well, THAT strategy really worked, didn’t it? Yessiree. No non-witty, uniformed jerks above, are there?
Here’s how to accomplish the same aim easily and automatically: No postings without full verifiable names. Period.
The relative anonymity of the internet is a feature, not a bug. Arguments will go overboard sometimes, but for the most part the ability to post anonymously allows for much more candid discussions. And unless internet providers suddenly decide it’s ok to hand over IP information to anybody who wants it, verifying a persons identity is near impossible, as far as i know.
What Bill said except throw in your middle initial.
Harrumph.
I haven’t had a comment deleted yet! (checks mirror) Yep!
I didn’t get a harrumph from that guy.
@ Bill
I respect your desire for verifiable names, but in this era of virtual mob rule and identify theft it can be foolish for some bloggers to post repeatedly under their real names. That is, unless they are ready to take the heat. I know one person who could not, and that person no longer posts here.
Anonymous — of course! — and C-Bad:
Why should I care about anybody’s opinion if they don’t have the courage to stand behind it? I have noticed that the least witty, least informed on this and other blogs are also the least willing to sign names. (Trey’s the exception that proves the rule, but we all know who he is.)
The Letters columns of old fashioned dead-tree media have no trouble at all checking the identity of those whose letters they publish.
Identity thieves? They need a helluva lot more than a name to go on. Otherwise they could just look in the phone book.
There’s only one reason to hide behind a pseudonym or no name at all (i.e., be anonymous). And that’s fear. Come on out from behind those initials or unfunny handle. Tell us what you think, then tell us who you are.
It burns, it bites, it freezes!
Dear Mr. Marvel:
I respectfully disagree with you. An argument should stand or fall (or entertain or not entertain) based on its own merits. More often than not, I witness authorship conferring false value on a piece, whether art or literature.
A more interesting mental exercise is, what would we read and what art would we value if everything were anonymous? I think that FrontBurner provides somewhat of a preview. Much of the stuff on here is juvenile or puerile, or just plain dumb. Some of it, though, is insightful, biting (in the right way), and trenchant. It doesn’t matter to me who wrote it.
The fact that you are (or are not) Bill Marvel doesn’t mean anything to me, except that some of the stuff that appears under your name is average and some is uncommonly good — and nothing would change if you were to post under a different name.
Best,
MC
Marty, I would like to agree that Bill’s comments are often uncommonly good, but I cannot, as it was stated by someone using a pen name and hiding behind anonymity.
Dear Trey:
I don’t hide; I repose.
But is not Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan? Tony Curtis, Tony Curtis? Mark Twain, Mark Twain?
Verily, I am Marty Cortland, through and through.
Marty, you miss my point. Though there is ample, empirical evidence to support your contention that the old geezer makes the occasional uncommonly good comment, by his standard, I can’t accept your statement.
Dearest Trey:
You know me better than that: I never miss a point. (You were kind enough to pile on when I was demonstrating — very civilly, I might add — the absurdity of Mr. Marvel’s position. But thank you. I appreciate the assist.)
Rather, I wanted to make a different point, about identity itself: self-identification and the face that one presents to the world.
Handsomest Marty,
My sincerest apologies if I inadvertently impugned you, your unassailable contentions, your penetrating insight, or your wonderful, touchable hair.
Cheers.
Trey, Marty,
Do I get a say in this?
One problems as well is that there are often more than one Bill Marvel. To ask which is the “real” Bill Marvel is of course only to ask coyly which is the more “important” one–that is, if we are scoring by identity points. If we are scoring by art and argument alone, then, as Mr. Cortland rightly observes, it hardly matters.
But there is a delightfully more interesting aspect to enterprises like D grappling with the brave new world transitioning from the highest barriers to entry of print to the vast internet prairie of entry now stretching to infinity and beyond. All those lush acres, now open to the Sooners for farming and ranching. Yes, check, we want all that virtually no cost, Providential addition to our bottom line. But no Indians. Indians are annoying. And no stampeding buffalo herds. The thought that high school students could be paid in pennies to put up posts that Wick will then have to pay Tim Rogers pricey benefits to take down may give Wick hives. And no rattlesnakes. Or tornadoes.
Only the good values in bounty of the Garden rediscovered, with none of the indigenous annoyances inextricably intertwined ecologically therein. When I wish upon a star, that’s what I always want, too.
And, yes, my name is also Bill Marvel. I don’t know if I’m the “real” one, or the “important” one, but I’m reasonably happy with me just the same.
OK you two, enough of the love fest. A few years back a man who was employed by the company I worked for at the time was fired shortly after a letter he sent to the editor of the DMN was published. His opinion was not appreciated by our employer (something about how Kennedy deserved what he gob because he should have known better than to come to Dallas). Anonymity was not an option, so fear (of getting fired) turned out to be a valid reason for withholding one’s comment. There are plenty of Facebook horror stories which validate the ongoing need to be careful about what one says openly in a public forum. It’s that very care which suppresses the truly free expression of one’s thoughts and makes the world of blogs so inviting to those with unusual opinions. Another reason exists though for staying behind the curtain, and that is the ability to hobnob with the hoy-paloy. If a person with an instantly recognizable name wants to play (Robert Decherd, Laura Miller, Terrell Owens), their participation in the blogosphere would be corrupted. Because of their names, any time they comment they would take over the thread. People would respond to their names more than their ideas. Case in point – look at how people trip all over themselves when Wick posts.
I don’t know which is the more important Bill Marvel. But I think it’s clear at this point which Bill Marvel is the writer.
The writer? But, yes, your suggestions were very well written.
