As people know, I have moderated the comments with a very light hand, assuming that mature adults would know how to behave in a public space. It took outright hate speech targeting marginalized groups to cause me to ban people, and that has happened very rarely. But I have been getting increasingly irritated by the tedious and hostile exchanges among a few commenters that tend to fill up the comment thread with repeated posts about petty or off-topic issues.
So here is new new rule: No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning.
But I also want to address a couple of deeper concerns for which a solution cannot be quantified but will require me to exercise my judgment.
It is well known that the comments sections on the internet can be a cesspool. I had hoped that the people who come to this site would be different, leading to more mature exchanges. But I was clearly too sanguine. We sometimes have absurdly repetitive exchanges seemingly based on the childish belief that having the last word means that you have won the argument or with increasingly angry repetitions being sprinkled with puerile justifications like “They started it!”
The other issue is the hostility that is often expressed, often triggered by the most trivial of things. People should remember that this is a blog, not a journal or magazine. There are no editors, proof readers, and fact checkers. In such a casual atmosphere, people (and that includes me) will often inadvertently be less than precise or accurate in what they say. If the error is trivial but the meaning is clear, the error should be ignored. If the meaning is not clear, clarification can be politely asked for. If it is a genuine error, a correction can be politely made. So in future, I will police the tone of the comments more closely. If I think people are being rude or condescending or insulting (and I do not mean just abusive language but also tone), I will ban the person.
A recent email sent to me privately by a long-time lurker brought home to me how people might be hesitant to join in the conversation here, even if they have something to say, out of fear that something that they write, however well-intentioned, will be seized upon and responded to in a hostile manner by some of the most egregious offenders.
Here is a portion of the email.
Are you aware that the comments in the comment sections of your posts can be perceived as dauntingly hostile?
It’s mostly one specific commenter named [name redacted], but there are a couple of others as well. In most cases… it’s not so much the actual, literal words but the general content and tone. And I know that makes the problem difficult to pin down. But there is so much arrogance and condescension and contempt and passive aggression in some of his (and some others’) comments that often there is hardly any productive discussion in the comment section anymore, just general grandstanding and bashing each other.
Also, in rather rare cases there is very open abusive language. A recent commenter called another commenter “demented fuckwit”. Even if their frustration with the other commenter was understandable, such open verbal abuse makes for rather painful reading.
This hostile atmosphere has kept me from commenting several times. I haven’t dared partaking in the discussions because I didn’t want to elicit such aggressions against my own person. And even just reading them being directed at others makes me feel very unsettled. It unsettles me to the point that I have increasingly skipped the comment sections; because I’d rather miss out on interesting contributions than stumble over frequent hostility. I know that I’m more vulnerable than many because of prior experiences with verbal abuse, but also I don’t believe I’m the only one who feels like that.
I know there are differing opinions about what constitutes (un)productive commenting, and about moderating comments. I totally get it if your opinions and preferences differ from mine. If nothing changes, I will simply stop reading the comments – and will continue to enjoy reading your original posts!
I thought the writer made a persuasive case that my earlier policy was not working and that I needed to do something different. It looks like I have swung from being highly lax to very strict. Maybe in the future I’ll find some middle ground but I am going to try this for a while.
So I would suggest that in future commenters think carefully before they post anything, taking into account what they say and how often they say something. They should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they are arguing with and think about how they might feel if their comment had been directed at them. They should also think about how their comments might look to others. It surprises me that people do not realize how badly this kind of behavior reflects on themselves.
I realize that these guidelines are somewhat vague. So a good rule of thumb would be: If in doubt as to whether to post something because it might violate these boundaries, that is a good sign to not post it. I will be the sole judge of whether the boundary has been crossed.
I understand.
Thank you, Mano. Your blog is one of my absolute favorites, and it has been very discouraging to see people use it to flame one another. You deserve far better.
Mano, I have been lurking now for some time on Free Thought Blogs (yours, PZ’s, and Adam Lee’s). It has been irritating to the say the least having to navigate such immature behavior and have to sift through insult volleys to get at the very good responses that your posts elicit. I applaud this new policy. Thank you and keep at it.
Thanks.
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
Pharyngula is just too popular/fast for me to keep up with, but your blog is one of the ones that posts a lot of content I find personally interesting, although I have found the comment threads sometimes a bit hostile for a casual commenter.
Even so, I don’t often have a lot to say, and mostly read/observe, but there have been several times where I felt like commenting on a topic I had a personal interest in, but didn’t, because by the time I got to the comment thread, it had devolved into little more than an previous/ongoing conflict twixt a handful of individuals, with little bearing to the post topic.
