CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND LOOKING FOR YOUR VOTE

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

1. Sorry only read a handful of the previous comments.

   The main reason I read your site is the comments by your audience. Often, I think they’re hilarious. I especially enjoy the political commentanries. So, I would vote no. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen and all that.

   My suggestion would be to offer the posted by info at the top of everyone’s post, rather than the bottom, that way, if you see a post by someone who you don’t want to bother with, you can just scroll down to the next comment.

   As far as banning someone from a site like your’s, well that can get a little tricky. You could implement the login stuff, which is more of a haslle for griefers than an actual ban, because it’s just a matter of re-registering under a different hotmail account every time you get the boot. Plus, I think that would drive off a lot of the comments by regular folk who just drop in from time to time and leave a post (i.e. me), I really appreciate the no muss, no fuss setup you got right now.

2. 251? Bloody hëll. That’s more than the political threads get.

3. Well, I

4. Guys, banning people for disagreeing with Peter David or others on the board isn’t what’s being discussed here. Lots of folks disagree with Peter, and he hasn’t shown that he has a problem with it. What’s being discussed here is the option of banning people who are major league jáçkáššëš, who repeatedly insult and taunt anyone who disagrees with them. It’s the sort of behavior that drives people away from these sort of boards (including people who host these sort of boards) because nobody likes being insulted. “Stick to Klingons, tubby” goes way beyond political disagreement.

5. I vote “yes”. Reasons to ban someone from message boards include extreme harassment/abuse of other users, racist comments, and being more than just a pain in the ášš. People may be jerks – but you don’t have to read (much of) their posts, nor do you have to reply.

6. I have to vote “No”, remove the offending individuals.

   It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s political/social views – and if you wish to voice your disagreements in a polite and reasonable way, without resorting to Ad Hom attacks, that’s fine.

   That way, both sides are displayed, and individuals can make up their minds based on the arguments shown.

   But to come to a forum to be rude, obnoxious, and denigrating – to insult the host of the forum, and other members – and to make postings so ridiculous that an occasional reader might come across them, and decide to avoid the forum because they think that would be standard discourse (which has happened on quite a few other forums) – that behavior is unacceptable.

   As was stated above, “Freedom of Speech” does not mean “Guaranty of Audience”.

   They want to do things like that, let ’em pay for their own website.

   A good defenestration seems eminently reasonable for them.

7. Well it seems the insultinators should be happy , for by posting this topic PAD has inadvertently

   given certain people a forum for their obviously tremendous egos.

   Why don’t you start your OWN blog guys?! Yes, I’m afraid too that lack of talent might be a hinderence for you, you wouldn’t have a draw as PAD does. So I guess you’re stuck with glaming off of PAD I suppose.

   C’mon, quit ruining it for the others.

   This thread needs to end.

8. As other have posted, there are other message boards which use their content-control powers a little too often.

   I guess I’d wish for some way to quarantine the offensive posts so that it takes a bit of extra effort to read or quote from the perceived offender’s post.

9. I don`t have the time to read the 100 plus postings here. Therefore I just read the first 10 or so and I intend to read more later.

   I am voting for “no”. This is PAD`s home and this means, people are guests here and should behave themselves. That also means, if people don`t, the host has the right to kick them out as a last resort if they don`t listen and change their behaviour.

   “Free speech” is a nice thing but my opinion is that Americans in general put much too much emphasis on it. My opinion is, your freedom to do anything stops when you harm the freedom of other people. I think the rule “Three strokes and you are out” should also apply here. I am for it to also give people who are more difficult to handle a chance and be tolerate and understanding. But there should be limits.

   PAD should feel comfortable in his own “home” and also me, as a guest, want to feel welcome. I don`t think it is also fair towards the majority if a minority is allowed to spoil it for everyone.

10. If they are trolls here soley to bash PAD – boot ’em.

11. Long Time lurker, no time poster. To me, I think it comes down to what you expect from your blog, PAD. If it’s just a place to express your views, and you don’t care if there are dissenting opinions, then go ahead and boot anyone you feel like. But if your’re using it to foster discussion, then you have to allow the dissenters to remain. Admittedly, I don’t read through all the political posts-mainly because I don’t agree with PADs views, not to mention how he sometimes presents them, but I’ve seen very little of what I would say is troll-like behavior. I’ve seen people post a little harshly perhaps, and sometimes a bit ignorantly, but the fact that they’ve posted it pretty much “shows their worth”.

