See, I’ve got an interesting conflict here.
Several years ago, I did a store appearance in England, and this guy showed up. He did so solely and specifically to berate me and my work, informing me loudly and repeatedly that everything I wrote sucked. He then proceeded to stand there and berate people standing on line, challenging their intelligence and taste because they were fans of my work. This went on for about twenty minutes, with the store clerks being either too polite or too afraid of the guy to do anything, until I personally threw the guy out because he was bothering the hëll out of people.
I find myself in a similar situation now. On the one hand, I am a firm believer in free speech. On the other hand, some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.
So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re 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) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
If you vote “yes,” I’ll let them stay. If you vote “no,” we’ll try to find a way to boot them permanently. Not quite sure how, but it’ll be interesting to try and find a way…and I bet we’d have *lots* of people volunteering to help find it.
You guys decide if I should vote people off the island.
PAD
• 
Abstain.
It’s completely your call, PAD. Your board. Rest assured, though, it’s no even close to being a free speech issue, so there’d be no hypocrisy involved should you decide to moderate/block certain posts. This is your virtual living room, and you have the right to disinvite whomever you wish for whatever reason.
For my part, I simply scroll through many of the reliable idiots who show up here from time to time. On most threads, that’s maybe 10 % or the posts. On the political threads, it can shoot up as high as 30% and, yes, that’s tiring. But no one dies, either way.
I really think of it this way: if you want us to take our shoes off before walking on your carpet, that’s your call. If you want to say some people have feet that are too hairy and smelly to be allowed in at all, that’s also your call. No one’s right to free expression will be diminshed should you decide to bar certain people from your private website.
The choice will always end with PAD. I don’t see him editing anyone.
As far as troll go. Maybe you change this format so the names come out on top of the posts.
I mean, I know who’s rantings to ignore all on my own. If I see there name I skip to the next post and read from there.
See it all has to do with free will. I don’t have to read the insulting posts. Sometimes I read up to the insulting part, but after 1-2 posts from the trolls I can figure out who’s on my personal ignore list.
Somtimes though I like to read their funny posts.
Please don’t make me go; I promise to be good!
But seriously, I think there’s a big difference between pìššìņg on the rug and pìššìņg on the virtual rug. If somebody is harrassing you and your guests (as I suspect you view fans at a booksigning) then, hëll yes, eject them soundly. In cyberspace, we’re pretty far away from reality, and what people say really is just words. With the exception of those who write actual threats, let the obnoxious, irrelevant and annoying posters stay.
Of course, it’s your board. Good Luck, Solomon!
Your board, your rules. There’s such a thing as being too arbitrary – then most people will be run off and no one will post.
This would be bad.
There’s also such a thing as having TOO light a hand, and letting some posters run roughshod over others. I don’t see that happening per se here, but it has happened on other boards I’ve been a part of… and it’s a pity when it happens.
I repeat: I *don’t* think that’s happening here.
You might look at phbb instead… several boards I frequent are running it. I don’t know costs, etc, but it allows for registration, etc etc.
I am a recent reader and, ’til now, a lurker.
Upon reading of PAD’s dilemma, I came to the conclusion that, like many before him, he’s fallen prey to one of the classic blunders. (No, not the “land war in Asia” thing… No, not that “death and a Sicilian” thing, either…)
Freedom of Speech in no way means Freedom from Consequence.
It is a noble and wonderful thing to be committed to the ideal of Free Speech. But it is ridiculous to assert that people should be able to say things without consequence of any kind. Those that insist that we should are wrong, plain and simple.
I will happily listen to anything anybody wants to say. But I’ll be dámņëd if I’m forbidden from passing judgment upon them based on that speech. I absolutely reserve the right to say they’re stuffed plumb full of wild blueberry muffins. And, if I disagree strongly enough with their viewpoint, I reserve the right not to be forced to interact with them – to banish them from my personal sphere. I don’t want to be forced to listen to them. I don’t want to be forced to conduct commerce with them. I have the right to create whatever small hardship my failure to do these things causes them.