I’m very glad you’ve taking this step Mano. I can feel my overwhelming urge to fight fire with fire subsiding already.
I am happy to see an end to comment threads filled with nasty bickering and pointless argumentation. Hopefully this change will inspire some higher quality discussion from the people who lurk, but don’t comment because of the “ dauntingly hostile” tone created mostly by
[name redacted].
I appreciate the new policy.
I have to agree with the assessment of the comment environment. For a while now, the comments have been dominated by personal squabbles that clearly aren’t going anywhere constructive, nor saying anything new. Perhaps we can agree that everyone has had ample chance to air their grievances and now we move on.
This is long overdue.
Striking the right balance in comment moderation is very difficult. I understand why you wanted to maintain your light-touch policy, but like many others, I don’t think it was working very well -- which was a great shame, because there are a good number of thoughtful participants here, who don’t deserve to be drowned out. But I know there have been many times that I’ve chosen to simply ignore a comment thread once the number of comments from the usual suspects got too high, and that I’m not the only reader who has resorted to using browser extensions to expunge the worst offenders.
Here’s hoping that the new policy improves matters.
… And welcome!
Today is the first time for a while that I have read more than the first two or three comments.
Your private correspondent is not alone — I’d like to thank you both.
I worry that there may be a few sock puppet accounts created at a few 3am’s, but I imagine it will be obvious and actionable.
I can certainly remember posts in which there were interesting and constructive exchanges involving more than three comments from several people. But they are few and far between…
Thanks Mano, I think you’ve made a good choice.
Thank you. Looking forward to more signal and less noise.
I think it’s become pretty well established that laissez-faire comment moderation doesn’t work. As much as it’s an ideal, ALWAYS the trolls take over and drive out everyone else who doesn’t want to be in a space dominated by trolls.
Musk tried it with twitter (excuse me, X) leading to a mass exodus of advertisers because they didn’t want their ads next to unmoderated bigotry.
Strict fixed rules don’t work either because trolls will make a game of bending the rules as much as possible without technically breaking them.
I hate to say it but the solution is autocracy. X-D
Good faith commenters are usually quite easy to tell from bad faith ones, and I think Mano’s new policy is the one that’s proven to be most successful.
Looking forward to threads with just six blanked lines, then one with seven, then none with more than three. Can’t happen soon enough. Three so far here, so fingers crossed…
(estimated time before someone continues a grievance from a previous thread into a new one to get around the three reply limit on a technicality… More or less immediately.)
Thank you for this.
But could the policy address quality rather than quantity? It usually takes only one ad hominem attack by one of two or three known trolls for me to know that a comment thread is about to become content-free (aside from name-calling).
Also, banning seems extreme because the known offenders sometimes have something interesting to say. Could the policy be that a single personal attack of another commenter triggers moderation? I’m guessing that that wouldn’t give you a lot more work to do since I gather that you read all the comments anyway; and it probably wouldn’t be long before any comment that would otherwise begin the descent simply doesn’t appear.
The light touch approach almost worked, but this is definitely a beneficial move. I say this even knowing that I am one of the “couple of others”.
Yay!
(Enjoying the absence of certain voices on this page…)
Tangentially, I’d like to recommend Marcy Wheeler’s emptywheel.net in this context. Not only does Dr. Wheeler provide insightful background on political issues, she has a fierce sidekick yclept Rayne who moderates comments with a strong hand, resulting in one of the most consistently readable and worthwhile discussion threads on the ‘net.
Thank you, Mano.
Comments are meant to encourage discussion, not to end it.
I am also one who finds your posts very interesting.
That sounds reasonable. When I do get involved in a discussion in the comments I usually think my point is made within a couple comments. Beyond that it’s usually either clarification because I wasn’t able to explain my idea well, or trying to defend (or amend) my thought because of points I didn’t think of in my initial comment.
There have been occasions when I have been guilty of filling up a thread, but I do try to avoid that until after other people have had their say. I recognize that I tend to post a wall-o-text, which I also realize that many people will not read, so I am trying to avoid doing so until responses taper off.
I look forward to seeing how the conversations will develop.
I support this change in moderation.
And hey, to whoever it was who wrote the email, I support you! Your writing is cogent and fair and I hope that you find a shift in the atmosphere that leads to you contributing more comments.
I would like to thank Mano’s correspondent for taking the time to write and welcome the change in comment policy.
Your blog, your rules.
I think that this is a change for the better.
I admire your heroic levels of restraint leading up to this.
I think limiting the comments per poster is a good thing. Some of the other statements are vague/ambiguous so i suppose time will tell.
I quite agree with this policy.
