Survey: Would You Like User-Written Blogs on a Subdomain of Patterico.com?
I have been toying with the idea of hosting one or more subdomains on this web site, to provide a forum for a select group of readers to write their own blog posts. These blogs would not appear on the main page, but would appear as a subdomain of the site (e.g. leftfield.patterico.com). But I would link the blogs on the sidebar of the main pages, and would promote certain posts on the main page from time to time.
The idea started as an idea to host a purely left-leaning blog, written by the civil commenters here who tend to lean left. I was considering inviting people like Leviticus, steve, and aphrael to start. Others might be added as they demonstrate their ability to 1) write well and 2) post their thoughts in a civil manner. I thought it might even be fun to invite them to have a weekly post where they hammer my main blog.
I have sent Leviticus an e-mail and he seems interested. I sent steve an e-mail and haven’t heard back. I just sent aphrael an e-mail; he has his own blog and consequently might not be interested, but I hope he is.
Anyone else could volunteer, but you have to be a good writer and civil to qualify.
After I had this idea, I thought: maybe I should have a right-leaning blog for those who lean right. That way, people could post their own thoughts regardless of whether they’re leftists.
Then I thought that maybe I should just have one blog for right and left, because some people might not want to self-declare as a conservative or a liberal.
I’m not sure which way to go. Opinions?
Also, if I do a left-leaning subdomain and a right-leaning subdomain, and/or a subdomain for everyone, I’d like ideas for names.
What do you think?
UPDATE: I’m leaning towards one single subdomain, while allowing posters to categorize their post by selecting a category like “Left-Leaning” or “Right-Leaning” or “Libertarian.” Then I’ll put links in the sidebar to: 1) the entire subdomain; 2) the left-leaning category (for those who want to read only the left-leaning stuff); 3) the right-leaning category (for those who want to read only the right-leaning stuff); and so forth.
Best of both worlds.
So gear your name suggestions towards a universal subdomain.
Patrick,
corwin (a9fda3) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:08 pmIt’s good in that you give us access to your audience and probably ensure greater viewpoints and readership.But remember,other’s comments may be used as “ammo'” against you in cases of controversy
Your idea is certainly noble in intent, so I hate to sound negative . . . but the truth is, I already read enough left-leaning newspaper columns and blogs. Myself, I don’t think I’d bother with any add-ons to Patterico.
James Fulton (00817e) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:23 pmAs you say, it would be weird for you to put up a left leaning blog without allowing your right leaning readers the opportunity to submit their own posts.
And it would be cumbersome to create two different reader blogs to worry about along with your main blog, I would think.
I suggest you set up a single reader sub-blog. Get some of your readers who you think civil and coherent, right and left, to informally commit to a certain number of posts a week so you know every day there should be a few decent posts up. Make it so these posts go up right away.
Also, have a moderation mechanism where all readers could submit a post and, if you or someone to whom you have given the power approves it, it goes up.
The result could be pretty interesting. A daily mix of left and right points from a small group of trusted names, plus some interesting posts that come from less familiar names. Every night, on your main page you could do a short post drawing attention to and linking the three or four posts and discussions you found particularly interesting.
Aplomb (b6fba6) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:31 pmIt would be be a good idea if the author could control-freak the comments to address only the narrowest of content margins.
But then, the author would have Patterico as Chief- Editor; No thanks.
Semanticleo (764c2d) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:41 pmIt would be be a good idea if the author could control-freak the comments to address only the narrowest of content margins.
I don’t understand that sentence.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:45 pmMaybe you could read the 2nd sentence. THAT might enlighten.
Semanticleo (764c2d) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:47 pmI’m not planning to censor the content of the left-leaning posts in any way.
Then again, I wasn’t planning to invite YOU to contribute.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:52 pmNope, cleo. Still gibberish.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:53 pmAnyone who does agree to contribute has to face up to the fact that, by virtue of your 1) being civil and 2) posting on my site, you will be considered a second-class leftist by those who SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!!!1!!
Somehow, I don’t think the people I’m planning to invite would care.
Aplomb, I’d be happy to include you in the group of possible leftist posters if you’re interested.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:55 pmNobody’s giving me names.