Mr. David, your commitment to the ideal of Free Speech is completely fulfilled by allowing any and all to visit this site and post their comments without prior vetting. That honors your ideal. That you should reserve the right to ban people, for any reason whatsoever, in no way compromises that ideal. Since while they have spoken, they are not automagically protected from the consequences of their speech, including the far-less-than-Draconian “ultimate censure” of banning from this site. Heck, if you wanted, you could even follow them around the internet, getting them banned from other sites, too. That is your right, keeping in mind that these actions are also subject to the judgment of others, and your “speech” would be subject to consequence as well.
I had more to say, but I realized I was slipping off-topic.
Freedom of Speech is not the same as Freedom from Consequence, and I think we can all agree that a world without consequence would be a poorer world for that lack.
Just my small change,
Bern
I vote that if you want to put the time into booting the trolls off, go for it. But to be honest, I’m not sure it’s worth the effort. I haven’t seen really egregious talk. That doesn’t mean it’s not there- it just means I didn’t see it because I scrolled past it.
Throwing “free speech” into the issue is a distraction. This board is not free- either you or Glenn are paying to host and maintain the board. The forum is here to not only provide us entertainment; it’s your Internet representation. Your reputation can be aversely affected by someone posting irresponsibly here. So I wouldn’t have any problem with you removing trollish comments.
Umm….
Glenn and Kathleen get to stay, don’t they?
Normally I’d read the entire thread before responding, but I don’t have all day to wade throug 106 posts. 🙂 So bear with me if I repeat points made above.
I vote no, you wouldn’t be contradicting a committment to free speech.
First off, the guarantee of free speech is solely a guarantee that the government won’t muck with your right to speak, not that all private individuals and institutions have to extend the same consideration.
Second, if you find that to be splitting hairs, note also that “Disturbing the peace” is still legally actionable, and I’m unaware of any successful challenge to such laws on Constitutional grounds. In other words, the limits on free speech to include “not being a loud and public ášš” just as they cover “not shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater”.
Third, by banning them from this board (which you might find technically difficult…áššwìpëš have an astonishing ability to scrounge up new accounts to get around ID bans and sitebans), you’re not abridging their right to insult you and your fans. They’re perfectly capable of setting up ihatepeterdavid.com and screaming all they want. The right to free speech is NOT the right to a captive audience.
If it was my name above this website: foul language and/or true bigotry/hatred, yes. Just don’t agree with the other person’s viewpoint, no.
Either way, we’re here as your guests to begin with. It’s your island Peter, you make the call.
Yer choice, but my vote is yes, let them stay. I, like most, just ignore them. However, if I would ever get “attacked” here, I’ll exercise my right too and stop posting and become a fulltime lurker.
Hopefully you want just get the sh**s of it altogether and just shut the blog down,I hate people who ruin it for others.
Though I don’t post much I do love stopping by, thanks for what you do PAD…
I’d be in favor of voting off complete trolls, who are here to insult and degrage with no other contributions.
Note that that’s different from someone who can express a different opinion, articulate it well, and not get personally insulting while doing it.
Somone disagreeing with your politics is one thing. Someone disagreeing and calling you names and insulting your mother while doing it is quite another.
That was “WON’T shut down the blog” not “want”, in my previous comment…
Free speach only applies to public places. This website is prviately owned, so it is within the rights of the owners to determine what can and cannot be said.
PAD wrote: So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re 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) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
Well, it’s your Web site and thus your call, in my opinion. I look at it as if this is your house and you are having a party every day. There may be instances where a particular party guest needs to leave, but you, as the host, have to be the one to decide.
On the other hand, if you continuously surround yourself with people who all have your same biases and viewpoints, you may as well be talking with yourself. Personally, I find such a situation boring and unenlightening.
