Of late, we here at Wizbang have been attracting our share of detractors. Some are trolls, some are sincere critics, and some are just schmucks. (These are not mutually exclusive categories. Mak, for example, fits the first and third category quite nicely.) It’s one of the things I value most about the way things are done around here — the constant challenge forces me to re-evaluate my own positions on occasion, changing my opinion when I’ve been mistaken some times, re-enforcing my beliefs on others.
But one of their tactics is starting to get on my nerves a bit.
Sometimes, a new story or opinion piece will come out that somebody will consider absolutely devastating to one of our positions here at Wizbang. (This is usually on the war in Iraq, which I believe we all support.) They will post a link, an excerpt, or even the entire piece not on a relevant posting, but on whichever one happens to be at the top of the page.
Now, there really is no call for this. We tend to discuss the war in Iraq (and, by extension, the War On Terror) on a fairly regular basis. We even have specific categories for War On Terror and Iraq.
Now, I don’t think I’m asking too much that these folks stick their pieces into the comments of a relevant piece? If there isn’t a piece on the war on the front page, there will be soon. It’s, quite frankly, rude to try to hijack whatever piece happens to be at or near the top of the page for your own agenda.
WIth that in mind, I have been considering a few actions to attempt to discourage such behavior. I haven’t come to any decisions, but I thought it might be useful to toss out a few ideas I’ve had to deal with this:
1) Replace the text with “I eat boogers” or some other insulting phrase.
B) Delete it entirely.
III) Ignore it.
d) Replace the text with “BLOOD FOR ODIN!”
Now, this isn’t a democracy. I’m not going to do whatever the most people say. In fact, I’m not going to do anything without kicking it around with Kevin and the rest of the crew who post here on the main page. But I would like to hear what you folks have to say.
Please just delete them.
Consider this a bit more objectively.
If a comment is posted that has nothing related to the original post, we call it spam. (Usually it is linking to another site.) It gets deleted if the spam filter doesn’t catch it. Why should a post by someone who isn’t a “bot” get better treatment than spam? Unrelated or off-topic comments *are* spam and I don’t want to have to scroll past them.
My reasoning for just deleting them rather than modifying them is twofold;
1) I don’t want the authors here spending any more time than absolutely necessary managing the blog – I want them producing quality commentary in a good frame of mind. Editting someone else’s post takes time and can distract the author from something else they may have been working on.
b) Leaving a post by the original author still gets that author recognition. A commenter who posts spam doesn’t deserve recognition for another off-topic post – s/he deserves *nothing*. And the opposite of “love” is not “hate” – it is “indifference”. The proper way (IMO) to prevent undesired behavior from a narcissist is not to acknowledge the behavior and provide the spammer attention. The proper way is to delete the comment and starve the attention-monger.
The “Odin” and “boogers” things are cute, but they still require time to do and provide the spammer with the desired feedback of “Ha! They noticed me! I got their attention!”
Just delete it and move on.
Paul,
Your bowel movement wasn’t that big.
I agree with Jon. Just say NO to completely off-topic posts.
It’s a judgement call. Leave in the smartass one-liners for comic relief, for example. But if the comment has absolutely nothing to do with the stem post, it is often merely an attempt to hijack the thread. That’s troll behavior.
Trolls deserve to have their offending posts deleted. Repeat offenders should be banned altogether.
This isn’t even an anti-moonbat position. The looney leftists should remain free to say any fool thing that pops into their minds – or more likely, springs off of the talking points from moonbat HQ – so long as it is ON TOPIC.
That way, we still get to laugh at the morons, but readers are not subjected to off-topic diversions. Everybody’s happy!
It’s like the dawning of the Age of Aquarius . . .
õ¿õ
I was banned from Crooks and Liars for merely being contrary to the utterly insane positions of the ignoarti there.
It’s commendable to allow dissent, something infrequently permitted on left-wing sites.
Then again, it is a privilege and not a right. The posts need to be kept in the proper place. As someone who also runs a forum I’d recommend one warning and allow the person to reposition the post, followed by deletion of further hijacking efforts.
I’ve only been visiting this blog for a couple of months and I’ve enjoyed it thus far, but if you start editing comments I’m afraid I need to find another blog to visit. I understand your frustration with some comments being out of context or just plain mean, and it is your blog so you can do with it what you please, but to me, editing someone’s words is going far beyond controlling. If I know that some comments are being edited, then I have to assume EVERY comment may be edited, thus rendering the entire blog useless. Please let us know your intentions so I can make a decision. Thanks
This is a very common problem on many blogs. Matt at Froggyruminations often deleted the longwinded, offtopic or offensive comment after warnings. SEALs don’t mess around and he always reminded us his blog was not a democracy. Worked for me. I wish more blog owners would get rough.
The idea that allowing long, offtopic comments (including entire articles) to clog up and ruin a comment thread will lead to fewer thread hijackings is the height of stupidity to me; sounds like the argument that not fighting terrorists will lead to fewer terror attacks.
And at least some of us abandon a thread as soon as it’s hijacked. When every thread routinely gets hijacked, we abandon the blog. That is what hijackers want.
My vote is for 1 warning; on further infractions, keep the commenter’s name, remove the comment and replace it with “I violated the rules against stupidity.”