For a left-leaner, Leviticus suggested “Left Field.” Since it’s here, we could change it to “Patterico’s Left Field” or something like that. But can’t we do better?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 4:56 pmFor the right-leaning, I would suggest “I’m not Closed minded, you’re just wrong”…
Too long?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:03 pmI vote this is a good idea, esp. if you’re thinking of people like aphrael, Leviticus, steve. Aplomb. Since regular readers stop here anyway, might be nice to have a place to read reasonable liberal opinions in a decent atmosphere. I don’t go to DailyKos, HuffPo etc because the tone of most of the posts I’ve seen (whenever I click over) are terrible, and worse, the comment sections tend to turn into sewers really fast; who needs that.
Comment by Semanticleo — 7/27/2008 @ 4:47 pm
Didn’t get your first sentence either, seriously (that makes at least 3 of us). Pls reword, as I’d like to know what you said. Thanks.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:03 pmAfter reading Miss Cleo’s first sentence several times, I think that means keeping the thread on-topic, not allowing thread-hijacking. But I am not sure.
Paul (2ae585) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:04 pmIt’s a noble idea, but what about allowing selected writers access to your top domain page, a la Michelle Malkin?
4 Borders Pundit (55e9de) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:08 pmFor the right-leaning, I would suggest “I’m not Closed minded, you’re just wrong”…
Too long?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/27/2008 @ 5:03 pm
Or we could tag-team Patterico’s four suggested people, two at a time: “Two Lefts Don’t Make a Right.” 😉
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:09 pmGreat idea. But that will kill the excitement of you know…the excitement.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:15 pmWhat a good idea.
It would be easier to navigate if you have two or three subdomains for left, right and independent but that could also be cumbersome. In addition, people can be liberal on some topics and conservative on others so it may get messy if you try to permanently pidgeon-hole someone.
If you choose multiple subdomains, I like Leviticus’ Leftfield as well as simple names like “On the Left” and “On the Right” or maybe a take-off on the 60 Minutes segment “Point/Counterpoint.” (Anyone else remember James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander?) Another option is to use an LA Times or newspaper term to complement the original theme of this blog.
If you use one subdomain, the authors can still self-identify as left, right, or independent or you could clarify as needed in a comment or introduction. However, I doubt that will be necessary since I think the people you choose to participate will be up-front with their opinions. (I hope I’ll be invited and, if so, I’m conservative.) Either way, I think authors should write a brief introduction to be included or linked with their posts in which they state their political orientation and anything else they want readers to know about them.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:36 pmI would welcome a right leaning secondary blog. Check out jraymondwright.blogspot.com for a few of my recent posts. The one on Obama’s gaffe’s is pretty thorough and although clearly right sided, is based upon actual quotes from the Obamessiah himself – feel free to use it. I understand the desire to have some lefties around too and I think it is a good idea to have opposing points of view. The marketplace of ideas and all that. You could also let people submit potential blog entries to you and if acceptable, post them on your main blog — this would give you maybe 5-8 entries per day instead of only 3-5. Just a thought. I read your blog everyday and my only (small) complaint is I wish that there were more posts!
J Raymond Wright (0440ef) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:41 pmSpeaking of people who can’t be pigeon-holed left or right, what about Libertarians?
Bradley J Fikes (0ea407) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:41 pm“or maybe a take-off on the 60 Minutes segment “Point/Counterpoint.”(Anyone else remember James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander?)”
I do, and I also remember Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin’s hilarious SNL spoof of Point/Counterpoint,
‘Jane, you ignorant slut.’…
Dana (1cc5ab) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:43 pmSemanticleo,
I’m confused, too. My best guess is that you think it’s a bad idea for a liberal author to write a post without the ability to control the comments to that post, e.g., having the ability to delete offensive and profane comments. Perhaps you also worry that Patterico will edit the posts before he lets them be published.
If those were your points, I don’t think you should be concerned. First, I am sure Patterico will maintain the same comments standards for everyone and he may even watch the conservative commenters more carefully because this will be something new and different. Second, I doubt Patterico plans to preview anything authors write. He doesn’t preview what I write nor does he moderate comments. What you write is what you see.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:46 pmAh, yes, Dana, those were the days.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:48 pmBradley,
Good point but it’s going to be hard to find a catchy name that goes with Libertarian.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:49 pmHow about:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:55 pm“Looney-tunes”?
I like the idea of letting the left-side commenters put up their own posts, rather than limiting them to debating in the comments. But, since there are only 4 posters on the main site, that would leave your righty leaning commenters without a similar opportunity. If you open the subdomain up to both lefty and righty, you risk that one side or the other dominate.
The solution might be to have only one subdomain, but restrict it to “administrator approved” posts only. That way you can pick from the best submissions, right and left, and put them up. The one self-imposed limit I would suggest would be a pledge to not edit the posts in any respect — they go up as written or they don’t.
