Patterico's Pontifications

7/11/2006

Comments Issues

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General — Patterico @ 5:45 pm



Many of you are aware that there have been comments issues over the past several days.

My tech guy (One Fine Jay) has completely disabled the anti-spam program that was causing the problem, and returned me to the old one. I hated the new one. It completely deep-sixed comments into an unusable folder, rather than the old and convenient moderation folder. It wouldn’t let me restore comments by hand. Perversely, it was actually nuking comments from regular commenters. It even nuked some comments that had already been posted, even though I hadn’t done a thing to prompt that.

Comments should be working better now. Hopefully.

Second, my descent into the lefty snake pits yesterday has fortified my resolve to keep my blog from turning into a den of poo-flinging monkeys. The monkeys will not be invited in, and those that have sneaked through the cracks will be given a gentle boot out the door. Here’s a hint: someone who uses words rhyming with “uckwit” or “ucktard” is unlikely to stay. What is the point of discussions with such people? Yesterday I learned the answer: there is none.

Dafydd ab Hugh once recommended to me a treatment for the very worst trolls: ignore them. Ban their comments. If they send a trackback, delete it. If they post about you on other blogs, do not respond under any circumstances. Take pleasure in watching their increasingly desperate efforts to get your attention.

I have been employing this strategy with a couple of major offenders for months, and it has kept my sanity in situations where engagement would have risked it. I am adding a couple more names to the “ignore” list today. I think it’s for the best.

This is never going to turn into a bland, Ann Althouse-style site where everybody is polite and has tea and cookies — and where comments are deleted because they disagree with the host. I continue to seek out rational lefties (they do exist) and will continue to treat the intellectually honest ones here with respect. But some people are just not worth engaging. You know who they are; you’ve seen them over the past couple days. If I have anything to do with it, you won’t see them much more.

This has nothing to do with the offending commenters’ point of view, and everything to do with the offending commenters’ being poo-flinging monkeys.

P.S. I am away from the keyboard for long periods of time, so the monkeys will sneak through from time to time. Ignore them, be patient, and rest assured that they will be escorted out when I get a chance.

The cleanup has already begun.

30 Responses to “Comments Issues”

  1. “The monkeys will not be invited in, and those that have sneaked through the cracks will be given a gentle boot out the door.”

    I object to this in the strongest terms. The boot should be as hard as possible.

    Jim C. (d8e20a)

  2. I don’t want the boot to get stuck.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  3. Well, in fairness to Althouse, I’m a frequent reader of there, and the only comments I’ve seen deleted were from egregious trolls. Sure, they were also disagreeing with her, but that doesn’t negate the uber-trollishness of how they did it.

    [I have seen her take the “this is my house” analogy to the point where simple disagreement is a transgression — you wouldn’t walk into someone’s house and disagree with her, right? I forget where I saw that, but I think it had to do with one of the times she was unfair to Goldstein. Because that’s one of the few times I have read her blog anyway. Removing comments because they disagree with me is not my schtick. — P]

    Kirk Parker (11c8c8)

  4. Patterico
    Had enjoyed your inciteful wit since Powerline made you Blog of the Week. But reading some of the disgusting comments about the puerile publicists of impotent blogs, I wonder if we can get back to Netiquette again.
    Leave the dirt-throwing to the Two Times. You cannot compete with ignorance. It never knows that it’s lost the argument when it dropped out and refused to listen to its parents.
    Tkubitz

    Tom Kubitz (531c6c)

  5. Now if only John Cole would see the light…

    bains (3f9c1c)

  6. Patterico,

    You write interesting posts on timely subjects, by and large. You’ve attracted some thoughtful and occasionally even witty commenters, who disagree with you and each other. Often enough. That interweb thingy’s appetite for flame-throwing and low-level insult festivals seems limitless. No need to host a parade in that ring of the circus–a place I hate to see or be seen, but YMMV of course.

    Good luck on the blood-pressure-lowering course correction.

