We had before us today the issue of whether or not a certain individual had lost his posting privileges at this fine Blogmocracy of ours. Wrath isn’t available this evening to put together a beautifully written speech, so I’ll have to do.
As you know, Savage runs the place. But he has handed this gift to us. A blogmocracy. To stand by the principles upon which this blog was founded, the question has been put to the vote. After much discussion this afternoon, we have decided on steps to take in the event that we are visited by another looney toon that wants to wear the stench of a troll like creature. I am including the emails (the main ones) here not to say that all decisions will be public, but to show that our intentions are honorable and that we are all dedicated to the idea of this precious Blogmocracy.
So without anything further… I give you… the Blogmocracy In Action!
DJM:
I say we ban this ass. It’s one thing to disagree with comments, but we shouldn’t allow vulgar insults.
ARWYN:
Ok, it’s already a done deal, but I want to go on record… If that’s all it takes, we can’t be saying such noble things as Wrath on the VERY SAME THREAD like:
Rodan is only expressing his own opinion. His statements can only be attributed to him. We don’t delete, ban, or discourage free speech here at the Blogmocracy, even if it is offensive, unpopular, or otherwise counters our own beliefs. I know this concept is unique for many of the blogs you probably frequent, but stick around, I am sure you will get used to it.
Then POOF – the f’er is gone.
SAVAGE:
I won’t tolerate scumbags!
DJM:
There is a difference between a rebuttal or disagreement, and the vulgar insults ron posted without provocation. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t want commenters to worry they may be personally attacked if they post unpopular opinions. Let neidleman_ron be made an example. IMO.
ARWYN:
I don’t know how many comments were deleted, but if it was just the one that is in the spam folder now, or even a couple that could have been edited to **** out the naughty bits if you must, well… Then we can’t claim we don’t do that as I thought Wrath rightfully did at the time. And I think being all adults (mostly, with the exception of a few sometimes) our commenters can take care of themselves. Hopefully. I mean on and on and on- i see your point. But 2 posts? Did I miss something?
DJM:
I saw two – one is still on the thread, and the other is in the spam folder. Both were spouting foul language directed at Rodan. We don’t need that. I wouldn’t blog at a site which allowed personal attacks, and I don’t think we should let LGF2 become that. We may not always act like adults but I would like to think we are above ad hominen attacks, and that we will protect all our commenters from such. I’m sorry, Wrath, if I stepped on toes. I just thinking its more important to set a firm limitation than to try and coddle people like neidlemen_ron.
DJM:
These are neidlemen_ron’s comments – both unprovoked, both personal:
Rodan — you are one sick f***, dude…one sick motherf***er. But at least you save the rest of us some time by perfectly describing the mentality of the lgf2.com — what else is there to know about this backwater? You don’t care about Iraqis for one reason; they are mostly muslim. Sacrifice these worthless scum, right? They have no right to self-determination so long as they reject Christianity, right? You are one ugly piece of self-loathing trash.
and:
That you even cavort with a f***face like rodan is testment your own character. Assuming you disagree with this caveman’s “opinion”, why would you engage him?
BAR:
I think we are some pretty big boys and girls, I think we can handle being called a f**k-face. It helps to thicken the skin, which only helps in later debates with vulgar people who make personal attacks. In my opinion having a poster making vulgar comments and when we and others reply without using vulgar comments it makes the poster look like a fool. Now if the vulgar poster causes other posters to be vulgar back and it turns into a name calling match, then I would ban them.
DJM:
What are you saying, dude? Wait until our posters get so fed up they either leave or sink to his level? Why let it get that far? Please read ron’s comments I just sent. If that doesn’t warrant expulsion we may as well just turn LGF2 into a free for all. I think we all knew free speech wouldn’t mean unlimited and unaccountable speech. ; )
SAVAGE:
But we still have to set some kind of standard.
LANCE KATES:
The freedoms we push have to apply to all or none. I dislike vulgarity and such. I think they’re a 1.0’r and are just trolling. I say we send them an email nicely saying to not be so vulgar and avoid ad hominem. Add that 1.0’rs are welcome, but pedanic actions are not and that we’d appreciate if they refrained from it. Then post the email sans addresses in a thread for all to see.
WRATHOFG-D:
I must go to Shabbat, but my 2c is that this banning was unwarranted. We cannot say one thing (pro free speech, more classy than 1.0) then go about and do the opposite. Ron was an obvious crass mouth, offensive ignoble pain, but as we all know, it is these types of behaviors that we must protect, and are most threatened. Popular points of view never have to be protected by any Freedoms (even on blogs), it is the unpopular ones that do! He/she was obnoxious, no doubt, and he/she should have been, and was called on it. There was no need to go against everything we claim to be and ban him. Ignoring would have sufficed — Ignoring yet with a public (in thread) comment by a Admin (preferrably the victim of his rudeness) that we respect his right on this Blogmocracy to say these things, but acknowledging that he is doing so obnoxiously and will be ignored until he can act mature, would have embarrassed him, stopped his behavior, and kept our values. It would have also very publicly shown anyone reading that we actually stick to our values, and how big of a person Rodan is. If you notice, it seems that Lance, Bar, Arwin, and I would have voted against the banning. This is exactly why we must set up a formal banning procedure. We will beat LGF by being better, being smarter, standing for something bigger, but above all else…..meaning and practicing it. I respect all of you greatly, but this banning seemed too quick, too final.
DJM:
You guys do what you think is best. I won’t object. The guy probably learned his lesson. We not talking about dissent or disagreements. I don’t think we should tolerate such vulgar personal attacks. I wouldn’t comment at a blog where the Admins allowed me to be insulted. I’ve put my 2cents in.
SAVAGE:
I banned that scumbag Ron for one good reason and that is because he came in here popping off shit about Rodan and it was totally unwarranted and uncalled for. I wanted LGF2.0 to be a place to debate certain folks and make it kind of clean but everyone here seems to want it to be a damn free-for-all, anarchic kind of place.
DJM:
I’m with you on this, savage. We can give commenters the freedom to speak their mind – but it shouldn’t be unlimited – they shouldn’t be allowed to just hurl insults at whoever they don’t like. It isn’t fair to those who come for serious debate and it isn’t fair to those insulted. LGF2 is about being able to express your views without being made to feel like shit for doing so. It may not be a perfect forum, but it’s damned better than most.
ARWYN:
I think we all agree on that. But at least an Admin edit and a warning? And a contact email going on the front page so that Citizens can report an especially nasty commenter.
1. Reported to or seen by an admin.
2. Edited and warned.
3. Keeps it up… temporarily blocked and delegated to “spam” for panel review… (which if they keep it up, you’ll get 7 yeseses 🙂 on review.)
4. Review decision implemented!ta daaaaaah! 🙂
RODAN– abstained
To ban, or not to ban
Roll Call
Savage: Yay
DJM: Yay
WrathofG-d: Nay
LanceKates: Nay
Arwyn: Nay
Bar: Nay
Rodan: Abstain
Implemented:
1. Contact email to be added for Citizens to report questionable comments.
blogmocracy @ gmail . com
2. Offending posts will be edited with Admin warning.
3. Repeated need of warnings will not be tolerated.
4. Offending posts are then sent to spam for further review, while the citizen temporarily loses commenting privileges.
5. Upon review, there will be a roll call vote.
6. The Blogmocracy has spoken.
7. Citizens have a right to a fair and speedy trial 😉
In conclusion: Neidleman_Ron, your posting privileges have been reinstated. Don’t screw it up.
Update: This is not a ban on banning. Simply a procedure to follow so that we aren’t banning emotionally. Savage always has veto power.
Tags: banned
