Tag Cloud
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Cultivating a healthy comment ecosystem
by Geoff Samek, published on June 24, 2010 at 3:25AM
Storyline: Product development
No high resolution image exists...
Comments are a crucial and highly valuable part of our site. The core vision for The Sacramento Press is an open media platform to inspire ongoing, healthy conversations and reporting. In addition, when conversation is lively but civil, we see tangible business benefits in terms of page-views and visitor loyalty.
When conversations are dominated by bullying, name-calling or off-topic comments, we see a tangible loss in terms of unique visitors and page-views. Most importantly, it is a severe detriment to our purpose and philosophy and angers our community.
In the last few weeks we have made big pushes internally to correct this. As head of product development, I have had a big part in these changes. Today we are releasing a revised version of our terms of use that explicitly lays out appropriate behavior for our site. We have also made improvements in our ability to ban and suspend users.
By making that last change we have banned our first user from the site. The user we have banned goes by the moniker “bbbbmer.” Our operations staff has had to remove more than 50 comments from this user, and has sent the user more than 40 e-mails and one official system warning. More than 10 users of varying backgrounds have e-mailed us to complain about comments this user has made. For more than any other reason, we are banning “bbbbmer” because he has single-handedly degraded the quality of conversations on our site, primarily through personal attacks and instigation.
This is a sad day for us. While “bbbbmer” had many comments removed from our site, he also made over 1,000 comments which were not removed and often has been a vibrant and positive member of our online community.
This is only the beginning of our planned changes to the commenting system. We have many more changes in the works, from how we operate to technical changes to policy changes.
I personally have attended conferences and led sessions focused on finding long-term solutions to running a healthy comment system. I attended one such conference in Detroit only two weeks ago.
Please let us know in the conversation below what you think of our decision to ban “bbbbmer” and our changes to our terms of use. And please, be courteous, respectful and civil. I will be here all day answering people’s questions, addressing their concerns and removing comments of those who feel the need to express themselves by violating our terms of use.
Thank you for reading and participating on our site. Let the conversation commence!
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
What is the victim here supposed to do, but fight back, which he seems to have done very, if not too, effectively.
No, this seems like something more than is discussed here, and I'm highly suspicious of your motives.
While the internet in general is a place for free speech any given site is not necessarily as free.
I would love to hear what you think are appropriate things if any to be removed from a website. If you ran The Sacramento Press, what would you remove if anything?
Thanks for your feedback and for reading our site.
Framing BBBmer as the "victim" is also problematic. Getting 41 warnings to change your attitude in regards to participating in a community is plenty of notice to re-think ones approach. And what about the users who were abused by her? Are they victims? What about SP? Is it also a victim? I don't find the word "victim" to be particularly useful for untangling the issues here.
From what has been presented, it does not sound like BBBmer cared for the community, the site, or the debate, as much as she cared about herself. She should accept the consequences.
It's good to be suspicious. Question what we do, investigate who we are.
Come in to our office and meet our staff and meet me personally.
The post election timing has to do with many things. The problem really came to a head with the election in many ways and became our top concern. Then there is also the logistics of the election for our staff. Hopefully you read our election coverage and noted that it was very thorough on the local level and that required Herculean efforts on the part of our staff.
I can't allay everyone's fears and suspicions, but that's not my job. I try to be as open as humanly possible and listen to and engage with the community
You have opened the door to this feeding frenzy of a commenter who has done nothing more than responded in kind, sometimes more effectively, to comments aimed to embarrass him/her.
After reviewing a sampling of comments by this user, I believe there very well may be political motivations behind your move, and though I am not a regular reader of your site, and only recently listed my name as a participant, I am appalled at your irresponsible methods employed in targeting one particular commenter and not others, and not even considering contextual issues that may have moved the commenter to comment in the manner you describe as unacceptable.
I find this truly disgusting, and I won't be using your site for news or to advertise. Your treatment of this individual, as controversial as he/she may be, is almost un-American, and I am especially sensitive to this as a former ACLU attorney and board member.
If this is an example of how you conduct business, you, sir, don't belong in business -- at least business that is conducted with any sense of integrity and tolerance.
To be clear:
1. It is our right and we expressly reserve, it to protect our community.
2. There were no political considerations whatsoever. Period. It was never discussed and it would be a disgrace.
3. To not protect the civility of our comment forums from intolerance would show a lack of integrity.
I am also genuinely interested about what political motivations you believe are at play here. If you have the time and desire I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Thank you.
If you are a "former ACLU attorney and board member" then you should be fully aware that the first amendment relates to government censorship of private citizens. Sac Press is a private entity and are answerable only to themselves, their advertisers and their users. I think Sac Press made the right decision in banning Bmmmmr. I just wish they would have banned his IP address or email account instead of just his screen name.
~ James Madison
Was just confronted by this quote in a YouTube video, and thought it was too serendipitous to not share.
There are certainly a couple others who ought to go. I personally think you should remove comments that contain libelous statements about members of the community, if not ban those who make them. Libel is poison to the quality of your site, and I believe censoring those comments is fairest to the community and those who are libeled. For example, numerous negative and untruthful comments were made during the election regarding various candidates--particularly in the Tretheway/Ashby race. I was horrified to see some of the blatant lies commenters made about both candidates. Negative comments can be made without resorting to lies or abuse.
My final thought, since I'm on a soapbox here apparently, is that I urge SP to consider a requirement that *articles* (not comments necessarily) be posted under real names. Again, particularly during the election, political propaganda was posted as "articles" by anonymous people, and I think that is a disservice to the quality of information on your site, your readers and the community.
Articles *are* required to be written using one's real name, that has always been the requirement. If you see an article that you believe is being written by someone not using their real name, please flag it, or alert the staff by emailing support@sacramentopress.com.
As far as libel goes, that's a little bit trickier. In real life people have conversations in which they mistake the facts, or champion points they aren't sure about. And the conversations on our site are intended to capture that aspect of real life. And while passion and misinformation can certainly be harmful it's not on the same level as the malevolence seen in comments that attack other users on the site. If something is particularly egregious we have and will take it down. I think what we need to do a better job of is making sure that writers and staff do a better job of jumping into the comments, correcting misinformation and steering comments in a positive direction.
As for the censorship issue, I agree that it's easy to just start disallowing more and more content. But that's why we ask the community what they think. Being as transparent as possible about what we do and being as accessible to our community as possible is our solution to the slippery slope nature of censorship issues.
I know I'm off-topic here, but throughout the year or so I've been reading and commenting on SP, I have seen many articles posted under fake names. One poster has gone through several incarnations and is now using his real name (I assume), but his articles were posted under pseudonyms for months. Again, I just urge you and SP staff to enforce the existing policies about articles.
I am a fan of SP and I applaud what you're doing in the community. I hope these criticisms come off as constructive--because that is my intention!
Even if you haven't been, I have some pretty thick skin, reptilian even, so I can take it!
We need to send in blood samples, DNA samples, and at least 4 letters of reference. Only then can we be purged of the enemies of the state!
However, I wanted to get feedback from the community about what they think about this particular user. People are far more apt to email or call us when a user has done something offensive, but I wanted to hear from our community if they really loved the comments of that user.
