CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND LOOKING FOR YOUR VOTE

304 comments on “CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND LOOKING FOR YOUR VOTE”

1. Incidentally, it seems like at least a few posters are really confused on what “yes” or “no” actually means in the vote. Who designed this–the same lady in Florida who came up with the butterfly ballot?

2. I say yes, it would conflict with your standard on Free Speach. It’s not hard to ignore the accoassional áššhølëš. Read the Byrne Boards to see how something like that can get out of hand.

3. If I’m an offender, I vote “NO!” 😀

   Actually, I vote “no” anyway, simply because I don’t feel it’s my decision to make. However, since this is basically “your house”, if you choose to evict people, that won’t hurt my feelings any. 😉

4. Gah! I meant “YES” both times. Some how I got my wires crossed, where “yes = boot them” and “no = don’t boot them”. 9.9

5. This isn’t a free speech issue. If some clod on this board wants to make an ášš of himself, there’s a plethora of places on the net for him to do it.

6. Does he have the right to boot? Yes. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the earlier thread about For Better and For Worse. I don’t post often and extensively enough to really get irritated, but this is Peter’s soapbox and we get to respond. Should he boot? Only as a last option. Get this person’s attention, and let them know that what they’re doing is bothering anough people to bring it to the manager’s attention.

   I abstain.

7. Qualified “No”. I don’t think disallowing abusive or insulting posts conflicts with free speech. As others have said, this board is

   essentially a courtesy you provide; in such a setting, in any setting really, people shouldn’t have the expectation that they have a right to impose their poor behaviour and lack of courtesy on everyone else. Your site, your standard.

   Having said that, I personally don’t feel it’s necessary to ban folks. Yet. Maybe it’s coming, but there don’t seem to be many people here who only wish to troll and irritate people. Those few who go too far look to me like they’re attacking and insulting people out of frustration with their own incoherence and inability to sway others.

   Not to excuse them, but unlike with a physical presence in a store, I can just scroll past these posts and ignore them.

   Though I do find that I sometimes have to scroll… and scroll… and scroll. And that the longer rants can interfere with the flow of discussion.

   I do find the more strident (sometimes offensive) posts to still be of some value; if nothing else, they’re a really interesting look into how people of a certain stripe think… or don’t think.

   If it does become necessary to remove some posts, it might be an idea to place them in a “trash bin” or “hall of infamy” section or whatnot. Serves two purposes: it partially defangs the censorship concern, and it also lets others look and see just what constitutes “crossing the line”.

8. PAD,

   it’s your site. Do with it what you will.

   I don’t have any trouble skipping over the problem posts.

9. I have to say, if they’re not offering anything constructive (having “different” opinions is fine, coming in and saying F* you you bunch of *** because they disagree with them is not), boot ’em.

10. Wow – you go away for a night and there’s a ton of posts on your future.

    The guy he’s talking about is me. PAD, I disagree that all of my posts were insulting with no purpose but to insult. I found your quick uninformed comments ignorant. I did not insult your writing or anything else. I said you were ignorant when it came to politics – that’s all. Then you called me a moron and the name calling began.

    If you read every one of my posts I make points about Iraq and Clinton etc. You may not agree with them, but so be it.

    I think it is ridiculous to try and ban me for this. I did not harass YOU with the intent of just harassing YOU. I’ve had plenty of back and forth with other people on this board. It’s not my fault that most people are to the left and the conservative voices are few and far between.

    I apologize for the stir it has made, but worry not. I will not take it to that level if it bothers you that much. In fact, I won’t be posting much anymore.

    I disagreed with you and when I used the same venom that you use against the President you are running to try and ban me. I’m terribly dissappointed in what I thought the board was about.

    I guess my vote wouldn’t count becuse I obviously couldn’t be objective about this subject – but I truly think you are mistakened if you are saying all my posts were just to annoy and harass. That’s absurd. They were all political.

    They are supposed to add to the quality of the board. As it stabnds – my posts on the “AMerican Intelligence” blog obviously sparked your post of the “Quote” Blog. So to say I am not adding to the board is strange.

    But again – I am sorry it’s seemed to offend you in this way. DOn’t worry – I won’t be posting anymore.

    Later,

    Udog

11. I have to vote “No”. Free speech does not apply in all cases. People are free to say anything they want. They are not free to enter your home to do so or enter a place of business and do it with impunity. They can stand on the sidewalk and shout it out all they want. This forum is your “home” on the web, and as such, you have no obligation to give them a platform.

12. I don’t really know too much about this as I’m only an occasional visitor but I would think the Litmus test should be is this person a fan of your work?

    If he hates everything you’ve done or offers non-constructive/ insulting criticism then give ’em the boot.

    If he is a fan who occasionally gripes about some of your work and expresses enjoyment regarding other examples of your work it should be fine, should’t it?

    People who are not in some way PAD fans probably shouldn’t be here, people who are somewhat bìŧçhÿ PAD fans should be fine in my opinion.

13. I suggest going directly beyond banning and directly to finding a way to pull the Hulk off the comics page and to life. Then he can go to each troll’s home and start smashing.

    On a more serious note, people who are openly insulting only damage the whole.

    I can understand and accept constructive criticism, well thought out arguments, and differing opinions. I will never tolerate personal attacks. Ever.

    Killfile ’em all and let Bill Gates sort ’em out.

14. [delurk] As others have said before, this is your board. You pay for it. If someone pees on the carpet, you should be able to kick ’em out without guilt.

    Although, if you continue to have severe misgivings about that step, perhaps a series of posted rules, i.e., “no name-calling”, “check your spelling”, “no replies longer than ‘x‘ lines” might help change the signal-to-noise ratio some.

    In answer to your question, I vote “Yeah, boot ’em.”[/delurk]

15. There are those of us who hold PAD-works to a higher standard because he’s among our favorite writers.

    I agree 2000%. In fact, Peter David is among the many writers that influenced my decision to want to write comic books. I haven’t been published, but I’m plotting and scripting some things I hope get published.

    Anyway, to get to the topic at hand. I too believe in free speech. However, there is a fine line between free speech and downright insulting behavior that breaks the balls of all of those people that merely wish to talk about the topics posted in blogs. I say get them off the island.

    JHL

16. Speaking from past experience here – Warren Ellis kicked me out of his Delphi forums simply because in a thread discussing what we liked/didn’t like about certain titles, I said I didn’t like Grant Morrison’s run on New X-Men.

    His prerogative, sure, just like it’s yours Peter. He pays for the fourm after all. But I wasn’t berrating or hassling anyone. I simply said I didn’t like Morrison’s run on New X-Men and why.

    I’d say, yeah, kick him/her out if they’re hassling people and just being difficult for being difficult’s sake. But don’t kick anyone off for disagreeing with someone else’s thought or opinion.

    Clear as mud?

17. DOn’t worry – I won’t be posting anymore.

    Good. Based on the comments on this thread you wouldn’t be anyways.

    Forums that are moderated properly are far better places to be than those that aren’t.

18. To answer your question Peter, I think that it would be wrong not to let people have their say on the board. If someone disagrees with you well everyone has an opinion on something. Unless it becomes akin to screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre then let the village idiots speak.

    That’s just my opinion I could be wrong.

    Regards:

    WSJ3

19. I say get rid of the trolls. I love conflicting opinions, but if someone can’t express it without being obnoxious, give ’em the old heave ho.

20. I actually recall you dealing with this matter in a “Supergirl” issue involving Steel.

    I vote ‘no’. Let them stay.

    The Internet is a public forum, as are your boards. Even the fools can get in, sadly. Once this particular door gets open, how soon before anybody who says anything that disagrees with you and your opinion gets booted? Don’t open the door.

21. It’s me foilk and I am not going to post in any more political blogs as a result. I will post in this topic since it deals with me and I think you should all be aware of something.

    I NEVER put up posts that just insulted other posters and/or PAD.

