News-Record.com

Unfortunately that potential value of written exchange is countered by the absence of face to face and tonal signals, so people can be meaner than spit in writing when they wouldn't be in person. But I think banning, and the threat of it, helps the civility of discourse. I banned someone from my e-mail account just yesterday. I think you're right - broad latitude, or too broad a latitude, does discourage all but the thickest of skin. One can carry on discourse and disagree in the most profound terms, yet still do so in a civil manner. Having rules of exchange does not inhibit freedom of expression as I see it. I know there have been times when I have not been civil as I ought to have been, and I regret it very much. I am glad I have not been banned!

On the other side of the coin banning a commenter often gives volume and attention to the commenter that he or she would have never had.

That said, I ban a couple every month or so and I too have been known to cross lines from time to time.

Oops, sorry 'bout that.

I don't think I was so much "banned" from the LTE blog as I was just one of those Alamance County bumpkins never chosen to play. Not being the coldest beer in the 'fridge meant I was not smart or clever enuf to find my way through that cumbersome TypeKey (whatever or whoever that is) maze - obviously other N&R blogs (Off The Record, The Front Pew, The Editor's Log, etc.) don't require the same access criteria which kind of made me think the LTE blog may have its own built in weeding out process designed to preempt computer illiterate incompetents -

I take the view that comments are pretty much open so long as commenters follow our terms of use. I have given commenters what I consider broad latitude to have their say. I have thought for a while that that practice has actually discouraged anyone but those with thick skins to enter the discussion. Shouldn't have to be that way.

Come on JR this is a forum for dialog, some might be more passionate than others, of course threats, and or vulgarity are not acceptable. But lets not block any one because it gets to hot in the kitchen, though I do understand your comment as most of your posts are not universally accepted. JR you haven't been particularly been overly kind to some of my comments in the past and I just take them with a grain of salt! Well maybe that'll change when FOX gets on board. Wouldn't it be a scream if you had to report directly to Bill O'Rielly, now that would be news!

Is there some fire about Fox buying the paper are is it smoke. The only place I have seen this is here.

Doug, I believe that's just wishful thinking on the part of some folks who leave comments around these parts.

Jonathan is correct, Doug.

"Essentially, commenters need to treat me and others with respect. It is not an unreasonable rule."

That doesn't apply to certain blogs and blog proprietors, including the one referenced in the link you provided.

Provocation in support of the host is allowed, generally by design, in order to start a provocation that can be used for manipulative purposes to "ostracize" the dissenter. At the blog listed, that sort of technique is legendary.

There are ways to combat the over the top, arrogant misuse of the "banning" threat that's conveniently used to control unwanted opinions.

There's a discussion on this issue here which sheds some insight into the process.

Excerpt:

"But I will say this. In light of all the flowery talk (from what Bubba calls "the usual suspects") about 'free speech' and 'transparency' and 'accountability', banning commentary (in essence, banning people and their voices/ideas) is the exact opposite of what I was under the impression blogging was supposed to be about.

It's fine to moderate. It's fine to maintain blogrolls (although if you are one of the local big guns and you say your about "community" and being 'inclusive', you need to INCLUDE people rather than EXCLUDE them). It's fine to say, if you can't sign your name (even a fake) one, (1) you probably shouldn't be saying it and (2) it won't get published on my blog. It's fine to delete commentary that is offensive (i.e. bad language or threatening in tone), and say you've deleted it. But banning people from saying something before you even know what they're going to say . . .

. . . well, that's just wrong (not to mention as corporate & big-brother as one can get).

It's saying 'SHUT THE HELL UP!'.

And please note WHO in our local blogosphere is saying it."

I view a blog and its comments as a salon where people are invited for conversation. Disagreement and even trash-talk are fine by me, but there are limits to what the host will tolerate.

I've banned three people in six years.

One for contacting the employers of commenters she didn't like in order to get them in trouble.

One for non-stop, semi-coherent, off-topic comments, which included frequent attempts to pick fights with Bubba.

And now Bubba, after many years, in which I asked him repeatedly to stop making personal comments and taunting other commenters; Ionce suspended him for doing so, and things got better for a while, but eventually went back to square one. I kept him around because I want to have a lot of voices, including dissenting voices, at my site, but he would not or could not abide by some simple courtesies he was asked many times to observe.