    AMac (ff8540)

  7. P., you are so right in the new policy. I live in Portland, Oregon and have been driven to the brink on endless occasion by these folks…There is no win, there is no “agree to disagree,” there is NOTHING one can get from them. I totally understand how it tries the patience of a sane man: You simply cannot believe that time and time again they are capable of NO rational intercourse, that they will lie, name call, whatever they need to do to “win” merely by exhausting you! Egad.
    Enjoy your new sanity and keep up all your fantastic works!
    Eric

    Eric V (aac9ba)

  8. Patterico: the rule i’ve learned for enforcing civility in internet discussions is that the civilit rule must be imposed at the earliest possible point and then rigorously adhered to. Give trolls no quarter.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  9. This is how I would summarize your new system:

    1. Establish clear rules.
    2. Enforce the rules fairly and consistently.
    3. Ignore offensive behavior unless it’s dangerous or inflammatory, in which case take swift and firm action to resolve the problem.

    Come to think of it, this is also my approach to child-rearing. Coincidence? I think not.

    DRJ (fc0576)

  10. Good move to restore civility, Patterico. I’m no prude, but this past week especially I’ve felt a need to shower immediately after wading into much of the blogosphere.

    Li (03f9f1)

  11. Now if only John Cole would see the light…

    Worms, can, etc.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  12. Patterico writes: “Heres a hint: someone who uses words rhyming with uckwit or ucktard is unlikely to stay. What is the point of discussions with such people? Yesterday I learned the answer: there is none.”

    Just for clarity’s sake, let me make sure I understand the new policy.

    Using a vulgar expression is not allowed. [Didn’t say that. — P]

    To judge by some comments on this site, though, wishing for the violent death of innocent Americans, who may or may not happen to be of your political viewpoint, is ok.

    This will lead, I am sure, to ambiguous cases where these two principles come into conflict. Let us consider one:

    “Heres the little missive I sent:
    You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldnt piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack thats successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building.
    PIGS. FUCKING TREASONOUS PIGS.
    Comment by CraigC 6/22/2006 @ 11:39 pm
    #”

    What Would Patterico Do? Delete the comment because of the vulgarity? Or tolerate the vulgarity because he sympathizes with the urge to political violence represented by the commenter?

    Let’s roll the tape:

    “I understand the emotion, believe me. I didnt quite go the Ann Coulter was right route, but (as I said in the post) I understand the temptation. I, like you, am totally enraged.
    I want to see an independent prosecutor looking into both the NYT and LAT stories.
    Comment by Patterico 6/22/2006 @ 11:44 pm”

    That must have been a tough call for Patterico, for in his world a vulgarity is much more obscene than wishing for the deaths of innocent Americans perceived to be of the opposite political party.

    [B.S. I consider the people at the NYT who published that story to be anything but innocent. Their actions may well cause the deaths of innocent people. — P]

    m.croche (85f703)

  13. May we safely assume that a troll whose screen name bears the initials SRA is now among the unwelcome?

    [SBA. Shorter Banned Arsehole. — P]

    Diecast Dude (9a8768)

  14. SRA…..SRA…..Short, Retarded Asshole?

    CraigC (9cd021)

  15. Ha, let’s see you ban me, I dare you, you lucktard! You are also a duckwit!

    David

    PS. I say son, that’s a joke, you know, a funny…

    David J Harr (e30f0c)

  16. Good luckwit dat.

    See Dubya (921613)

  17. puerile publicists of impotent blogs

    I see these words “Netiquette”, “integrity” banded about, as if these blogs are believed by their proprietors to be something more than simply homegrown editorials with random comments. Honestly, though, after perusing, those words have no meaning.

    Unless they simply mean “fear of the f-word”.

    Perhaps a lesson in integrity is needed.

    (Cue dismissal of the link target by this site’s commenters. I’m foolish, but I’m no fool.)

    dgbellak (f8adc2)

  18. Funny, I was just working on a post about that. Titled “Glenn Greenwald: Douche.” No kidding.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  19. Perhaps a lesson in integrity is needed.

    Glenn Greenwald gibbering on the subject of “integrity” makes about as much sense as Deb Frisch penning a sequel to How to Win Friends and Influence People.

    Kent (005e8f)

  20. [SBA. Shorter Banned Arsehole. — P]

    Heh. I thought it smelled cleaner in here this evening… 🙂

    Kent (005e8f)

  21. I changed it to “Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag.” I like the way that sounds better.

    It’s up at the top of the site now if you’re interested.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  22. Well, the moral of the story is, “Never be the first one to upgrade. Let other people be first.”

    Seriously, companies will tell you, “Oh no! You gotta upgrade right away,” but when is the last time you heard of someone being hurt from not upgrading right after a new software release comes out… and how many times have you hurt of someone being hurt by upgrading quickly?

