I must give credit to IdahoBusiness.net for the inspiration to redo the IdahoFallz.com comment policy.
It is unfortunate that lately some comments posted here have gone beyond spirited debate into raucous territory. Healthy debate is awesome, but comments that are unpleasantly loud and harsh just disturb the public peace. I have heard from too many people that they no longer feel comfortable adding their viewpoints because they are afraid of getting attacked.
That is the opposite of how IdahoFallz.com was conceived.
The problem for me has been how to clearly define the types of comments we do not want to see? I policed the comments for a long time, then a few months ago I tripped up on some. I edited back and deleted a few that I thought were over the line, only to find out later I had misunderstood them. I suppose I became more gun shy after that, and have allowed too many inappropriate comments since then.
It is time to steer the IFz comments policy back on track, and I invite you to help formulate that policy.
For one thing, I like how IdahoBusiness.net reduced it down to seven simple points. Once we have the simple points formulated, I plan to add them to the check box acknowledging reading the comment policy. The check box clears my legal liability, but quickly listing the rules right where people enter their comments should help guide people better as they write their comments.
And may I also say I do not want this to be a finger pointing session of who leaves the most inappropriate comments. I admit I have left some bad ones myself, and we will not correct old ones. We will just move forward, like in real life.
Proposed: Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
Logic: The filter blocks outright profanity and keeps us from getting blocked by Internet filters, but letting things like a$$ is just as bad, right? I cannot possibly program all the variations of swear words, so comments should be edited that try to swear without actually swearing.
For this to be effective, we also must define what is and is not a swear word. Hell? Crap? Snap? Others? Isn’t there a way to say if it’s used as a verb it’s okay but not as a noun (or vice versa?)
Proposed: Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
Logic: I think this is difficult to define. We should ask people questions about their logic, and that can be seen as baiting or attacking others. What would signal an unproductive attack, and what would signal an intelligent question?
Proposed: Express opinions, facts, and logic/reasoning; don’t just argue for argument’s sake.
Logic: This is tough but I hope we can reach a definition.
Proposed: Either avoid sarcasm entirely or clearly label it so you aren’t misinterpreted (e.g. /sarcasm)
Logic: Self explanatory? If something is not labeled sarcasm, could it be seen as a potential attack and deleted? Is sarcasm really just a personal attack and should it even be allowed?
Proposed: Make a point once.
Logic: This is also tough to define. I’m not sure this could be included, because people can make the same point several times but illustrating it in different and interesting ways. However, maybe this will lead to less beating of dead horses?
Proposed: No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it’s relevant to the discussion.
Logic: I think I’ve policed this pretty well already, but I want it to be part of the simple points.
Proposed: Something about religion?
Logic: I do not know any way to balance the need for honest debate vs. preventing attacks on religion. What is an attack on religion and what is an intelligent discussion of religion where some points can legitimately be debated?
Please add your comments to the propositions above, and please feel free to add your own propositions. We need to reach a consensus on both how the rules will be stated (as short but effective as possible), and the logic behind the rule. I will add the logic behind each rule to the permanent site comment policy.
What do you think?
Popularity: 10%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
I think it’s logical and good to apply the final new comment policy to writing future articles, also. I can hard code the points into the writing area of our interface.
Proposed: Something about gossip?
Logic: n.
1. Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
3. Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
Trivial chatty talk is definitely okay in the chatbox, is it okay in the comments? It does not seem evil, but when does it become less okay?
Are some rumors acceptable and others not, such as construction or city policy rumors vs. personal rumors?
I haven’t been too terribly offended on this site – but I’ve learned to develop a thick skin on the intertube.
Perhaps some guidelines are a good way to steer the site, since it seems to be growing more rapidly.
I must admit that I’m guilty of nearly every offense on your list, so maybe it really is a good idea!
The problem I can see with the make a point once is what if people don’t understand the point the first time around because of the way that its worded? I have gone through this with my husband and kids where I can say something and it goes right over their heads because they don’t understand my point and then when I reword it they get what the point was.
Flat out name calling should be in there somewhere. Calling someone dumb or stuiped or their ideas dumb is not called for. It is their idea and they don’t feel the same as you, that doesn’t make them any less intelligent.
Yeah, I agree with the making the point over and over, but in different ways. As long as the same point is not made the same way, it would be acceptable?
I agree with the name calling also, and that should be a specific point. Do not label someone in a way that could be seen as name calling or put-downs?
What is name calling in the gray area? Liberal? Right wing? Foolish?
Having been the author of some of the more controversial posts (at least in the site’s recent history) I completely understand the sentiment that people are afraid to post because of being attacked. I am greatly discouraged and wonder about future articles that I may post.
I work hard on my posts, to frame them in a manner that will encourage debate, not name calling and off-topic argument. To see these articles hijacked repeatedly into off-topic debates about subjects that are much more sensitive than those intended is incredibly frustrating. When even repeated attempts to steer the conversation back on topic are ignored, how is the author of the article supposed to feel?
I think that a policy about comments is a start, but I think that a bigger picture thing (like policing YOURSELF) should also be part of the solution. Several times, I have started a comment, then decided to not post it, because it is just too mean, or rude, or off-topic. I submit that people should try to police themselves, and use the policy as a guidline.
As for the proposed policy:
- No profanity: personally, I don’t mind a little cursing, but I know it offends some, so no prob here
- No personal attacks/baiting: no prob with this one, would ‘repeat offenders’ just have comments deleted, or would their IP addys be banned?
