‘Con’ felt that we needed a clearer, fairer, and a more objective standard for interaction at the Café. We think he’s right, so we are providing a draft that attempts to list some possible guidelines. These are not rules etched in granite; they are guidelines for blogging behavior to which Admin will try to adhere when making decisions about posting commentary. We are also soliciting input and suggestions from all Café’ers on these guidelines. When we have settled on this issue, we will place the guidelines at the top of the left side-bar. Admin
These guidelines and thoughts pertain to the way we interact and express our opinions at the Cafe. In attempting to write this down, we found this to be a more difficult task than we expected. So we are soliciting commentary on the efficacy of these guidelines.
These statements below, in no way, suggest that we should tone down our criticisms and/or vigorous support of public statements, acts, and policies relevant to Woodstock and the surrounding communities.
There aren’t too many things that are disallowed at the Cafe. One would be extensive, gratuitous, personally directed obscenities – this will not be allowed and if it reoccurs then posting privileges may be withdrawn. By contrast, we’ve learned to accept and embrace statements like “YOU MORON!” …so that’s okay.
The Café values free exchange of ideas. This is why the Café has no spam filter or login requirements.
Behaviors that disrupt or inhibit such exchanges of ideas and beliefs are discouraged, and in some cases such behaviors may result in a loss of posting privileges. These behaviors include:
• Extensive, gratuitous, or personally directed obscenities.
• Trolling which consists of posting inflammatory claims or assertions for the sole or primary purpose of inciting emotional or negative responses, especially if the commenter does not actually believe the claims or assertions. This is sometimes revealed by posting contradictory opinions using different pseudonyms.
• Using multiple pseudonyms and impersonating regular members as happened recently in the case of Newcomer.
• Deliberate and repetitious accusations, threats, or otherwise gratuitously abusive behavior.
• Multiple postings to one or more threads without substantive discussion as a follow-up.
• Sarcastic ‘one liners’ that fail to contribute substantive commentary.
• A post consisting of little or nothing more than links to another Websites is not considered substantive discussion. The Café is not a lecture hall.
• Avoid copyright violations by giving proper credit to the source of quotes. We expect posters to comply with copyright laws.
Many times these are gray areas of interpretation, so Admin will welcome opinions about non-conforming posts.
The Café asks that people refrain from boorish lecturing. This kind of lecturing is defined as simply going on and on about one’s beliefs without actually engaging others in a discussion by asking questions, answering questions, and showing that you are aware of what people have said earlier. Such behavior is boorish and rude, especially in a local blog where people should be able to expect that they won’t have to endure it. In many cases these lectures go unread after the first few sentences. The reader will ignore the thread where such lecturing occurs. In a forum like the Café, a single lecturer can effectively “take over” the room, ruining it for others.
Loss of posting privileges may result from other behaviors that Admin judges to be disruptive to the effective operation of the Cafe. A primary consideration in evaluating such cases will be preserving the sense of community maintained by the Café’s regular membership.
The option to delete posts exists but this practice is reserved for only the severest of circumstances at the Café. We realize that there will be times when deletion or non-acceptance of comments/ articles is necessary, but we hope to keep this to a minimum because this tends to undermine the purpose of the Café.
As far as editing goes, the Café Admin will correct obvious typos when noticed; however because of time constraints, we cannot promise to catch every one. Admin will avoid extensive editing to ensure that we aren’t fundamentally changing the meaning of what the contributor has tried to say. Editing, though rare, will be acknowledged when it occurs.
This sounds like a case of Proposition 46 Vs, the Board of Finance and the taxpayers actually doing their job. Go back to you and Becki being the editors and doing the best job that you can. Otherwise, you will place this Blog in a box so small, that no comments will be acceptable, and it it will no longer be fun for you to run it.
Buffalo Bucks, Which bullet points do you not like?
I move to accept as proposed. I have no complaints as to the way things have been to this point.
I agree that it’s a very difficult task. I think what you have come up with is well done, with one exception (below). I’ve looked at a couple of other blogs to see how they handle it and you seem to have covered the issues.
For example, the NYTIMES.COM FAQ about comments states: “We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won’t tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.”
I like the bit about ‘newspaper standards’ because it’s a reminder that a public forum can be accessed/read by anyone with a computer – this includes our children. That notion alone is argument for guidelines. I saw a ‘Anti Road-Rage’ Public Announcement Billboard which said something like ‘When you scream and swear at other drivers with your kids in the car, you’re teaching them how to “get along with others…”‘ I think that applies to anonymous blogs.
Some of my previous comments had to do with the same issue and (to be clear) were in no way advocating that we debate any less or (as you put it) ‘tone down our criticisms and/or vigorous support’ in any way. In the ‘about us’ page both Woodstock blog sites already include statements about respecting the site and others.
The one idea in the guidelines I challenge is the proposed practice of ‘banning’ a person from posting at all. Regardless of how egregious a person’s comment’s may be, shouldn’t each subsequent comment be ‘judged’ solely according to it’s content and not by who happens to have written it? Is the idea behind this practice “preserving the sense of community maintained by the Café’s regular membership.” If that is the sole reason for the practice, then I argue that ‘banning’ should not be the means to achieve this goal (or at least should not be utilized as the initial solution). I don’t see how anyone’s behavior could possibly “…be disruptive to the effective operation of the Café.” IF each comment they post is moderated in accordance with adopted guidelines (and in the same manner as all other posts). Perhaps individual comments could have that negative effect and should therefore not be posted, but then that person learns which comments will ‘make the cut’ and which ones will not. This could help eliminate any basis for continued accusations of ‘dictatorship’ and the like from opponents (who seem to continually look for any basis to criticize the Cafe).
