As promised, here is the new and I think improved comments policy.
It’s a bit long, but that’s in part because I’ve included sections that are designed to hopefully eliminate some of the contentious and often repetitive debates that have erupted in the past over the issue of ableism — in particular the use of words like “crazy” and “psycho” and the like. In the future, I am hoping that we can simply link new commenters to the policy (in particular, the “notes on ‘crazy'”) section and avoid a lot of the drama.
This policy is stricter towards those who “dig in” and insist on using problematic terms even though they’ve been informed of the rules about them; if they’ve been linked to the comments policy and persist in arguing or behaving badly, they will be banned. I’m also asking regulars to rein in their language in criticizing first-time offenders, and to not argue back with them if they persist. (There’s not much point to it, because offenders who persist will be banned.)
Not all of the changes and additions to the comments policy are in response to the ableism debates; I’ve also taken into consideration other controversies here, as well as comments policies on other blogs and broader discussions online about the best ways to moderate sites.
One other change: I will also put regular reminders in posts that all new commenters should read the comments policy before posting.
I am very much cognizant that many people who regularly read this blog — some of them who comment here regularly, some of whom are lurkers or only occasional commenters — are frustrated by the flame wars that have erupted here from time to time. I am frustrated as well, and troubled by the personal attacks I’ve seen in these discussions, directed not at trolls but at other commenters here in good faith.
I hope this new comment policy can end some of these flame wars before they start. If it doesn’t, I will (reluctantly) have to resort to shutting threads down and even suspending some commenters.
So here is the new comments policy. Discuss. Suggest improvements. Be civil.
Welcome prospective commenters!
Unmoderated internet forums quickly become shitheaps, so we have a few rules here. One thing to remember right off the bat: this is a feminist blog, designed (mostly) for a feminist audience. You don’t have to be a particular kind of feminist to post here, or even a feminist at all, but you do need to keep this in mind.
First comments from new commenters – or old commenters changing their name – automatically go to moderation. Regardless of your politics, if you start off here with a jerky or tediously argumentative comment, or if you trigger some other red flag for me, your first comment will never see the light of day.
MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Red Pillers, “Equalists,” #GamerGaters and the like: you will be allowed to post here, if your first comment is amusing and/or not especially egregious, and if you more-or-less behave.
But I reserve the right to revoke your posting privileges at any time for any reason. You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to our attention. I am especially not interested in hearing your thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian (or some other target of angry dude harassment online).
Oh, and I sometimes set aside threads here as “no troll, no MRA” threads. If you post in one of them, even politely, you will be banned.
If you’re NOT an MRA or a troll, welcome!
You’re who this blog is really meant for. The comments too, provided you can participate in a generally constructive manner and can treat those you disagree with here with a certain degree of respect. Snark is fine; attacks and accusations and namecalling, not so much.
If someone – whether a troll or a regular commenter — is acting badly enough to possibly warrant a suspension or ban, EMAIL ME OR THE MODS. That’s the fastest and most effective way to get it taken care of.
Some slightly more specific guidelines.
No bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, body shaming, and so forth). No slurs. I’ve put the worst ones in the mod filter, so comments containing them won’t appear. If you want to discuss someone else’s use of a slur, disguise the word so your comment won’t get caught by the filter – though if you do this as a “clever” way to use a slur yourself, you may well find yourself banned.
No threats or violent comments. That includes telling someone to “die in a fire” or remarking that so-and-so would probably be better off dead. This rule is in effect even when you are talking about vile misogynistic shitbags.
No gratuitously nasty personal attacks. Yes, discussions can sometimes get a bit contentious. You’re not required to be perfectly nice all the time. Just don’t be a total asshole. And don’t drag your disagreements with someone into every thread.
No doxxing or posting of personal identifying information. Don’t spread rumors or speculate without evidence on the possible criminal activity of anyone else, whether this is another commenter or a misogynistic shitbag.
No rape apologism, pedo apologism, victim blaming, and so forth.
Don’t misgender anyone. If you do it accidentally, apologize and get it right the next time. If you do it deliberately, you’re out.