- No arguing for it’s own sake: no prob here either
- Avoid Sarcasm: I think as long as it is clearly labeled, it should be allowed, after all, some people regularly use sarcasm in their oral communication, why handicap them in print?
- Make a point once: hmmm, this one is tough. Roxy is definitely correct that sometimes a restate (and not a verbatim one) can help someone see your point more clearly.
- No spam: this one’s a no brainer, current enforcement works well
- The Religion Thing: religion is a hypersensitive topic, I’ve learned this the hard way. Personally, I won’t write any more articles related to the subject, and I will steer clear of threads in that direction. HOWEVER, it is also a big part of our lives and this community, so I’m not sure that banning it’s discussion is the right thing to do.
- Gossip: another tough one, frankly i’m not sure how to handle this one…
Perhaps it would be best if we just remembered the slogan on the top of the chatbox, “Speak freely without hate or spam. Life is short, ignore trolls and silly arguments.” Perhaps if we all remember that, we can steer IFz back into a more positive direction.
Thanks for your input Ronin.
I agree on the swearing. It doesn’t bother me, I swear like a sailor in my world. I can see where it takes us down a slippery slope in comments though, when we are trying to keep the discussions on a higher plane.
What we’ve done before and I see continuing is to edit the bad parts of comments, overtyping “x” or “*” over the bad parts and leave the legitimate comment parts. If by doing that there is really nothing left of the comment, then we delete the entire comment.
Generally I only ban someone if we’ve had to edit and delete many of their comments (only 2 so far). Generally I think those people get tired of wasting their energy and stop posting those types of comments.
Yeah, the religion thing is tough to balance. What is bashing and what is legitimate discussion?
“Weak” when used to describe a person or group probably would be name calling, right?
What about “apologist”?
excellent ideas…but I also like Rich’s comment regarding the original slogan on top of the chatbox. That should say it all, and as long as we all abide by it, I think we should keeps things the way they’ve been.
I too have been guilty of a number of offenses at one point or another and for that I apologize. Like Joe has stated in the past,(in not so many words) we’re all human and sometimes our emotions DO get the best of us.
I just hope Joe doesn’t have to resort to censorship especially with swear words, sarcasim, talk of religion etc. as those things don’t bother me either. I don’t see anything wrong with sarcasm per se’ as we see it all the time in our everyday lives, but when it goes too far I understand how it can be hurtful and/or come across as being hateful. So I do agree we could limit the sarcasm a little bit and at least make a note of it, if and when used.
I understand the post as a whole and am all for it. Happy posting everyone!
Joe,
An apologist is one who defends a belief or an idea. How are you reading a negative connotation into that word? I understand your desire to sanitize the language here but are you suggesting a total sterilization?
Religion should be no more off-limits than business, science, philosophy, the arts or any other invention of man. The Enlightenment Movement of the 18th Century opened the door to openly discuss and debate religion, lets not slam that door shut now because someone might be offended or have their feelings hurt. It should be a legitimate subject of discussion/debate in this forum.
And that’s what I’m getting at.
I think some can by hyper sensitive about religion, and that is their problem not everyone’s.
Somethings said about religion can be name calling and unhelpful though, such as saying religious people are weak-minded or clones or have their head stuck wherever.
So what’s a definition that states where the line is between legitimate intelligent comments and rudeness based on a group?
You know, in my original post I failed to mention that I also have been guilty of the traps listed by the proposed policy, and for that I apologize.
I agree with Meso that calling someone an apologist should not have a negative connotation. I think there are definitely worse things to be called than ‘weak’ so I also think that it would do well for some people to develop a thicker skin, in the manner that Jeremy noted.
The Post Register has made it their policy to not allow letters in their op-ed pages that disparage religion. They do, however, allow unrestrained proselytizing by one particular member of the Readers Advisory Board. Being dependent on advertising revenues I suppose gives them an “out” in their censorship of opposing views (wouldn’t want to diminish the bottom line by alienating LDS advertisers) and I understand that. I would just hate to see that happen here. I don’t know how much you rely on advertising revenue here but I, for one, would be in favor of paying a monthly fee for your service if your lack of censorship were to become an economic burden to you.
Whoa whoa whoa … The Post Register regularly prints letters to the editor crapping on religion. There was one last Sunday, as I recall.
It goes to my point – if you’re going to exercise your right to crap on my religion, I reserve the right to crap on your ignorant attitude. However, this isn’t my site, so I’ll let Joe make up his mind if he wants certain debates going on or not.
Jeremy,
I’ve had more than one response letter rejected by the PR in attempting to rebut the above mentioned Advisory Board member. The letter in the Sunday paper mentioned no specific religion and so passed muster.
So how would you phrase a comment policy addressing religion?
How is disparage defined? It means to lower the grade of something. It should be the right of anyone to knock something else, right? We have the right to complain about a business or the city, so why not a church?
What crosses the line between appropriate complaint and inappropriate attack?
Joe,
Those of us who do not share the sentiments of PR writers (like the above mentioned) who extol the virtues of their religion on the op-ed pages, object to the fact that their cloaking themselves in the mantle of religion somehow sets them apart and exempts them from scrutiny by those of us with opposing views. The PR made the call that one’s faith is intrinsically deserving of unquestioned respect…to be handled with kid gloves and totally exempt from criticism. As if having faith makes one worthier than one without it.
