New comments policy

April 15th, 2007 → 10:21 am @ // No Comments

A number of people have been writing in asking about the possibility of an approved “white list” — perhaps not the best term when we’re celebrating Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color barrier, but there you go — whereby previously approved readers can post comments without waiting for them to be cleared by me. So let’s try something along those lines. As of right now, commenters must have signed on with a screen name, as has always been the case; they’ll also need to have a previously approved comment. Beyond that, they won’t be held for moderation. New users will have their comments posted as well; they’ll just need to wait for me to clear them for takeoff.With this comes a new, stricter disciplinary measures: posters will no longer be warned the first time they test positive — from here on out, if you post something that gets dinged because it’s hateful, or racist, or sexist, or gratuitously offensive, or whatever, that’s it: you’re gone. For good. Or: Imus wouldn’t have had a week to flail around like a beached whale before getting canned if his only job had been posting on my blog. (Of course, nobody would have cared if he’d only been posting on my blog.)

Got it? Good. Any questions, etc., can be posted in the comments section below…

Post Categories: Comments

3 Comments → “New comments policy”

  1. V06

    17 years ago


    I’m not sure this is necessarily an improvement to “white list” veteran posters with the trade off being “a new, stricter disciplinary measure”. Other participants may have a different interpretation of what is “hateful, or racist, or sexist, or gratuitously offensive” than what your interpretation seems to be. And since this is your blog, your interpretation is the most important one.

    I’ve always felt that you have moderated in a very timely fashion… perhaps some people can’t wait to see their comments appear soon after they hit the “press me now” button. Or would you simply rather not have to spend as much time reviewing each comment prior to putting the post up? I don’t blame you if this was the case.

    Dude, again, this is your blog and of course you have every right to determine who can and who can not participate; but what if someone posts an arguement that vehemently (but without malice) disagrees with a postion you have previously taken? And you’re having a bad day so you consider that to be their “one strike” and ban them? Arbitrary standards of decency or a “I’ll-know-it-when-I-see it” approach to censorship trouble me.

    Also, I’m not sure that using Imus as an example for posters to avoid is also the best comparison for this situation. He was highly compensated for providing his opinions on a public forum. He should have known the consequences of “pushing the envelope” or saying something considered not only racist but sexist too. But he was from an age where political correctness and sensativity did not exist. And I would not allow his producers as well as his employer to be let off the hook too as I have no doubt that they did nothing to rein in his opinions, but rather fostered or even encouraged him to be even more outrageous.

    Seth, I request to continue to post under the current “safety net” of your moderation as I am not certain that I have a strong enough understanding of what you consider to be “hateful” or “gratuitously offensive”. I would much rather yield to your censorship than trust in self-censorship. The possiblity exists that following a “one strike and you’re out” policy may have a chilling affect on open discourse amongst participants on this blog. Or it may make no difference at all.

    Disclaimer: if any of the above statements or comments is considered offensive to the moderator or any reader, please don’t ban me, ostrasize me, or force me into exile; but rather give me a chance to deeply apologize to all who were harmed by my opinions, to seek forgiveness, strive for redemption, and eagerly enter rehabilitation without reservation. Now let’s all form a circle and hold hands. Basking in the warm glow of a bonfire built from burning indecent, degenerate books.

    “Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings.” German writer Heinrich Heine, 1821.

    Don’t worry — the Imus thing was an attempt at a topical reference. And I’m not going to be overly harsh; I’d really be surprised if anyone got dinged. Here are perhaps the only examples of comments (that never got posted) that would have resulted in someone getting a Pete Rose:

    * Calling a player “a militant nigger.”

    * Making specific reference to allegations about players cheating on their wives.

    * Asking why a sportswriter doesn’t just commit suicide because he’s so incredibly ugly.

    * Personal attacks directly at me (i.e., not related to my work).

    I wouldn’t spend too much time sweating it if I were you…

    — Seth


  2. Jack

    17 years ago

    This new policy is rife with problems and, as such, I think that you should kill yourself you ugly little, militant, white devil.

    PS – I heard Babe Ruth was cheated on his wife.


  3. Jack

    17 years ago

    Damn. You should ban me just for that typo.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: