The crucible

Last week, two people told me that they will no longer be participating in the discussions on this site because they had been subjected to personal attacks by other commenters. Unfortunately, they were not the first people to make such complaints.

While much of value can emerge from the crucible of heated debate, I do not believe that insulting the other participants in that debate is a necessary part of this. Both individuals regularly made interesting and thought-provoking contributions - not the kind of commenters that I want to lose. It also made me wonder how many people read this site but never comment for fear of the savaging their opinions may receive.

My rules of engagement already ask participants to behave respectfully towards other commenters. However, I accept that it’s not always easy to heed this when confronted with an opinion with which you strongly disagree. To deal with this, I monitor the comments that are left here and do my best to delete or edit those containing personal attacks. However as I cannot monitor this site 24/7, some may remain for long enough to cause offence or ignite a flame war.

As a result, I’m now giving serious consideration to turning comment moderation on all the time. If I do, every comment that is left here will need to be explicitly approved by me before it appears on the site. This could take minutes or hours, depending on whether I am monitoring the site at the time the comment is left.

My previous experience with comment moderation suggests that this will improve the quality of debate, but reduce the volume of comments. I’m starting to think that this is a worthwhile trade-off.

What do you think?

Comments

[Uncle Elvis on 18.12.05 at 17:26]

My thoughts are mixed.
I understand the reasoning behind board moderation and agree with them, but don't like it. One of the things that I love about this site is the organic flow (god, i sound like a hippy!) of the conversations, good or bad.
I know it can get bad here, I'm as guilty as any, but I think it would be a loss for all of us if it were turned on permanently.

So... I hereby promise to a) try to control my temper and not get into personal insults and b) try to do my best to stop bad behaviour when I see it, and try to calm the situation.

Having said that, I'll support your decision, should you decide to turn it back on.

Thanks, Phil.

[loki on 18.12.05 at 18:04]

Personally, I doubt I'll be contributing if comments are moderated - I don't think it improves the quality of the debate, although it does limit personal attacks and off-topic commentary. It stifles debate and makes it less interesting. I don't think it really allows issues to be adequately explored, so I'd doubt that I would want to contribute (which some may think is a good thing, I suppose).

[Cancundreaming on 18.12.05 at 18:25]

I don’t think I would participate as well if the moderation is turned on permanently, while in some sense it might improve the quality of the debate, but in another sense i think it harms the quality, the debate or discussion, i think, is very much an organic thing, it grows and moves, nuances are added in, different notions are introduced... When moderation is turned on it feels so unnatural, you'll have 6 people commenting on the same thing because they had no idea there where other people in the queue who had covered what they said, then sometimes, when you're out it'll be along wait until our comments are posted. Then in the time we’re all waiting, the debate will die..

I also don't see why fear would be a major impediment for anyone posting...You can post anonymously, why be concerned about the 'savaging' your opinions will receive if you don’t have to reveal your identity...

[Raptor on 18.12.05 at 18:57]

I hope they come back--maybe under new pseudonyms?

I would announce that if anybody feels he or she is being treated at all poorly, you really want to hear about it and encourage that person to email you directly.

It shouldn’t be necessary to insult other participants; opinions can be addressed head on. Respect goes a long way to creating more openness.

Comment moderation would eliminate these problems but at the expense of the flow of dialog. What Cancundreaming said is true--with comment moderation you are responding at the same time as a group of others, and depending on when the posts are put up, everything can be out of order.

[RedOnion on 18.12.05 at 19:04]

Personally I have not slammed or vilified anyone for their opinion. I have always thought of myself as open minded and somewhat of a moderator, always acknowledging that there are two sides to every story. Sometimes there are actually more than two. Each and every person is entitled to their opinion, and for the most part entitled to state that opinion, subject of course to libel and slander laws and matters of respect.
I would like to think that all posters here are reasonable mature persons. Moderation of posts would have an adverse affect on the site and what it stands for (as stated in previous posts). Spontaneity will be gone, something that I have found in my short time here to be very interesting, allowing one to get an insight into the other players by seeing how they respond to posts.

That's my vote, for what it is worth.

[loki on 18.12.05 at 19:11]

Aside from the obvious trolls, and equally obvious cases of inappropriate responses (Galt, you naughty little scamp), which are generally followed-up by apology (Galt, again!) and truce (the good Jake and, yes, Yours Truly) I think that the bashing is pretty minimal of late. Having reviewed some of the threads that I assume you're referring to, I must say that, for my part, I see vigorous debate which may have become somewhat OTT, as opposed to outright insult.