The idea was to get more robust feedback on the individual, as well as our decision in general.
If Sacramento Press wants a more civil community, it must act as the best example of civility.
I really was hoping to see comments like yours that disagreed with our action. My goal and intent was not to disgrace bbbbmer. On the contrary I often found his comments to be excellent. But it is far more constructive to have a discussion of the comment system using specific information, in this case a specific user's prolific actions.
Lastly we did not disgrace the person behind the moniker publicly. I would never have done this with a real name, or any personal information about the person whatsoever. To that point you'll note that people in this forum have referred to bbbbmer as both a he and a she.
While I cannot take back the people who have viewed this article, we can certainly lift the ban on a given user and that is never out of the question.
Thanks again for your thoughtful insight.
In any case I doubt Bbbmer is offended by the ban. He probably did a victory dance this morning. and is likely already posting again with another IP. Look closely at this thread, Tom.
"On the contrary I often found his comments to be excellent." Geoff, did the decisionmakers on bbbbmer's public banishment consider the chilling affect on excellent comments that resemble bbbbmer's polnt of view, sans impoliteness? Is it possible to completely separate message from manners, in terms of the reaction he got -- and gave -- in Comments?
As in music, when you consider how many “notes” there are within the English language, to create one’s message..obscene vulgar personal attacks on individuals really has no place or purpose…other than to drown out honest debate….which it has been known to do.
That being said…for better or worse…individual politician’s realize they are fair game
However, that “dark” side of me really enjoyed those classic Curtain/Akroyd Point-Counterpoint….I guess obscene, vulgar personal attacks do have a place!
The all time classic…Nuclear Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc
One of bbbbmer's first prophetic missives on SacPress:
-From May 8, 2009: 7:42AM
--Jim Knapp: "Uh-Oh...bbbbmer has found SacPress"
-From May 8, 2009: 10:00AM
--bbbbmer: "Live in fear, honey...."
Priceless!
"Illegal" is an adjective, not a noun. People who cross our borders illegally are still human. We can abhor the act while still acknowledging the basic humanity. It is a large part of why the dialogue on illegal immigration is so filled with emotion and invective.
il·le·gal (ĭ-lē'gəl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
n.
An illegal immigrant.
il·le'gal·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
My question is: what is to stop anyone from simply re-registering under a new name & email address?
However, if the banned user re-registers and isn't problematic, then that too would be a win for us and this community.
As for the logistics of the ban... We will be able to enforce a ban based on behavior. A person may re-register with another IP, or another email, but if they post content that violates the terms of use, then they have outed themselves more blatantly than using the same email and we can deal with that user then.
However if the user tries to change his/her ways as well as all their contact info, then we have little problem with allowing them back on the site.
We did not only target bbbbmer. Because of the prolific nature of his use of the site, it may at times have seemed that way, but I assure you that we try and enforce our policies as even handedly as possible.
My litmus test for knowing that we are doing a good job is when everyone thinks we are biased toward everyone else. We have been accused of being biased toward all sorts of causes, political persuasions and policy enforcement decisions, but never just one.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT attacking Bbbmer. I have no interest in that and never have. Heck I have tried to meet him in person and buy him coffee! This is an attack on his BEHAVIOR and the behavior of anyone who injects ad hominem character assassination into public debate.
Sorry but anyone who is a champion of civility does not condone or enable the behavior of ANY individual who routinely slanders and belittles people for their religion, their weight, their appearance, their intelligence quotient, their writing style, their word choice, their mental health, their ethnicity, and a litany of other completely OFF TOPIC and OFFENSIVE things that contribute absolute NOTHING to the common good. Sorry but you will NEVER convince me otherwise so don't even waste your time attempting to.
Such behavior does not promote progress, it blocks it. ANY individual who routinely sabotages discussion threads on the info superhighway with vitriolic hate speeches and personal attacks are like Macaulay Caulkin's character in The Good Son. That is, they stand on the overpass and drop objects onto the freeway that hit oncoming cars. Drivers are blinded. Cars spin out of control and smash into each other. People get hurt. The authorities (moderators) spend countless hours and money cleaning up the mess. And the positive flow of traffic is stopped, leaving other travelers backed up for miles waiting for the mess to get cleaned up. That is not progress. That is PAIN. And that is precisely what those who routinely assail others represent for scores of people .
How anyone cannot understand the need to ban disruptive people is beyond me. Are these people new to group discussion? Are they incapable of empathizing? Perhaps they are the same people who wouldn't attend a neighborhood crime prevention meeting simply because "the criminals don't bother me." In my opinion these people are not part of the solution either.
You wrote, "Sorry but you will NEVER convince me otherwise so don't even waste your time attempting to." But it seems you didn't respect the fact horenstein felt differently than you and seems you have no problem attempting to convince him or others otherwise who disagree with you. You didn't appear to respect Tom Armstrong position, opinion and went on about what you believe..... Well, heck, I disagree with much of what you wrote and won't waste my time going over it and please don't waste my time defending it. We can agree to disagree-- even though it's not what you chose to do with others and went into attack mode—in a way you are attacking bbbmer and heck perhaps your comment can be seen by some who you disagreed with has an attack. Whatever-- I'm asking you respect my right to disagree with you and I’ll respect your opinion without trying to defend myself.
I would like to emphasize that we have left up 1,031 comments of his, so clearly he is a user that brought value to the site. He is the single most prolific commenter we have had to date.
To address some points made by "horenstein."
"It smacks of censorship, scapegoating, cowardice, and caving to your advertisers and pols"
First, shouldn't we reserve words like "cowardice" for anonymous posters who engage in character assassination? We don't tolerate uncivil, unsavory, and hate-fueled behavior in physical forums and we should not tolerate it in virtual ones either. Time to clean up the internet and make it safe for people to share their views without fear of attacks. Period.
" especially given the post election timing, political opposition to this users views, and the strong viewpoints expressed and the invective aimed at this particular user, especially after your softball interview with the mayor. Period. "
Oh come on. MANY people agree with this person;s views. You are making him out to be a victim--which I have to tell you is so psychologically perverse it's hard to process. If anything he is the suspect not the victim. He is the one assaulting people, not the other way around.
"What is the victim here supposed to do, but fight back, which he seems to have done very, if not too, effectively. "
VICTIM? Have you ever even read what he has written? Have you no empathy for the people he has assaulted for no other reason but because they have views opposed to his own? Defend himself? Against what? All people have tried to do is make friends with him! No one wants to be enemies with this guy. I have seen countless people try to make peace with him only to be assaulted again for attempting to. I don't know what game you are watching dshorenstein?
"No, this seems like something more than is discussed here, and I'm highly suspicious of your motives."
Then you haven't read the things this person has posted here and on SacBee...
In any event. I have nothing but respect for Geoff . It takes a LOT of courage to "come out" and stand behind your words and actions with your real name. More and more I agree with the Bee's Melanie Sill (senior VP) who will not correspond with anonymous users. Melanie has an acute understanding of how anonymity has degraded the quality of discussion on the internet, and thankfully so does Sac Press.
