2012.04.02
What should be the rules for commenting?
Last month, we had a lively discussion over our commenting system (original post and follow-up post), with readers making lots of suggestions and providing examples.
Now we’d like to revisit that topic, but focus more on what the rules should be for commenters. We’re taking a look at other websites that introduce their comments sections with some rules (and oftentimes a link to terms of use). The Roanoke Times currently has a “Submission Rules” section on its “Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions” page.
A great example can be found on the website of The Virginian-Pilot, a our sister newspaper in Norfolk, which we’ve talked about in earlier posts.
“COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don’t attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.”
We found another succinct advisory from TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog):
“Be nice, stay relevant and don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to someone in person.”
So our question today is: If you could make the rules for commenting on our website, name your top three …
My top 3 rules would be to (1) stay clean…no swearing or other foul language (including not allowing swear words or dirty language with symbols in place of letters), (2) no personal attacks, insults, harrassment, etc aimed at other commenters. I can’t really think of a 3rd, but decency rules for showing respect for others, even including referring to elected officials and public figures by their proper names and/or titles would be nice too. Sometimes the off-topic discussions can lead to some interesting dialogue, which I find gets stifled too many times simply because it evolves off the original topic of the thread and then gets quashed by moderators.
Comment by Other John — April 2, 2012 @ 7:32 am
I like those rules – especially the option of other users reporting violations. Then, it is less tracking on the back end for violations, you could focus on those that were reported.
Comment by Michelle — April 2, 2012 @ 11:33 am
Those judged incapable of following the rules will be asked to leave the site permanently:
1. Respect other posters (we are trying for a community of diverse opinion, not an insult slinging free for all).
2. No comments you would find offensive if received (if you would not like your opinion to be called “crazy”, don’t call someone else’s opinion “crazy”).
3. No profanity, libel, slander, threats or implied retaliation to other posters.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 2, 2012 @ 11:53 am
My top three would be 1) obviously no foul language etc., 2) treating those with differing opinions with respect. More often than not some of the “regulars” seem very disparaging to those with other opinions. Blogs should be a place for debate and discussion and I find them (particularly one of them) to be a place filled with ridicule for any who differ without any discussion. 3) As mentioned above: respect. Debate and differing opinions are wonderful tools to learn and to share. The same people seem to want to enforce their opinions too often without giving others the respect needed to ask questions and to differ. This is something the moderator should take care of…but often encourages it.
Comment by Maggie — April 2, 2012 @ 11:53 am
1) try to read, say – 10 other comments, or as many as they have, if less, before making your own (avoids repitition and might make you think about something you wouldn’t have otherwise), 2) try to check your facts, at least a little, and, 3)don’t beat up on others for grammatical or spelling mistakes. You will make them too some day.
Sandi, above, essentially covered the golden rule – but it is the most important one.
Comment by David — April 2, 2012 @ 12:35 pm
I agree with OJ that no profanity should be allowed, including text-speak for profanity.
I think for the most part rules two and three that the majority list above can be combined into one rule, that being, be civilized and respectful of others, even if you disagree with the viewpoint expressed. As Sandi notes, that would include not directing thinly veiled insults at the poster by saying their argument, ideas or beliefs are ignorant, etc. and then saying your weren’t attacking the person, just their argument. It would also include not saying things like “it must be awful to live in fear”, etc. or lumping someone into a certain group or demographic in one sentence and then disparaging that group in another. For instance, if someone express a pro-choice ideology, the next post shouldn’t immediately disparage that individual by saying things like “that’s what wrong with anyone who is pro-choice.”
Finally, the moderators have to remain fair. I won’t say they need to be unbiased or objective, but they should apply the rules of the blog evenly to all participants, regardless of political ideology. At times Dan Casey is criticized for allowing a “free-for-all” but he does allow “equal time” for all points of view. In the past, previous editors at the Roundtable would give posters who shared their ideology far more latitude in what they posted and how they addressed other posters than he did those with beliefs different from his own. If the RT blogs are to truly be a forum for community discussion, all members of the community should be allowed to participate under the same rules.
Comment by Chuck — April 2, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
My granny pretty well covered this topic over 50 years ago. She always told me when I was leaving to go out, “Now don’t you do anything tonight boy that you can’t tell at the breakfast table in the morning”
Comment by wdbrand, SW Roanoke Co.[1827'] — April 3, 2012 @ 6:29 am
In defense of the Round Table moderators, I do not share Chuck’s view of their fairness. As one who does “share their ideology” (?), I have the emails to prove the times I have been ordered not to respond, the responses that were tossed and the attacks I had to accept and not answer and even the threat to be banned if I did not ignore a certain vile poster. I accept that as part of a passionate debate, but it happens to us ALL and when too many people are sniping, the moderator posts a note for ALL to stop. Which is more than fair.