Don’t attack anyone for their sexual preferences or kinks, so long as they involve consenting adults. Refrain from weird or creepy sexual oversharing. Whatever your opinion of sex work, don’t disparage sex workers, or use words like “whore” as a pejorative. (Feel free to talk about MRAs who are using the word pejoratively.)
Don’t attack people for their religion or their lack of religion.
Don’t be a mansplainer or indeed any kind of ‘splainer. That is, don’t lecture anyone on something they know better than you, particularly if that thing is their lived experience.
Don’t post too much or try to make threads all about you. Try to avoid drama.
If you have personal issues you want to bring up, that’s fine! Use the troll-free open threads set aside for personal stuff. I’ll post a new one every couple of weeks. (I also start threads regularly to discuss big events in the news that people here are concerned about; feel free to email if you think something has happened that warrants one.)
No sockpuppeting. No lying. No misrepresentation of yourself or other people. No posting in bad faith – e.g. posting friendly comments here while trashing the site and/or the people on it elsewhere.
No pile-ons. If a number of people have already offered the same criticism of another commenter, don’t add more comments to the pile.
All this said, you don’t have to be perfect to comment here. As sociologist Katherine Cross (@Quinnae_Moon) has noted, very few people arrive “fully formed to the world of activism, the perfect agents of change, somehow entirely cognizant of the ever shifting morass of rules and prescribed or proscribed words, phrases, argot, and thought.”
I want this blog to be open to all those who genuinely oppose misogyny and bigotry more generally, even those who may slip up from time to time.
Still, if you’re new here, or new to feminism, and the regulars here are telling you to avoid certain words, or pointing out something that you’re doing that’s problematic, don’t take it as a personal attack (unless it is couched as a personal attack, in which case email me). If they tell you to avoid particular language, uh, avoid using that language, and don’t explain that in your country calling a person a something-or-other is perfectly fine.
You don’t have to agree with all the rules and/or cultural norms here; but while you’re commenting here you are expected to respect them. If you think a rule is really, really wrong or ridiculous, don’t argue about it in the comments; send me an email about it.
And this brings us to the issue of ableism, which has been a contentious one here.
NOTES ON “CRAZY”
Avoid “crazy” talk. That is, using words like “crazy,” “psycho” and the like to describe the terrible ideas and actions of people you don’t like. It’s stigmatizing to those dealing with mental illness, who really don’t need the extra indignity of being compared to MRAs. Try using words like “ridiculous” or “absurd” or “terrible” instead. Call someone an “asshole” instead of a “psycho.” Try to avoid internet diagnoses of mental illness, and don’t use autism or Aspergers as an excuse for someone’s shitty behavior.
Saying someone is “paranoid,” “delusional,” or “narcissistic” is fine, if you don’t mean it as a diagnosis; these are useful descriptive terms.
If there is evidence that someone you are discussing does indeed have a mental illness, and this is relevant to the discussion, it can be appropriate to bring this up, though you should keep in mind that a hunch is not evidence.
All this said, words like “crazy,” “psycho,” and the like are extremely common, and plenty of people (including feminists, progressives, and people dealing with mental illness themselves) use them casually without intending to stigmatize those with mental illnesses. There’s a difference between saying “crazy people should all be locked up” and “boy, Eraserhead sure was a crazy movie!”
If you’re someone who uses these terms casually, and doesn’t actually want all “crazy” people locked up, it doesn’t make you an evil person, but you need to refrain from doing it here. (Again, if you disagree with this policy, and feel a need to make this disagreement known, DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT IN THE COMMENTS, send me an email instead.)
If you are a regular commenter here, and someone uses a problematic term like “crazy” or “psycho,” remind them gently that this is not how we do things here, and send them a link to this comment policy (and possibly the Welcome Package as well). Unless what they have said is particularly egregious, do not insult them or question their motives.
If they argue, remind them that arguing about this rule is also not allowed. If they continue, do not argue back; send me or the mods a note and they will be banned. (This may take a little while, so be patient and please do not give in to the impulse to argue with them.)
If others have already reminded them of the rules, move on.
Again, if someone is acting really shitty in the comments, whether a troll or a regular, SEND THE MODS (or me) AN EMAIL.