Russ Maheras
FWIF, PAD, I’ve been reading for months and you seem to have incredible patience for the level of crap postings that you are talking about. So I vote yes, boot anyone whom you feel that strongly about, not just ’cause it’s your forum to control, but because I think you’re capable of handing that awesome responsibility wisely and won’t resort to silencing people on their first offense or just because they disagree with you.
Not allowing specific people to post here does not curb anyone’s right to free speech, because the right to free speech guarantees only that; it does include a right to any particular forum, nor does it include a right to an audience for the speaker. The environment here is yours to control as you see fit.
BTW, I also think that the very fact that you brought this topic up for public discussion shows that you’re not trying to infringe anyone’s free speech.
I say, it’s your board and if someone is being offensive, you have every right to dismiss them from it. Their freedom is speech is not infringed, only their right to say it here. (After all, if a newspaper doesn’t publish my letters to the editor, no one would call that an infringement.) Lord knows that there are many, many places to rant and rave on the Net.
Problem is, there’s no way that I know of to stop anyone from switching names, etc.
Oh, and kudos to everyone who posted to debate this for debating it in a rational manner. This blog/board has distinguished itself by rarely letting controversial topics lead to all-out flamewars. Only Tony Isabella’s board has been more congenial in this regard.
I vote no, because I trust you to use the power with discretion. (As others have said, making it clear where the line is in advance would be a good idea; so would issuing warnings first.)
I’m going to have to reluctantly vote to let the disagreeable people post.
I don’t like what they say, but I’ve never felt that anything was well-served by shutting anyone up.
Besides, if I find them really obnoxious, my “page down” button works really well.
I vote no. Simply because as this is PAD’s place, he owns it, and it is up to him wether someone is invited in or not.
But I agree that issuing someone a warning that they are being inapproiate (insulting, trolling, etc) would be fair.
It seems like some people posting have missed a HUGE chunk of what PAD wrote at the top here.
some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.
It doesn’t sound like to me that PAD is asking this becasue HE himself wants this poster to go away. He’s being asked by the GUESTS on this site to make said poster go away.
It’s your site Peter, we are just guests here. Personally, I love debate and watching some of the people here state their views clearly and accurately and at times, it has made me reconsider my position on subjects. I have found that most people who have called you ignorant or uninformed either haven’t really shown me anything that proves their statement or have misunderstood your point. That and twisting your words to fit what they want it say so they can argue the other way.
It all comes down to this, it’s YOUR site Peter. You have the ability to say who can or cannot post. If your guests are asking someone to leave, as a host, it’s your call as to whether or not you want to listen to them.
Peace,
Larry
Free speech does not include coming to your site to express their opinions. They can start their own site or go elsewhere. Please feel free to boot anyone who is obnoxious or disruptive and don’t have any qualms about doing so. I’m sure you’ll use this power sparingly and wisely.
Peter,
I say vote them off the island. Maintaining civility of discourse is a good thing.
Dennis
I vote “no” and it’s an easy call. I’m all for free speech– heck, I used to edit an underground newspaper. But there’s a pretty clear difference between arguing contrary positions and just being a jáçkášš to piss people off. Nobody has a “right” to post on your board anymore than they have a right to speak in your living room. They certainly have a right to get a board of their own, of course. But it’s not at all unreasonable to demand that the people who post to your board adhere to minimal standards of courtesy, so that this board can be an enjoyable place for you and fans of your work (which is the whole idea behind the board, after all).
There are no guidelines posted on this website like the ones you’d find at most boards. I think when someone can’t be held to certain standards then you are just giving them a ticket to do whatever they wan’t.
People – I am the one that kindled PAD’s fire and I feel the record should be set straight.
For one thing: I never insulted people’s mother, used obscenities or trolled etc. ..
People think I started name calling PAD as well and as such should be banned. It didn’t happen quite that simply.
I said that his flip, insulting remarks about the President that are never backed up is moronic and being a blowhard etc. I’m not wading through hundreds of posts to re-post it – but you get the point.
I was making the point that celebrities, of which I believe PAD is one, often spout off politically and do it in a patronizing way etc. . . I also think Alec Baldwin is guilty of often looking like a moron and a zealout when he goes political, but I do NOT think that ALec Baldwin as a WHOLE is a moron. Same with PAD.
I never just went around with a vendetta at PAD. Look at all other blogs – I don’t come in and simply BASH PAD. Never. I was making a point about celebrity and politics.
PAD never came back and answered or justified his flip insulting remarks that he’s been making for a LONG time in reagrds to this adminsitration. yes, it is his right – but is it wrong to point out that somone begins to look foolish when they don’t back things up.
So calling what he is doing arrogant moronic etc – is now being construed as I am just bashing PAD for the sake of personally bashing him and with intent to annoy or ahrass. Not true – and if you read my posts, you’d see that.
then PAD eventually calls me a “moron” with “no balls” etc. . . I eventually told him that he doesn’t make any rational arguments in politics and is just being a blowhard and to “Stick to Klingons, tubby”
yes – that was an insult – and perhaps over the line – but what IS the line? you can’t do that?
How would I know the line if the numerous other posters CONSTANTLY insult one another and me? I’ve been called a brat and worse – I’m not crying. I guess it is okay to insult one as a pinhead, brat, jerk, idiot – if it’s someone on the left saying it to someone on the right. In other words, someone who agrees with PAD. PAD seems fine to let others do the insulting for him, I guess. But if you insult PAD it’s wrong and should be banned.
Besides, I never just insulted him as a troll etc.. I always posted points about Clinton, Robert Toricelli, the CIA, 9/11, Bush and celbrity in politics.
My posts prompted others to post back and I was impressed with the academic research going into some of the posts – although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with their conclusion. Many of the posters were doing what PAD never does and that is back up a point with facts.
Many of you don’t really understand anlysis of a situation, though and that includes PAD. This situation is NOT like the book signing guy who is ranting.
It also is not akin to PAD’S house and he can kick people out. Sure, he can – but if he’s concerned about free speech it is a little hypocritical. No rules were ever set out.
No warning was ever given. It was as recent as last night that PAD is claiming I have no balls, all the while he is scurrying to try and find a way to ban me.
I didn’t leave an email so a simple post would do or a blog heading warning me.
I even suggested doing a Gamefaqs set up where you COULD ban people – but they at least have rules and Terms of Service and give warnings.
PAD has done nothing of the sort. WHat I did wasn’t some infantile flaming, but just opposing points of view filled with the same venomous barbs back at PAD that he casually throws around at the Commander in Chief and others.
To put it to a vote is laughable b/c most on the board are pretty leftist and lean towards PAD’s views anyway.
I am glad there are people who think it is wrong and who feel they won’t use the board if that’s how PAD is going to be.
I haven’t been on the board long and maybe there are others that are obviously malicous etc and something needs to be done.
AS for me? You don’t need to go to any trouble. All yo had to do was ask me to leave. If you name call me back etc I’m unaware that it’s against the rules. If you can’t say a curse you don’t throw one back at the offender to make the point.
And for the record – I never cursed or threatened and every post had a point.
I’ve left my email address now so if someone wants to privately hash it out or explain themselves – feel free.
But you should all realize that this board is not the equivalent to PAD’s living room. If he wants it private and wants to control who comes in – set up a private chat or a message board that requires email etc. Don’t worry about me coming on and posting under a different identity. My views are so polar to most of the posters – it would be obvious and I wouldn’t waste my time.
Many think I was trying to stir up stuff for my own ego. Well, how did I self promote in any way? I didn’t list my website, bibliography, credntials etc . . . It has nothing to do with my real name or ego.
It’s sad that PAD doesn’t have the decency to warn me or whoever the offender is, or post something before taking action. He would have found that the problem would be solved. I didn’t know I was breaking any rule.
The only thing I was doing was giving PAD back the same kind of rhetoric he brandishes.
I guess as long as you agree with PAD it’s okay to say whatever.
Sorry about some of the insults – but I would think someone in the public eye and an artist would have a thicker skin. And if PAD had responded intelligently we could have had a discussion.
Instead others insulted me, PAD chimed in occasionally and all the while is trying to take my voice off the board.
If that’s the way the game is – I really don’t care to play.
Some speculate I am whining to stay on the boards. Not true. If this is the way the boards are going to be – then I don’t want to be a part of them. It’s be nice to have a rule or a warning instead of trying to just silence a point of view surrepticiously.
It seems that most of you have made up their minds and don’t want to hear another side. And if someone spouts off and is called to task suddenly there are unwritten rules being broken and action is taken.
I am not saying PAD has to operate fairly like a court of law – but it is actions like the one he’s attempting that makes me glad he doesn’t make public policy.
Later,
Udog
Wow. That was long.
Anywho, on the subject of trolling: The right to free speech doesn’t exonerate a person from the consequences of that speech. I.E., if you call my mom a whørë, and I punch you in the face, I’m not violating your free speech, I’m just sticking up for Mom. Similarly, if a person comes to a message forum just to make trouble, it’s not violating fee speech to show them the door. So, do what you gotta do.
I vote “yes”.
If a person can’t agree to disagree and or be rational about it, then it’s time to ‘thin the herd’.
Peter,
Of course you have the absolute right to leave or remove any posts you feel are intentionally disruptive or malicious. Just as I have the right to boot anyone out of my house who acts the same way. Just because the person is in “cyberspace”, they’re still playing in your yard, so to speak.
I feel that as long as you are making a decided effort to only weed out those who are being intentionally disruptive, and not removing someone because you think they kinda-might-be-maybe disruptive, then you’re ok.
^He isn’t “scurrying” or suddenly taking action without warning… he asked for opinions. He hasn’t banned anyone, or called anyone out, but after emails from posters is asking for opinions on policy. After which point, presumably there would BE a policy.
All three posts above have been filled with accusations, nasty little comments, and a fair heaping of rudeness. If I had a messageboard, would I want you on it? No. But that would be my choice to make. Do I think that PAD should be banning people? I’m not sure. I’m all for arguments, dissenting opinions, but when that’s the sole purpose of coming here, I’m not quite sure I see the point. But, if it’s handled in a polite way, okie dokie. There’s a difference between saying, “I don’t agree with your opinion. I think that… and this is why…” and “That’s moronic! You’re spouting prattle, and are totally ignorant!” You could say that we should be thick skinned and able to handle it, but why? When did being polite go out of style?
*shrug* My two cents. I come here to read about PAD’s work, and laugh at posts.
Add a few more ^^^^s to get my aim back up higher. 🙂
As someone who has dealt with this exact issue on his own forum, I can only vote NO.
You are not censoring anyone. You are not infringing on their right to free speech. They can build their own website, at their own cost and say whatever the hëll they want, including that you suck. This community may have the semblence of being public and open, but the bottom line is that this site and forum is paid for by you (and your advertisers) and it is your name across the top. Just like any “real” community, there has to be a standard against which a person’s behavior is measured. Just because this is the net doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all.
On a related tangent, Frontline aired a report on the pørņ industry last night that dealt with the concept of community standards and free speech. Their discussion centered around obscenity, but the basic ideas apply here. If you say something that violates a communities idea of what is acceptable, especially if you do it consistently and do it in such a way that is designed to aggravate people, you open yourself to consequences.
PAD, boot them and don’t lose any sleep over it. I vote NO.
Scott E.
PAD’s forum, PAD’s rules. “Free speech” is a protected right in public, not on a private message board (someone’s paying for this, and it’s not via taxes).