My responses to this gentleman were not necessarily disparaging his religion so much as they were responding to his invalid postulate of an historical event (which in effect could be considered as disparaging to the story his church wanted told, I suppose).
We should not make unfounded, unsubstantiated remarks about one’s religion any more than we would do so about any other aspect of a person’s life. This forum is a great place for that discussion. It should be done without derisive and contemptuous remarks about one’s deeply held beliefs but it should be done nonetheless.
Sounds like somebody needs to practice what they preach.
So I’m hearing that everyone is generally in favor of revised comment policy changes? Nobody feels their speech will be unduly restricted? Everyone thinks these changes can increase the discussion value at IFz?
The religion issue is still out to lunch in my opinion. I don’t know how to word a policy on it that would not over reach into banning talk of religion at all.
And what about comment #17 above? Is it snide and unnecessary, or acceptable? How would a policy apply to that?
Snide remarks like #17 are always going to be part a parcel of a free wheeling dialogue. I don’t know how you would police that. I doubt that there’s any way you can keep them from clogging up what would otherwise be an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Meso, you’re just as guilty in the “snide remarks department” as any poster on this site. You constantly put people down and bad mouth their comments. So the fact that you’re talking about an “intelligent exchange of ideas” is really quite amusing.
Personally, I think everyone should have the right to say what’s on their mind, not to the point of being hurtful OR hateful towards other posters, but being able to state their point of view without having “big brother” or site admin hassle them. I don’t see where comment 17 hurt anybodys feelings, but at the same time it was probably uncalled for. And it is true how some posters have that “holier than thou” attitude in one post, then make snide and rude comments about a particular poster in another post.
Let’s keep focused on the future, not on the past. I admit some of my comments have been snide and even rude, and I want to change it all.
So do we want to keep allowing snide remarks or not?
I’m inclined to think they hinder and discourage further discussions.
I guess part of why I keep talking about these things is so I and other site moderators have clear definitions and can easily spot what is acceptable and not.
I didn’t build the site to spend all day editing and deleting comments. Without clear definitions, appropriate comments could be mistakenly edited or deleted.
Snide: Derogatory in a malicious, superior way. Yeah I don’t think we want that.
Maybe we could also include in the bullet points encouraging people to flag what they think are comments that are inappropriate.
Proposed: Users should flag inappropriate comments by typing /// FLAG /// “quoted inappropriate comment text”
Joe, you make a valid point. I’m sure it IS irritating not to mention time consuming to have to edit rude or hurtful comments on this site. I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere, as thin a line as possible, but a line nonetheless. I think Joe does an excellent job managing and maintaining this site, and personally I really didn’t think there was a problem until he brought it up. I think everything is fine the way it is.
Sure, snide comments will be made from time to time. But it’s just like watching tv or listening to the radio. If you don’t like what you hear or see, you ignore it like an adult. Or you change the perverbial channel. I don’t think censorship is the answer. Anybody who’s been online for any length of time SHOULD know by now to not take things so seriously. Especially comments made by other posters. Why do people let snide remarks or comments “get” to them? I mean c’mon…if a comment made by a poster on a computer screen from someone thats miles away from you is really going to hurt your feelings, than I honestly think you’ve got “other issues” to deal with other than this.
Sure we all get worked up from time to time, we’re only human. But don’t let petty issues or snide comments get the best of you. And if we’re not adult enough to work through them on our own just by ignoring them, then maybe we should be visiting the Disney or Nickolodean site instead.
(just my opinion) ((which I hope hasn’t offended anyone!))
Joe,
Users flagging “inappropriate” remarks will always leave open the possibility that they will simply flag anything that doesn’t agree with their point of view. Many of my own posts are deemed offensive and “in your face” but are meant to stir the pot, get folks excited about a topic and perhaps open up some closed minded folks to the fact that there are sincere opposing views out there. I try to do this, not in a flippant way,
but with a modicum of homework done on the subject before I start typing. Admittedly, I have on occassion slipped up and responded to verbal assaults of a personal nature with same, but for the most part I just ignore them and forge ahead in hopes of a dialogue with some of the more informed contributors to this site.
No, Joe, I don’t see flagging as a viable option, it’s just too subjective.
so how about we say that flagging comments is not a guarantee the comment will be edited or deleted, but that it catches the attention of a site moderator and prompts consideration for said inspection.
That might work.
Yeah, Joe,
You’re on the right track. That way those comments that contribute nothing to the topic at hand but rather attack, in a personal way, the messengers (of opposing views) could be eliminated from an otherwise spirited dialogue. You’ve got my vote on that one.
I actually agree with Meso and his post #23, along with a good rebuttal from Joe.
As long as a comment isn’t directed towards an individual in a hateful or hurtful manner, I too agree with #26.
Hey, we’re gettin’ somewhere now!
I’ve not wanted to respond to this until now so I could see where this was headed. I appreciate all the views shared and value that each person has taken the time and effort to try to improve this site.
I’m one of the main contributors about new construction and companies expanding or relocating to Idaho Falls. If that is offensive then I apologize to all. Should I defer comments to the local Chamber of Commerce or Grow Idaho Falls etc. when asked about something I know?