[Tim Taylor on 18.12.05 at 19:13]

Moderation would indeed hurt the flow of debate, as noted by the previous posts. If moderation were on, how would I know these WERE previous posts?
Contention and the firework display of ideas is a vital part of this site. How about taking a leaf out of the dinosaur forum of Letters to the Editor? Personal attacks under a pen name are Verboten. Period.
I've always posted under my real name. Anyone who wishes to badmouth someone else should at least have the TF (or MM) to do likewise.

[BusGuy on 18.12.05 at 19:27]

And yes I truly agree with the previous posts.Moderating hmmmmm touchy. Is there maybe some way that a poster on the site can get a warning for personal attacks and if they continue maybe somthing a little more severe?
Just wondering.

[NoVote on 18.12.05 at 20:47]

I'm not sure how feasible this is from a technical perspective, but might I suggest that moderation be applied to anonymous posters and not to those that are registered and sign onto the site with genuine email addresses that have been validated by The Limey.

I think that people are less likely to insult and flame one another, if their identities are known.

If registered posters are persistent offenders, presumably they could have their registration terminated.

[Adjustah on 18.12.05 at 21:00]

Comment moderation would suck, as it totally takes away from the spontaneity, interaction, genuine conversation and - blunty the fun - of the whole thing. Look at the numbers, Phil when comment moderation has been turned on in the past?

Getting Bermuda talking should not involve censorship. Now, I agree that personal attacks should be frowned upon, but if you choose to post on a public website, then you have to expect some reaction. Especially if you post drivel or inflammatory remarks, or a strong opinion, which you know already will cause a strong reaction.

Nothing says courage like a nom de guerre and a keyboard a parish or two away, but most of the time you can catch these things, Phil, and for the most part we're big kids here and usually make up or give up and walk away ourselves.

At the end of the day, a blogger's gotta do what a blogers gotta do and I'll support you if you turn mod's back on, but I will most likely only appear for the Caption Competition, and then only half-assed at best as Combat Banker will have stolen my ideas by the time things are posted anyway...

[Martin on 18.12.05 at 21:26]

Uncle Elvis and Tim are right...the "organic flow" is important. It moves the thing along - keeps it alive - and allows "real time" responses.

Phil - it is up to all of us to behave correctly in the first instance.

Comment moderation would hit the majority - for the unsuitable behaviour of a few. The majority should not have to pay for the stipity of the minority.

[Tim Taylor on 18.12.05 at 21:37]

Adjustah - you're absoutely right. Now how about coming out from under that Nom De Guerre? I promise not to laugh, even if you you turn out to be Jennifer Smith.

[loki on 18.12.05 at 21:44]

"Now how about coming out from under that Nom De Guerre?"

Tim, there are very good reasons why people choose to use a Nom De Guerre on this site. For my part, as the owner of a small company dealing with a lot of international business, I choose not to run the risk that someone in government may choose to make life a bit more difficult for my shareholders, fellow directors and myself because I may have pissed them off with an opinion.

[Tim Taylor on 18.12.05 at 21:46]

By the way, I also want to know the identity of Combat Banker, whose "Rebel Appliance" caption had me snickering for days.
I always need to know who my competion for humour on this site is, so I can seek them out and destroy them utterly.
(Bugger. I didn't mean to say that. Phil, edit out that last bit, will you?).

[ace on 18.12.05 at 21:50]

I post on a few other bulleten boards and blogs. On a couple of them I have gotten into some nasty ugly knock down drag-em-out mud slinging BBS fights with people. People from all over the world.

I've subseqently met quite a few of them, bought beers for them and became friends with them.

In some cases we continue to have the same type of fights regarding certain issues even after this.

If I have caused any of these complaints I apologise. But, I think whomever is complaining to Phil needs to grow a pair and not take internet musings too seriously.

lol

[Tim Taylor on 18.12.05 at 22:06]

Hi Loki, sorry to hear that. It's a bitch when having an opinion can lead to possible retribution.

[jake on 19.12.05 at 07:46]

We already get deleted when we go too far, but sometimes a strong comment is warranted. This is debate between consenting adults. I think what annoys people (actually what annoys me the most) is when people fail to read and comment on what was written, and instead criticize the writers for the exact opposite of what was suggested. To me that deserves a flaming.