WLS (ab3e74) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:56 pmFor the left-leaning site I recommend the name “Patterico’s Pinkos”. For the right-leaning one, “Patterico’s Right”.
nk (c1e92f) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:58 pmHeh. That’s clearly fair and balanced.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:59 pmIt’s a good idea, but I think you might want to go farther with it. Dividing between left and right has been done – by the two parties in power, the media, and by many of our citizens.
What enticed me to pay more attention to Patterico’s in the first place was the quality of the input of the varied posters and commenters.
This’ll sound stupid, but as I thought about your idea it occurred to me that you were actually doing what BO was talking about doing. Bridging the divide by highlighting thoughtful commenters from all over the political spectrum.
I don’t care if someone wants, say, socialized medicine. I care that they aren’t just repeating Mommy and Daddy’s or their dorm mates’ opinions. What’s important, and I think what’s been forgotten in our current political atmosphere, is the examination of your own position, not just an empty ‘victory’ gained by personal attack and the repetition of meaningless catchphrases. You know who I’m talking about.
Don’t make it too complicated. I already know that Leviticus argues from the left. But I also know that he argues from a place of thought, not just ego. I don’t have a problem with your site as it is, nor would I have a problem if you let Leviticus or other intelligent and thoughtful commenters post here.
I’m not looking to align myself with a movement or enter an echo-chamber. I’m looking to challenge what I believe and refine it further.
That being said, my suggestion would be similar to DRJ’s, but just to open up dual posts on the main page (no subdomains), and then let the comments fall where they will. I don’t know how you’d do this, either with both posters giving their one-off on a chosen subject, or posters choosing to involve a different opinion, or going through a few revisions with each other before posting.
That would be interesting, however, IMO that is a far second to troll patrol.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:09 pmOk, it’s not as good a play on words as “Patterico’s Right” but how about “Patterico’s Left”?*
A Lower Slobovian was driving from Milwaukee to Chicago but he saw a sign that said “Chicago Left” so he turned around and went back home.
nk (c1e92f) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:18 pmFollowing up on Aplomb’s and WLS’s thoughts, if you opt for subdomain(s) where selected authors can post then I think you should link or bump up selected entries to the main site.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:19 pmHEY!
I’ll have you know I tend towards Libertarian…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:24 pmI like the idea of a single sub-domain for varied perspectives. Maybe “Patterico’s Partners” (sue me, I like alliteration). If you open up the main page, that’s seems to be the same as co-bloggers.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:24 pmStashiu,
I think it makes sense to bump guest-bloggers down to the subdomain level, in which case I vote for NK’s suggested title of “Patterico’s Right.”
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:26 pmI’m okay with Left and Right but don’t put me in “Patterico’s Posterior.”
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:28 pmHmmm, that eliminates my name suggestion …
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:29 pmHi DRJ,
I agree with you and the others that bumping worthy posts up to the main page is a good idea. I think that “Patterico’s Right” gives the impression the posts will all be conservative, but that may just be me.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:31 pmI agree, Stashiu. “Patterico’s Right” only works if there’s also a “Patterico’s Left.”
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:36 pmI, selfishly, would rather you devote whatever energy you may have for this enterprise to posting and reacting to comments, Pat. I don’t want you getting bogged down as an administrator and more than is absolutely essential.
Ed (59b337) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:36 pmI vote to maintain the status quo: one blog with an eclectic mix of commenters. Why balkanize it? There’s already too many “destinations” on our daily bookmarks, aren’t there?
gp (ea9df7) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:40 pmI hope I’ll be invited and, if so, I’m conservative.
No way!
DRJ, a conservative?
Say it isn’t so! 🙂
Besides DRJ, why do you need an invite? You already post on the main site!
Paul (2ae585) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:47 pmWhy dont you let both leftist and rightist posts on one blog? Wouldnt that be more fun? It will be nice to see some of the leftist on the majority, pounding away at right commenters like we see on this blog, only that its been the other way round.
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/27/2008 @ 6:59 pmStill a good idea. All in the spirit of “Change” dont you think Patterico? Patterico: Change we can all be part of.
