Beginning immediately, I intend to considerably change the way comments are posted at SBC Tomorrow. Two recent incidences spurred my decision along this direction. First, I had an enlightening conversation with a trusted friend who regularly reads my site. He is well known, well respected in SBC life, and I value his friendship and wisdom. He correctly cautioned me to stop encouraging the continued flow of internet prattle which visits my site and logs on only to make the point I worked hard to clearly communicate in the original post a side issue in the conversation. In other words, I allow them to draw me into an exchange about me personally rather than sticking with the main issue. I confess I knew this a weakness to which I unhappily succumbed whether inspired by pride, the need to be right, or even more positive inclinations one could imagine. Whatever the reason, the point my friend made is, I am weakening myself as an influence by engaging prattle. I think I must agree. Too many times I've encouraged prattle by countering prattle. The fact remains, however, the only way to address prattle is ignore it.
A second incident regards an extended exchange when a new commenter outright questioned the sincerity of my words. Were I gut-level honest, I'd have to describe my inner reaction as anger. I write what I write because I believe what I write. I fully realize I may be dead wrong about what I write. Not because I have carelessly flung together a post or a response with haphazard thought apart from reasonable, sober reflection. The truth is, my pattern for posting whatever I post on the internet must meet some fairly rigorous tests before I post it, and that goes whether I'm commenting in a thread or posting an original piece. I do not take the words I publish lightly. But I am certainly not above making logical errors, misquoting documents, misunderstanding concepts, etc., etc. In other words, like all interpreters I can and do make mistakes--sometimes serious, sometimes minor--but mistakes they remain nonetheless.
On the other hand, literary exchange is what correcting mistakes is all about. An interpreter could make gross erros in his or her understanding of a particular idea or issue and remain a man or woman of intergity. The question, then, is not about honesty but ignorance. Dishonesty needs to be confessed and forsaken. Ignorance, however, needs correction--sometimes gentle, sometimes very strong.
To have then, a complete stranger question ones sincerity without a scintilla of sober reason or intimate knowledge about that person cannot be taken seriously. It is prattle plain and simple. My problem is, in light of my wise friend's caution, that is exactly what I have been doing--taking prattle seriously. Publishing on as many "hot-button" issues as I do surely draws more than my share of internet prattle. People will come and log on just to complain--and more times than not, they end complaining about me personally. For those who have followed my site, I'm confident you are aware that I am no stranger to exchange. Nor am I shy about defending a view I place in the public forum. Only the most biased individuals would argue otherwise. On the other hand, you have also perhaps observed with my good friend I have often encouraged prattle not by ignoring it but by engaging it. Hence, I must address this and immediately intend to. A sober reevaluation is in order for commenting at SBC Tomorrow.
Below are some initial commenting initiatives I am implementing beginning June 6, 2011. And, as before, while these initiatives are not either unchangeable, un-editable, or serve as "objective rules" I must follow concerning comments on this site (the fact is, in the end, most all commenting policies are thoroughly subjective), the statements offer a flavor indicative of what I'd want and not want to characterize future comment threads at SBC Tomorrow.
Furthermore, these initiatives are not designed to be democratic. Nor do they serve to make sure all has a "say-so" on the issue. In other words, if readers want to claim a breach in "free speech" or accuse SBC Tomorrow of "censorship" they have come to the wrong site. While I will attempt to post all of the best comments from opposing positions, I make no promises to anyone holding any position his or her comment will always be posted. I hope this remains clear.