One other thing to keep in mind:
MRAs read this blog. So I would strongly urge you to comment here using an anonymous handle that cannot be traced to your real identity. And to be very careful about revealing any sort of personal information on this blog. If you inadvertently post something using the wrong account, or that otherwise reveals personal information, let the mods know so we can remove those comments.
Oh, wait, one other other thought:
Enjoy yourself!
Okay, apparently I jumped to a very wrong conclusion about Nothing Clever. I’m sorry for that.
My first comment at this blog was way out of line. I have said as much more than once in this thread. It was mean and abusive. On purpose. I don’t feel good about it.
I have been reading this blog off and on since it was called Manboobz. I have turned other people on to it, including a couple semi-PUA guys at work who I told to at least check in here now and then to get some perspective. They thought it was hilarious. They didn’t know about the dark side of the PUA world (Roissy etc.) and I think it was good that they discovered it through here. Their introduction to PUA misogyny was through ridicule of it. I think Mammoth serves a really valuable purpose, and that value increases the bigger the MRA and MRA-adjacent movements get.
I avoided commenting here because the environment was so abusive. I wasn’t worried about getting hurt — I just didn’t want to hang out among so much cruelty and negativity. Abuse just doesn’t make life better, whether you are inflicting it, receiving it or just witnessing it. So I just read David’s posts, laughed, and sent links to people I thought would like them.
But sometimes I think David punches down too low. And on July 13 he posted An Air Mattress, a Motorcycle, and a Flat-Screen TV: Living the dream, MGTOW-style. He mocked a 23-year-old MGTOW who basically wasn’t hurting anyone, and he mocked the dude for just living in a fairly typical young dude’s apartment. The post implied that this MGTOW deserved to be mocked just for enjoying his lifestyle.
I saw red. To me David is a pretty high-status person in the blog world, and this guy was just a dude with problems. And of course the abusive commenters here just piled on this kid even more, mocking and shaming this 23-year-old stranger who doesn’t even know they exist. I saw red even more. I decided that I needed to teach David a lesson. So with my first comment ever, to a man and writer I respect, I compared David to the guy he was mocking in a cruel way. A way designed to hurt.
It felt really good.
And that’s terrible. It shouldn’t feel good to do that. There are a hundred better ways I could have made my point. But I indulged my righteous indignation and just went for the jugular. And when it comes down to it, I did it because it felt good. When it comes down to it, that’s what motivates all of the abusive commenters here. We’re getting off on abuse. It feels good.
This is the worst part of us. We should all be trying to do less of it. I think David actually deserves more leeway in his posts than the commenters get in their comments. There’s a difference between what he does, which is usually mocking public figures, and what we do, which is talk to each other. It’s a difference that matters. David is not in conversation with Paul Elam one-to-one. But we are in conversation with each other. When we abuse, we are doing it to someone right here.
I think we should treat each other better. And enforced rules are the only way that is realistically going to happen.
Thanks, Orion.
Bye, KL. 🙁
Just as a heads up, Had To Be Said identified as a woman, so for future discourse I think the proper pronouns to use is she/her.
I apologize for going back to something that was said several pages of comments ago, but I have a sincere question:
2aimai said and Scented Fucking Hard Chairs replied:
The new comments policy states:
So my question is why the words in the comment policy, which are all potentially symptomatic of mental illness, are okay, while “disordered thinking,” which is also potentially symptomatic of mental illness is not okay. I mean, really, I’m okay with just saying a person was completely irrational instead of saying he had “disordered thinking,” but I am just having trouble seeing the distinction for where we’re drawing the line and would love to hear more explanation.
As for everything else that’s happened in the last few pages, well, I’m too conflict-averse to weigh in.
I will say this one contrary thing: For me, “stupid,” when applied to a person or her arguments, is possibly the most hurtful of words. At least, if you really want to hurt me, calling me stupid or saying that something I said was stupid will often do the trick.
@tealily,
you raise a good point, funnily enough that very thing happened to me here just the other day. I made a comment about something, and further down someone agreed, addressing me in their comment. Then she left another comment explaining she hadn’t meant to acknowledge me, she’d meant someone else, who had made the same point. It did crack me up as while I’m used to being ignored on long threads, I’ve never had someone acknowledge me by accident and then take it back 🙂
To be fair I imagine some people do scroll past comments to just read those left by people they know.
Hi again. Sorry if I was hard on KL last night.
I am not “shitting on” them, I honestly see a discussion where KL was told Chicago was either not the MOST racist city (and how do you even measure that?) OR that even though it’s awfully racist, it’s not in the particular form of segregation.
Kl took thos as a denial of all racism, and resppnded with anger and links, which is fone for me, and I’m ok with KL snark as well- I just pointed out it happens to everyone, even those who demand we tone it dowm for them.
As for the link, I’m on my phone now and can’t copy-quote it, but one of your comments claimed, more or less: “minimizing consensus the Chicago is the most racist is minimizing racism”.
Well, I think it is only disagreeing
Hi again. Sorry if I was hard on KL last night.
I am not “shitting on” them, I honestly see a discussion where KL was told Chicago was either not the MOST racist city (and how do you even measure that?) OR that even though it’s awfully racist, it’s not in the particular form of segregation.
Kl took thos as a denial of all racism, and resppnded with anger and links, which is fone for me, and I’m ok with KL snark as well- I just pointed out it happens to everyone, even those who demand we tone it dowm for them.
As for the link, I’m on my phone now and can’t copy-quote it, but one of your comments claimed, more or less: “minimizing consensus the Chicago is the most racist is minimizing racism”.
Well, I think it is only disagreeing, just like my answer here was to show it’s not always clear what we need to work on, not to disregard anyone’s feeling or experiences.
@HTBS
We clearly have different definitions for what makes something abusive.
I also don’t just throw insults around just because it feels good, so I guess what you’re saying does not apply and/or os not really about people who feel like me.
You CAN measure segregation. You CAN’T measure racism.
I DON’T use those interchangeably, so if I say you can’t measure racism, I DO NOT mean you can’t measure segregation.
So, I hope you see my fruattation if I say A and you hear B.
I’m not angry at you and hold no resentment. But we ALL could try to be better at understanding before jumping, of course myself included.
Sorry I wasn’t able to get back to this earlier; obviously this thread has gotten fairly contentious, as I was afraid it would.
Reading through the comments here it became clear to me that in an attempt to keep the comment policy from getting longer than it already was, I left out a rather important point, and one that contributes to a lot of the enmity in this thread, as well as to the radically different perceptions different people have of the relative “meanness” or cliquishness of a good number of the regular commenters here.
I also should have been clearer about some of what the new rules are intended to combat.
The thing I left out, or at least didn’t adequately address, is something you all know: There are two different types of commenters on this blog.
There are the MRAs/trolls/whatever you want to call them, and everybody else, and the rules are different for each group.
I allow MRAs/trolls to comment here largely for their entertainment value. I let their comments through – or at least the comments of some of them – even though they often violate some of the rules that everyone else is expected to follow. That is, I let their comments through despite the fact that they are usually misogynistic, often racist, etc etc. I let them say stuff that would get other people banned.
The flip side of this is that the rules against namecalling, etc, don’t apply to them either; the regulars here can mock them pretty much as mercilessly as they want, gang up on them, invent silly names for them and the sort. And I can ban the trolls for any reason I want without warning.
Trouble is, it’s not always immediately obvious whether someone is a troll or an MRA.
And unfortunately, I have to say, some of the regulars are a bit too quick to label people trolls and/or MRAs – and to treat them accordingly. To some degree this is understandable: this site gets a lot of trolls, many of whom pretend to be here in good faith only to later start spewing hateful abusive shit.
But this also means that people who aren’t trolls end up getting labeled trolls very quickly, and treated as harshly as they would be if they were trolls. This often happens with people who start off on the wrong foot – sometimes because they say something that is misunderstood, or because they use language that the folks here have decided is unacceptable.
Oftentimes the issue is ableism, or at least the usage of language that some people think is unacceptably ableist – e.g. “crazy.”
I say “some people think” because there is no consensus, even amongst those who themselves are dealing with mental illness, that terms like “crazy” should be forbidden. Indeed, in my experience, those who think that “crazy” should be off-limits make up a small minority of this group; I know lots of people who have dealt with or are dealing with mental illness who use the word all the time.