To all those who post anonymously, consider "coming out." You'll be happy you did, and you will be contributing to the solution and not the problem.
I am really looking forward to discussing the issues here with all of you.. in peace. It will be so nice to disagree with one another without the hate mucking up our collective growth. Sac Bee, please follow Sac Press's lead.
“Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” – Justice William J. Brennan Jr. -1960 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which extended the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech to prevent citizens from being sued by public officials."
relates to public officials. It is not relevant here. Bmr's attacks that were removed were primarily on his fellow citizens, not on public officials. I have to admit though you are quite good with the red herrings my friend. ;)
That was tricky for us because while we will allow a lot negativity toward public officials, we also had to weigh that against the civility of not having fights in our conversations.
A very challenging issue for us.
Agreed-Personal Vulgar Obscene attacks on “fellow citizens” HAS NO PLACE in any of these forums or debates.
Brennan's opinion however, acknowledged that public officials are in a different league.
Sometimes that… “may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
So as part of this discussion of civility on these forums…
And mind you, this is not a statement for or against but only a question,
Is that going to be part of the consideration or will attacks on government and public officials be treated the same as on any citizen?
I think Geoff's answer seems to indicate that there will be leeway with that regard...but "tricky".
Along those lines, bbbbmer once said I'd make a good Republican (in reference to my position regarding the development of a new basketball arena downtown). Perhaps inline with more conservative thinking, I do believe there is no such thing as free speech. There is speech and there is speech harm. There is a license to speak that can be revoked as easily as it is granted. There are time, place, and manner restrictions on the content, nature, and instrumentalities of speech. SP, as a private enterprise, has much broader opportunity to impose restrictions and controls than does a government-backed public forum.
Whatever rules and standards you impose, and whatever prurient interest you assert, the privately held nature of the enterprise entitles you to do so. Either the community respects that, or they do not. The extent to which they do is measured not only in registered members, but also in paying advertisers. I believe the changes you have made are measurably supported, and I thank you for taking the time and making the effort needed to improve the enterprise and provide the community with more of what it has measurably indicated it wants.
Surely this could have been done without mentioning bbbbmer by name we aren't stupid we'd have known who you removed (if we hadn't figured it out before hand) when their were no more comments.
IF I am ever removed from the site I hope and ask that I am given enough respect that if I am called out in an article that I be allowed to confront my accusers and all those who you seek to respond for me about me against me. If it's good enough for a court of law for people-- heck some criminals-- to face their accusers it should be good enough for the site. Before you let people carrying on discussing me without being able to comment back I hope I'm given the opportunity to defend myself. Sometimes it's not what you do but how you do it which can be concerning.
I won't talk about bbbbmer anything I have to say about him or to him I'll say to his face but I will say this bbbbmer may have personally attacked a few individuals but bbbbmer didn't ask anyone to join in the discussion or weigh in on his comments, actions or for that matter seek a posse or a lynchin mob to go after any one individual. Bbbbmer never disrespected me. I won’t disrespect bbbbmer by writing about him behind his back. If I am removed from the site please don't send a mob after me without allowing me to arm myself, defend myself and leave graciously holding my head up.
I would love to hear your thoughts on maintaining a healthy comment system, or our change in the terms of use.
As for "bbbbmer" I would point to what you said though, "...we aren't stupid we'd have known who you removed..."
I thought about that exact point when deciding to mention the moniker "bbbbmer" specifically. Why have a thinly veiled article regarding a specific user instead of saying what everyone is thinking? I think that would have been more disingenuous.
As far as not having a forum to reply in, s/he has lost that privilege on our site. If there is anything truly hateful or malicious said about her/him, the comment will be removed as any such comment on our site normally would.
Bans can be lifted and that is never something I or the staff of The Sacramento Press will rule out.
There was a time when my 11yr old niece was reading the site. She was doing a report in her 6th grade class about a person she admired and the kid picked me--lol. Her teacher said she could only do it on someone that could be googled--lol and my niece googled me, picked a SP article, read some comments even she thought were inappropriate and decided to find another article for her teacher to read---lol. So I do value cleaning up some of the personal attacks. I'm not debating SP doing what they can to prevent abuse.....just how you did it.
I think it's disingenuous not to mention all the other name-calling done by many others in the article since you’re going to mention one person. I think it’s disingenuous to mention bbbbmer when bbbbmer isn't the only one who has resorted to name-calling. I think it's disingenuous to mention bbbbmer and it could and has opened a door for bbbmer to be attacked when the article is about removing people for attacking.
It's not what you did that I have issues with but it’s how you did it. But it's your site and by all means do things as you see fit. But again, if I am to ever be removed I again ask that you either not mention me by name in a public article or allow me the opportunity to respond on the public forum.
I'm here and I'm asking in this article, and we're asking as a company because we don't know what the right answer is, but we think we can find it with the community's help.
Do you guys actually believe her real name is bbbmer? She is the example, so take note and don't step over the line.
That said I hear your point about your young family going on line and researching. I am glad Sac Press is wiling to take a leadership position and make their site accessible to all ages. I couldn't even let my kids come on here before else they'd see their dad being called a $%$^@. Yikes! Rhonda we can disagree all day long, and we can argue and get heated and passionate and all that stuff. I LOVE argument (in a classical sense). But heck that profane stuff is repulsive.
Hunnicutt- I don't think bbbbmer is his real name. I was referring to his username and felt that didn't have to be mentioned either. I can't remember a comment of mine being removed but heck it could happen or might have happened but if we want to comment then we have to respect the wishes of the site and heck, respect the folks participating on the site. I don't think SP is asking too much for giving us a voice.....That wasn't what ruffled my feathers (heck my feathers are getting ruffled lots today--lol)
Mark, we can disagree or agree all day long and get heated, passionate and all that stuff at the end of the day I still respect you and always will. I will be honest I don't love arguments and I won’t argue on this site. I have too many battles that I am fighting –away from here-- so I don't come here to argue this is my safe haven I just come to offer my opinion and see where it takes me, nothing more and nothing less.... I don't want to nor will I argue with or have a full explosive one on one debate with folks or prove myself because I have to do that elsewhere. Mark, I have to argue and fight too much, too often… so for me everything won’t be an argument. I’ll say what I have to say and move on; leave it alone and save my energy for the arguments. Fights, struggles I have away from here. I want to watch, participate and learn- that's it; that's all. My fight, battle, struggles; arguments are not on this site. But if you like or love to argue that’s cool you just won’t be doing it with me--lol. I have too many arguments elsewhere and I don’t argue just for the sake of argument--lol
The search for truth is also the reason why the tone of my web site changes. I'm constantly learning and evolving. Every day I wake up with a fresh new attitude based on what I learned the day before. Sometimes I take a step forward, sometimes I take a step back. I'm human. Hopefully I am taking more forward steps :)
This is also why I take exception to lame stereotypes. Example: you don't support the Arizona boycott so you must be racist. Please. Why can't I not support it simply because I don't believe in retaliation? This is another thing that ruins the quality of discussion, Stereotyping... "you right winger ret$#@" Really? What grade are we in? There are scores of moderates now. Not everyone is on one side of the fence or the other.