    I make my point. No as well as Margaret Thatcher though:

    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  23. It was kind of broke. The spam catcher I have now (that I had before) lets a lot of spam through.

    But it’s still better.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  24. I hear ya… anyway, I was pretty much speaking to myself too. As an affirmation.

    I have the same problem…. still, if you upgrade in the future, if there is ANY way, you may want to back up EVERYTHING… I’m testing a backup solution by the venerable (and amazing) Sourceforge.net open source organization that seems to be simple and effective.

    I tried a few paid software versions, and none worked. Do not, under any circumstances, back up your complete website with a product called “Handy Backup.”

    There are TWO Handy Backups, .com and .net, one legitimate, I think, and the other a copycat Russian clone. I couldn’t tell you which is which.

    In any event, I couldn’t get either’s software to work properly.

    As usual, the free one outperforms the paid version although another paid version called SynchronEX looks very powerful, although a little bit confusing to use and not as well documented as I would like. For anyone but a techie, anyway.

    OpenSource WinHTTrack is great too, but it’s for “ripping” entire websites including links if you like, it doesn’t make a perfect backup of your site (because certain files, folders, or databases may not be linked to the outside world and accessible through the entry URL).

    That last one creates a working copy of your website on your computer with links, etc. all working and relative to each other.

    Of course, this won’t work if your website relies on PHP and you don’t have PHP installed on your computer, which could be done, but isn’t particularly valuable for anyone but a developer.

    Okay, this comment is already overlong… I think you chould check out FullSync by SourceForge.

    You can trust SourceForge. It’s just good people making quality open source software and is the largest such organization in the world. The free product is VERY easy to use and supports backup via Secure FTP so that your login password remains encrypted by SSL.

    Just make sure of one thing… if you use it, there’s a checkbox for “Sync Subdirectories”.

    Check this or it will copy the names of your filefolders, but nothing contained within them. This is frustrating.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6)

  25. You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldnt piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack thats successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building.

    Vulgarity? Naw, that’s just good invective…

    bains (3f9c1c)

  26. I think this is a very sensible policy and agree with the comment that it is very much like parenting. Papa Patterico, you have to be firm, otherwise the kids start jumping on the bed.

    I am relatively new to these forums but not to political debate. What I have noticed is that the only way the left can succeed in getting me to consider their position it to make their point in a civil fashion. We have to be civil too.

    It feels fantastic to fling a great zinger and I’m as guilty as the next guy, especially when there isn’t a bat’s chance in hell that anything else could get through. But if we want to change hearts and minds we have to treat everyone with respect.

    Rick O'Shea (f41eca)

  27. I support your views regarding the fucking spammers. The ones who try to advertise themselves, their websites or the products they are affiliated to, they should not be welcomed or tolerated and the boot should be as hard as possible.

    lilychauchoin (264c82)

  28. “This is never going to turn into a bland, Ann Althouse-style site where everybody is polite and has tea and cookies — and where comments are deleted because they disagree with the host.”

    Thank God! I consider polite disagreement with the host to be the more stimulating dialogue. I remember being quite stunned when I got banned from a site because I disagreed with the host about illegal immigration (he’s for it, I’m against it). When I discovered that it was a bannable offense for disagreeing with the host, I quit reading the site. What fun is it if you can’t debate people in cyberspace?

    sharon (fecb65)

  29. So what am I banned for?

    My dirty words, or the fact that you don’t like what I have to say?

    What, specifically, can you point to as an example of why you think I should be banned? Where have I done anything egregious like Frisch? I have made a concerted effort to rachet the level of my invective down, but you still refuse to even attempt to debate me. Most of your commenter’s responses are always – ‘you have no grasp of the English language’ – ‘you are stupid’, or some other grand way of defending their points.

    If you want this to be one giant echo chamber of approval, then fine – I’ll go play in some other sandbox. But if you are blogging because you want to try and convince others of your viewpoints, completely avoiding any sort of substantive discussion with anyone who disagrees with you will not really accomplish that goal.

    Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c)

  30. Patterico,

    it’s very simple. It’s not WHAT they say, it’s HOW they say it. If they’re polite and respectful, they should be allowed to say anything they want. But if they’re rude, ban them. That should be your only rule.

    Carlos (98df3a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0913 secs.