    Anyway, I’ve rambled on a bit too much here, so back to lurker-dom I go.

12. Being insultive there Callis? How grown up

13. It’s you’re board do what you want. I just think that your a negative person who gets off on conflict. I never read about you praising other comics. Just rehashing old fights. I was a big fan until I started reading this blog. I hate to say it, but I’ve let the person overwhelm the work. I tried to include a few grammar errors because i think that they are kind of like viagra to you. Does it bother you that the most popular writer in comics is known for typos and mistakes? Great issu of Captain Marvel. I really enjoyed the grammar. Remember that time you fought Jemas, Byrne and McFalane using only your wits and a jar of mayo?

14. Ok, some people are taking the whole “banning” idea so personally that even a discussion of whether or not it should be done has turned into an on-line riot.

    How about this, then, instead: In order to post a comment on this blog, you have to register your full name, address, and all that jazz. You can still post under a psuedonym if you want, but Glenn and Peter know exactly who you are.

    Most trolls are cowards who wouldn’t want to give their real names to the “enemy”, so that would get rid of the really stupid ones.

    Just a thought.

15. So, Hob, what’s your vote,then?

    monkeys

16. i vote yes let them stay after all it’ only themselves there showing up and besides when people start drawing up lists of aceptable & unaceptable verbal behavior where do you start let alone stop?:

    a personal insults to yourself?, another poster?, a subject matter?, a religion?, a race?, a football team?

    or offended animal rights activists. remember the poor whale,

    that everyone was nasty about!

    if you decide to get rid of them you’re just opening yourself up to a massive amount of tough subjective decisions which you could probally do without.

17. I think I should be banished.

18. I think I finally understand Udog. It’s not that he doesn’t understand the rules of argumentation, but that he just feels so passionate about the subject. You see, if a racist came in here and spouted off a bunch of racist bûllšhìŧ, we wouldn’t hesitate to call him ignorant in our replies. So basically Udog sees liberals on the same level as racists. That is his problem. Of course this doesn’t explain the “tubby” remark, but I think I’ve discovered half of his motivation.

19. over 250 comments already. geez. you don’t read a board for a few days….

    PAD, it’s your board. if you feel that people are being insulting or rude, you don’t have to tolerate it.

    I enjoy the debates that take place here, so perhaps either you or Glenn should occasionally remind people to remain on subject. Maybe that will be enough, although I tend to doubt it.

    Personally, I’ve little trouble ignoring the trolls, but if the insults are detracting from the quality of the discourse, there’s no real reason for you to put up with it.

20. To PAD and others,

    I have to say that I am truly sorry about some of my remarks. It was WRONG of me to post the “Stick to Klingons, tubby.” remark. The ad hominem attack was mean – and I don’t consider myself a mean person. That was just me being excited and turning a phrase.

    Unfortunately, a phrase that may have been funny in a movie, book or comic is NOT funny in this situation because PAD is a real person. Heck, I’ve only seen headshots, so I was just riffing quickly. And as you can tell from my typos, I don’t proof etc and didn’t really consider the rudeness of the remark before posting it.

    There are plenty who disagree with PAD’s politics but it was no excuse for me to throw out a remark that is about someone’s appearance etc.

    I got carried away – I am sorry.

    There should be rules on the board and insulting posters should be banned. It appears that I am one of the few who tossed an insult about someone who is not anonymous and is a sort of celebrity.

    PAD’s calling me a moron is not on the same level. He doesn’t know who I am by a username – doesn’t see me etc. – so it isn’t as personal. “Tubby” was and it was wrong.

    I don’t dislike PAD. I like his work and he seems to be a fine person as much as you can tell from his online persona. I definitely don’t agree with his politics – but I could’ve tempered my points and left out the blowhard stuff.

    I did post points and I took away from them by adding insults.

    I do think that PAD’s posts sometimes make anyone who doesn’t agree get automatically lumped into an “evil conservative” category. But one could post responses and counterpoints without insulting him as a man or jumping the gun and equating him with some of Hollywood’s most pompous lefties. I didn’t show that restraint and it was wrong.

    I am sorry to you PAD for making it seem personal. It isn’r. I was just passionate about people explaining their Point of View and not just posting a quick remark that equates dissenters with the most evil of conservatives.

    I only showed that I was a moron for calling you a name.

    Don’t take it personally – and besides – I’m no Slim Jim myself.

    Thanks,

    Udog.