Do I post anything to be malicious? NO. Do I post anything to start arguments? NO. Do I post anything to ask for the views of others, or addtonal information they may have? YES. I believe discussion, while not hurting a business, is good. However, others may believe this information to be a “rumor” until there is a press conference or an official media comment.
Last week Idaho Business Review picked up a question I posed about a proposed local constructon projection, at IFz.Com, as part of their weekend blogging content. From their perspective the idea was interesting enough to mention to others in the state. However, that doesn’t mean that users here saw my article the same way.
One could ask what my purpose is in sharing information or asking questions about information I’ve obtained. Perhaps there is none for this site. Especially if it is considered a rumor. And the problem is, I protect my sources, and some information cannot be shared. Yet, big changes may be ahead and perhaps I’m encouraging users to pay more attention or ask direct questions about proposed and on-going developments. Some may consider those posts a “rumor,” since they have no way to confirm on their own.
Personally, I have never posted something that someone doing their own research couldn’t find as well. I do know of an especially hot issue right now concerning a proposed development, but it is far too sensitive to post here.
Those of us interested in new developments, or ripples, have exchanged e-mail addresses and usually converse either via e-mail or on another website. Because of this, I feel in a sense we’re being driven “underground” because we can’t post certain information here openly that perhaps others may want to know.
I purposely don’t read the religion discussions and recently have stayed away from discussions about the city. Facts are one thing, as are the personal experiences of those who worked for the city.
I find nothing positive in having people challenge each other about their service to the city. Differing opinions can be refreshing to review, but personal attacks or attempts to discredit others aren’t, IMHO.
I believe each person has the right to believe, or not, in any religion. I seriously doubt those looking to possibly convert to any religion, or leave any religion, have been swayed by this site. Conversely, it seems to me that most who have posted about religion really aren’t interested in the views of others, only stating their own.
I believe people who are looking for information about different religions have many sites from which to choose. External sites focused on a specific religion give information. If the person looking wishes to know more, there are links. Also, general searches usually yield opposing opinions so those searching can read them, if they wish.
Perhaps the question should be asked why do we not discuss race, cultures or ethnicity here, but religion? Are those subjects any less sensitive?
Recently, I had a buddy banned from another website as he made a factual comment about the neighborhood where the 4 juveniles, who were charged with a serious crime, lived. But, because he used a word the moderator didn’t like, he was banned from the site.
I don’t like “character assissinations” on IFz.Com or any other site. When I read comments saying some pretty nasty things, it is time for me to question why I spend time on that site.
I also don’t like people responding without knowing facts.
Having been the target of a few who didn’t bother to learn the facts before they wrote wild and inaccurate information about me, I seriously wondered if I wanted to be a part of this site anymore.
Other users let me know privately that the comments those users were making about me, which were so far off-base, that these users couln’t post anything publically, in my defense, due to their own fear of being a “target.”
Consequently, various discussions here resulted in former users not returning. I guess the up side of that consequence is there are far more sites where topics about the Idaho Falls area now can be discussed and locals can interact.
I stayed away for a while after the attack on me, but one day I needed some of the links below. I saw some new topics that seemed not only timely, but important issues that I thought needed addressed. Also, the authors seemed to have written their views responsibly. And I saw more respect between contributors. Since unfounded accusations seemed to have calmed down, I’ve cautiously returned to IFz.Com.
Nonetheless, since the day false accusations were made about me, I have REFUSED to clear any articles for publication or remove any inappropriate spam etc. as I use to do. Whether I will chose to return to helping clear articles for publication etc in the future, I can’t say currently. Potentially it depends on whether new guidelines are implimented or not. It’s very easy for a “guest” or “visitor” to take potshots at someone who consistenty uses the same user name.
Ultimately, I suggest four guidelines to be reviewed:
1. Every opinion should be expressed with the “I” word. So each person is taking responsibility for his/her remarks.
2. I’m seriously questioning the value of allowing “guests or visitors” to post in the permanent comments. Select a user name and stick with it. I believe this provides a higher level of accountability in what one says. If your name were attached to everything you write, would you be writing the same comments?
3. Express your view, but don’t make comments about other users. It is one thing to say “I agree or disagree,” leaving personal attacks out of one’s response. I believe it is fair to ask other users for clarification to ensure that you and I have interpreted what they have written accurately.
4. For whatever reasons those of us who post here have found enough positive things about the Idaho Falls area to live in the area. That doesn’t mean changes or improvements can’t be suggested or aren’t wanted.
From my perspective, it is HOW one approaches what he/she would like to see changed or added to the area, that is the key. Instead of cutting, potentially insulting local traditions, religions, cultures or individuals etc., ask questions to make sure you know the most accurate information.
Also, while these are not necessarily suggestions for the site, I want to add two observatons I’ve seen at other interactive websites.
1. Moderators are listed so users know who may be able to intervene with inappropriate guests, or inappropriate language, clear an article for publication or offer guidance about the site. Besides, some may feel more comfortable understanding why some users are logged to the site longer than they are.
2. Some sites allow other users to vote on all posts (not mandatory, but available if needed), so really inappropriate remarks are essentially voted on by the community of users. There can be different consequences, depending on the website.
I thank Joe for creating Idaho Fallz.Com and letting me be a part of it. I hope something I’ve offered is useful in molding the future guidelines.
Proposed: Use the “I” word as much as possible to take responsibility?
or some variant of that?
Proposed: Express your views, but do not comment your opinion of the general traits of others.