Posting commnets on a board like this is a priveledge, not a right. Anyone who is disruptive to the conversation does not belong here.
If you really are firm in your resolve to follow the freedom of speech then you cannot throw these people off for saying something that offends other people. On the other hand if you’re all for freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t constitute one of the three unprotected forms of speech (“fighting words”, foul language, or the ever popular yelling fire in a crowded theater sort) then throw the bášŧárdš off.
I’m for the later.
I vote No.
Huh. To me, telling the host of this board “Stick to Klingons, tubby” is just way over the line. That one is a no-brainer.
And I certainly think that Peter (and everyone else) is entitled to post their opinions about politics online without being thereby obliged to endlessly debate every person who wanders onto the board and disagrees. We’re not reading newspaper columns or books here, these are just posts on a website, and Peter doesn’t get paid for them. So why should Peter have to take time away from paid writing to debate everyone who disagrees with him. It’s not as though they’re ever going to come to consensus, nor are they obligated to try to.
Sorry Michael, but physical assault over words is NOT valid consequences by any strectch of the imagination, it’s barbaric mindless violence.
UDog, I suspect a lot of people figure that this is in response to events on the “For Better Or For Worse” thread. You should probably read through that thread before you assume that everyone here is referring to you (especially in reference to trolling).
Interesting post.
Saw something similar to this situation on other boards. In those circumstances the owners of the board removed the offending material and banned the poster. In both circumstances I felt the owners were correct.
One was a personal board. The others were topic-focused. I saw the removed material from the posters’ blogs. While they defended their views, even I found them to be quite vitriol.
My opinion? If this person is not contributing anything to your “topic” but seems to be personally attack you because you’re YOU, ban them. It’s one thing to allow the KKK to march down a street to support racial segregation; it’s another to assault people.
All I’ll say is this: there’s a difference between banning people who disagree with you, and banning people who disagree with you in a tactless, obnoxious, rude, crass, vulgar, or trollish manner.
PAD isn’t saying he’s going to ban people who disagree with him. He’s saying he’s going to ban those who express those opinions in an inappropriate or rude manner, with no real motivation other than a desire to cause trouble and be obnoxious.
The whole voting system is kinda confusing, and reading all the “yes” and “no” responses has confused me even further, so my vote is this:
Peter, you should absolutely feel free to ban those who have nothing constructive to add to the debate. It doesn’t go against your commitment to free speech, because you’re not restricting the opinion, you’re restricting the behavior which accompanies that opinion.
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, and I don’t think Peter does either. But if this is going to be a place of political debate, discourse, and just general discussion about whatever, the debate should be an elevated one, not one dominated by such sentiments as “Bush sucks!” and “Oh yeah, look at Clinton!” There has to be something more substantive in the debate for it to be truly meaningful, thoughtful, and compelling. 🙂
but, it saddens me to see he’s not far removed from the other nuts in Hollywood. Seems to me that you just called him nuts, lumping him with all the “other nuts”.
PAD – put as much research in your politics as you do in the Hulk’s 42 different personalities and maybe you’d make a little sesne. That was a tad personal, don’t you think?
The first statement alone could be taken as you fired the first shot. I know I would point to it. Maybe you should re-read your posts. Maybe no offense was meant, but it might’ve been taken that way.
I vote no. You are within your rights to ban anyone for whatever reason you see fit. This is your website and you have the right to control content, just as newspapers have the right to choose what comic strips they are going to print.
Peter:
I vote No-kick them off. Why? I rather you spend your time creating new stories than dealing with jerks. Make SOULSEARCHERS monthly.
Well first I am confused – mayeb I am not the one PAD is referring to and I’ll have to look at the “For Better or Worse” post but I think it is me.
And LARRY, the quotes you put:
but, it saddens me to see he’s not far removed from the other nuts in Hollywood.
and
PAD – put as much research in your politics as you do in the Hulk’s 42 different personalities and maybe you’d make a little sesne.
