Comment guidelines updated
DMZ · July 1, 2008 at 11:00 am · Filed Under Site information
First time in over a year. I was reminded by the Boing Boing debacle. Clarifies some stuff including who’s doing the moderation. Probably could use a nice new reformat to get the sections clearer, easy-to-reference anchors and table of contents, and… maybe a rewrite from scratch, actually. But anyway, I wanted to point out that it’d changed.
Boing Boing debacle?
The Boing Boing debacle doesn’t apply to moderating comments as they happen, or within a reasonable time frame. That’s more about going back long after the fact and erasing all evidence that a commenter was ever here.
> Boing Boing debacle?
Boing Boing is a blog that “unpublished” some material by/pertaining to a regular participant after a disagreement with her (which has been kept private.) They’ve gotten uberflak for it, and it’s a reminder why ‘blog-owners’ should make it clear upfront that they can do whatever they want regarding managing content. Saves lots of grief later.
Boing Boing debacle?
Sound like something I should apply to my job 😀
Not to get too meta about someone else’s sit, but it wasn’t a commenter, it was simply a person they had written about and decided they didn’t want to be associate with/promoting anymore.
Boing Boing’s statement on the matter is here (and comments would be more appropriate there than here, too).
See, this is why we keep scraps around. 🙂
At least until Boing Boing made their statement, the debacle also extended to them editing or deleting comments that attempted to mention the controversy or person in question. So it does relate to comment moderation in a way.
I was entirely unaware of this “scandal”; but then again, this is the only blog I follow on a regular basis.
It looks like this decision was made for the right reasons, but handled really badly from a communication standpoint.
That being said, it is useful to illustrate a point more closely relating to USSM; while I don’t see the authors here (or any of the mods working on their behalf) going to this extreme, anything posted here can be seen as being implicitly endorsed by the authors; if they don’t feel comfortable with that implicit endorsement based on the content of your comment, it’s their right to remove said comment.
Thanks, Scraps and all for the enlightenment.
Jeff Nye, “anything posted here can be seen as being implicitly endorsed by the authors…” I’m not sure if I would interpret this way. More like, they own the site and can do whatever the please with the content on this site, inlcuding user postings. But “endorsed” seems a little too far.
I’m glad I went with “Go Felix” instead of “The Felix”, “I am Felix”, “Look at me post while I’m pitching, Felix”, “I am awesome because I’m named Felix Hernandez and I post at USSMariner.com”.
I also like the comment about getting punched in the face for saying a comment. I’m glad Willie Boom Bloom doesn’t visit the site…..or does he?!?!!?
“Not WFB” would be a great name.
You might see not see it that way, but others have in the past.
Boy, I hope they don’t.
Dave/DMZ- It would be a good idea to add to the guidelines that you don’t endorse evryting said in the comments.
You kind of already did that here:
“I do not intend to ban anyone from commenting because they disagree with anyone else, everyone else, or specifcally the viewpoints of any (or all) of the authors.”
But it would be a good idea to make it completely clear.
More disclaimers do not always add more clarity. You can always sum things up very simply – the authors can say whatever they feel like, other people may comment if the authors care to permit it, and everyone is responsible only for what they themselves have said.
Heh heh.
I bet this site has never made it through a single game thread with only comments you endorse.
Maybe you should replace “Add my light to the glowing firmament of discussion.” with “I honestly believe that DMZ will endorse this post.”
witness the blanket statement by Divish that USSM views Willie B as Evil in Spikes, when we know it is just Nye.
Here is the complete, comprehensive list of what I consider to be my posting rights on this or any other private website:
1. The right not have my comments edited to say something I did not say. Like changing my post about Beltre’s OPS to say something like “So I was making out with this kid I was babysitting last night.” or “You know who had veteran grit and hustle? Hitler.”
(Unless it is for the purposes of comedy, of course. In that case, edit away.)
Maybe a few “endorsements” can be handed out by the authors for each thread. Like an award for erudition, cleverness or analysis.
“I’m DMZ, and I approve of this comment” that sort of thing 😉
That’s PURE EVIL IN SPIKES, thankyouverymuch!
As far as the “endorsement” thing goes, it’s more about perception; when a comment is removed or edited, that can be PERCEIVED as a statement that that particular comment is Not OK, and that by extension, non-edited or removed comments are OK.
It might seem like a logical stretch, but the reality is that it comes up all the time; mostly in the context of someone accusing the authors of squashing comments that don’t agree with their own views.
To make a brief comment about the moderation policies, too:
If you don’t like a moderation decision that was made, regardless of who made it, please please please send an email to the authors. We’ll make mistakes (I can own up to having made a couple) and I assure you that the feedback is taken seriously.
But nothing is going to cause any sympathy for your cause to evaporate more rapidly than continuing to contest moderation decisions within a comment thread, because then that creates more posts to remove, people start quoting them and trying to defend the moderation decision, and things rapidly snowball from there.