I can do some things to highlight the site moderators. I’ll get back to you on that.
I think comment digg scripts are out there, I’ll see if one is good enough to try self-policing by a function.
I am surprised but it seems the collective community may want to ban all religious discussion?
There is no proselytizing here, and even historical discussions turn into nasty comment fests.
Is there no value to discussing religion here? Nobody is going to change anyone else’s mind on it, so why not redirect our energies?
Proposed: The IFz community has decided no religious talk is allowed because it’s never productive.
And should we go the step further to ban the words “Mormons, LDS, Catholic, Prespyterian, Baptist” and other religious organizations?
I know it sounds extreme, but if we don’t discuss religions at all then nobody has reason to say those words, right? Banning them would prevent chat box graffiti against religious groups.
Speaking of that, what about requiring registration for commenting on articles and/or commenting in the chatbox?
You could still register with anonymous information, but it’s MUCHO easier to ban repeat offenders.
I know these proposals can not make everyone happy, but will it make the majority happy?
I think banning the discussions on religion is a great idea. You are correct in saying “Nobody is ever going to change someone elses mind” regarding religion.
We will all believe what we want to believe about religion and trying to convince others is a waste of time and only leads to arguments. Everybody has a different view on religion and it has been argued over since the beginning of time.
And I’m all for “required registration” in order to post replys in both the chatbox and in the articles.
I agree about the religion thing. No one is ever going to convince anybody to change their opinion regarding their beliefs. They believe what they want to (and that is their right!). None of the discussions that have taken place here regarding religion have been very productive. It just turns into mudslinging rather than friendly discussions like other topics have produced here.
Religion is part of life, but that doesn’t mean it needs to be part of this site. People can still talk about religion on their own time in their own ways. If they want a web site to do that on, then they can set up and support their own.
I disagree that religious discussion should be banned. Religion is a part of my life, and it shapes my views on every other aspect of my life. My views have brought me great joy in my life, why should I not be allowed to share that joy with others?
In addition, there is a strong religious majority here, and their views work their way into other aspects of life here in Idaho Falls. Should we, as community members, ignore this?
I think that to ban religious discussion is a counterproductive, head-in-the-sand kind of approach.
That being said, I do definitely agree that religious discussions are seldom productive, but i think if people were more cautious about how they approached the topic (in articles, comments, or whatever format) then religious discussions could be more productive.
I agree that you cannot force someone to change their mind, and the intent (in my articles, at least) was not to change anyone’s mind, just open it a little. Is that harmful?
I can appreciate both sides of the religous debate, but I tend to lean more on the side of banning it as a discussion on this site. Or at least limiting it to just a single post. (the one that’s already open)
Question for Rich and others that feel so strongly about their religious beliefs: What is your REAL goal in discussing religion with others “on this site”? Aren’t you really just trying to “sell” your particular beliefs? I understand and can appreciate a good discussion, but what it all boils down to is what each person believes. From the discussions I’ve seen thus far, NOBODY has changed their views or religous beliefs based on any of the discussions on this site. I believe it is very counterproductive and all I’ve ever seen from these discussions are people getting upset and then the rude comments and the church/faith bashing starts. Whatever each person believes is not going to be swayed by what another believes.
Personally, I know that theres not one person on this site or any other site that is going to change MY mind about what I believe and so really, what is the point?
Like chris671 stated, religion has been a source of conflict since the beginning of time. It’s been the determining factor behind many a war throughout history, so why continue fighting about it. Let each person believe what they will, and lets use this site to talk about other issues that effect us and our community.
just a side note:
No Christians, Jews, Catholics, Penecostals or Atheists were harmed in the making of this post! I state clearly that this message was in no way intended to criticize, put down, or hurt ANY poster in any way shape or form.
Thank you
Snackpack… you are funny… and I agree with you… keep Religion out and lets talk about politics!
I realized sarcasm may just have no place. Even if it is labeled, the sarcastic remarks are usually directed at a person and are not helpful.
Let me collect these together and paint the picture of what we may adopt.
We seem to agree on requiring registration for comments (I’d like to try leaving the chatbox open for awhile longer cuz we get many people just investigating moving to IF). Obviously your information is not being sold, and anonymous information can be registered.
Add the following immediately above the comment box on articles:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
2. Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests.
3. Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
4. No sarcasm
5. No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it’s relevant to the discussion.
6. Users should flag moderator attention to inappropriate comments by typing /// FLAG /// “quoted inappropriate comment text”
7. Use the “I” word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
8. Express your views, but do not comment your opinion of the general traits of other users.
9. The IFz community has decided no religious talk is allowed because it’s never productive. Proselytizing, bashing, nor historical aspects are allowed.
If I had made these rules in the beginning, I would have been labeled something. It seems best the community has gone through the problems and seem to be wanting this themselves.
Something about what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?
What do you think about this summary proposal? Additions, subtractions, or edits?
For snackpack: My ‘goals’ in discussing religion on this site are to encourage open mindedness, in allowing people to see both sides of an issue. I am so tired of people with the my ‘my way or the hiway’ view that most have about religion. I am just trying to get people to see “hmmm… that person’s belief is different than mine, but that’s okay, it doesn’t make them a bad person.” I really could care less what faith someone has. I have friends that are mormon, christian, jewish, agnostic, aethist, and even a wiccan friend. Frankly, I was just hoping to get people to think about the way they treat others because of their own or that other person’s faith.