I’ll say that I think it is a poor idea, but not because others might not have interesting things to say. Rather my suggestion would be that instead of separate pages, you invite those you consider civil and intelligent to write posts and then put them on the same page with your posts. As it is, you already have guest bloggers and I see no reason why increasing their number would be detrimental. Make it more like the Volokh Conspiracy than Huffington Post or Daily Kos. I don’t need another site where I have to sort through multiple pages to find what is interesting. I don’t know about others, but I like to go to a site, skim through what is there to see if I notice anything interesting enough to read, and then move on. Putting it on multiple pages slows that down and I soon find myself no longer checking a site that operates in that manner.
I will offer this caveat. If your guest writers start turning out so much material and attracting enough commenters that it swamps your page, then is the time to consider what you suggest. By that time they would also have enough of a following to make it worth their while to continue, but as of now I doubt that they would attract enough attention to make it worth anyone’s effort. Yes, at first I would click over a time or two to check what either group had to say, but unless those times happened to hit posts I found particularly interesting, soon I would stop doing so and that would defeat your whole purpose.
So there you have it, my free advice for the day. Ever remember that free advice is generally worth what you pay for it, not a penny more or penny less.
Fritz (c9a1e9) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:01 pmFritz has a good point. You might consider moderating when the posts go up but not the content, and use the *MORE* code more liberally with the guest posts to avoid excessive length.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:05 pmI like this place as is. You should name the Right side “Racists” and the Left side “not-racist”
JD (5f0e11) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:18 pmI’m not sure if you can do it within the context of WordPress or not, and it would take a significant site redesign, but how about styling it like HotAir where there are a variety of posts up by title on the main page — and the visitors click on what they want to read. You could have a “right” column and a “left” column.
WLS (ab3e74) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:19 pmLOL, JD.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:19 pmI agree that all sub-posts should be on one page, not separate.
aunursa (09c81f) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:25 pmFritz,
I’d rather have people audition at the subdomain for a guest blogger slot, rather than stick them on the main page right away.
It sounds like you wouldn’t access the subdomain much, but I don’t know why that would make you (or anyone like you) come to the main page less often. I would expect the subdomain to get fewer hits, but I think some people would be interested.
I’d rather not accept DRJ for the subdomain because if she blogs, I’d prefer her to do so on the main page. However, if she insisted — saying she won’t blog on the main page, but would on the subdomain, for whatever reason — I suppose it would attract more people to the subdomain.
The idea is pretty much a ripoff of Goldstein’s “Pub” idea, I suppose — except that I’m actively soliciting left-leaning posters. Too bad I can’t call it “Patterico’s Pub.” There’s a limit to how obvious the rip-off can be . . .
See the update, by the way, for how I’m thinking of structuring it at this point.
How about “Patterico’s Posse” at posse.patterico.com? Then you could have “Posse Left” and “Posse Right” and “Libertarian Posse” — arranged according to the category selected by the poster for any given post.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:25 pmWLS, that’s a great idea.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:26 pmRight – Evil capitalistic oppressive racist warmongerers.
Left – People who are pure of heart and motive and only want what is best for everyone.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:27 pmWho wants to sign up?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:28 pmPat, I know Jeff and all I can say is that with Jeff, there is no limit to how obvious a ripoff can be.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:29 pmJD, the Left poops rainbows.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:31 pmPatterico – I would like to volunteer for the racist team 😉
JD (5f0e11) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:33 pmI prefer to have Patterico be all Patterico. Having others on the Patterico dilutes your message. That’s not to have any disrepect for your other contributors, the are all great, but a different flavor.
I preferred Ed Morrisey on Captain’s Quarters. Now he has joined Hot Air and his 2 to 3 messages a day at CQ have become 8 to 12 a day on HA. There isn’t the same depth to his articles and there is a different approach from his co-writer. I prefer straight scotch to half scotch and half bourbon.
I would prefer non-Pattericos to have their ledes posted on you site, but a click away. Your coverage and interpretation is unique. Solo sites are the best if the author can keep up.
Just my thoughts.
Corky Boyd (25d228) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:36 pm“I’m not looking to align myself with a movement or enter an echo-chamber. I’m looking to challenge what I believe and refine it further.“
I nominate Apogee to be a writer posting for any side re any issue. She consistently expresses herself articulately and with great thought given to her words. And I like that she gets it.
Dana (1cc5ab) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:39 pmUnified subdomain?
“The Peanut Gallery”
“Rabble”
“The Bumbling Horde”
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:39 pmThanks Dana #56 – She consistently expresses herself articulately and with great thought given to her words.