Shouldn’t that be WHO is the more important Bill Marvel? Yes, I think so…but, oh…only if we are talking about subjects, real souls named Bill Marvel. Yes, I think that’s correct. If we’re not, if we’re only talking about objects, real people neither really named Bill Marvel who are only wearing the name Bill Marvel as things, as masks, then I believe “which” is correct.
But doesn’t that tend to delegitimize BOTH Bill Marvels as not being real Bill Marvels, as being instead only impostors falsely wearing the mask thingy “Bill Marvel”? Oh, dear, I’m afraid it does.
Couldn’t we all get back to the subject, here? Which is lobbing a post over the fence, then hiding behind a fake name.
I’m against it. That’s why I always sign the other Bill Marvel’s name.
(By the way. I know who you are. You don’t think that I do. But I do.)
Good, because I haven’t figured it out yet; who am I?????
Marty,
“An argument should stand or fall (or entertain or not entertain) based on its own merits.”
This does not stand up to close examination. Suppose a fellow walks up to you in the street and immediately starts urging a certain course of action: “We need to start painting all fireplugs in peppermint stripes,” for example. His argument has some superficial merit. It makes them more visible to firemen. It’s attractive. It brightens up an otherwise drab neighborhood. Whatever.
But who is this person, and why is he making this argument? Does he own a paint factory? Is he overstocked with white and red paint? Does he work weekends as a kids’ party clown? Are white and red his school colors?
A silly example, perhaps. But the principle applies here. Many of those posters hiding behind pseudonyms or no-names have agendas. Or vested interests. If we knew who they were, we might be better able to frame their arguments. Oh, he’s for that project because he owns a chunk of land and he’s about to make a pile of money.
This is why I singled out Trey. He puts his name behind everything he says. We all know he’s a libertarian. And we can factor in his political leanings, because he doesn’t hide them.
There’s one more reason, harder to grasp in this day and age. Once upon a time people were taught that it’s a matter of honor to stand behind what they said. If they were not willing to stand behind it, they were expected not to say it. How quaint.
Read some of the above posts. Would you want YOUR name attached to them? Does that suggest they might better have gone unposted?
I certainly wouldn’t want my name attached to anything I’d post on the Internet.
Some of these arguments are beginning to explain why, justified or not, older employees are laid off first for fear they will prove irremediably obtuse to the the nature and implications of the newer technologies.
Heck, if everybody signed their real names here, the professional writers who use this as a bulletin board to keep their stylistic abilities constantly pasted up before a potential market might find their names lost in a clutter. Looks to me like the anonymous and pseudonymous riff-raff actually do the pro writers here a favor by eschewing the spotlight in favor of their self-acknowledged betters. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, IJS.
Hey everybody…its the Bill, Trey and Marty Show!
Dear Mr. Marvel:
I’m happy to use your peppermint-striped fire hydrants as an example.
So let’s say that the stranger’s argument is compelling. Let’s assume that he demonstrated, through statistically valid testing that red and white striped hydrants were the most visible and easily-located hydrants, and beat out all other colors combinations and design schemes hands down. Let’s assume that he irrefutably established that an immediate change from yellow hydrants to red and white striped hydrants would save lives.
My position is that evidence and the force of the argument are in and of themselves sufficient to be persuaded — and that the identity of the person proffering the argument is irrelevant.
Your position is that knowing the identity of the stranger is essential because he might have a monopoly on red paint and therefore his motives in making the argument are impure. (And I guess if we were to follow the implicit direction of your argument, we would not switch colors on fire hydrants — and not improve safety — because someone would reap an illegitimate and undeserved benefit.)
I’m sorry, Mr. Marvel, but I continue to disagree. A syllogism is a syllogism, regardless of whether it’s proposed by Socrates or Saddam Hussein. (And the Illiad is the Illiad regardless of whether Homer was a real person or a composite of oral historians.)
Best,
MC
Implicit in Bill’s argument is that, if a post is penned by Bill Marvel, it will be pure and good, untainted by imputed unsavory intent (true). If penned by another, by their names we may impute their implicit agenda (problematic).
@Bill: You seemed to have forgotten the old saying, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” – except in your case it was a butter knife, and Marty brought his bazooka.
Inasmuch as somebody else is blogging over my namne, I’m bowing out. Have at it, folks.
Oh, geez, Bill, don’t be such an old sore head. You need to just do a better job of defending your position. There’s an argument there, but you’ll have to think deeper about what the real issues are. (Hint: you’re attacking it from the wrong direction.)
You people would make the tiny infant jesus cry. Seriously. It all boils down to this: Don’t be a putz on the Internet. Stay on topic, don’t attack other people, and don’t be ridiculously stupid.
I do realize this eliminates 1/4 of the people who comment here, but I hear the DMN takes all comers.
So Troll Doll, who made you the czar of the Internet? “Staying on topic” is the hobgoblin of little minds. So instead of Bush in the White House, we get him here suppressing discussion on FrontBurner? And there’s a difference between attacking people and attacking their stupid statements.
Don’t be a putz. That’s just common sense. And when I say “stay on topic,” I mean don’t go off about Bush being a war criminal on a post about a guy who got to make his first trip to the White House.
Time and place for everything. It’s not the hobgoblin of little minds, it’s the civility and empathy of the wise and big hearted.
I daresay there are plenty of things you can talk about without ad hominem attack. If there’s not, perhaps a trip to your local library is an order.
My name is Bill.
I look forward to meeting most of you.
We all know the Federalist Papers were crap, because they written under pseudonyms.
Complaining about pseudonyms? Newbie.
Dear Mr. Demo:
Exactly. There is a place for personal identification, but it’s not comments on a blog. I’m hoping that Mr. Marvel will examine his assumptions, but I’m also hoping that the Dow won’t go below 6,000 — so maybe I’m not being realistic.