As far as the policy, you are the boss Joe. So, do what you have to do. Feel free to close my articles to comments, or even remove them. Since I believe that the minority should not force their views/opinions onto the majority in the name of ‘minority rights’ I will restrain myself from posting religious subject matter, since that appears to be what the majority of site visitors want.
One thing i forgot to add, when I permited the closure or removal of my articles, I meant those pertaining to religion
I, too, disagree that all religion discussion should be banned – I have learned a few things here and there about my religion on this site, and I hope that I have had even the smallest impact on people who may have a skewed view of it.
I propose open dialog, simply put. Perhaps instead of rules and regulations, Joe, you should implement a complaint process, and if someone is offended or believes an individual is out of line, he can submit his accusation in writing and site mods can review the facts and decide if the individual is in the wrong.
The process was very effective in the case of our recent gun-loving, bird-flu fearing friend, yes? Enough people complained, we took action, and we haven’t had a problem (that we know of) from him yet.
Joe
For me, it’s not about making all of us happy(which is impossible), it’s more about users being able to state their views while not disrespecting any other users. That includes users who both agree and disagree with previous comments.
Parentof2 makes an excellent point, from my perspective. Religion is a part of our lives, but that doesn’t mean the discussions about it belong at IFz.Com.
If we lived in San Antonio, San Diego or Boston as well as many other cities, would we be talking about the dominant Catholic religion in a community website? Likewise, if we were in parts of
NY, FL or CT, we would be talking about a large percentage of local residents being Jewish in a community website?
Ultmately, I don’t see how certain disucssions, religion being one, improves the site, the city or us as people.
Do all topics in our lives belong in discussions here? I think not.
To date, I’ve not read posts from users giving great detail of how their children were conceived (or the practice leading to conception). I am being very careful how I write this point as I believe much like religion, intimate topics should be off-limits too. If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize. If I’ve made you laugh, then that is great!
I think one of Joe’s stated goals from day one is to make this site family friendly. If guests were visiting your home, would you want all subjects discussed in front of any children present? Perhaps we should ask the same question here.
Friendly discussions, with differing viewpoints, can lead to positive ideas and changes.
Religion is a tough subject.
I can kind of see both sides like snackpack, but I also lean to not discussing it here.
Religion and politics are two subjects no one will ever agree on. It just leads to arguing and name calling which is very unproductive. And in the end virtually no one has changed their minds. They will still believe what they believe and that is fine.
It gets very tiresome having to always see people’s comments on here regarding religion. From what I’ve seen here, some have been courteous in their comments about religion, but the majority aren’t. They resort to name calling and insulting comments that lead no where.
I agree with Parentof2 and Ok4Now, just because religion is part of life, doesn’t necessarily mean we should be discussing it here.
You are all good advisors, and almost daily my view shifts back again on the religion thing. We’ll talk at least a couple more days on it before a decision.
Ronin, we would not delete your past stuff, or anyone’s past comments. We would leave the past behind, and just close more comments on those type of articles.
Jeremy has a good point that if we are more vigilant about complaints (like the ///flag/// comments suggested above), and clearly posting a few rules right by the chatbox, the discussions may become more civil.
Ok4Now has a good point that sex matters are not widely discussed here. Race is not either, but I think that’s due to a mostly white Idaho Falls.
I like the idea of civil and productive religious discussions. I also like the idea of communism (a fantasy, I’m not really a communist), but neither have turned out well in practice.
Just now I read some typical remarks we find in religion-type comments: “educate irrational religious folks as to why they’re being foolish by accepting the trash they’ve been fed” “denounce the idiocy of religion” “LIES! SUPERSTITION! IDIOCY!”
These are not productive remarks, and they are typical of what we get from the religion discussions.
On the other hand, if we deleted out the half of that comment that violates the rule “Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests” and maybe amend “guests, races, gender, or religion” to the end, wouldn’t the policing work.
Nobody likes to write comments and see them edited or deleted. Might those comments start shaping up quickly?
I realized a couple of these things could be condensed. Sarcasm, even if clearly labeled, needs context. If it is sarcasm of something in the world it may be fine, if it is sarcasm of another commenter, it would probably fall under #2 and be edited/deleted, right?
Not to say you cannot challenge someone else’s response, but leaving sarcasm out forces you to use facts and logic, and there is no personal attack in that method, right?
Comment Guidelines:
1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
2. Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests, races, genders, or religions.
3. Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
5. No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
6. Using the “I” word as much as possible demonstrates responsibility.
7. Users should flag moderator attention to inappropriate comments by typing /// FLAG /// “quoted inappropriate comment text”
Keep talking, what do you think?
Just a few comments:
I’m surprised at the anti-religious discussion slant this thread has taken. If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Banning them outright seems foolish. They’ve obviously attracted a lot of attention. Whether they do any “good” (or “bad”) is debatable, of course, but if that’s what people want to talk about, I say let them. (As for these discussions opening minds, I have to say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! I see closed minds on the left battling with closed minds on the right.)
That said, here’s my beef with IFZ.com: I got interested in this site as a former IF resident and current resident of a city under IF’s influence because of its discussions on Idaho Falls. When reading this site becomes as banal and petty as reading the Letters to the Editor exchanges in the Post Register, I switch off. If I want to argue about religion or get technology tips, this ain’t the place I’m coming to. Sure, I could write articles. But I’m a Sugar City resident. Anybody want to hear about our hardware store?