Apparently one of my articulations has failed miserably, and that’s the one where I communicate that I’m actually male.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:45 pmAn interesting twist on this idea would be to have some of your conservative posters write up a post on a topic where they take a liberal position, and vice-versa. Most people that I know have at least one or two areas where they stray outside of the typical viewpoint of their professed ideology. It would be interesting to see an aphrael post on the right side someday, or read SPQR arguing a traditionally liberal position.
Maybe you can call the leftys “The Comrades” and the righties “The Militia.”
JVW (6a7c34) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:50 pmACK!! Apologies from a beet red commenter! I must have missed that articulation somewhere down the line…so I assumed you were female probably because I wish there were more female commenters here.
Anyway, I still think he consistently expresses himself articulately and with great thought given to his words!
Dana (1cc5ab) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:52 pm#59 – Most people that I know have at least one or two areas where they stray outside of the typical viewpoint of their professed ideology.
That’s when it gets interesting for me.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:54 pmDana – #60 No problem. With a mother (obviously) and two sisters growing up, the female viewpoint was never far away.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 7:56 pm—-> Unwed Mothers and Knuckle Draggers.
Or an alternate approach: Contact a left blogger and submit dueling paragraphs on a select topic. Call it HuffPat. Let posters respond. Try to wrangle Arianna to stop in for 20- 30 minutes to read and respond to us cretins. Cross-pollinate your audience.
Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:02 pmJVW, any suggestions about a “traditionally liberal” topic that I would actually adopt? I used to be pro-choice, but I think I’ve wandered into the middle of that issue in recent years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:02 pmApogee,
I vote for you to post and even though I felt that way before I read your #58, that was the clincher.
Patterico,
In my earlier comment, my point was that I’m willing to post in any format you choose. Front page, back page, left or right — I don’t care.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:04 pmI would like to revise and extend my prior remarks.
I am a mental midget compared to most around here. If it weren’t for the likes of Levi and the trolls, I would be the dummest hammer in a sack of stoopid hammers. I drop by because there is a collection of sharp, articulate writers here, comments included. I learn here. Any addition to my potential learning should be encouraged.
Racists.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:05 pm#66:
Learnist.
Geminis everywhere (5ccf59) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:13 pmCrap, I forgot to change my name back.
Sorry ’bout dat…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:13 pmWho wants to sign up?
Assuming I’d be invited, I’d like to but don’t have the free time these days. I’ll just have to remain an occasional commenter.
But, just out of curiosity, how often would you have to post?
Psyberian (9f6817) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:27 pmPsy,
You’d be invited. No requirements. Whenever you wanted.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:30 pmThe main idea is that you guys can initiate conversations on topics that interest you — not just topics that interest me.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:30 pmI would like to sign up.
aunursa (09c81f) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:38 pmselecting a category like “Left-Leaning” or “Right-Leaning” or “Libertarian.”
Bah, “leaning”. Okay, have “extremist” categories too then.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:49 pmDRJ #65 –
Patterico willing, I’d love to post, but first a couple of questions:
Do I have to be sober?
Does the post need to be in English?
Does it have to have a point?
Could I pay you to write it for me? – thereby everyone on the blog would think “I always considered that Apogee to be a jackass, but he’s actually quite intelligent”?
You could get it done in the morning, ghost posting during your post toasties.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 8:54 pmPatterico, you are right that it likely would not affect how often I checked your main page. However, I thought the object was to present more viewpoints and although not stated, attract more traffic. If people don’t check the sub-pages, why bother with them?
On the other hand, you have an excellent point with your comment that having them post on separate pages is about seeing how well prospective new posters handle themselves and the reaction of your regular readers to them. However, I would respectively suggest that I think you might do better by asking them to submit posts for your review and the ones you find worthwhile simply post on your main page. That way you could point out why you decided not to use one piece while posting another, something that might be very helpful for someone new to writing posts. There is a big difference between thoughtful comments and writing a main post, and while I can sometimes make thoughtful comments on a post, I hold no illusions that I would be good at blogging myself. Part of that stems from the fact that I frequently take several days to decide how I feel about a given topic and by the time I have reached that decision the subject is no longer news worthy.
I agree totally with Corky Boyd in his comments about Ed Morrissey. Captain’s Quarters was a much better vehicle for him than Hot Air. Having said that, there are a number of sites I enjoy which have multiple posters, so that is more a function of content than anything else.
One of the things I enjoy about your site is that the majority of the posts are thought provoking to me, and for the most part the commenters are also thoughtful. Yes, there are a few who are here simply to try to drag the thread off topic or get out their respective side’s talking points, but you have a nice community here and I respect most of them even when I totally disagree with them.