Ultimately, I was disappointed with other regular commenters who could not just ignore the taunts. I asked them to do so many times as means of allowing Bubba to stay, but they proved no more capable of ignoring him than he was capable of modifying his behavior.

So I had to make a decision, and I made it.

And a good decision it was, Ed. As we learned from Arrington, incessantly nasty and personal comments may have implications we couldn't have imagined a few years ago. Anyone who contributes to the irresponsible mayhem should be warned and if he or she cannot act responsibly and respectfully, should be told to leave your sandbox. The more popular your blog is, the more responsibility you have (sad as it is that it deflects the onus to you). I'm terribly disappointed in this 'burg's nasty online comments, lackluster personal responsibility in policing one's own sandbox, and most of all, the vituperative personal attacks going on. Is it new? No. Should it be tolerated? No again.

Someday, someone will do a study on all of this. But for today, banning is a last-resort but occasionally required action. I'm trimming my feeds to simply not read those blogs that don't, IMO, own up to their owner's responsibility in this regard, much like I wouldn't let my dogs play with others whose owners didn't teach them proper and safe behavior (no "dog -as-people" analogies, please. I love my dogs.)

I have met both Ed and Bubba. Both are cordial, professional and very interesting.

My guess is that Ed would not have banned Bubba without the nudge from Jim and then the greater nudge from Bubba. Ed can of course remove the ban and Bubba can choose to not post.

...Fox is buying the local rag...hmmmm....

"And now Bubba, after many years, in which I asked him repeatedly to stop making personal comments and taunting other commenters; Ionce suspended him for doing so, and things got better for a while, but eventually went back to square one. I kept him around because I want to have a lot of voices, including dissenting voices, at my site, but he would not or could not abide by some simple courtesies he was asked many times to observe."

Spare me your over the top, obnoxious and undeserved ego self strokes, and your condescending attitude. It doesn't play anymore, and you're not fooling anyone.

Your standard operating procedure of academic and intellectual dishonesty is well known.

Your comment is yet more evidence of those facts.

You're not trying to get banned yourself, are you Bubba, with the unnecessary personal attacks on Ed?

"You're not trying to get banned yourself, are you Bubba, with the unnecessary personal attacks on Ed?"

They are necessary,and they are accurate..

I criticize his attitude, his methods, and his motivation.

Do you consider that a "personal attack"?

If so, I will give you a plethora of examples of his work that qualifies as "personal attack".

The double standards enforced at some blogs, including his, are legendary.

I'm holding him accountable for his words and actions.

I am hardly alone in those sentiments.

I do consider calling him intellectually dishonest a personal attack. Same with obnoxious and condescending. You're applying them to the person, rather than the argument.

You don't need to give me other examples, though, I think you've made your point clear.

You do not see the condescension in this statement?

"I kept him around because I want to have a lot of voices....."

THAT'S the attitude we're discussing here. It's legendary, and it's unacceptable.

If he did not like the type of catch he made by casting his written lines into the water of the blogosphere, then perhaps he needs to have a blog that does not allow comments.

This whole thing is a failure on his part, not mine.

I will not accept responsibility for a problem he creates.

I will, however, continue to hold him accountable for his words and actions.

What I'm saying, Bubba, is that you're attacking him and his personality, not his ideas. It's not necessary, at least in my opinion.

It happens here often, as you well know, when people will mock me, without advancing the discussion or presenting or supporting their own ideas with any evidence. When that occurs, I think most people see it for what it is.

It's really between the two of you, and neither of you need me to defend either of your positions. One of the neat things about blogs is that you don't have to "keep" people around if you don't want to. And when both of them have blogs of their own...well, it allows both to speak their minds as they see fit and let their audiences go where they want.

I know for a fact that Mr. Robinson has banned commenters for daring to criticze the News & Record's reporting accuracy, news bias and business practices.

I happen to know for a fact that Mr. Robinson has done no such thing.

"And when both of them have blogs of their own...well, it allows both to speak their minds as they see fit and let their audiences go where they want."

Yes indeed.

I have the proof of that in numbers, and in private correspondence from those who comment on blogs locally, and those from near and far who do not comment on blogs locally.

Their feedback is all the validation I need.

I was Jim Wilson and got bannned...

All I told were TRUE stories about Pat Yack and Stephen A. Smith. I was there for them. They are true.

Sad how the truth apparently gets you banned.

You were banned because your comments that you say were true were offensive and attacked people. Go somewhere else to do that.