(Did anyone here ever make use of the site Crazy Meds? It was a place where people could discuss their own experiences with the meds they’d been prescribed for their mental illnesses; it was set up by someone who labeled themselves as “crazy.”)
Earlier today, I got a message from someone who told me:
Should I ban “delusional” instead of “crazy?” I don’t think so. Most people who are delusional – whether about feminism or the prospects for their favorite sports team – aren’t mentally ill; they just have “false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.”
Still, I have been convinced that “crazy” is different. And since giving up this word (and a few others like it) is really not an onerous burden, as marinerachel noted earlier, I’ve gone along with the requests to make it off-limits in the comments here.
But what this means is that lots of not-trolls come here, unaware of the rules (not everyone reads comments policies before commenting;) and use “crazy” or some similar term.
And then they get a number of people jumping on them for it, sometimes in a fairly nasty way. They get defensive, often because they’ve never encountered someone getting angry about the word “crazy” before and sometimes say something obnoxious back, and end up getting chased away. Even though they might agree with 95% of what this blog is about.
And no I’m not going to post evidence of this, because everyone here knows that this has happened.
The new comment policy is designed to make the prohibition on “crazy” and the like more clear. But it is also intended to end pile-ons.
We don’t need ten people telling them how bad what they did was, because what they did IS ALREADY AGAINST THE RULES.
Is there a danger that the offender will keep on saying offensive stuff and no one will now be allowed to reply to them until I get around to banning the offender? I suppose. But the fact is that people replying to the offender won’t stop them from being offensive either, and it will still take the same amount of time for them to be banned.
Now, I should emphasize that all this applies to people who use inappropriate language, who insist on making internet diagnoses, etc. If someone comes along and says “we need to lock up all the crazy people and throw away the key,” or “mentally ill people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids” or something else equally horrible and bigoted, go ahead and flame away at them to your heart’s content.
Sometimes a new person gets off on the wrong foot for other reasons. KL got off on the wrong foot by making a somewhat ambiguously worded comment that some seem to have misread as dismissing racism in the south.
Having just read through some of that thread, I have to say it’s a bit surreal. Some folks demand that KL offer proof of the allegedly “bizarre” claim that Chicago is the most segregated city in the country (which is, in fact, true); KL offers proof, yet people keep on demanding proof.
KL came here, to a thread on the Charleston shootings, to make the point that racism is a problem in the north as well as the south, something that everyone here presumably agrees with, but still ended up getting treated much the same way we treat trolls. Yes, KL reacted by saying some intemperate things but didn’t deserve all that hostility.
This is, I think, genuinely cliquish behavior, and to those who encounter it as an outsider it can seem very hostile and, yes, mean.
(I’ll save my thoughts on Had to Be Said for later, though I’m not convinced they’re a troll either.)
Now, I don’t want to get in the way of good troll smackdown; real trolls deserve it.
But I don’t want everyone who uses the wrong word or says something that seems a little off to be labeled a troll. I want people who aren’t trolls, but who may start off on the wrong foot, to be given the chance to redeem themselves, without being treated as if they’re some asshole who’s wandered over here from the bowels of Roosh’s forums.
When you deliver a troll smackdown to someone who’s not a troll, it’s a sort the internet version of friendly fire. And I really, really want us to try to avoid that.
I’m hoping that a more standardized way to deal with the “crazy” will help. But I’m also asking you all to be more careful about the people you label and treat as trolls or MRAs, because there have been too many false positives of late.
Look, you’re an amazing bunch of commenters, and I’m honored that you’ve decided to make this blog one of your hangouts. You’re funny, smart, and you know all sorts of shit; I’m amazed at how much I’ve learned just from reading the comments here. You’re compassionate people, and you’ve rallied together to help a lot of people going through rough times.
I just think that, collectively, you’ve got a bit of a hair trigger on the “troll” issue, and that this can drive away decent people who could really contribute a lot to the comments here.