As I said, free advice. Make of it what you will. If I was as smart as I sometimes like to think I am, I would be rich and off seeing interesting things instead of reading blogs in my free time.
Fritz (c9a1e9) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:06 pmDo I have to be sober?
No.
Does the post need to be in English?
It would help if it mostly were.
Does it have to have a point?
No.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:30 pmaunursa,
That would be great. Does that mean I would get fewer tips from you?
That’s OK. You could post your tips, and I’d hat-tip your post instead of your alias.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:31 pmApogee: I second the thought about comment #58. That was fantastically well done.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:34 pmJVW: isn’t that part of the game in the first place?
I mean … if I want to be successful at persuading someone, I have to do the work to understand where he’s coming from, so that I can find the place where what he wants and what I want are congruous, and show it to him. If I can’t do at least a halfway decent job of that, I’m doomed to fail.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:37 pmPatterico: I responded in email, but on the off-chance you read here before email, I would definitely be interested. 🙂 My main concern is time; between family / work / school, i’m unsure how reliable a poster I would be. (And any posting I did before school started might give rise to a misleading facsimile of reliability. :))
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:39 pmSPQR (#64) — If you don’t have one then you don’t have one. I am not suggesting that you pretend to hold a liberal belief just for argument’s sake. But isn’t there some issue where you are more libertarian or liberal than conservative? My example is that even though I consider myself a conservative, I am against the death penalty.
Aphrael (#79) — I don’t mean that you pretend to hold a conservative position on an issue; as I wrote to SPQR, I am talking about real situations where you agree more with conservatives than with liberals. If you can’t think of any, then no need to force it.
JVW (6a7c34) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:46 pmSo far we have:
Right-leaning volunteers:
Scott Jacobs (by Google chat)
aunursa
Apogee
JD
Left-leaning volunteers:
Psyberian
Aplomb
aphrael
Leviticus
That’s a nice start. Am I missing anyone? (DRJ has to keep posting on the main site; sorry.)
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:50 pmJVW: I wouldn’t pretend to hold a conservative position on an issue I didn’t hold a conservative position on. But as part of the debate between DRJ and levi was *intended* to show, understanding the position of those you are attempting to persuade is to a certain extent a prerequisite to successful persuasion.
I would go so far as to argue that if I can’t make the opposing argument for a position, then I don’t understand it well enough to either persuade someone who holds it, or to find a reasonable compromise between their position and mine. 🙂
———-
On the subject of actual conservative positions I hold, I can think of one quite easily: while I agree with the liberal position that going to Iraq was “the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons”, I also think that, having *gone* to Iraq, we are morally bound to work to ensure the best possible outcome *for Iraq* — pretty much regardless of the cost (in dollars and lives) to us.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:52 pmJVW, hmmm, I’d have to think about it, I’m pretty conservative. I’m just not a religious conservative. As an example, over on my main website, we’ve argued very strongly against the Intelligent Design nonsense.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:54 pmApogee #74:
Here’s my inside advice on blogging: You can blog in your pjs, you get extra points when you throw in foreign phrases, and you don’t have to have a point. However, I strongly recommend that you blog sober or you could have a terrible internet hangover in the morning.
Apogee, aphrael, and others thinking about posting:
Don’t worry about finding time to post. It will either be addictive and you’ll find the time or you will burn out and quit. Or you’ll do both, like me. The good thing about Patterico’s idea is there will always be someone around to pick up the slack and keep it interesting.
JD:
Nice try but we already know you’re smart.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:57 pmPatterico,
That would be great. Does that mean I would get fewer tips from you?
Probably. That’s an added benefit for you — I wouldn’t be filling up your inbox as much.
aunursa (09c81f) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:58 pmPatterico #82 – Yep, count me in, although #83 and #84 are interesting observations re: going against what would be expected, whereby I can see taking quite a different tack regarding some “conservative” and “liberal” positions.
Again, it’s this level of detail that makes your site so interesting. I don’t feel the ‘rank and file’ are so, well, ‘file’. ‘Rank’, maybe, with myself included.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 9:58 pm“There is a big difference between thoughtful comments and writing a main post, and while I can sometimes make thoughtful comments on a post, I hold no illusions that I would be good at blogging myself.”
– Fritz
I have this feeling as well – this doubt about my ability to write a full-length post. I’ve not done anything like it before, so there’s no way for me to know…
That said, I’m willing to give it a shot. I can always resign in shame when things don’t work out.