21. No need for the bickering of booting the miscreants. It will wind up generating a lot more animosity that the honest intention was trying to alleviate. I have yet to read any of the replies, but judging by the sheer quantity, there is a good chance that such has happened. It is far easier to ignore nitwittery on the internet, as people make statements without having a voice. That is my mostly unsolicited take on the matter.

22. Toss ’em.

    Mr. David, it’s your freaking website, do what you want. But I say toss the people. They don’t like it piss on ’em

23. Well Peter (may I call you Peter?), My vote depends on how you look at this site. If you consider it an extension of your personal space (admittedly in a public area) and consider us openly invited guests. The the call is up to you and I vote “yes” toss him. But if it is just a public area with your name, then I have to vote “no” because we do have to protect the free speech. Especially a “jerk”. If we can protect someone we loath and disagree with then we know we are fighting for everyone rights not just the rights of those we like and agree with.

24. I vote no.

25. It’s hard to decide because I would like to see these offensive posts before making a judgment. But as others have said, this is PAD’s board and he can do what he likes — but it does ring a tad hypocritical on his part (and hey, he has every right to be so if he chooses). Now, if these posters are on the level of PAD example in the comic store, then that behavior shouldn’t be tolerated. I personally haven’t seen that here, but I admit I don’t read every BLOG or response posted.

    But one thing that does strike me is such banning might make some posters feel that is they offer a different viewpoint that they will be banned. Will this become the next John Byrne discussion board?

26. I think it would be more effort than it was worth to police the “TROLLS”.

    I’d say either ignore them, or combine that with a “known trolls” button, so that if people are concerend about certain other people’s remarks, they can check to see if they are a “known troll,” and thus ignore them.

    Sorry the Trolls take up some of your band-witdth, but there’s not much one can do about that… except see the last few minutes of the Kevin Smith movie “…and Silent Bob strike back.”

27. FWIW – probably not a lot – I’m intrigued/amused/mildly irritated by your asking for “our” opinions. It’s your board. You decide. (I have the same problem with free speech and the CBLDF – people oppose censorship, because they don’t want other people saying what can or can’t be published, but are happy to give blank cheque support to other people who say that anything should be publishable. Isn’t that what we used to call a cop out…?)

28. Like there’s not enough posts…

    This makes me really sad. PAD has this site, and we get to hear his thoughts on a variety of subjects, and then he gives us the ability to interact with him (and each other)…

    And now it just seems like such a hassle.

    Me, I’m on PAD’s side as far as politics go, and a lot of the posts the other night drove me nuts. (One wonders, for example, if UDOG would have slammed those that dared to demean and insult the former Commander in Chief. Me thinks not.)

    Sounds to me like people that enjoy this site got annoyed at some posters, and felt the need to draw PAD into the mix, and was not something he initiated. This means it really has gotten out of hand.

    I think Peter is in a real fix, because if he bans, he plays right into the hands of those who are just waiting for him to appear to be censoring them, which they will inevitably attribute to them having the opposite political views.

    I guess I vote “yes”, let them stay, because I think the slippery slope has already begun.

    And for my last two cents: I have never felt that PAD wanted folks to not agree with him, or that he would want them gone just for being on the other side of the argument.

    Peace.

29. Hi, my name is Jocelyn! This is my first post on this website. I come daily to read PAD’s posts. Sometimes I skim through the comments, sometimes I don’t. On this post, I skimmed each comment, but didn’t read each post throughly, so I apologize for repeating what others may have already said. Since PAD has been gracious enough to ask us for our opinions, I think that he should be able to boot people who are here “solely to irritate people.” I don’t see anything wrong with that whatsoever, and I do not see it as a conflict of interest over free speech. I also think that even if this was not about Udog, after this blog he should be banned anyway, as he seems to have an Aristotle complex (replace “earth” with “Udog,” and you’re there.) My $0.0265819 (I’m Canadian, eh?)

30. I admit that I mostly just skim through the feedback posts here, so I have no idea who you’re talking about. With that said, if someone’s coming here for no reason other than to insult everyone and start flames, then by all means, they should be banned. There’s always a couple on any forum, and every forum either bans them or finds its overall quality being lessened from not banning them.

31. Udog, I commend thee (if that’s worth anything). You stepped up and admitted you slipped up, and as a result have earned yourself respect and credibility (at least mine). And you also didn’t have to concede any of the points you made in doing so. Good good.