But hey, that is just me.

[Adjustah on 19.12.05 at 08:49]

Tim,

Hmmm, perhaps you're right, although my "secret identity" is only hidden as I use my real name in my email address and if you click on it it goes to my paf'etic MSN Space ("Curse you Microsoft!"). I only use Adjustah out out habit from my first posts here so that the usual suspects know who's dribblings these are...as for Combat Banker, he is part of the Rebel Appliance and a traitor! Take him away!

[Intrigued on 19.12.05 at 08:57]

One suggestion.

No moderation. If someone feels that the rules have been broken wrt to personal attacks then they can ask a group (to be decided by Phil) to review and determine whether the person offending gets some time out or ultimately is expelled.

I would rather lose the offenders as opposed to teh offendees.

Also, by having a group deliberate it avoids Phil from being the guy who always has to be the bad guy.

[Yet Another Limey on 19.12.05 at 09:43]

If you turn moderation back on we’d have to do some work during the day!

Which in turn would allow our employers to lay off excess staff!

Which would create greater unemployment, and a downturn in the economy!

Bermuda would become unstable and the international businesses would leave!

The Bermuda dollar would be completely devalued and anyone who could would leave the island!

Those remaining would have to revert to cannibalism to survive!

Of course it’s your blog Phil and it’s up to you, but don’t say I didn’t warn you ;)

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 09:44]

I agree with the above. The few times I've been around when moderation has been on, things have been cumbersome.

I've been called quite a few names on this blog, but that's life. If you state an opinion those that disagree will respond, sometimes good, sometimes bad. I won't go so far as to say I've always replied to them in a pristine way, but I make an effort to respond with facts. That wins at the end of the day.

If someone is getting out of line, why not review the record and email the offender. Limeycourt, if you will. You booted Red Riding Hood for inflammatory statements--couldn't you do the same for chronic personal attackers?

[Raptor on 19.12.05 at 09:54]

Last week Nicolette said she wasn’t coming back, very unfortunately; so I know she is one of the disappeared.

I’m curious about just what the two “disappeared” complained about in particular. Was it personal attacks, as Limey first said, or having their opinions “savaged” as well? Were they both writing under their real names--and felt more vulnerable?

Here’s a question: Can you tell who of LiB posters is male and who is female? It is easy with Nicolette, as her name is feminine. What about the others (okay, rein in the jokes!). I’d just like to say that at first I thought “loki” and “tilti” were “girls,” (versus “guys”), as their pseudonyms ended in the letter “i”.

Blogs are notoriously white male. Sometimes, I have to admit, it gets tiring reading about “balls” and “testicular fortitude” and solving things “over a beer.” Granted, there can be a real sense of camaraderie, but sometimes there is also a locked-in feeling about who is participating and fitting into this place--a sense of many posters knowing exactly whom the others are, when I wish the site were expanding outward, not losing posters.

I can deal with it—and smile. But I can also appreciate that, hypothetically, a talented concerned woman posting here under her own name, in a guy atmosphere, with all the vocabulary that goes with it, gets personally attacked and run roughshod over--and it's too much. The solution (ace writes), “grow a pair.”

Limey asks us to behave respectfully towards other commenters, but he also accepts that is difficult with strong disagreements. It seems reasonable that personal attacks should not be allowed. Should they be allowed under a real name, as Tim suggests? Intrigued suggests having a group of “guys” decide on a perpetrator’s fate. This is Limey’s blog, so I vote for him doing it himself, whether the poster is under a real name or not. Limey’s more than capable and fair.

From reading these posts, I’m surprised at some posters having to mull over the difference between name-calling personal attacks—and strong disagreement over opinions. This thread has been good, because a number of posters have said they’re going to think about their behaviour on the site.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 19.12.05 at 09:59]

I am sorry to hear that some people have taken the banter that goes on here personal. The only thing I will say to those persons is, "Welcome to politics."

If you are going to express your views on the politics of the country you have to have thick skin, very thick skin otherwise you will feel slighted.

I do not agree with attacks on the person but if you present an idea or thought that some disagree with than you open yourself up to attacks on your ideas and thoughts. That is the risk you take when you decide to make your views and thoughts public.

Most posters on here have provided much insight and it would be ashamed for insightful for people to walk away because they feel slighted. I say suck it up and if you truly believe in what you state you should be able to stand and defend your comments if necessary.