Leviticus (00a2e5) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:09 pmDRJ #85 – Bon. Michelle, Anne, vous travaille? Non, nous regardons la television. Pourqoi?
Actually, it would also be interesting for me to dual post with someone who has another or opposite opinion on something. (say, JVW’s #81, I’m pro death penalty, but the difference in the arguments could be interesting.)
Taking someone from the “opposite” list, like aphrael, whereby we find a position that we are in disagreement with, but his would be considered conservative and mine liberal. That’s always interesting. Does anyone doubt the possibility that you could find a Michigan UAW Democratic supporter of Obama outside a child molester’s home with a sign that reads “hang the bastard”?
Just thoughts.
Apogee (366e8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:10 pmProbably. That’s an added benefit for you — I wouldn’t be filling up your inbox as much.
No, that’s the bad part. Your tips are great.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:50 pmThe first thing that came to mind was “The Defense Table”, but that doesn’t work for a couple of reasons. “The other end of the table”, “The Far End of the Table,” “The Children’s Table”, “Second Table”, “Objection!”, … what’s the name for the sounding box that the judge bangs with her gavel?
htom (412a17) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:54 pmApogee,
Yes, I think a Point/Counterpoint thing would work well. Short statements of a position followed by give-and-take from both sides. It would be easier for people who aren’t used to blogging but are used to commenting in a thoughtful manner.
Oh, and Merci Beaucoup to you, too.
Leviticus,
I like your comments and I think you will do very well.
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:55 pmif you’re still leaning towards one sub-domain, how about calling it “america.patterico.com” /
/freedom of speech, civil discourse, and all that..
not sure it’ll w*rk, but that’s what they said about the US to begin with. (arguments to be made, even today. %-)
redc1c4 (ae7a64) — 7/27/2008 @ 11:10 pmWell, I often think about starting my own blog, so maybe being on a sub-blog would be a good start. Thank you for the offer Patterico, I’ll take you up on it if you decide that you’re going to do it.
But hey, where’s Peter? What about the commenter Peter? He’s written some great points here lately.
Psyberian (9f6817) — 7/28/2008 @ 4:53 amWhat about me? I can really write. Maybe I would be the Patterico poster on Obama’s every single move and words (Except of course those stupid little gaffes that keep coming up…Damn it!). My aim will be to make all of you to cast away your prejudices, pride, jealousy, bitterness, and may I add, sense of reasoning and fall in love with the One who has come to wipe away all tears and change the world and make it a better place. I will of course try to be as objective and as balanced as possible. Although negative comments that wont help the Obama cause will be censored and disallowed and such commenters banned from this blog. Go on Patterico, give me a chance…;)
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:07 amIf you’re The Pontiff, wouldn’t the lesser lights be The Cardinals?
rhodeymark (6797b5) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:19 amThanks, DRJ. Flattery will get you everywhere with me 😉
JD (75f5c3) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:20 amMy vote is to make the top level all Patterico all the time, and give each guest poster a subdomain of his own, e.g., drj.patterico.com. If too many subdomains is a problem, why not create ONE subdomain for all, with a separate directory for each, e.g., users.patterico.com/drj.
Categories like left/right are a bad idea IMO. Everyone has their leaning but it can change (witness John Cole and the Commisar) and even if they don’t, bloggers blog best when they speak for themselves and not for the team.
Xrlq (0694c5) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:36 amNames for the new thingie?
gp (72be5d) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:47 am“Patterico’s Universal Subdomain.”
“Patterico’s Keep Rockin’.”
“The Unwashed Masses”?
Dunno what you should call the Left-Leaning one though. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:57 amPatterico,
I like your idea. While your opinion and mine seem to track very well, I don’t mind reading a well written contrary opinion. Generally I have problems reading left or liberal material, mostly for poorly thought out and express ideas.
So if I could read a contrary opinion regularly that is well thought out and well written it would be good. But why would you need to label the pieces as one or the other? Are we not savvy enough to figure it out on our own? I would read most of them simply because YOU indicated my time would be well spent.
lapellet
Andy Pellet (858598) — 7/28/2008 @ 7:09 am“Patterico’s Vero Possimus.”
gp (72be5d) — 7/28/2008 @ 7:26 amYou could call the Left sided one “En Vino Veritas”, or more contemporary, “En Baracky Veritas”.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/28/2008 @ 7:30 amHow about The Jury Box?
rhodeymark (e86321) — 7/28/2008 @ 8:01 amHow about The Jury Box?