Commenting initiatives (no designed order):
- complaining about the point of a blog post will probably not be posted
- complaining about the author of the blog post will probably not be posted
- excessively long comments will probably not be posted
- continued bantering will probably not be posted
- changing the subject of the thread to another subject will probably not be posted
- questioning the motives or sincerity of the author of a blog post will probably not be posted
- some comments may be posted with no answer offered
- complaining about unanswered questions will probably not be posted
- more than a single rejoinder by the same commenter will probably not be posted (I'm using "rejoinder" in its more definite sense of a reply to a reply)
- links to other sites/posts which have no bearing on the subject at hand will probably not be posted
- anonymous commenters will probably not be posted (I've had this initiative in place for some time but been rather lax. I will go on a comment-by-comment basis)
- if a comment is posted, it is always subject to be unposted if, after further reflection, I judge the comment offers no real value to the thread(sometimes comments get posted that never should have made it; the tendency has been to "leave it alone" since it is already posted; in addition, it may mean if one is withdrawn, several are withdrawn since the comments allude to it; so be it)
- if a comment has good content it will probably be posted
- if a comment offers a studied alternative view it will probably be posted
- if a comment offers a clear contribution to the thread even if it makes a redundant point already made it will probably be posted
- if a commenter has posted a response on his or her blog to the original post at SBC Tomorrow and offers a link in the comment it will probably be posted
- if a commenter has posted a complaint on his or her blog to the original post at SBC Tomorrow and offers a link in the comment it will probably not be posted
- if the original post is a literary spoof, obvious caricature, or cartoon meant as humor, sarcasm, or satire, comments on the post probably will be closed (all do not appreciate the literary value of this medium; hence, I have inevitably and unfortunately spent far too much time in the past arguing not about the intended point the artistic creation presented. Instead, I wasted time arguing for the legitimacy of the medium as a viable literary tool. Not any more)
- if the comment is edifying whether anonymous or not, it will probably be posted
- if the comment is non-edifying whether anonymous or not, it probably will not be posted (however, see above on complaints)
- no commenter is banned from commenting on SBC Tomorrow (but all commenters face the rigorous test above)
- all comments failing the rigorous test for publication are subject to actual deletion (heretofore, I have taken advantage of typepad's option to leave comments unpublished. I did so for my own protection against prattle who accused me of either editing their comment or suggesting I wouldn't post it because it "devastated" my position. With the above initiatives in mind, I no longer have use for such. Nor have I ever liked comments I had no intention of publishing clogging my dashboard. Now comments will be deleted if they are not published)
- as more initiatives appear helpful, additions will be made (similarly, as initiatives are discovered to be unhelpful, they will be removed)
Not Nice* One Time, twill be a crime
Not Nice Twice, hearts reveal their vice
Not Nice Thrice, good-bye is the price
*Nice means exclusively what the author says it means according to the personal whims of his day
Since I started blogging in 2006, I've had identical rules in place (above). Over time, we've experienced more traffic than we expected. And, along with traffic comes those particular commenters who log on only to either insult the blog-host or make morally offensive charges like "you, sir, are a liar." Unfortunately, more times than not, those commenters cannot or do not desire to discuss the written piece itself. Instead they traffic in making the issue personally about the writer.
Consequently, SBC Tomorrow is forced to deal with the dishonorable people who make their presence known by posting their offensive literary clutter. Moderation is the surest approach to dealing with "trolls" who're out only to insult character rather than constructively interact with content.
Another policy I am strongly enforcing is disallowing anonymous comments. I've always had an aversion to anonymous commenters, especially those who have tendencies to be personally critical. Anonymity serves as a protective casing if the commenter is shown to be factually mistaken or explicitly contradictory. Indeed an anonymous commenter is protected from any criticism whatsoever and remains insulated from responsibility for his or her mistakes. Hence, I may allow one comment to stand anonymously but will not tolerate continued anonymity.
Also know my understanding of anonymous includes not only names taken from famous people (mostly dead) like "Turretin," "Calvin," "Luther," etc. but also everyday names like "Matthew," "John C, etc." In other words, my understanding of anonymous includes incognito. Hence, one may log on as "John" but if the commenter lists no valid website or the registered email is generic as in "JohnThunderson@yahoo.com," the comment will be considered anonymous. Beyond one anonymous comment, no more will be published on my site. Further, if another anonymous comment is logged from an IP address where a former anonymous comment was logged, the comment will not stand.
While I am not suggesting the approach I am pursuing is the best for open discussion; what I am saying is the approach I am pursuing is the best approach I know of presently. Others are encouraged to seek another route they deem better to control the senseless onslaught coming from irresponsible Internet hobos.
================================================================
Original commenting rules for SBC Tomorrow (2006):
Not Nice* One Time, twill be a crime
Not Nice Twice, hearts reveal their vice
Not Nice Thrice, good-bye is the price
*Nice means exclusively what the author says it means according to the personal whims of his day