I will be making some revisions to the comments policy in the next few days to try to more clearly distinguish between appropriate behavior towards trolls and towards people who aren’t trolls, and to get across some of what I’ve been talking about here better. I will also add some boilerplate language that you can cut and paste into the comments when someone breaks the rules.
My schedule is weird, and I’m about to go to bed, and I don’t want this thread getting any more fraught while I’m unable to moderate it, so I’m going to temporarily close these comments until I’m back online and able to monitor the thread as it develops. I’m going to ask you not to take any of this to any other thread in the meantime (and will ban or at least temporarily suspend anyone who does).
I do think we can work through this stuff and make the comments here a better place for everyone but the genuine trolls.
David,
I loved CrazyMeds. I only recently discovered that it was gone, which was a really nasty shock. Do you know why it went down? I’m a bit sad that I can’t use it any more, but mostly I’m worried that something bad may have happened to Jerod.
Belladonna,
This is just an opinion, but “disordered thinking” sounds more clinical than “delusional” or “narcissistic.” I’m pretty sure those words predate modern psychology, whereas I assume that “disordered thinking” is a phrase created by modern psychology. Whether that’s true or not, I can say that in my experience I very rarely hear anyone say “disordered thinking” outside a medical context.
What do people and especially David think about “querulous paranoia”?
I don’t want to remotely diagnose any particular individuals but it’s something that springs to mind generally sometimes in regard to certain characteristics of some of the MRA commentators (e.g. the insistence that their world view is something that everyone agrees with and a matter of grave import that must be listened to).
It seems to be regarded (in the UK at least) as a personality trait rather than a medical diagnosis.
I’ve avoided bringing the issue up before because I don’t want to cross the line into ableism but might it be ok within the new policy?
Thanks, Orion. I was thinking along those same lines—that “disordered thinking” sounded more clinical.
I especially agree that you can have a degree of paranoia without it rising to the level of a “clinical” diagnosis.
And all the personality disorders, including narcissistic personality disorder, are disorders involving having an excess of some types of “normal” human affect.
But I’m not sure I can agree about “delusional.” At least, I don’t think I would say someone was delusional without thinking they ought to seek professional help ASAP. I know it’s a really small quibble, but I’d be more likely to say someone was “deluded” because that seems like something much less clinical that could apply to being really wrong-headed about a single subject, whereas, “delusional” seems, to me, to suggest that someone is incapable of rational thinking. As far as I can suss out, both “disordered thinking” and “delusion” seem possibly to be part of the definition of psychosis.
Anyway, I’m okay with “delusional” being declared a word that the commentariat can use, but I think maybe I’ll stick to “deluded” as a matter of personal preference.
I like “delusional” as a modifier for concepts, not people. Like “delusional ideology” or “delusional beliefs” (which I guess would just be “delusions”). Delusions of grandeur, etc.
That, I can wholeheartedly agree with.
David,
I think the following policy is the root of a lot of trouble:
You let the trolls through, and you specifically suspend the rules against personal attacks just for them. If you didn’t let the trolls though at all, you wouldn’t have to suspend the rules for anyone. The prohibition on personal attacks would be much more clear — simpler to follow, and simpler to enforce.
Yes, the Public Stoning Ritual is entertaining. There is some value there. But have you articulated the net value of the gang-bashing of the Bad Person Of The Day?
Here are two of the costs (the first you have noted, the second I think you overlook):
1. A false-positive troll identification can send a potentially valuable community member away. This cost actually scales with the community’s growth. The bigger the community gets, the more false-positives will occur. It only takes one person to start the bashing. This is why you’ve seen the problem grow over time.
2. The Public Stoning Ritual creates group cohesion based on abuse. Group cohesion is good, but this is group cohesion that says doing this is what we’re about. It’s a really negative way to bring people together. This cost also scales with growth. The bigger the mob, the bigger the problem.
The solution is gun control. If guns (personal attacks) are not allowed at all, then you don’t have to worry about guns being used against the wrong people, and you don’t have to worry about building a community of gun enthusiasts.
When I imagine We Hunted The Mammoth without episodes of Abuse The Troll in the comments, I see a better site. You’ve managed to take a small blog and put it on the path to becoming an important institution. I hope you’ll at least consider that letting go of troll-bashing-as-entertainment could be a positive step in the ongoing maturation of the project.