I agree that requiring registration of posters is a good idea, though frankly I can’t see why. Registered or not, I doubt that’ll increase (or decrease) the quality of comments we see here.
Registering isn’t going to diminish the “My way or the highway” mentality here, which is more off-putting than any discussion topic posted here. Someone states an opinion and pretty much gets it rammed down their throat. Heck, there were almost punches thrown in the chat box a few days ago whether Sam’s Club is better than Costco (among other earth-shattering arguments). This place isn’t as bad as others (I read KSL.com’s comments on Utah news stories for the sheer entertainment value as people battle things out.) Though it is fun to read threads here and see how people contradict themselves. . .myself included.
Good points Brian, thanks.
The only reason we might require registration is to make it easier to ban repeat offenders. It might increase discussion value in an indirect way, but I see your point.
Although it is a shame to make everyone register for a few bad apples.
Today I’m thinking more that trying to enforce the few discussion rules and encouraging users to flag inappropriate comments may be enough.
I think you’re right Joe. Just make posters aware of the ability to flag inappropriate comments and leave it at that.
We should encourage different points of views as that is what makes each one of us unique. And sarcasm, although at times can be hurtful, is usually funny and most of the time makes people laugh. It would be a pretty boring site if we all had to take things so seriously and couldn’t really be ourselves.
Although I agree with most of your guidelines in #44, I think the “flag” approach should be tried first.
Perhaps I came across in my earlier responses (#38 & 39) as being overly sensitive, and for that I apologize. I may have come across as ‘if you won’t do it my way, then I’ll take my toys and play somewhere else.” Sorry!
For a great example of why religious discussions should be allowed to remain on this site, read JeremyPlo’s comment #44 on my article “Why must creationists and evolutionists fight?” It is a wonderful response to an inflamatory comment posted by MasterVodo (#42 in the same thread). JPlo responded eloquently, without hate or name calling, and I wish that all could do the same in the name of healthy debate. It was more than I could do in the same situation, so I didn’t comment. I for one, will check my ego at the door, and try to use the same tactic that Jeremy used, responding based on arguments, not name calling and emotion.
The inflamatory comment you are referring to is actually a good example of why it might be a good idea to remove them from this site.
There are plenty of good, positive subjects that can still be discussed here in a civil manner. People don’t always agree with other people’s viewpoints, but religion is the one of the only areas that results in people name calling and personal attacks.
I have yet to see a discussion thread here about religion that doesn’t turn negative or hateful. I know not everybody posting in those threads have said hateful things, but the majority of those comments about religion are anything close to positive or productive.
Joe
Maybe you’ve edited your own remark, or maybe I’m more confused than I know, or I can’t find the post. Whatever the case may be, I thought you wrote something recently about if you had shaped the initial ideas about religion (essentially not allowing it as a topic of discussion on IFz.Com) you would have been labeled. You are correct. You would have been because you would have made that decision by yourself.
However, I’ve seen you post repeatedly in the chatbox and in this thread for users to READ and COMMENT about proposed changes. I don’t know how much clearer you could be to users that they should add their view now. To me, that means you are asking the readers, who use the site, what they believe is appropriate content for IFz.Com.
I think the flagging idea is an excellent one. It could be that a few users are consistantly the ones who need “a primer” on how to be a better citizen user at IFz.Com.
Also, I do have one other possible suggestion instead of “banning” certain topics. Could there be a name such as a “Sensitive Topic” or whatever and certain discussions, such as religion, would belong in this category?
My idea would be by creating a hot or sensitive topic category, regardless of how many articles one has published, if a user wants to write an article about a subject that many users may find objectionable, it must be cleared through you or a moderator? This would allow us to not ban a topic, but perhaps be more thoughtful in how it is approached.
Perhaps hot topic articles should have stated objectives. Consequently, if someone is way off-base and writing something only to bait others and argue, then that person doesn’t get published. Yet, someone who sincerely wants to write, say about Easter and something special to their family or ownself, isn’t automatically banned from the subject.
A definite thumbs up from me about the flagging idea – I’ve seen it work very well in other sites. And just another suggestion that doesn’t make topics absolutely black or white.
Also, there is nothing wrong with saying this is a PILOT PROJECT and for X amount of time we will try these guidelines, and then hold another summit at that time to receive further feedback from users.
Thanks for letting us share our views. I appreciate it.
Ok’s ideas sound like a great compromise to me, I like the sensitive topic flag, and have no problem having such articles checked by a moderator before posting.
Okay, so this is probably what I’ll publish Monday as our revised guidelines:
New Comment Guidelines:
1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
2. Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests, races, genders, or religions.
3. Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
5. No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
6. Use the “I” word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
7. Users should flag moderator attention to inappropriate comments by typing /// FLAG /// “quoted inappropriate comment text”
I will also state that registration is not being required for comments, and religious talk is not being banned outright.
However, both of those decisions will be revisited quickly if inappropriate comments are still posted.
Sound okay?
Sounds good to me.
Mostly common sense.
Sounds like a great place to start.
Usually, revisions only strengthen writing or products.
Thanks to all who commented. I’ve thought about some things differently. I’m not sure where we’ll be in 6 months about religion and other hot topics, but this is a good example of how users shape the policy.