Finally, when I say 'argument' I am not talking about arguing and wasting time. I am talking about sensible debate that is conducive to personal growth. Unlike diva politicians who roll with yes-men entourages, I tend to purposefully surround myself with people who disagree with me. Always have. I not only seek disagreement, I welcome it. I think it is the most powerful way to grow. That is why I emailed you and introduced myself to you after you ripped Sandy Sheedy in council meeting. I disagreed with you.. and I wanted to learn why you thought the way you did. Glad I did.
That said, I understand people don't share my passion for personal growth. Most people are done learning. They have it all figured out. Good for them. Their loss. But me, I will keep learning and correcting and growing until my last breath. I am the first to admit I have SO MUCH to learn still--- and I think I have proven that I'm willing to learn from anyone... even those who attack me for my views.
Peace and love
And any reference to free speech is misplaced. This isn't a public forum, this is a private website and none of us have any speech rights in this venue. Furthermore, given the kinds of reactions by some people in this series of comments, I can't see why the term "cowardice" would be introduced - it would be far more cowardly for a private enterprise like Sacramento Press to allow somebody to blatantly break the terms of service and repeatedly insult people directly, for fear of upsetting their users by protecting their own interests in the matter.
Some forums maintain a log of some kind - it would simply have had an entry like this:
bbbbmer: 40 informal warnings for inappropriate content, 1 formal warning, banned 6/24/10.
P.S. And based on last evening @ Q Street, you need an updated profile image pic, buddy.
Cheers to you Geoff for making yourself the scapegoat and openly publishing the actions of the site. We will continue to watch and hold accountable as you all proceed with your refining process.
Thank you for your gift to the community.
Sure, the number of comments on the blog have gone down as a result, but we are also not subjected to reading vile words that have no bearing on our content.
We DO get a lot more comments on our Facebook site, where people are less likely to be "anonymous" and where readers do not necessarily agree, but are accountable for their opinions.
Kudos, SP, for making a decision but being willing to consider counterpoint.
http://www.wow.com uses a comment system such as this -- yah, I'm one of *those* geeks. =)
Such a system discourages trolls by making it 100% clear to them that their actions aren't appreciated, and that any such content will quickly become that much harder to see if it doesn't bring some value to the discussion. It also completely takes you guys out of the censorship business, which I can only imagine will eliminate any fallout from necessary actions such as this.
Take it a step further to automatically ban anyone who only contributes 'Greys', and you've got yourself a system that manages everything all by itself, without making Sacpress out to be the bad guys.
Pity folks can't behave themselves and act like adults. While you can't change behavior, systems such as this can at least encourage the type of community you're looking to foster here.
The problem with allowing articles and comment to become "grey" in this manner, is that it also marginalizes certain topics/issues. Articles about gay community events, for example, would be likely to become grey based on recent thumb up/down patterns.
We strongly considered using a system like that when we first launched, however we found one big problem with it that is exemplified by Digg.com's comment system. It allows the majority opinions on the site to stifle dissenting opinions. In a purely automated system, there is a far greater capacity for mob rule.
In principle I do agree that far more automation would be a boon to our comment model and I am constantly examining ways to do that.
but today is a new day. i make a promise to all of you in the community. i will stick to the topic at hand and leave the personal attacks out. please accept my sincerest apologies and i look forward to spirited conversations with all of you.
And while I think the banning of Bmmmr is long overdue, I do think it's not completely fair to change the TOS and then ban someone based on past instances of TOS violations. If you change the TOS then I think everyone should get a a clean slate and a chance to participate under the new rules. I think he would have been banned almost immediately under the new rules anyway, but as you can see for some of the above comments you leave yourself open to charges of political bias and favoritism doing it the way you did.
At nearly 5,000 users, this is the first individual we have banned, so we don't have a policy in place with specific numbers. We likely will develop rough guidelines over time, or perhaps develop a set of specific guidelines as you have asked.
As for threats of violence, I think by nature those are more serious. In fact the Supreme Court has ruled that directly inciting violence through speech is not even covered by the 1st amendment, let alone acceptable on our site.
I hope that sheds some light on your concerns.
Um........no.
Your Terms of Use are just a vague as before. There is no clear policy of what warrants a banning or how many chances a person gets. As you can see from many of the posts on this thread, you guys have set your up to charges of bias and/or favoritism even as you have bent over backwards to accommodate a particularly offensive poster. I really think you're over thinking the Terms of Use too much. You can do a Google search and find plenty of examples of TOU policies that work well and are fair.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/tou.html
You could probably find a good framework in there and tailor it to meet the needs of Sac Press users. And you need to think about what is the ultimate goal of having TOU agreements: To keep members of your community safe while fostering an environment that allows lively debate.
I'm a bit more of a hard-ass than others, but I think threats of violence should constitute an automatic ban. Outing someone should also be dealt with severely. Lesser offenses like name calling, trolling, or off-topic conversations should start with a warning that leads to time outs of increasing length of time to and an outright ban for repeated offenders. I'd say 3 warnings are plenty, but I understand if you all want give folks a bit more leeway to improve their behavior. Whatever you decide, you need to make the rules clear so you don't open yourself up to charges of bias.
I know I've been hard on the staff of Sac Press over the past few weeks, but that is because I really do appreciate what you're trying to accomplish with this site. I have said repeatedly that you are a tremendous resource for the people of Sacramento. I think once you get a clear set of rules in place you're going to find healthier debate on your site and a lot less headaches for yourselves.
Ben, Tom pointed out: "If you change the TOS then I think everyone should get a a clean slate and a chance to participate under the new rules."
Heck, what’s concerning to some may not be so concerning to others but that doesn’t make it less valuable or less important to those concerned with it. I’m not saying anyone is wrong for feeling name calling is going too far. I happen to agree. I don’t like name calling it takes us away from the discussion and becomes and remains a distraction.
People have a right to be respected, not have their private life attacked…..I never said this website should protect people's ability to insult each other in the most colorful terms. Heck, your comment insults me but it doesn't bother me. There are many ways to insult people whether vulgar, insulting/ underestimating their intelligence.......to me an insult is an insult no matter how you dress it up- You can dress it Nordstrom’s or throw it out there cheap vulgar naked (name calling) but it’s an insult.
I've written how I think this will foster civil discussion well at least without name calling, but I never said I was okay with vulgar remarks or name calling. But if you want me to make a personal reference to bbbbmer or comments made by bbbbmer I won't do it; bbbbmer is not on the site to defend himself. And I won't go behind his back making comments. I’ll treat bbbmer the way I’d like to be treated again bbbmer always treated me with the same respect.
Thank you Sacramento Press.
And thank you to all, past and present, who engage in respectful dialogue, even if it differs in opinion as my own, and especially so, for I learn far more from the challenger than from the follower.
I would have considered a suspension but after emailing back and forth it was clear that bbbbmer would be ineffective.
This was not a rash decision - it took months. We discussed it internally and with bbbbmer and internally again.