Aside from a few specific situations (for example, where in all fairness a person is simply too much trouble to ‘babysit’ or otherwise doesn’t deserve the time and attention necessary to moderate every comment), I don’t see the harm in allowing everyone to participate. I understand that it’s possible a single person could, for example, inundate the site with hundreds inappropriate comments – in that case simple practicality calls for loss of posting privileges. I’m sure that moderating comments is extremely time consuming and is not the only time-consuming job of Admin.
Importantly, the ‘regular membership’ are quite capable of responding effectively to any comments which threaten the atmosphere and “sense of community”. Comments literally speak for themselves. Certain people may tend to make comments which, while passing the ‘test’ outlined in your guidelines, still cause trouble of one sort or another, but I would argue that readers can spot (and deal with) an idiot just as easily as a comment moderator. In such an instance, no one can claim that the Cafe is trying to silence their voice or censoring messages based on politics. That said, I’ve never administered a blog or website and I understand that there may be valid reasons for banning which I’m not aware of or didn’t occur to me.
Con,
Thanks for your thought-provoking comment above. We are trying to rise above local newspapers like the Villager and the Bull and penetrate the issues more. But I will keep your thoughts about the NYTimes in mind. The NYTimes recently published an analysis by Reuters of the Healthcare industry which was off the wall; so they are not the WJ. The Times is thought to be a left-wing newspaper and we are trying to allow more balance (witness Taxpayer and Wetzel’s statements among others).
Only one person has been ‘banned’ but I cannot say he hasn’t commented at the Cafe. With repeated threats of lawsuits, we thought it would be best to avoid his inflammatory commentary. But he has been allowed to comment and has. We’ve even provided a link to his website.
I think you are right about Siberia. But it’s is hard to allow repetitive, unsubstantive commentary which seems to be a strategy to disrupt conversation at the Cafe.
We will try to do better.
Keep doing what you are doing John. If you are pissing people off then that means you are doing something right. Remember, no publicity is bad.
Thanks Tax, The ‘Cafe’ doesn’t do anything with the intention of pissing people off. This happens when peoples’ opinions and beliefs clash. We saw a lot of this nationally during the presidential campaign. We are just a forum for people to express beliefs and opinions sometimes with the hope of persuading others.
These look good. I think that your goal should be, as you say, to foster the free exchange of ideas with the additional caveat that you want a strong readership to help with that exchange and to read it. That means walking a tightrope where you are reasonably lenient, many people like a little controversy. But as you’ve seen in the past people will undoubtedly overstep the bounds.
If I were you I’d think of this as being your house. You might be happy to have heated political discussions at your house. The question always is, at what point do you ask someone to leave? Normally when you consider their behavior to be disruptive to your goal, in this case fostering the free exchange of ideas, or in some other way toxic.
Since you encountered this I’d put on your list of offenses one poster threatening another with legal action. Maybe in with the line on general threats.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BOE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BOE in any way.
John,
My comment about the NYTimes was solely about their standard for moderating blogs and comments – it had nothing to do with their political leaning. I just like the idea for readers to think about whether the Café ought to publish language that wouldn’t be appropriate a) for a newspaper; or b) for children to read (the issue applies more to language than content, it seems).
You’ve cleared up my confusion regarding Siberia – because I didn’t look into it enough (partly because comments on the other site led me to believe it) I thought that comments relegated to Siberia meant that the author was banned as well. I think I got this impression from reading some of the comments on woodstocktruth. For example, a couple times after I have commented that site a certain individual then ‘replies’ to my comment, BUT makes direct statements addressed to other people (mainly Café Admin and regulars). It was as though this person could NOT comment directly to them (ie, was ‘banned’), and so used a response to me for the opportunity to speak out (and to accuse the Café of silencing dissent through censorship and the like). The comments seemed to suggest that a certain core group are flat-out prohibited from publishing comments at the Café. (see comment to Con dated 2/27 – starts off directed to me, then literally addresses 2 other people and writes an emotional message to them).
If we can apply ‘cost-benefit’ analysis – please Consider whether whatever benefit is obtained sending comments to Siberia is worth the cost of continued accusations that the purpose or effect practice is solely to silence opposing political views which, if published openly, would hurt one argument/position or another (or that would point out flaws, dishonesty etc. in other published statements).
Speaking as one that was gracefully “edited” in a response recently, I think John and Becki do a very good job of allowing us the freedom of expression. Sometimes, as was in my case, the fury of response in the moment really accomplished little. Cooler heads prevailed and my personal verbal attack was reduced to “…”.
I appreciated the oversight and my response did not suffer.
Thanks for the sentiment, Fireman.
I think if John’s going to list these as rules, he needs to follow them HIMSELF which he doesn’t do.
I never saw the part about “lecturing” and find it laughable especially when John allows a blowhard like con to continually violate this rule!
John, you consistently fail to apply your rules fairly and evenly around here and if anything, you’ve gotten worse as time has gone on.