[Raptor on 19.12.05 at 11:53]

Guilden, I agree with you that personal attacks are not good but that going public with one’s views does open us to attacks on our ideas and thoughts. And we should be prepared for that.

People are different; I would not want to lose someone similar to the example I gave previously, but, let’s say it’s a man, sensitive, highly insightful, intelligent, who is getting run over personally. That’s what I think we can do without—the personal attack aspect. He may be able to defend his views quite well. Not everybody can suck it up as well as the next person. For example, we wouldn't want only people who can suck it up at the level of 87/100 and above on the site, would we? After all, the threads are not exclusively about politics.

[hotspur on 19.12.05 at 12:10]

Introduce a Yellow (warning) and Red card (banned from thread or from site for a period) policy. I’ve seen it used on other forums and it works well. But you have to put the Yellow card warnings in the thread so that everyone knows you’re enforcing the policy.

[44-40 on 19.12.05 at 12:49]

First of all people are scared to write because they might have some personal attacks, on a blog? Are you kidding me? Scared of being attacked in writing, what a bunch of pussies, they make it sound like there are going to be beat up in a dark alley or something, oh sorry don't want to upset them, they may have to get their prescription of prosac doubled.
Another thing limey its your right to delete remarks that are insulting or just trying to cause trouble, but you shouldn't alter remarks, which I observed you do from time to time. Either leave it as it was written or remove it.

[Uncle Elvis on 19.12.05 at 13:01]

44-40,

Um... we kinda pride ourselves here on behaving ourselves and trying to help and not hinder.
Which why we don't use phrases like "bunch of pussies" very much.
Accusing them of needing prozac, however... now THAT helps tonnes. Thanks for that.

As for altering, editing, deleting, expanding, twisting, whatever.
Not your site, not your call.

[Phil on 19.12.05 at 13:14]

Thanks for the input. It's useful.

loki

Having reviewed some of the threads that I assume you're referring to, I must say that, for my part, I see vigorous debate which may have become somewhat OTT, as opposed to outright insult.

That's because the outright insults have been deleted.

44-40

...you shouldn't alter remarks, which I observed you do from time to time. Either leave it as it was written or remove it.

I edit rather than delete when I feel that a comment contains some content that violates the rules of engagement and some that does not. Edits are limited to removing the offending text and sometimes removing references to the deleted content in the remainder. I never intentionally change the meaning of the comment (if you think I have, tell me).

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 13:26]

What is being referred to in "savaging" an opinion? I think any blatant personal attacks would be noticed by you Limey.

[Raptor on 19.12.05 at 13:56]

44-40, I think you've got it backwards. "A bunch of pussies" are some of the best posters on this site. We don't all have our brains between our legs.

[SmokingGun on 19.12.05 at 13:56]

"Especially if you post drivel or inflammatory remarks, or a strong opinion, which you know already will cause a strong reaction."
Posted by Adjustah.

I agree. The beauty of the blog is that people will, and should, call you on your comments. If one ends up getting smacked down it's usually because of the above. Now the real beauty of a smack-down is doing it with grace, style, smarts and above all wit. A blatant "you suck" is as bad as the opening shot.

Limey, you have the power to flag. Why not throw out some cards as has been proposed by hotspur. Give adequate warnings to play nice or else. Generally speaking when someone is getting carried away others will step in and try to intervene but ultimately it is your site.

Oh by the way, my apologies to all that I may have, or will continue to, offend with any silly little zingers I may use when debating. It's never personal.

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 16:46]

Seriously, I'm wondering what "savaging" an opinion is? The term seems a bit dodgy but I'm willing to hear it out.

[Nicolette on 19.12.05 at 16:56]

For the avoidance of doubt, I use my real name and also am published in one of the island's papers so I have no qualms about my opinions being attacked - I have to take what I dish out - it's only fair! But I have grown weary of people "assuming" things, reading between nonexistent lines and attacking for the sake of attacking. It's not particularly upsetting, just damn boring. I dislike seeing others attacked for no good reason - but that is not the reason I am no longer going to post - I stated that I am sick of the increase in vitriolic attacks on here - not attacks on me - there have been very few and nothing I've lost sleep over - it's the disintegration in quality debate I dislike and I had to question my reasons for posting here when I don't think we have a decent representation of the island and I have better things to do and more worthwhile ways and methods to futher my particular social agenda. There is no person more cowardly than an anonymous attacker and I don't wish to engage with such people. Believe me, if I couldn't handle being attacked I wouldn't publish extreme commentary under my name here or in the newspaper and I'd be taking people seriously who tell me they are concerned for my safety.

[Taggy on 19.12.05 at 17:22]

Phil,
First, as requested, an opinion: strong debate will always lead to insults and it's up to debaters to use their judgement to i) think before hitting 'Post', and ii) remember that insults, if flung properly, are aimed at opinions, not people, and should therefore not be taken too seriously. If they are aimed at persons (rather than their views), the antagonist should be banned (possibly using a poll to vote them out?)

Second, some suggestions:-
1. Group moderation: have a select group of regular contributors moderate comments, rather than just you
2. Contributions only by valid email address, with polls to vote troublesome posters out (I'll be happy to use my real email address, if necc.)
3. Karma points: sounds like tree-hugging hippy crap, but is quite effective on some websites (notably Slashdot). Basically, peers rate each others' comments +ve or -ve. The more -ve your karma the less chance of comments posting. Also peers can screen out people with low karma.

I don't know if typepad supports any of these, but 'membership' (ie. validated users who can be identified & potentially banned) would be a good measure.

[Simon on 19.12.05 at 17:34]

I would be happy to use my real email address if it was not made avaialble to other posters. I only have a work-based address and would not think my firm would be happy if I started receiving dubious emails from people who weren't happy with some of the comments I made.

[Sal Monilla on 20.12.05 at 00:50]

If you are so concerned that losing TWO people was something worth writing a thread about - start having all the posts go through you first and lose a LOT more.

It nevers works, it never worked and will cause the flight of most of the posters.

Want to have a forum board - be prepared to allow most comments - those that dont like it can choose to leave but most will stay because that is the POINT of why most keep coming and posting on here no?

I bet you a cool 100.00 that when the bull is flying and insults or whatever are being traded - which MOST here seem to actually ENJOY - that is WHEN your forum is MOST active no?

You cannot POLICE public comments or tastes - don't bother to try....

[Sal Monilla on 20.12.05 at 00:52]

PS - if someone is continuously being a real wanker, throw them out ;)
better than policing ALL posters

[TJL on 21.12.05 at 08:09]

Off topic, but...

when did you change the caption to "Getting Bermuda Thinking"? Definitely a step up from "talking", but how much longer till we progress to "acting"?

[Phil on 21.12.05 at 08:17]

TJL

I changed the site's tagline this weekend.

It was a change that several people have suggested to me, and that I've been mulling for a long time. It was precipitated by the same concerns that prompted this post - a desire for the discussions on this site to prompt people to think rather than just vent.

It doesn't always happen, of course, but I think it's a more accurate description of LiB's goal.

[Bill Cook on 21.12.05 at 10:07]

TJL,

Whether one writes letters to the editor, phones in to talk radio or posts on these forums it represents action in a form.

Make no mistake it does get results.

I can personally vouch for that,but of course it depends on the message and how it is gotten across.

Just recently action was promised on a matter that was discussed at some length and I do not want to be more specific at this time.

More consideration could be given to finding solutions rather than rhetoric, interesting though it may be,and I have learned from it.

Other than mindless unjustified insults under a pen name, considerable flexibility should be given.

Not easy to have the wisdom of Solomon at age 34 (I have cheese in my fridge older than that)

[Phil on 23.12.05 at 16:51]

I'd just like to thank everyone for their comments and suggestions.

The upshot is that I'm not going to turn on comment moderation at this time. It seems that significantly more people appreciate the lack of moderation than are put off by it.

I like some of the ideas for improving the level of debate in the comments, but unfortunately TypePad doesn't give me enough flexibility to implement them. But I'll keep them in mind should I ever decide to start hosting the site myself.

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 16:56]

I never intentionally change the meaning of the comment (if you think I have, tell me).

Posted by The Limey on 19.12.05 at 13:14

In the Gay Marriage thread I posted two comments next to one another, the first included the line 'Romanus Eunt Domus' followed by a second post saying that should have read 'Romani Ite Domum'

Limey, you corrected my first comment with the line from the second, which under normal circumstances would be great.

Unfortunately here it was deliberate, taken from the Life of Brian. "People called Romanus they go house" changed to "Romans go home"

Though it was completely off topic, and you're well within your rights to delete all my comments as it's your blog anyway.