I still don’t think they are over the line and should be the spark of banning. If the same banter was thrown at another poster it would doubtfully be such an issue.
I ticked off PAD – but instead of warning me first he went back at me and I’ve been called “moron”, having “no balls” “brat” and lots more and I doubt anyone else is in trouble.
Yes, my words were strong – but I did not insult Peter David the writer – family man etc – this is about celbrity in politics and I made points in those posts.
Apparently the points were not agreeable to a liberal message board. But PAD and others can name call back – then decide name calling is against the (unwritten) rules and then ban ME alone.
look – all you have to do is ASK me to leave and I would. I never did flaming posts to simply troll.
But it seems a bit hypocritical to me. Give a warning etc. And if the words I used were “too strong” and “over the line” then I think the skin on this message board is too thin and venom can only be thrown to the right and not the left.
And if PAD’s intellectual honesty is called into question in any way it’s an internet jihad.
But if those ARE the standards and rules – then fine – I will leave if asked. I won’t stick around if everyone thinks I am an “idiot” a “jerk” etc. I am not going to keep posting if I’m considered an annoyance.
You can’t preach to the deaf – so I’m not going to try.
I think there are others who will see this as quite a blow to what they thought the board was.
PAD doesn’t HAVE to answer me. That’s correct. He doesn’t have to take time away from his paid writing. But then again, he only lenghthened the reotrts b/c he DID take the time to respond and NOT do so in a logical debate fashion, but to insult me. So the cycle began.
ANd I am sure he’s wasting far more time trying to ban someone than it would have taken to simply ASK to stop or leave etc or explain a point of view.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable. If you can’t stomach the same kind of retorts people have on TOugh Crowd with Colin Quinn etc then it’s not the place I thought it was.
I didn’t realize the sensitivity factor here OR that PAD is now an idol of worship to some.
All one has to do is ask. The island that PAD wishes to kick people from is not being invaded by savages. I have my own boat , I understand English (although you may not be able to tell from my typing) and I will go if i am truly not welcomed.
But if you truly believe that I posted NOTHING of relevance or discussion, I think your opposing view is blidning you to true logical and reasoned debate.
We can all say the same thing and we feel smarter – but is that the point of the board?
Later,
Udog
I vote “No.”
To put it simply: If people can’t follow the rules, they shouldn’t be allowed to play the game.
I don’t believe it is an unreasonable request to ask that people behave themselves. If they don’t, they should expect to be asked to leave (or be thrown out, if all else fails).
My two cents.
Let the @$$holes stay. We recognize them for what they are and respond directly to them at our own risk.
Restricting access to this board to those people who are making active contributions (both positive and negative) doesn’t impinge on anyone’s right to free speech. In so much as free speech is concerned, a person that is contributing nothing but abuse can take those comments and make them anywhere they like, as long as it’s not here.
So my vote is an unequivocal “no.” Boot ’em. Even the dimmest person should understand that this is your board and your rules, and that if they don’t conform to a stated standard, you have the right to “refuse service.”
I read the board a lot, and I read the comments sometimes. I rarely read them all. Sometimes, when I read a comment it makes me shake my head because what the person wrote was stupid. Sometimes, I shake my head when people brag or try their hardest to be witty.
And I was the one who pointed out that even though you asked people to stop posting about the “Last Thoughts” they did anyway in another thread.
Sometimes, if I felt inclined, I would probably stick up for what I believed in and maybe even send out a few good natured ribs or mild insults to a person.
But starting fights to start a fight? That shouldn’t really be tolerated. Sticking up for yourself should. Like that feller who believed that Censorship was EVIIILLLL…I found that thread to be highly amusing and the people who could not handle him I viewed as weak and well, baby-ish.