I said:
“I’ve noticed that cogent comments made to his blog postings, which are polite and thoughtful but just happen to be in opposition to his stated opinion, are routinely deleted”
and Paul replies
“Bullshit”
then says
“If you:
1) Lie
2) Are demonstrably wrong about a fact (not an opinion) and refuse to accept reality
or 3) Incrediblly overtly annoying
I’ll delete you with a good heart”
Which exactly proves my point…. the five words at the start of this sentence is enough in Paul’s mind to justify deleting this comment (he’s done that before on something as simple as that statement – that “he’s proven my point”).
He does so routinely. I say he deletes my comments regardless of their politeness and appropriateness, and he says Bullshit but then says: I’ve been deleting your every comment for the last few days to give you a reality check.
Ooops, there he goes, contradicting himself… and the five words at the start of this sentence are enough in Paul’s mind to justify deleting this comment — stating that he’s contradicted himself – because he no doubt disagrees that he’s contradicted himself.
Paul also lied. It hasn’t been in just the last few days this has been ongoing for at least a month.
Paul also said: Mac Lorry often disagrees. I doubt he’s even been deleted.” — but Mac Lorry says the following in a comment posted above, affirming that my (Lee’s) “…comment about being deleted from Paul’s stories is true and I have even had some deleted myself, although to be fair, I was warned.”
Hmmm. Paul says it hasn’t happened, but here is testimony it has… oh well, you readers would never know it since Paul would read this and delete it….
etc.
Enough said. I’m not going to beat this dead horse any longer, but I am going to continue to point out Paul’s uh— “inconsistencies” and Paul will continue to delete comments I make solely because they disagree with what’s he said (in his words “they lie”) unless a policy change takes place.
I absolutely guarantee that Paul delete this commment if he could. I’m 100% absolute positively convinced he would, and if he says he wouldn’t have — he’s lying.
That’s the truth, and Paul doesn’t want you to hear it.
To Mantis and Paul:
I’ve seen scarier things than Lee in my stool.
I’m very disapointed to hear that comments are being deleted. Even though I don’t agree with Lee politically, from what I’ve seen he hasn’t been threatening, abusive, irrational, or out of line. I have however seen Paul in this very thread say: “I’ll drop kick your sorry ass across the blogosphere.”
A healthy exchange of ideas is always productive. Abusing the power one has on here is counter-productive.
Lee, once again, you’ve passed on yet another opportunity to just shut the hell up. Nobody here cares for your condescending, argumentative and insulting posts.
A “healthy exchange of ideas”, as Tim describes it, makes sense, but regularly posting incindiary comments (Lee and Mak come to mind) reminds me of that VW commercial “I’m overcoming my shortcomings! I’m overcoming my shortcomings!”…
I’m in favor of a little unprovoked censorship, if the ACLU types don’t mind a hell of a lot, in the interest of a more harmonious atmosphere around here. The guys that run this blog do a good job and deserve a little common respect.
Mantis, I believe that I can count on one hand the number of comments you’ve made that I agreed with. Your first comment on this thread actually impressed me. Well done.
Oh, and I like “Blood for Odin!” best. Every time I hear or read that I giggle.
Lee,
The only comment of mine that Paul has deleted, that I know of, was after he told me not to feed the trolls (you), and when one of my small comments referred to one of your deleted comments, it was deleted, maybe by accident or for constancy, I don’t know. I know you disagree, but I figure that if I’m going to challenge one of Paul’s point, I need to have my facts straight or clearly indicate it’s my opinion. This is particularly true if the subject is New Orleans.
I love Jay’s work, but I also love Paul’s work, but I don’t want two Jays or two Pauls. It’s the verity that makes WizBang so interesting. Jay has one set of rules and Paul has his own set. I don’t mean any disrespect, but if you are thin skinned, or don’t like Paul’s rules, don’t reply to Paul’s threads.
Well I know exactly what I’d do.
If they post a long news article, I think it is only fair to replace it with something at least a bit longer than ‘Blood for Odin’.
I would replace it either with the text of the opening speech from Patton, or Carl Spackler’s speech from Caddyshack extolling the wonders of being a ‘looper’ for the Dalai Lama.
“Big hitter, the lama . . . “
Lee the dimwit did opine:
He does so routinely. I say he deletes my comments regardless of their politeness and appropriateness, and he says Bullshit but then says: I’ve been deleting your every comment for the last few days to give you a reality check.
Ooops, there he goes, contradicting himself…
=========
Sigh… It’s SUCH a shame Lee can’t read…..
let me exaplin it to you again you nitwit….. I said:
——
1) Lie
2) Are demonstrably wrong about a fact (not an opinion) and refuse to accept reality
or 3) Incrediblly overtly annoying
I’ll delete you with a good heart. Now to get deleted for #3 the bar is actually quite high.
#’s 1 and 2 the bar is fairly low.
IF IF IF you’ve been deleted for 1 or 2 a few times a short period of time, the #3 bar goes down lower.
————
That last part applies to you. You got deleted “with cause” so many times the bar was at ground level. Your mere presence was enough.
I know thinking was never your long suit but I can always hope.
The only comment of mine that Paul has deleted, that I know of, was after he told me not to feed the trolls (you), and when one of my small comments referred to one of your deleted comments, it was deleted, maybe by accident or for constancy, I don’t know.
—-
I do remember that now that you mention it… Constancy, nothing more…
It looks funny if you reply to a comment that is not there any more.
As you say it was a small comment so when I nuked Lee so I took out yours as well. No biggie.