    It startd simply with me DISAGREEING with PAD’S flippant comments about Bush which he’s done COUNTLESS times. I then made the point that lots of CELEBRITIES do the same thing and often expose how ignorant they are. I find this kind of political spouting ala Alec Baldwin to be very arrogant etc. I will not go through everything here – but if you’d like read through the “American Intelligence” Blog and the “Can I quote you?” blog and look at UDOG posts.

    I was in no way similar to the guy that shows up at PAD’s signing and berates him. First off, I am on PAD’s site – obviously I wouldn’t be here if I thought he was a total áršë. I haven’t ripped him for writing etc. I read his posts on TV and life and ejnjoy them – it is when he goes political that I think he is being a fool and a blowhard.

    I posted all quotes showing how hypocritcal his positions were based on DEM statements. Etc. It led to his “QUote” Blog.

    I am not the infantile poster who uses obscenities and insults and makes NO POINT. Every one of my posts made a point, you may or may not agree with it. Most do not b/c there seems to be more liberals on the board than conservatives. I wouldn’t post on a board full of conservatives because there’d be no point to make!

    It wasn’t until PAD called me a “moron” that I got a little more colorful – but I didn’t use obscenities etc ever. Each post – even if it insulted PAD back in kind, was illustrating a MEDIA, POLITICAL and/or CELEBRITY point.

    I also garned many posts back and I learned from them and it kept debate going.

    I’ve been on GAMEFAQS and other boards where there are flamers and trolls. I did not do that.

    I obviously ruffled feathers – but I didn’t realize if you responded back to PAD with the same barbs he uses on teh President you’d be booted off the board.

    And as far as free speech goes – yes, there are limits. If I crossed PAD’s limits – I am scared for his view of free speech.

    AS for the analogy that this is his HOME on the web. That would be akin to leaving your front door open with an open mic inviting all in and then be mad that someone says something you don’t agree with and having the COPS come and boot them out.

    There was never any need for that. I did not post my email so i wouldn’t receive nasty emails from other posters, but PAD could have WARNED me in some way.

    If someone is warned and continues to be a jerk – then so be it – get him off. I never did that.

    PAD could’ve pposted an entry or BLOG to say “You’ve crossed my line – be warned etc . . .” I would have stopped. I even stopped last night b/c too many people were getting caught up in the personal wars instead of the points.

    PAD didn’t do this and I think it would’ve been a fair first step.

    Many people are confusing me with some past posters or as someone who merely jumped on the board and insulted Joe Q Public – never happened that way.

    I disagreed with PAD and pegged him as a blowhard when it came to POLITICS and that’s it. PAD called me a “moron” and then it sunk a level – but never staryed from each post having something to do with CLinton, Iraq, Bush etc. . .

    Now if you want advice – here goes: Use a system like the GameFaqs board does where you have to register to post. If someone breaks the rules – then they are suspended and I think it links to an IP address and they can’t rejoin etc . . . That should cure problems here.

    But that’s assuming thee’s someone else causing a problem. Since this seems to be just because of me, UDOG, well you neednt’t bother. I don’t know what the limits are so I’m simply going to refrain from posting on his POLITICAL blogs.

    If you disagree with PAD on his political blogs and throw back the same venom he unleashed on the Pres – and he instead of warning me is scrambling to have me banned somehow – I am reminded of communist regimes etc. I won’t bother posting then.

    And I apologize to PAD and others if they thought I was only there to insult them. I would’ve liked PAD to back up his veiws and/or explain them and it really never happened. THere were posters who put much more thought in the other side’s point of view that was interesting to read.

    So I only took issue with PAD’s political commentary. And I don’t say he doesn’t have a right to say it – but someone says you are being arrogant etc – respond – don’t BAN.

    So maybe going the Gamefaqs route would be an improvement. I still think there should be some warning – as I had no idea that while I was posting i was causing PAD to work behind the scenes with others to find a way to ban me.

    I didn’t leave an avenue for a private message – so I’ve now left an email if PAD or someone else wants to email me and explain what is going on or give me a warning or simply hash it out and come to an understanding.

    But I promise – you will not see me posting on the political site in this fashion b/c it seems you can’t call certain people to task. it seems that there is to be one voice on that board and if you too loudly proclaim something else and respond in kind to insults you are in danger of being banned.

    That’s not my idea of an Internet web blog board.

    Later,

    Udog

22. Sorry I put a typo in my email. That must really have the people who hated my typo riddled posts, laughing.

    Well I fixed it.

    Later,

    Udog

23. Peter,

    It’s your board so ultimately I say you should do what makes you happy. If, when you log onto the board each day, you dread seeing this person’s posts then by all means he should go.

24. If they post with the sole intent of being obnoxious and annoying, then why should we put up with it? Having an open forum for ideas is vastly different than having an open forum either for tantrums or for children who just speak with their ears closed.

    (This would be “yes”. Feel free to vote them off the island, out of the house, or as just one more person you’re not going to kiss in front of the cameras.)

25. I have to agree with most people on the board that it is your decision if you want to ban someone or not, but I have the feeling I come to a different conclusion than most people: from reading your entry, I got the feeling that you don’t really want to ban anyone, but that you have a responsibility to the people that come here to keep your livingroom clean, so to speak.

    Do what you believe is right (dámņ that sounds corny, doesn’t it?). My personal opinion is that if someone comes here solely to troll, he should be banned. But, as some other have said, I don’t feel that any of the posters has reached that stage – while Udogs posts certainly haven’t been in the most constructive form (what with the name-calling and all – IIRC, PAD’s post where he called you a moron was a direct response to a post of yours calling him a moron), he has taken part in the on-topic argument.

    Ultimately, do what you want PAD. If you feel that someone really has lost it and you don’t want his venom anymore, ban him. But if you don’t have a problem with someone making a fool of himself, and would only ban them to protect the sentiments of some of the other posters, let them stay and let the other posters change the channel.

    Just my 2 (Euro)cents

    Benjamin Gaede

26. I vote No, it does not conflict with your commitment to free speech (unless of course, you personally feel it does).

    As you and many others have stated, it’s your site.

    If someone’s on your physical private property, you don’t even have to give them a reason–if you want them gone, they’re gone. I think it should be the same way on the net.

27. I vote no.

    This is, for all intents and purposes, your back yard, PAD. We’re here because you’re throwing the equivilent of a party. While here, you have made it clear that educated, polite opinions are welcome – even if they are opinions of dissent.

    But people have crashed the party and are on your back yard pìššìņg on things, burping loudly, yelling out, etc. etc.

    As long as it is clear that you aren’t kicking out people who disagree with you, but instead just people who are disruptive, have free reign as far as I’m concerned.

28. I vote YES. I find some comments aiken to lighting farts, but this is far from anyone’s home. PAD, you can’t protect everyone from being offended here. Some of your political views make me want to hurl, but I would be upset if I could not read them. If the buck stops with you, then who are you protecting? You? and those who think like you? I admired the time someone made a very tasteless joke about 9/11 and a call was made to delete it, but you stated these things must be talked out. I know many are stating this isn’t about free speech, but what is it then? If you write about what’s on your mind and invite others to do the same and then because the comments are harsh, off-topic we want to vote them off? I was in on the whole political talk and had some back and forth with Wildcat, if he called me a name (which he didn’t he was polite) I would have ignored him, period the end. If people are annoyed by scrolling down further, well, get over it. It’s funny that a site with a left leaning the majority of votes are “no”. If UDOG goes, well I guess this isn’t the site for me either I’m gone.(which I’m sure some are saying, good that’s two of them) I know this quote is not an exact fit, but it may make some think before they vote.

    “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” — Martin Niemoller

29. It’s real simple, it’s your board and you don’t have to allow *any* comments.

    Establish general guidelines/Terms of Service. “You can participate as long as you behave in a respectful/civil manner.” Establish a 3-strike rule.

30. I vote yes—I’ve rarely seen such posters on this blog-board but as you are the webmaster, it is not only your right but your responsibility to get people off this forum who insist on using it simply to insult and antagonize people elsewhere–such people do so on the net because it’s safe and they won’t suffer repercussions (such as being told SHUT UP A$$H*LE!!!) but they are looking for an anger outlet. Some of these people may only have picked you as a target because—-well—you’re here.

    And they will take it personally, but so what? It’s YOUR site and your right. (OH NO!!! I’M TALKING IN RHYYYYYME!!!!!)

31. BTW my ‘Yes’ vote was to toss the trolls–so I meant ‘no’.

32. Nice try Udog, but we all know he’s talking about me (unless he’s been building this for a while, I don’t recall seeing any of your posts before these…)

    I see Craig-ee still loves to insult with impunity…

33. It is your board. I think you should first give someone a warning just in case they don’t know they are behaving in such an obnoxious way. If they continue to be obnoxious then by all means get rid of them.

    Neil

    P.S. I can’t see a practical way of getting rid of anyone as they can always post under another name and if people need to give a valid email address or something, they can always get a new free one.

34. I vote no, for the plain and simple reason that (and has been mentioned before) I am coming into “your place”…and am allowed to dissent, but need to do so in a respectful manner. If I cannot be respectful of the host who is allowing me in, I should not be shown the respect of being allowed in here.

35. People changing their yes votes to no votes is exactly the reason stupid laws get passed you know.

    As my on topic comment now, I think the Boot’ems are right. I think it’s amazing that a guy with as much on your plate actually takes time daily to write to us about your day, your thoughts and whatnot… if you don’t like it here you’ll stop. Then where would we be?

    If someone pìššëš you off, tell him to go post on the DCU boards where no one will see it. I like this site and I think it’s kind of a waste of bandwidth to even think “should I” on your own site.

    So let me just enter my vote as (checking the hanging Chad carefully…) No.

36. Peter,

    While I don’t agree with Bush-bashing that happens on this site, I do believe that you are the ultimate arbiter of what is posted on this site. That is, barring obnoxious posts (or posters) from this site does not contradict your belief in freedom of speech. It’s not up to you to provide a forum for anybody in the name of free speech.

    Now, if we were to notice that most or all of the posts were slanted one way or the other, your credibility would be in question. But the very fact that you posed this question demonstrates that your credibility will not be in question.

    Tom

37. PAD,

    This is your board, you pay for it, and it’s therefore your call. You aren’t Congress (nor even Congreff) and you aren’t passing laws about anyone. These folks have plenty of outlets to spew whatever they wish to, nothing you can do will affect their ability to get their opinions heard.

    If someone is getting in their way because of their actions, I see nothing wrong with giving them the boot.

    Londo, hoping it’s not me

38. My vote is no. I don’t necessarily think you should boot all offenders (I recommend a case-by-case analysis — one person may cross a line that should keep them away permanently, while another might lapse and devolve his line of thinking out of frustration with another poster’s seeming thick-headedness), but it’s certainly not a conflict of your dedication to the Freedom of Speech. It was said above that being afforded rights requires responsibility, and flagrant abuse of those rights ultimately damages the rights themselves.

    Even if this were a government-owned site, there exist solid reasons for the deletion of posts. There are forms of speech which violate law despite the First Amendment, so the absolute can’t be fairly expected of you.

    You should certainly add a page here delineating standards by which you would consider a post ripe for deletion — you’ve always seemed pretty comfortable with vulgarity, but there are things you’ve made it clear are unwelcome here, and a short list of them might not be a bad idea.

39. I vote “Yes” for now.

    But find out how to ban them anyway, then e-mail the person(s) in question with a warning that they are hindering the enjoyment of other users, and yourself, PAD, the guy this site is for. If his/her/their actions continue, and you get more complaints from different people, then ban them.

40. Their right to free speech doesn’t mean you’re entitled to give them a forum. Let them get their own website.

41. I haven’t had time to read all the comments upthread yet, but as for me …

    For now, I’ve got to vote that yes, it’s a conflict.

    The individual in question (assuming we’re thinking of the same one) is certainly a drain on the gene pool — but he’s also someone who can be and should be ignored. (Yes, I’ve been terrible about doing so. That’s about to change.)

    My sense is that he’s mostly getting off on all the attention and the ability to piss people off. I vote we change that — if we do, he’ll either (a) become more constructive in an effort to make people talk to him, (b) get frustrated and leave, or (c) get so outrageously abusive that booting him would be a lot more justifiable.

    My other thought: is there a way to limit someone’s contributions without blocking them? If there were to be some limit of X posts per day (hour, week, whatever), that’s probably something most of us could deal with without breaking a sweat, but it’d take the wind out of the sails of those who are posting here just to hear themselves type.

    Just my two cents. Obviously it’s your site and I understand the frustration — but I think booting him at this juncture might do some of your points more harm than good.

    TWL

42. As a semi-lurker, I vote “no.” Any forum, newsgroup, mailing-list or thingamagig like this one comes down to be one thing only – a get-together.

    It’s a place for people to discuss things brought up by the person who runs it. Now if you were at a party and someone came into the room, dropped his pants, peed on the cat, punched someone in the face, and then demanded the right to be heard over everyone else . . . well, you call the cops and shut them down.

    No one has the right to come on a personal forum and demand the right to stay there. This isn’t about censorship or “freedom of speech” or anything of that sort – it’s merely that of keeping the party going without everyone worried that what they say will immediately be turned into a 20-page rant by some jerk who doesn’t realize that no one is interested.

43. Short form: No, I don’t think it compromises a commitment to free speech.

    Longer form: I’m at work at don’t have time to read through all the responses. So, I’ll just go along with “what Donner said.” The right to free speech is not the guarantee of a free (as in costless) forum for your ideas. It’s your website and you are the final arbiter of what can be published on it. If you feel that these people should go, then I don’t think that it would compromise any commitment to free speech.

    OTOH Mr. David, it seems that you yourself may not feel that way. I can’t think of many reasons that you would post such a question if you didn’t have doubts about the whole prospect. As it’s your site, you will have to make the decision that will satify you the most. The only other reason I can think of as to why you post that question is to serve as a hint to certain posters that their privileges are in danger of being revoked.

44. If there was a way to post some standards of conduct on the site — giving an idea of what sort of activity would get one booted — I’d do that.

    However, it is your site. If there are folks that are “obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters)” then I’d get rid of them. From past discussions here, I’m secure you won’t use this to censor or reduce comments from those who disagree with you.

45. Freedom of Speech does not require you to provide the distribution of anyone’s speech any more than it requires Marvel to publish my new series about Dr. Tony Thompson who, when angered, turns into a large breaded veal patty.

    You have the right to decide what the goal of this board is, and to choose not to include posts that are apt to disrail it.

    (Given the setup of this board, I’m not sure how you’d lock people out. Me, I’ve always hoped for a bulletin board system that would, instead of making it so someone can’t post, instead makes their posts secretly private so that they can see it, but no one else has to. That way, they won’t immediately know they’re locked out and start trying to post under a different name.)

46. Who designed this–the same lady in Florida who came up with the butterfly ballot?

    Okay, Bill, now you’ve had me agreeing with and chuckling at one of your comments twice in as many days.

    Given how well our political beliefs tend to (not) coincide, this is quite scary. Stop it at once. 🙂

    TWL

47. Eh, it’s your board, do what you want with it. You’re not limiting free speech by kicking people off here. They still have every right to go to other message boards and say what they want. Heck, they can even start their own website and have all the posting they want on whatever subject they want.

    Now, if you were going in and editing what those people were posting, I’d have a problem. But out and out banning, go for it.

48. I vote yes. PAD’s house, PAD’s rules.

49. I have no problem with a moderation system that boots off offenders but YES, it does contradict your stance on free speech.

50. Ðámņ, the ballot was misleading, and I voted for Buchanan. Ah, well. I vote PAD throw the bums out.