I don’t know, I think “who should be banned” would get very opinionated and might consume the board. And everytime someone sticks up for what they believe in or send out a few insults everyone would cry foul. But no one, not even PAD is above sending out a few good natured (and some not so good) insults and ribs.
Stupidity should be pointed out. And babies should not apply. Back and forth bickering (past one or two replies) should not be tolerated. But all and out banning? I’m not so sure.
But some “trolls” (I guess is the geek term) shouldn’t be tolerated. And that is a judgement call that maybe PAD does has to make. But I would have felt a lot better if he decided it on his own and not because of some guy without thick skin’s e-mail compaign.
I think there is an answer somewhere between the “either-or” being suggested. Take a look at slashdot, for example. Everyone can post. Not all replies are read by everyone, though… It depends on the reader’s “moderation level”.
So, everyone still gets to write. If there are readers who don’t want to read something that is flamebait, trolling or simply from an individual they don’t like, they can set their moderation filter higher.
Trollers still get to write, and you don’t have to concern yourself about conflict of interest. Readers still get to read and not feel harrassed. Win-win, eh?
Generally speaking, I disagree with kicking people off of messages boards, etc. as it generally becomes such a technical hassle (yes, moreso than moderating)… Do you kick out IP addresses? If the user is on dial-up, they simple disconnect and re-connect. Voila! New IP address (and some other poor sap using the same ISP ends up being blocked). Do you kick out user names? Voila. New username…
I’ve generally found that the best way to deal with trolls, etc. is just to ignore them… Even on this long page (160 some comments, when I started reading), it didn’t take me long to scroll past ones that were repetitive and/or silly… It doesn’t take long for those who are being ignored to either “straighten up and fly right” or simply leave.
Oh, I didn’t actually vote, did I? I probably shouldn’t, since I rarely read the comments. But, I say, let ’em stay… If it really becomes an issue, set up some sort of filtering/moderation system (again, a la slashdot…)
Most of the time I just lurk here, but I’m popping up to say that if people are abusive in the course of making their comments, kick their áššëš of the island.
Free speech does not equate being abusvie toward others. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that is so and don’t get that one can disagree strongly without stooping to vile personal attacks.
My suggestion is to have a code of conduct. Many boards ask posters not to make personal attacks and give a definition of what constitutes such behavior. Some give one warning, some to a “three strikes and you’re out” heads up. Some boards go as far having different levels of banishment: Two weeks, one month, and forever.
This all may seem like limiting free speech, but as others have pointed out, there are legal limits to free speech. We can’t libel someone, we can’t yell “fire” when there isn’t one, we can’t insight people to riot, etc…
There are limits. We just don’t like to admit to them or defend them. We tend to think of them as being bad things. But what the heck do people think laws are?
And besides, as a parent, you know that limits have to be set, or your kids will run wild, be unhappy, and often very bad things will happen. And setting limits doesn’t mean squashing individuality or differing opinions or halting creativity.
It’s a hard thing to do, setting limits, but the health of any society or community depends upon some limits being set and maintained.
That’s all I have to say.
Yes
I, too, hold the principle of freedom of speech to be essential.
Regardless, I am an operator (sort of referee) on an Internet chat room devoted to Japan.
When someone shows up and proudly announces
“&$^%* you, Japs”
I have two obvious courses of action:
I can “Tut-tut-tut…” and explain that such uncultured behaviour is frowned upon in a family channel and it would truly be appreciated if he were to temper his language and play nice, pretty please.
Or, I can pull out an anime-style Giant Hammer(tm) and bash the jerk through the channel wall and into limbo, locking the figurative door behind him as he flies out.
Guess which one I do?
Channel #Japan is a nice, pleasant place and I recognize that one needs take drastic action to ensure that it remain so. Disagreements occur, but are never allowed to progress to the point where people are made so uncomfortable that they feel a need to head off to other pastures.
Seems a reasonable compromise. Don’t boot someone for what they say, but how they say it. Works for us.