He is right that a creative poster can insult with a blanket as well as a direct jab and while that is wrong, I fail to see how you can actually fix it, short of moderating every post. People have innate bias and few actually even see or admit to the insult delivered. That is a big part of the problem. If someone calls you a “crazy %$&#&ing bag lady” you know it is an insult. If someone says, “I cannot believe someone so intelligent could hold such unfounded and specious opinions”, that one is a lot harder to “fix”. If someone says, “I hate liberals and think all the %$$#^&ds lie” that is quite noticeable. If someone says, “I am against abortion in all cases and believe it is a sin. I do not believe you can be Christian and be “pro-choice”, that is harder to “fix”. I think Roanoke.com as well as other sites have more than a handful to manage and to micro-manage down to asking the subtle but just as offensive posts to be restated or refuse them will be more “police work” than you should have to do IMO.
The bottom line is that civility and lack of insult begets civility and lack of insult for normal people. And after posting the rules if a poster cannot abide by them after a set number of warnings or complaints, they should be asked to leave. Posters and visitors may be critical to survival, any one poster, even me as hard as that is to admit, is not.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 3, 2012 @ 7:10 am
Good points Chuck, all of them. And Sandi, I like the note about people who continually ignore the rules being booted, restricted, whatever would need to happen. I don’t want to see people kicked off simply for expressing a differing opinion…only if they should ignore the deceny and respect rules repeatedly and show no willingness to be civil. I rather enjoy the reasoned and informed discussion that can occur when civility rules the day, and often times find that I learn something I either didn’t already know, or something additional to what I did.
Comment by Other John — April 3, 2012 @ 7:17 am
1. limit the length of posts. Some users post these epic monologues that aren’t even relevant to the blog.
2. limit frequency of posts. Some users dominate the blog by posting 4 or more posts in quick succession, often off-topic. Again, the weather blog is a good example.
3. posts should be relevant. I don’t want to read a whole post about your work or golf game on the weather blog.
I’m not picking on the weather blog — it’s great. It’s just the only one I read so I’m using examples from there.
Comment by Rich — April 3, 2012 @ 7:23 am
I agree with Other John. 1: Stay clean. 2: No personal attacks. 3: Have respect for others. I also agree that when some discussions get off topic good things often come out of it. I do not think that making it a rule to stay on topic is a smart thing to do because most of these discussions are very interesting. I have learned a lot from some of these and enjoy reading them. If it gets way out of line the moderator can bring it back into topic without quashing it entirely. Allow lots of latitude; it should be fun to read what others think.
Another suggested rule I do not like is the option of allowing users to report “violations.” This is the moderator’s job. It opens the door for people to report others simply because they do not like that person’s opinion. Let the moderators do their job. Most of them do it very well.
Remember, visiting and taking part in the blog discussions is voluntary. If you are that upset with a particular discussion or opinion, you can always log out.
Comment by Leo Lady (SW Roanoke City, Elevation 1026') — April 3, 2012 @ 8:06 am
I like that the RT still allows comments with an email address.
Many others have linked their comments to a facebook or Twitter
account. I do not use social media and have no accounts.
Comment by Rob Thommins — April 3, 2012 @ 3:29 pm
I admire nearly all the suggestions here. I agree with LeoLady in that I too do not like the reporting of “violations” by bloggers.
Comment by Doug Griggs of SW RNKE County, 1420 ft. elevation — April 4, 2012 @ 11:15 pm
I agree with Rich. And I do like the option of allowing users to report “violations.”
Comment by Emma — April 5, 2012 @ 9:45 am
1. Be civil! If you can’t get along, get along!! There are a few users who would have nothing to say if they couldn’t be negative and direct verbal abuse at other users!
2. I really like this from the orig. post, above: “Be nice, stay relevant and don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to someone in person.”
3. If you break the rules, your comments will not be posted…
Comment by Dennis — April 5, 2012 @ 1:40 pm
One added comment. I mentioned and suggested a seperate board for gardening comments. I’d like to add one other to that. A simple discussion forum where posters could ask, answer, or provide their knowledge on a variety of subjects.
Comment by wdbrand, SW Roanoke Co.[1827'] — April 5, 2012 @ 6:25 pm
Emma, I am curious … and of course please ignore this question if you do not wish to reply to it. Which blog or blogs do you look at?
Comment by Doug Griggs of SW RNKE County, 1420 ft. elevation — April 6, 2012 @ 5:50 pm
Here is a rule that has a lot of merit. Although it really should be more of a guideline than a rule. Try to use tact, ESPECIALLY when you are disagreeing with something someone else posted. Even if the fact(s) support you 100%, and therefore you know you are right. It is one thing to say, “Bill, you are dead wrong. The XYZ Commission ruled blah, blah, stuff, stuff, not the blah, blah, stuff, stuff you claimed. You’re an airhead.” And much better to type, “Bill, according to the AP, Reuters, and all the American network news teams, the XYZ Commission ruled blah, blah, stuff, stuff on last Wednesday. Are you sure you weren’t thinking of another recent ruling by them?”
Comment by Doug Griggs of SW RNKE County, 1420 ft. elevation — April 8, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
And I very much like and endorse wdbrand’s idea of having a discussion forum. I would love to have one about golf courses!!
Comment by Doug Griggs of SW RNKE County, 1420 ft. elevation — April 8, 2012 @ 2:17 pm