But frankly we are all adults here. Every single one of us could have simply ignored bbmmers comments and continued the conversation as if she wasn't in the room. You know, I am sure that it was about a week after Al Gore invented the internet that some frustrated Bulletin Boad user came up with the phrase "Don't feed the trolls". But our human nature always gots the best of us and we would read her insulting, demeaning replies anway. So I guess I am the camp of us being the problem, not bbmer.
I see comments from very intelligent posters asking for "constructive dialogue". Yeah I suppose that would be great, but frankly that seems rather restrictive. If Sacramento was a big enough market to support a level of discourse on the level of The Economist, I would support it whole heartedly. But what is a lot more appropriate at the local level is a broad forum with maximum inclusiveness.
For me at least, if that broad inclusiveness sometimes includes a hate-filled socialist calling me a hillbilly podunk, I guess I can deal with that.
Our goal is to create a passionate community here, but one that is manageable and civil.
I appreciate your sentiment and think that it is definitely something to strive for.
My other request is for SacPress to assemble a word cloud sourced from all bbbmers deleted comments. Could be interesting.
Thank you.
Yes, bbbmer is often angry, sometimes he gets personal. Sometimes he offends. But don't confuse his outrage with hate speech or obscenity. There is much going on around us that we should be angry about, that is rude and offensive, that deserves our rage and our rants. bbbmer hurls his comments and, yes, sometimes his abuse at those holding the levers of power in this town, at what he sees as hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement among our electeds and big money interests. Will he offend: Heck ya! Sometimes his stuff reads like reasoned analysis, sometime more like confrontational political theater. And good for him.
Finally, in reading your somewhat tortured explanation of what you see as a "healthy comment ecosystem" (good for business hopefully, good for all those ten or so folks who emailed you with their objections...out of how many who actually use this site? That's left unsaid), I couldn't help but think about and appreciate the admonition that has come in various forms from great writers like Dickens, Twain, Orwell, Vonnegut and performers like Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, George Carlin that we must always be careful not to confuse politeness and civility with decency and dignity.
Thank you cogmeyer, Rhonda, politicalthinker and the others questioning this.
We don't care if people are impolite, or if they have diverse or extreme political views, we banned bbbbmer because bbbbmer was indecent, indignant, obscene and hateful. S/He made thinly veiled threats to other users and not so thinly veiled threats to our company and the people who work for it.
We love to question authority.
But personally, I far prefer to question my own motivations and actions and to open myself up to the public to do so as well.
We have not had advertisers contact us concerned with the comment forums. We were concerned. It was and is our prerogative to protect our community on this site.
KJ has posted in the past as have some of his supporters and friends. We are an open platform and I encourage that. I also hope that people who oppose his policies post. The whole point is to have a wide range of viewpoints and discuss news with newsmakers, reporters and citizens.
1. Create a ranking system that allows people to vote up or down on contributors (or commenters)
2. Create filters to allow people to set their own comfort level. Perhaps allow ranking based on various cultural indicators.
It's always more powerful to marginalize than kill - don't make martyrs.
Reputation management is something that I think about constantly. You can see the effects of this thought process in the Merit Badge System on our site.
I agree that we can make things better when it comes to reputation management.
Thank you for a very constructive and excellent bit of reasoning to help move toward a healthy comment ecosystem.
For me I prefer the current straightforward, chronological comment layout of the SacPress. With or without bbmmer.
shawn eldredge
And the hits just keep on comin.
However...the entertainment piece is still an important element for me, and I know I'm going against the grain when I express my sense of loss with regard to bbbbmer.
Many have, and I could certainly add, to the list of complaints against him. But there are others who are regular posters on this site who bug me even more due to their inability to write sensibly, or express an idea that has any semblance of even the most basic elements of logic.
I appreciate differing points of view, and yes, when they're expressed rationally...but I also appreciate a little PASSION! Some may take the latter too far, but, to paraphrase an old saying, "All cordiality and no passion makes (your name here) a dull boy/girl."
If those whom some feel are guilty of uttering nonsensical comments are prevented from getting "personal", then what's to stop the prolific poster who speaks much about nothing from filling page after page with unabated dribble?
I'll be watching to see what happens...and hoping that Darwin's theory applies to SacPress!
Banning anyone is a sad thing to do, and so I share sense of loss.
"I then started taking note of the substance of his, and MANY other's arguments and positions on various topics. The experience has inspired me to be more involved in my community, local politics, and engagement with other citizens."
Mark:
"I would LOVE IT if I could have a respectful conversation with Bbbmer.... His wit and intellect are off the charts"
It wasn't that hard to do. Just don't get up his nose and don't let him get up yours. I must not have seen the worst of the worst (and only just above did Geoff allude to threats" made by him). Bbbbmer's "wit and intellect" balanced the unpleasantries, for those who were not threatened by his TOPICS.
Thanks for stepping up and improving the terms of service/participation. Personally, I subscribe to the "broken windows" theory that says unacceptable behavior will attract more of the same without some balance. Sadly, the aggressive behavior can quickly drown out the rest, leaving the site only to those who are willing to participate in that manner. It's probably a safe bet to say that any site like that will soon become irrelevant and go away.
When public forums disappear, we all lose.
- Ron
If I came to your house for dinner and then peed in the mashed potatoes, you would kick me out. And you'd be right and have the right to do so, even if I hadn't agreed to a "don't pee in the mashed potatoes" rule. It would be silly of me to accuse you of censorship.
"If the government was stepping in and demanding that certain posts written by SacPress staff writers be removed, then you'd have a point."
"The government" doesn't have to demand that certain posts be removed if SacPress does it first.
If the government was stepping in and demanding that certain posts written by SacPress staff writers be removed, then you'd have a point.
I'm not sure how to reconcile the conflict other than by attempting to engage the community. When there are problems we always appeal to the people involved (by email and phone and even in person) and until this episode that strategy paid off.
It is with considerable debate and effort that we arrived at this point. It is amazing and I am proud that we had never ever banned or suspended anyone before. I would proudly walk around the office holding up my index finger saying, "Not one!"
It is with considerable regret that I say goodbye to bbbbmer. It was our failure as well. And I like bbbbmer. If anything I am biased towards him/her. The whole thing is sad.
I do think this is a great and important debate to have on our site. Maybe there are ways to have our cake and eat it too. Maybe there could be special forums with fewer restrictions. Maybe we could invite greater tools for community moderation. I would love to hear everyone's ideas to make our community healthier.
Ours is just one tool focused on community issues in Sacramento. I get to see it everyday and I have seen the changes. I read the emails from prolific commenters who will not write anymore because they are afraid to be attacked or threatened personally.
On the wider issue - we care about freedom of speech and particularly availability of tools to self publish. In this case, we do want to preserve the community we have built with our tool.
Does a teabagger or ashby supporter get a free ride--just curious-
PS I have used blanks in between the bad words--out of respect for the TOS
Pls give me your 2 cents
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/29049/Flood_of_interest_group_money_supports_Ashby
edited on June 6, 2010 | 05:50 PM Jim Knapp
BBBBBmmmer's constant need to spread false information confrims that IT is a paid operative for the Union and the Tretheway campaign.
edited on June 6, 2010 | 10:44 AM Jim Knapp
WARNING THERE ARE TWO PAID TRETHEWAY CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES WORKING THIS BOARD.