Can I please request that further complaints and comments about how this community operates be restricted to this thread and not turn into random sniping in other threads?
I ask because, last time there was a fight, there was a lot of random sniping about how it had been resolved for a long time, including people who only hung around to snipe and never posted anything else.
Seconded, Katz.
I agree wholeheartedly with Katz here. In fact, I’m going to adopt that as official policy. Let’s hash this out here and then move on.
I’m also thinking that “deluded” is indeed preferable to “delusional” when talking about people, at least in most circumstances. It’s probably not worth banning “delusional” to refer to people but certainly it wouldn’t be remiss to point out to people who use “delusional” that “deluded” is generally a better alternative.
A quick googling of “querulous paranoia” suggests it’s generally being used as a diagnosis, so let’s avoid it. If someone is, say, a “vexatious litigant” or “vexatious pesterer of police” let’s just call them that. And there are certainly are some of those amongst the MRAs.
Although, I have definitely seen people be a little quick to assume troll before, I don’t want the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. If a lot of people are getting the sense that someone is here in bad faith, there’s usually something to that.
In fact, it wasn’t too long ago David, that you ended up agreeing to a stricter banning and moderation policy after you gave commenters who were setting off red flags to us the benefit of the doubt and they wound up saying horrible things to people.
I agree that one post a few disagree with doesn’t necessarily equal troll. However, there are ways to argue in bad faith without being blatantly trollish. Take the HTBS example. Every last post this person has been argumentative. Every last one. In this thread they appear to me to be manipulating commenters into arguing with each other even more than we already were. I don’t believe for one second that HTBS sincerely wants this space to be better.
It’s David call who to ban or put on moderation, of course. But I do hope he places enough trust in us to listen to us when we’re seeing red flags or having an issue with someone.
@ David
Consider it avoided.
@WWTH
I’m sick right now and stressed and not so great at words because of that so I am going to sit here in awe of that.
@Had To Be Said,
Presumably, though, not letting trolls post would actually also be suspending the rules. I mean, you’re not letting them post. Kinda defeats the purpose of a comment section if you don’t let in comments.
Secondly, if “mocking trolls” in broad is a problem that leads to the moral dissolution of whtm, then, errr, why is David allowed to post blog pages that mocks trolls for their beliefs? Granted, that’s not all it is but there’s scant great difference between a poster pointing out a silly thought and a blogpost post pointing out a silly thought. How’s one better than the other?
Like, being extremely glib and somewhat reductive – isn’t publically stone bashing the bad person of the day to unite everyone and feel good in the face of terrible stufff literally what the blog and the blog’s posts are all about?
You’re right, let’s stop troll bashing as entertainment and cease all personal attacks. This is now a blog about… Uh… Uhm… David’s sweet taste in music?
Anyhow, good policy, seems fine, no complaints, rock on.
David,
I’m sure you have done your own research on creating community guidelines, but I ran across this and I think it is worthwhile.
When the makers of the open-source forum software Discourse were composing default Forum Rules to add to their software package, they decided to learn from history:
In the document they ultimately created, the first rules on the list are no name-calling and no personal attacks. That’s the wisdom of four decades of forums.
I am not aware of any forum that has this rule but adds to it: “The following category of person does not enjoy the protection of the rules against personal attacks.”
Maybe there is one, but I am not aware of it.
It seems to me that the effort you plan to make to “clearly distinguish between appropriate behavior towards trolls and towards people who aren’t trolls” — which amounts to creating an Unprotected Class — might ultimately be wasted. Because everybody else before you seems to have decided that a blanket ban on personal attacks is the only thing that works.
Dealing with trolls via community abuse (“a good troll smackdown”) is just not a strategy with a good record, to my knowledge.
(Oh, and since Discourse is open-source, I think you can just grab whatever you like from their Community Guidelines and use it yourself, no copyright. It might be worth a look.)
Just some more relevant research info:
Wikipedia’s “No Personal Attacks” Rule
The policy specifically does not create a special category of person who can be attacked:
I think it is fair to assume that this Wikipedia policy is the product of lots of trial and error. There is some wisdom of the ages in it.