    IN reading pretty much every post, I have noticed many of the people who fear (or relish the thought of )being banned seem to have gotten their wires slightly crossed. First, going back to PAD’s original entry, several other posters to this site emailed him personally to ask him to ban certain other posters who were more interested in ruffling feathers than making a point. Somehow this got misconstrued as “PAD wants to ban people who disagree with him.” From everything I can gather, and from what I know of PAD from reading his postings and BID columns, he wouldn’t do that. He never stated he would. If you express a different opinion from PAD, you aren’t in any danger. If you frequently make posts just to pick fights or insult people, then you would potentially be considered for banning. I’m really not sure where the confusion happened.

    But something that is never confusing,

    monkeys

32. I vote ban all the jerks who deliberately insult others just to get their rocks off

33. Udog,

    Classy apology.

    Perhaps some good will come of all this.

34. I fail to see how banning trolls on this site constitutes violating their freedom of speech. If these unwanted visitors were to be banned, they would still be free to excercise their right by going to another site and regaling folks with their belief of the evils of PAD and his fans. My vote is yes.

35. This is your pool, PAD. It’s your call on who can swim.

    But if you start tossing people for being jáçkáššëš or tossing insults with no provocation, be even-handed about it. Agree with you or disagree with you, if they are being insulting jáçkáššëš (or whatever standard you decide to set), toss ‘em.

36. PAD-

    If you read ALL of these messages, how will you ever find any time to write and spend with your family? 😉 Are these the most responses you’ve gotten to a blog entry? If not, I think I’m glad I missed that one. On the subject at hand, I would rather it not be black and white. Can’t we warn people for a first offense? Other boards I’ve been on (and I admit I don’t have that much experience) Have let posters know that those type of comments are not appreciated. In most cases the poster either apologized and continued in a more appropriate manner, or became angry and quit the board. Either way, problem solved.

37. Hey, I’m new to the site and almost as new to computers (I was dragged into this century kicking and screaming). I can’t speak on how most websites are run but I can relate this to my job. I’m an officer in the Capitol Police in good ol VA. The Capitol’s a public building where many a public hearing is held. Same for the General Assembly Building. Lots of people come in and bring lots of (often conflicting) points of view. It’s their right to do so because it is their building. But even in that public place there are rules. Break the rules of civil discourse and you’re asked to leave. Refuse to leave and I or one of my brothers in arms will remove you. There is no conflict in believing in freedom of speach but asking someone to speak with a civil manner and enforcing that request by the removal of those who choose not to. And that’s the rule in buildings owned by the people as a whole in a way that this site isn’t. I like seeing points of view other then my own. I don’t care for other’s points of view however when they are expressed with all the manners and skills of an ill raised five year old. My vote: Throw ’em off.

38. WOW, what a long thread. I’ll try and be quick, because nobody likes to read long posts and I don’t want to repeat what’s been said (but I have a tendency to be long-winded). I have always appreciated the debates, but being rude simply is hitting below the belt. I agree with Bill Mulligan that UDog’s apology was classy. And something should be said for that. Personally, I am not going to vote either way, but would like to call attention to the fact that people sent emails to PAD complaining about certain users. PAD did not personally say his feelings on those posters in this thread. Clearly things got heated in the politics thread, as they always do. But where I’m going with this is that if PAD feels offended–not disagreeing with the posters’ viewpoints, but the WAY they say their views–he should dole out whatever he feels is an appropriate response. And that people admiting their thoughtless actions should be taken into account as he renders his verdict. If he still feels that it is something that should be addressed, it doesn’t violate free speech. On the other hand, his letting those posters remain might show who is the “bigger man.” Do what you will, PAD. One last thing: the idea of a warning makes a lot of sense to me, and it seemed that Glenn would a) be the right person to do so, and that b) tried it and it did not have an effect. And that if people don’t respect his authority as well, maybe that should be considered too, or at least addressed in future warnings.

    Chris (aka Larry to some of his friends, who appreciated Glenn’s
    COMMENT: As for the other bit, Peter claims my actual title is “head stooge”. Naturally, I responded by grabbing him by the hair and poking him in the eyes.)

39. i vote to keep em, but it’s your site PAD, do what you will.

40. PAD, this site is one of the ways you spend your free time. It’s really about making sure that you enjoy yourself when you’re here, instead of it being something you dread.

    I’ll vote no because the troll I think you were talking about really *could* use some time offline, but really, make the decision that’ll feel best for you.