BBBBBMR AND POLITICAL THINKER.
TAKE EVERYTHING THEY SAY WITH A TRUCKLOAD OF SALT.
edited on June 6, 2010 | 01:59 PM Jim Knapp
Peta de Aztlan?
Gee what is Aztlan Peter?
Just what we need, a council member who supports the fantasy of Aztlan and santuary cities.
Jim Knapp
March 11, 2009 | 01:53 PM
wtf is this an article to sell sh--?
March 11, 2009 | 04:46 PM Geoff Samek
Please watch your language Gadfly. Swearing is not permitted on the site.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/3037/40_IS_the_New_40
Mathieu Über
July 13, 2009 | 09:51 PM
Well, F-ck. I'm going to be out of town, which blows because I could join in on a free screening of a horrid and enlightening must-see, and pay back the two bucks I owe bike kitchen. Damnation!
by the way, im 13 Jack001
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/708/What_is_the_punishment_for_graffiti
Jim Knapp October 27, 2009 | 07:58 AM http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16433/Dia_de_la_Raza
Attacking Columbus is always code for attacking White/Europeans for building our once great nation. Those that want to get rid of Columbus Day, want Americans to feel guilty for being American.
If anything, Columbus Day should only be celebrated by Hispanic countries South of the American border. Somehow, and almost entirely incorrectly, he became the personae of the building of America.
Dear professors of revisionist history: Columbus led the settlement of Central and South America, which led the Spanish to conquer the lands of the indigenous people - The Spaniards raped, plundered and murdered the indigenous population and bred like rats. Eventually displacing most of the indigenous people. Mexico was STOLEN by brutal force (manifest destiny) from the indigenous people, by the spawn of the plundering Spaniards and so was "Atzlan" otherwise known as the Southern United States.
Also, contrary to what feel good liberals want to believe, Mexico and most other "hispanic" countries are extremely ethnocentric, they are openly racist, and heavily discriminate against the indigenous population. Is that also Columbus fault? At least in the US we felt some guilt about what the settlers did to the Indians, we gave them millions of acres of land and reservations. Since the 1800's we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Indians in America get free health care, free housing, free education (all the way through college) and they get to build casino's where they bring in BILLIONS of dollars - and all for something that happened 130-400 years ago.
What has Mexico done for the indigenous population? The openly discriminate against them in jobs and housing and force them to come illegally to the United States.
I am sick and tired of revisionist history from liberals always trying to make Americans feel guilty about something.
Racist? You mean my comment about the Greek Developer Mob that controls this town?
They do, and they are Greek. Jim Knapp
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/29483/Union_spends_23K_on_antiAshby_mailers
If they violate our old TOU they will come down. If they were made yesterday or after we would apply the new TOU.
None of my comments were racist - screaming racism is always the last vestige for those who have nothing else to say.
And the Greek Developer Mob does still control this town - even though the unions won the recent SMI fight.
Since the rules were changed -- even though there were previous warnings -- perhaps SP could have allowed bbbbmer the opportunity to stay, rather than apply the new conditions retroactively. This announcement also shifts the subject to bbbbmer, rather than the guidelines and health of SP's community.
bbbbmer was explicitly allowed the opportunity to change his/her behavior on over 40 occasions. S/He explicitly declined to comply with our *old* terms of use.
I want to be very clear here, bbbbmer was banned for over 40 violations of our *old* terms of use, absolutely *nothing* was applied retroactively.
Indeed bbbbmer made very many articulate and thought provoking comments and all of those that didn't violate our terms of use remain active on the site. His remaining comments total well over 1,000.
I also want to thank you for your delicate and well reasoned responses to people in this conversation.
And for the record, we did not ban bbbbmer because he/she has a strong personality. We have an office full of strong personalities and a site filled with strong personalities and we are proud of that. I wish bbbbmer would have shown others on our site more respect because his strong personality and viewpoint is a loss in our forums.
The use of "strong personalities" was intended as a civil way to avoid the term "jerks," which there are plenty of, with far less astute qualities than bbbbmer. And boy, don't they love to pick on him for that.
His "extravagant jibes" were balanced and backed up with cogent information and inconvenient truths. His misbehaviors helped some here dis/miss his points and close their minds to his cogent comments. Now, unfortunately, his insightful and thought provoking comments won't be available here at all.
Heck, I know we haven't heard the end of bbbbmer, perhaps on this particular site, but the beat goes on and on and I'll look for bbbbmer on other sites to continue to learn and grow from the insightful information he will always provide. Heck, the bbbbmer I came to know on this site can’t be silenced! Lol Again, Thanks again for your posts they are, as always, thought-provoking, genuine and true.
Please do me the honors of BANNING ME ---I ask that you makeup a delete account section to help indivduals remove themselves. I wish you all luck in your future endeavours
Please make the request officially via email.
I know it sounds hypocritictical, please ban but email me your advertising prices. I always seperate business from politics. Principle, well I self banned myself until banned but send me a private email-about that -
I am sure your prices are competitive--
We also offer network ad buys across 48 local publications via a product we call SLOAN (Sacramento Local Online Ad Network). You can find pricing in the media kit available at http://sacad.net.
I know you are on this site because you value it, and though we may not completely agree on this issue I value your input immensely as it will help make this site better, a goal on which I think we can both agree.
1> Temporary bans. Violate the TOS and start with a one week ban. Next time it’s a permanent ban.
2> Comment moderation. Problem users’ comments are held in moderation until a moderator or admin can approve them.
3> Allow users to ignore or hide a particular users’ comments. Some people just do not interact well.
4> Word filter. Ensure comment with blatantly flagrant words do not get posted until a moderator reviews them.
5> Limit the number of comments per day for problem users.
6> Comment sparing area. Some people love to fight. Give them an area to battle it out. A location not visible to others unless access is requested.
I appreciate SacPress trying to address this issue openly. As one of your readers I am happy to help in any way that I can.
I appreciate your decision to ban a user for the reasons you described. I even more-so appreciate your the on-going discussion about your decision, along with some great comments from SP users. Keep up the good work. Everyone have a great rest of the day and enjoy the weekend.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16294/A_week_of_El_Santo_films_at_La_Raza_Galeria_Posada
be in violation (ie, defaming a business)? I'd really like to know.
Also, will SP be publicly posting each user id which is banned as was done here?
"a 'don't pee in the mashed potatoes' rule" is the best part of all of these comments!
And I second (third?) the mashed potatoes rule.
At present we are not planning to go through an retroactively apply the new terms of use to content that was created under the old terms of use.
As for whether that comment would be removed under the current TOU, it is very debatable. That comment doesn't actually defame the business as much as speak to a movement that has the same name. If anything the comment is simply off-topic.
Hm. Seemed to me that this was stated: "LRGP are racist socialists who support Al Qaeda over the United States...who they claim stole their lands." - where LRGP = La Raza Galeria Posada - the local art gallery, and in many other ways attempted to indicate that La Raza Galeria Posada was a racist group. And all because of an article that a series of El Santo films were being shown there.