Comment by rhodeymark — 7/28/2008 @ 8:01 am
Or since it’ll be right and left, “The Jury’s Still Out”..?
Right – Evil capitalistic oppressive racist warmongerers.
Left – People who are pure of heart and motive and only want what is best for everyone.
Comment by JD — 7/27/2008 @ 7:27 pm
“The Bumbling Horde”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/27/2008 @ 7:39 pm
LOL
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 7/28/2008 @ 8:09 amOr since it’ll be right and left, “The Jury’s Still Out
Hung Jury Box? Comments become Deliberations?
rhodeymark (4f2403) — 7/28/2008 @ 8:22 amPat starts wearing a robe? A wig? And what of voire dire?
{thunk}
Yes, I tend to agree. You could, though, have links to each post appear on the main page, so that people could see the subjects and clink through, in addition to clicking just to see what’s up in the subdomain.
Hmm, playing on “Patterico” and the left and right meme…Rico-Lico!
Yeh, I’m groaning at that one myself.
I have one particular subject that I would like to write about occasionally, so I’d love to audition. As long as I don’t have to carry a tune…
MamaAJ (788539) — 7/28/2008 @ 9:41 amLol! That’s rich.
Levi (74ca1f) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:17 am“‘Rico’s Roundup.”
gp (72be5d) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:57 amPatterico, while I may not be convinced that your sub domain idea is a good one, I wish you every success with it. Who knows, I might even avail myself of it if for no other reason than to see how quickly my cherished ideas are shredded and cast upon that great pile of opinions which should never have been expressed. In that sense I agree with Leviticus when he wrote, “I’m willing to give it a shot. I can always resign in shame when things don’t work out.” For what it is worth, I doubt that Leviticus will have to resign in shame.
As for a name, my suggestion would be something on the order of miscellaneous deliberations. Miscellaneous because the readers will have little idea of what to expect or which poster can present a cogent post, and deliberations because the jury will still be deciding on both the posters and your idea. Even if it becomes wildly successful, the miscellaneous part will still be accurate because having more people involved means you will have more interests involved which leads to a broader selection of ideas presented. The deliberation part will always be true because we should always examine new ideas and opinions to see if something new is presented which, after due deliberation, might affect our own ideas. I have read many posts on the net that have caused me to rethink some of my positions, and hopefully that has improved me as an individual.
Fritz (c9a1e9) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:58 amRico’s Roughnecks.
“To the everlasting glory of the Infantry…”
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/28/2008 @ 11:09 am“‘Rico’s Roundtable.”
gp (ea9df7) — 7/28/2008 @ 12:19 pm“Patterings.”
The Robing Room, or, Comments from the Closet.
htom (412a17) — 7/28/2008 @ 4:16 pmWell, we’ve had the neocons on the right. I guess a name for us lefties could be the neocommies. A name like that should keep us from getting too self-righteous.
Psyberian (9f6817) — 7/28/2008 @ 4:57 pmExcept that, NeoCons is a term for those who were on the Left, who discovered the error of their ways, and started to examine politics and history from a Conservative viewpoint.
Your NeoCommies, have been, are, and (unless they get a lobotomy) will always be on the Ubber Left; so, there is no change in viewpoint – except to get more radical, probably.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:26 pmThank God we have the public school system. To this crowd “Neo” means “that kickass dude who played Keanu Reeves”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:32 pmRacist
JD (5f0e11) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:35 pmAnother Drew, regardless of its origin, the word “neocon” is also now an abomination to both those on the left and even many on the right.
Psyberian (9f6817) — 7/29/2008 @ 4:03 amBut the current neocon poster-child, Billy Kristol, wasn’t any turncoat from the left.
I’m sorry, too. Not because I’m sorry to read DRJ’s posts. Quite the contrary, she’s probably the only guest poster here who I consider Patterico’s equal (though Justin could easily join in that distinction anytime he wanted to, simply by opening up his posts for comments like everyone else). The problem with browsing a top level domain like Patterico.com and stumbling on a post by DRJ is not that one is better or worse than the other, but that they’re not the same. I like the taste of a good steak, and I also like the taste of ice cream, but I don’t care too much for expecting one taste and getting the other.
Regardless of who posts top level and who doesn’t, I think it might be wise to have one daily top-level post summarizing and linking to all the subdomain posts of the day. That way, those who read only a few subdomains on a regular basis (or those who read top-level only, as I suspect most will), will be reminded to poke around the subdomains every now and then, when something sparks their interests.
Xrlq (b71926) — 8/1/2008 @ 8:08 am