My own approach is try to think of a ‘comments’ section as: This is the place to comment on the article.
When the comments start pinging off in other directions I usually lose interest, given how many other places there are on the internet where a particular topic might be more at home. Clearly, most folks feel differently. I am hoping this new policy has the effect of, not only tamping down the trolls, but of generating more discussion of the original topic.
Thank you, Mano. I could have written that email myself, and nearly did on a couple occasions. I’m glad someone else did and that you responded in a positive way.
Good move!
I also approve of this new policy.
Thank you Mano.
I look forward to the change!
This should improve things around here!
I really was not trying to test the new rule (except maybe the last time) when I posted 5 comments on the post after this one…
5 comments Pierce?? Five?!?? My god man, what kind of demented fu… err cough cough a-hem a-hem ahrrrrr
There is no way to have WordPress limit the number of comments.
I will have to monitor that personally, which is going to be a bit tedious. But it allows me flexibility to ignore accidental or occasional overstepping of the boundaries. I am really trying to stop the extreme cases.
My last comment in this thread: thanks to our esteemed host for his forbearance (and let’s hope WP codes more comprehensive moderation tools soon)!
When I was moderating a gaming forum populated mostly by teenagers, the best approach appeared akin to one of a good dungeon master running a DnD game -- the rules are just guidelines, and the admin’s discretion is sacrosanct. If someone “technically” breaks the rules but the admin says it’s OK, it is OK. If someone “technically” does not break the rules but the admin says they overstepped, they overstepped. I banned back in those times quite a few a-holes who made a habit of rule-lawyering and trying to toe the line on technicalities. After a few ruthless bans, the rest of the children behaved reasonably well and I rarely needed to use ban again, a warning was enough to put them in line most of the time.
Adults appear to behave online just like teenagers and maybe a similar approach is thus warranted.
Count me among those who completely stopped reading the comment sections under several of the last posts because they were not on topic but just airing off petty personal grievances that no one except (maybe) the participants could understand or care about.
FWIW, I hope John realizes he can still make valuable contributions.
Charly@37:
I’m at least a little concerned about potential splash damage to non-neurotypical commenters here. Thing is, non-neurotypicals are not very good at the whole “ingratiate yourself to the boss” sort of thing, and as a result depend on clear, established boundaries — particularly, that they are guaranteed safe if they stay within certain lines, whether or not the boss-person (whoever that may be in context, and whether actually singular or collective) personally likes them or not. Thing is, people often find the non-neurotypical person to be off-putting, irritating, or similarly, and if someone has the power to do so they may easily give in to the tempration to ban that non-neurotypical person, or otherwise punish them, even if they haven’t actually done anything wrong.
I am not sure how this can be addressed without allowing rules-lawyering by those genuinely acting in bad faith. But it should be noted that if said rules-lawyering is a bad thing, that means there is a mismatch between the rules-as-written and the rules-as-we-wish-people-would-actually-follow, and the latter prohibit something while the former have some loophole that permits said thing. I’d say the fairest system, where everyone should be able to know where they stand, is to have clear rules and to amend the rules from time to time to close such loopholes as are found and exploited, without any attempt to apply such amendments retroactively. Reserving harsh or, especially, irrevocable penalties (such as a perma ban) to repeat offenses may also be wise, e.g. you get two warnings first and warnings eventually “age out”. Egregious and blatant violations would skip the warning stage (particularly, obvious stuff like overt commercial spam from a new name). Otherwise, say, three offenses within a sliding three-month window and you’re out.
Ultimately, though, it is up to Mano to decide how best to moderate the comments here.
Thank you, Mano. I’ve been wondering for some time now if there was going to be a change as things were definitely spiralling, and even though for a while now I’d try to skip some of the commenters that just made reading the comments a chore.
#38 Rob
But is that his motivating reason to post? I have not had that impression.
Charly @37: I agree with your approach to DMing. It seems — based on how you describe it at least — that a rules and rules-lawyering approach would tend to cause division in a group, as some people would get offended by another person’s actions and the offender would say “so what, I didn’t break any rules!” Whereas a “guidelines with the DM as final arbiter” approach would be more likely to lead to unity, as everyone would be thinking “Okay, the DM is applying general principles we’ve already agreed on.”
And I suspect the latter approach does work better in forums like this; at least insofar as people who don’t share a blog-owner’s principles will tend to bugger off; while those who do can stay cooperative without having to test boundaries or question the owner’s fairness or consistency.
Well, today I learned that, unlike Pierce R. Butler, I am one of those people to whom the new rule DOES apply. Thanks for the heads up, Mano, good to know where I stand.
Thank you for your support.