Editing comment to add: So I have to wonder how the TOU will be applied if this is not applicable to the "defaming a business" portion of it. Could you further explain the definition of "defaming a business" as far as the TOU goes? Thanks! ---end edit
If you do plan on posting banned user's ids, that will quite possibly encourage use of anonymous user ids, rather than encouraging people to use their real names. Just a thought.
But seriously folks... I really do like the idea of sponsoring public debates on issues, I think it's a great idea.
God I would love to debate any City Council member
Also,
In regards to your writing Bon voyage---bbbbmer hasn't left the building-- He just left this site.- not the discussion. Heck he lays his foundation- lively spiriit and passion everywhere he goes. He's going strong on SN&R and I caught up on lots of his "timely, astute, cogent, informed, lucid, passionate, reasonable, informative, funny, well written comments"
I know when I first came on the site and throughout my time on the site I came to love, respect and admire bbbbmer. Heck, I learned, from bbbbmer, to stay true to myself, believe in myself, no matter what and it’s okay to go against the grain. Bbbbmer and I may not go about things the same way but that's okay to each its own. We get in where we fit in and we do our best where ever it takes us.
Everything happens for a reason and I don't believe the glass is half empty I believe it is half full. I learned from many people on this site and bbbbmer was one of them and my life and heart is enriched from having cross paths. Heck when I need him I know now where to find him-lol. Heck, if I'm not welcomed somewhere I move on and continue on and get it where I fit in without looking back but by looking forward.
I understand why SacPress did what they did; while I do not agree with the way it was done heck I no it's not the end of a person who is full of life and living life to the fullest going against the grain and doing so with all they have. Heck, bbbbmer wouldn't have done things any other way and I respect that, numerous warnings and bbbbmer kept being bbbbmer and heck I have to respect that.
Heck, at some point people get tired of warning people and I have to respect that too ( I know I get tired of giving warnings at city hall--lol) but I think of myself as a strong person and if this happened to me I wouldn't want anyone pleading for me or taking up for me (don't get me wrong I'd want to defend myself against any of my accusers) but I'd want to go out with dignity and the strength I showed not backing down, not taking no mess, not begging for anything and not changing who I am. I see bbbbmer the same way.
Heck, should bbbbmer come back by changing who he is? I think that's insulting. Bbbbmer has stated he isn’t fighting a battle but just being himself… He has no reason to compromise. He can be who he is, this isn’t his livelihood it’s one on-line paper. If I can't be who I am then I wouldn't want to be there. I think bbbbmer is the same way, heck he had warnings but he insisted on being who he was. I Gotta respect that and I wouldn't change who I am if it's not what I believe I should be. I gotta respect that! And I gotta respect Sac Press for staying true to what they want in their paper.
Heck, everyone isn't going to like everyone. I know there are people on the site who don't like me. I can say it's 102 degrees outside on a day when it is 102 degrees and I'll get a thumbs down--lol. When I write I don't write to get thumbs up or approval and if I don’t get a thumbs down I didn’t do something right, I wasn’t true to myself--lol. I write what I believe, feel, see right or wrong it's what I believe and if it's voted down that's okay people have a right to their opinion. I only shared mine. That’s how bbbbmer was. He wasn’t trying to get a thumbs up heck, if he was he wouldn’t call it like he seen it. -lol
I was mad at some of what I was reading but if bbbbmer was here he wouldn't give a hoot what people said about him nor would it have changed the way he would respond so why should I give a hoot what some others are saying? lol. I think my doing so would disrespect the bbbbmer I came to know and respect. It is what it is and the beat goes on not looking back but looking forward.
Again thank you and much respect to you
Bbbbmer just wasn't as hard to get along with as some here think and the notion that people were "afraid" to comment is laughable. The political plants, phonies, poseurs, prigs and half brothers are far scarier.
He gave me respect and I believe it was because I always gave him respect. some people tried to give him respect late in the game but for some of us you can't turn emotions off and on and expect people to forgive or forget because you are ready. That's not fair. Why does it have to be on your terms, when you're ready? Maybe I'm not ready yet but in time will be.
Heck, look on SN&R someone who posts here and knows that bbbbmer can no longer post on this site because of personal attacks goes on SN&R and personally attacks bbbbmer writing for him to kiss his hinny (and that's not the word he wrote) Seems like bbb,er is also provoked elsewhere.
it's unfair to portray him in just a negative light when obviously their is far more to him. I didn't want to comment further on him because I felt it was disrespectful since so many were and he could not respond. But heck, I felt in my heart to do so and bless you for the perspective you gave me through your posts. And now that I have shared my 2 cents I am finished and I feel a weight is lifted and whether people agree or disagree I'm okay it is what it is- my opinion and I value mine just as they value theirs and everyone all of us are entitled to our opinions. See ya on another story. Take care and many blessings
What is laughable, it to suggest he/she's being portrayed "in just a negative light." The people who own the site and who banned him have been saying repeatedly that they thought he was a valuable contributor with a lot of good things to say. Unfortunately he/she was also sufficiently rude/inappropriate about 5% of the time to require 40 emails and ongoing supervision.
You can't run a site like this if you have to take that kind of time to deal with just one poster. You either have to get rid of them or you allow them to make a mockery of your own rules (that they agreed to abide by) and you end up with no ability to fairly ban anybody else either, including those who might NOT be such good contributors the rest of the time.
Also, Bbbbmer just wasn't as hard to get along with as some here think. And as someone else suggested, SacPress could have made the announcement of changes in policy and given all a "clean slate" -- or a fresh start. All of us could go forward with what's been learned so far. SacPress could have given bbbbmer the opportunity to participate under new guidelines or flame himself out.
As it is, bbbbmer has been "made an example" of, which is questionable in itself. While acknowledging his excellent contributions, SP has hung him out on a rail.
This altered the potential of the announcement and of the site's future dynamic. This discussion has focused on one individual and "taking sides," rather than a more balanced conversation among interested commenters about the topic of community civility.
Another question is whether bbbbmer's antagonists ought to be patting themselves on the back and smugly suggesting that they've already clocked his new handle. Bbbbmer gave as good as he got (and occasionally worse, fueled by his legendary wit, wisdom and disgust with arrogant ignorance).
These commenters know they're not consistently civil or respectful or kind on this site. They have sharp elbows and elitist or faux populist obnoxiousness. One of the more vocal of them doesn't even try to be. HE is one of the reasons that some folks don't comment here -- who wants to spar with boneheads and bullies? The political phonies are bad enough.
Will SacPress get more of that and less of the incisive and insightful qualities of posters like bbbbmer?
Edit to answer the Question: " -- who wants to spar with boneheads and bullies?"
A. bbbbmer.
What's laughable is your suggestion I assumed SacPress didn't think he was a valuable contributor. It's obvious, at least to me; they thought he was or why go through so much trouble explaining this?? I understand wanting to get feedback and a clearer direction but if they didn't think he was a valuable contributor I don't think it would have been repeatedly written he could come back.....