41. Well…depends. Banning someone who’s just plain mean and nasty and without manners, might be OK. I’d hesistate, though, to ban someone simply because you disagreed with them.

    If they have manners and have something arguable intelligent to say, it’s probably best to let them say.

    If you started banning folks simply because you disagreed with their conclusions or opinions, that would be a conflict.

42. For what it’s worth, I vote No. Ignore these twits but don’t waste time trying to keep them out.

    Yes it is Peter David’s website. He can do whatever he wants here. He has been nice enough to let us play here. If some people are doing their utmost to prove how idiotic and offensive they can be, I feel sorry for them and Mr. David has every right to kick them out. It is not a contradiction of a belief in free speech. As others noted, he is not obliged to provide an audience for those people to irritate.

    I also think getting rid of them can quickly devolve into a full time job. Mr. David _Has_ a full time job. They are not worth the extra effort on his part or anyone else’s.

    There have been 289 posts as I write this. The sort of people whose excessively obnoxious attitudes prompted this discussion don’t deserve that much attention.

    Those who have something intelligent to say, whether others agree or not, will continue to post here. I hope they will still be welcomed. The ones who only want to pick a fight and irritate the heck out of others never are or were welcome. Since they feed on reactions, it’s best to ignore them. They won’t go away, perhaps, but ignoring idiocy is better for your blood pressure.

43. Jerry: — I can’t speak on how most websites are run but I can relate this to my job. I’m an officer in the Capitol Police in good ol VA.—

    Hey! A follow Richmonder! =)

44. test.

45. Mr. David, it’s YOUR website, so it’s YOUR call to make. However,I would look more favorably on your belief in the first amendment right to free speech if you simply ignored the more vulgar, less civilized people who congregate on the internet. I won’t waste a second of MY life reading anything that is obviously irrelevant and I hope YOU won’t waste YOURS, either. Enough said? I hope so.

46. First time post.

    First of all, I am a fan, just started “Sir Apropos of Nothing”, seems great so far.

    In going back to the phrase “kicking them off the island”, why not let the other posters vote? Set a limit on the posts so it doesn’t take 300 posts to decide. If the poster is a troll who is only posting to stir the s**t (so to speak), chances are that the majority of the posters will agree and back you up. That way, there is no argument (or at least, not as much) as there would be if you banned them yourself.

    Ulitmately, it is your board, your decision, so I would respect any decision you made.

47. OK, I’ve read most of these posts, not all, God who has that kind of free time. There are yes’ and no’s scattered throughout, and some pretty lame reasoning behind their vote on most of them. And if your first thought was, “He’s talking about my post.” You’re right, I was, you’re an idiot, and that’s why I come here. Hey, don’t get huffy, I’m an idiot too, and Huffy’s are cheap bikes.

    Anyway, to the point, I’ve noticed that a lot of people, though they may say yes or no, believe it’s your site PAD, and thus your decision. As leader of the free world, did GWB ask us whether he should send troops to their deaths in a foreign land? You can’t put decisions like that on the shoulders of the masses. So, like GWB, these tough decisions have to be made by Ðìçk Cheney, and carried out by you. Wait, that came out wrong, my point is, as a group are decisions are based on our emotions and the tone of the times, so you have to be emotionless, and unaffected by the prevailing attitudes of the masses. Thus, you need a cold emotionless person, who can see the big picture, and advise you to make these kind of decisions, not a bunch of comic and sci-fi fans. If Ðìçk Cheney isn’t available, maybe you can get Harlan Ellison (just kidding, see the joke is in the fact that, though I don’t know him personally, Harlan comes of as an overly emotional and reactionary type of person, hahahaha, oh God I am so funny.)

48. I think that you certainly have the RIGHT to boot people if you wish (for WHATEVER reason), but I’d be cautious about actually exercising that right all that often. If people are being abusive or obnoxious it’s one thing, but just disagreeing with other posters is something else entirely. As long as it stays civil (and the ‘net definition of civil is a wee bit more elastic than the face-to-face definition), I think you should let everyone stay.

    But, in the end, it’s your space and your place. If you want to kick out anyone, for any reason, you certainly can.

    A somewhat nebulous post to answer a somewhat nebulous question – almost…Apropos, isn’t it?

    🙂

    Mike

49. Yes. I know that they are annoying but I really like how this board is set up now and I don’t want it to change.

50. Too late Robert Green, unless someone else hits send before I do, this is #300

Comments are closed.