It was someone else who wrote that he wasn't a valuable contributor so I was going by several comments made by several who posted and not the article in general or SacPress. I did write I understand why they'd do what they did.... (I don't agree with how they did it but it's their paper and they have a right to do it however they like....) I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with you on this subject; it is what it is we're all entitled to our opinions. Have a great day
The only thing that matters here is that SacPress gave a poster 40-50 chances and then decided to do something more productive by allowing themselves the opportunity to focus their attention elsewhere. And as they have repeatedly said, they banned him based on the old conditions, so why start with a clean slate and invest even more resources on a poster who has failed to listen that many times before? He could be my closest personal friend and I'd still think he had it coming, and it was probably long overdue.
It's this kind of dull cognitive dissonance that makes someone like bbbber as refreshing and thought provoking as he is provacative and occasionally obscene. If you missed my points or are trying to counter them and "win" that's not a productive discussion which we might all be pretending these new guidelines will foster. You apparently ignored the fact that I acknowledged your point of view. This tendency online to compete -- rather than communicate -- for no reason is the real problem. I find it boring and pointless. Bbbbmer relished in taking on morons and those who stepped in front of his laser beam wit.
The fact that his antagonists are here either smirking and preening or coming clean about their own complicity in duking it out with bbbbmer on the "two-way street" on SacPress , is reason enough that he should not have been scapegoated in this way.
IMHO
Tony, I appreciate your defense of our action and I appreciate your disagreement with it naga. Both opinions have been well heard and will be considered strongly when going forward.
If either of you have more thoughts on how to maintain a healthy comment system, I would love hear them in further comments at the end of this conversation section.
Thank you both for your input so far, I have very much enjoyed your intellectual sparring.
Thumbs up to showing everyone that your paper is paper is going to take the TOS very seriously. I am with you 100%.
Regarding this person "political thinker" that took up half of this page defending this Bmmmer he or she-please ban this person. They are obviously using up your bandwith--
Limit the comments to 300 words-not half a page-Thinker-if you were thinking properly-you would not spend half your day defending Bmmer-
Geoff Samek says it best--
I would to clarify that we welcome strong critique and severe criticism of public figures and that alone should never warrant a comment being removed.
We should all thank Geoff,ben and the team for doing an awesome job
So, now we have to read stories written by fifth graders about local events or about poltergeists by the poor man's Ghostbuster?
:)
I'd rather know what I’m dealing with than to be in the dark. At least with bbbbmer what you see is what you get no fake, fraud or phony. Heck, I see many elephants dancing in the room No disrespect but Mark I don't expect you to see anything wrong with this article mentioning bbbbmer since on your own site you opened a forum (with some insults just not vulgar) for people to discuss or attack bbbmer asking people to vote on whether he should reveal himself and listing your reasons which if I were bbbbmer I wouldn’t easily forget either or meet with you when you’re ready to extend an olive branch.
Heck, I thought this conversation was over and then your comment comes along adding insult to injury and even pouring salt on open wounds. There is a whole lot of things not as concealed or simple as you might think. My mother use to say their are always 3 sides to a story- his, hers and the truth.
Again, it's your prerogative to support the person, fine by me. I'm just saying my PERCEPTION is the lion's share (as in the majority--not all) of his supporters are those who stand to benefit from his presence here or people he has not personally slandered. Look, I think your defense of him has been admirable Rhonda. I just wonder (just wondering, not making any judgments, Rhonda) if you would defend someone who routinely disagreed with you in the same manner you have defended someone who has been so supportive of you? Personally I would not defend an abusive person no matter how much they agreed with me. But that's me. As you say we can agree to disagree. Neither one of us has to be right or be wrong, ok? It's all good.
I only stated my perception, and I didn't target you. But it seems you think I did. Which could be considered a tell. But again, that's only a PERCEPTION, not reality by any means. It's not gospel or condemnation. It's simply my perception. Sorry if my perception disturbed a hornet's nest :( Not my intent at ALL. I just wanted to make an observation that had not been made as far as I can tell. I think it's a legit observation
Peace!
mj
Would I defend someone who routinely disagreed with me in the same manner I have defended someone who has been so supportive of me?" Ah yeah, that’s insulting but I’ll answer. Yes, I would if I felt what was done was wrong, oh yes, I most certainly would. I would not discriminate. Heck, I’m capable of separating the person from the deed/ action and voice my concerns equally.
I didn't think you targeted me. I wasn't just looking at myself. I wasn't just defending myself, or my actions--lol I was and have read all the comments and seen the shades of gray. I read and tried to understand what people wrote on both sides. This is why some of my comments suggest I agree with changes.... For goodness sake I just don't agree with how this was done or when for that matter. If you think my comment reflects a hornet's nest being disturbed lol I don't know what you'd think if I really felt stung by bees--lol. I thought this was mild--lol Heck, previously my feathers were ruffled but no hornet nests lol. I just wanted to make an observation also share my opinion. Opinions are bouncing all around this board since an article to stop abuse opened up an avenue for some to be abused. Peace
I wouldn't have a need to defend bbbbmer if bbbbmer were allowed to defend himself. But he's not here now is he? That's not fair. So maybe I'm more vocal because he couldn't face his accusers. I'm from an environment where many of us are spoken about, judged, stereotyped..... but often not given the same respect to face our accusers or have a voice with some targeting us. Perhaps Mark, it's not personal but business. Perhaps it's just not that simple for some of us to overlook. This has nothing to do with being supported by bbbbmer heck, I've felt supportive by SP, I've felt supportive by you-- and it's insulting to me if you think I'd defend someone merely because they support me. I'm not a sell out. I can't be bought or sold. I stay true to what I believe in regardless of someone’s support. I've admited I respect bbbbmer for staying true to himself along with other reasons I provided in previous comments but first and foremost I don’t agree with how this was handled. This has nothing to do with personal support from bbbbmer. It’s not personal; it’s business. I think now, I've said all I need to say on this subject.
Perhaps announcements should have been made separately, it certainly would have allowed the conversation to focus more on our new terms of use.
Thanks for a great suggestion.
9. SacPress publicized the banning of "bbbbmer"
8. SacPress announced both at once
7. This shifted the Comments to the topic of "bbbbmer" rather than board behavior in general
6. His antagonists are quite pleased
5. One of them repented and promised to do better in future
4. Those who weren't threatened by his flamboyant style and particular point of view, had no problem with bbbbmer
3. This may or may not have a chilling effect on quality of comments
2. The cast of characters who share responsibility for the climate that bbbbmer is being scapegoated for, remain
1. Those in glass ivory towers shouldn't throw stones
Heck, I tried with all my might to just discuss the banning.Heck, I wrote I wouldn’t discuss bbbbmer since I felt it was disrespectful but after reading comments bashing bbbbmer and those in ivory houses throwing stones I couldn’t help myself. I too began discussing bbbbmer; heck that ended up being the discussion tread. Regardless of a follow-up article I have to wonder if it's too little too late, is it damage control, is the damage already done? Heck, if the majority of the comments are on bbbbmer how will that reflect the follow-up article? Will we be right back to 200 comments on bbbbmer? I sure hope not it’s just not fair.