Rather than banning religious discussion, just let folks know that it sometimes gets heated ad if you can’t enjoy it, then don’t go there. I personally have been discussing, spitting, and thoroughly talking out religion for over a decade on the net, and with every kind of belief and disbelief. Sure it takes a thick skin, and there are some thin skinned folks. Warn them sometimes others disagree with you and rather vehemently at times. But I rather enjoy this sort of thing myself. DO NOT BAN THE RELIGION DISCUSSION for the sake of the few who are too nervous about their beliefs. That is not the Democratic way. In fact, I’d be willing to put it to a vote.
And then if it is banned, can we vote to start our own again anyway? GRIN!
Best,
Kerry
“…sometimes gets heated ad if you can’t enjoy it, then don’t go there.”
We just came off of trying that, and it does not work. It’s nice in theory, but not in practice.
Let’s hope the new guidelines help decrease negative energy in comments.
I shall try to do my part and keep it cool instead of hot as well. I noticed I have already been edited…. ah the glory – GRIN!
Best,
Kerry
Joe-
I really like both the article you wrote about these modifications to posts, including the link to the discussion, and having the rules posted above further posts anyone writes.
I hope we as people can learn from this opportunity and engage in productive discussions. Also, I sincerely hope we never try intentionally hurt, mock or put some one else down in manner. This can be wonderful teaching expierence.
What I REALLY, REALLY hope is instead of being so quick to blame and argue, we can learn the skill of asking questions. This will help ensure we understand what the writers conveyed their message accurately.
I’ve seen several arguments stop before they progressed because someone was wise enough to say s/he wasn’t sure s/he had understood what the writer inteneded. I strongly encourage any user who isn’t sure how a poster meant a comment to ask instead of assume.
Likewise, asking another if s/he can explain their view further or in a different way will only deepen the attempts at truly sharing communication between us all.
I’m looking forward to many great subjects and discussions with my peers here.
Joe- Thanks for letting all of us (those who decided to offer input) have the opportunity to do so! I think these new guidelines look impessive for a fist revision.
It finally came to a head where we had to ban religious discussions. If you think this is a fascist move, please consider that we tried if for 18 months, and it ALWAYS devolved into bashing and attacks on religions instead of intelligent discussions. Nobody in the world has figured out how to solve religious hostilities; I don’t pretend to think I’ve got the solution, either.
I’m human, I’m willing to admit I may be on the wrong side of things. Last week’s poll topic, “What do you think about religious discussions on IFz?” was a clear admission of that. If the votes overwhelmingly indicated most people wanted the religious discussion, who am I to stand in the way of our userbase?
Please note the results:
* I’m upset they’re gone, hope they return without restrictions. -> 39%
* I’m glad they’re gone, hope they never return -> 37%
* I’m glad they’re gone, maybe they can return in carefully controlled circumstances -> 12%
* I’m upset they’re gone, would like to see returned in carefully controlled circumstances -> 12%
A simple majority is not enough to allow the discussions, it would take a super-majority.
Consider the analogy of trying to put an adult-entertainment store in someplace like the Grand Teton Mall. Maybe 55% would like it there, but they would not stop going to the mall if the adult-oriented business was not there. However, the 45% who hated it probably would stop patronizing the mall if the adult-oriented business was there. The probable loss of business is too great.
I see something else in these numbers that I do not think anyone else does, and I hope you don’t think I tricked you.
Note that there were four choices, but essentially three questions were asked:
1-Do you want unrestricted religious talk at IFz?
2-Do you want no religious talk at IFz?
3-Do you want religious talk allowed only in a structured way at IFz?
Two questions really addressed the same thing: structured discussion.
Whereas only 24% of visitors were willing to engage in structured religious discussions, in a way to encourage intelligent talk without bashing or hurting feelings, this is clearly a minority of our visitors.
This is the last I’ll say on the subject for a long time. I’m sure valid religious topics will come up again in the future (like if Mitt Romney becomes a serious presidential candidate), and we will look at structured discussions at that time.
Until then, please refrain from talking about religious topics. Feel free to say things like (when a kid my pastor said this) when it is anecdotal and not core to your point, but let’s generally avoid the topic.
I for one think we have had much better quality discussions happen on IFz since.
Agreed, Thanks Joe.
I don’t understand what Mitt Romney being a serious candidate has anything to do with religious discussion. Obama is a serious canidate and i would like to talk about his Islamic background. I know a few here including Joe cant wait to somehow make Romney being LDS some sort of a big issue. I think Obama with his Muslim background would be much more interesting to talk about.
Obama doesn’t have an Islamic background, that is a b.s. story falsely circulated by the Fox News Channel. When Obama’s people called on Fox to correct it, then Fox went on to say they had been fed the story by Senator Clinton’s people (another lie…)
Just so you know, Obama and his family attend a non-denominational Christian church in the Chicago area.
He went to a Muslim School. His current church affliation is headed by an anti-white, and anti-american Obama closley holds to this pastor’s teachings. I cant wait till we can explore all the aspects of his religous background. It scares the hell out of me.
Actually Obama does have an Islamic background just not a radical Islamic background as reported on FOX. Both his father and stepfather were Muslim. Although apparently neither was very devout. Here is an interesting story from the LA Times about his background. Apparently he bred crocodiles and had pet apes, weird. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama15mar15,0,5315525,full.story
tell you what guest, do you have any proof besides the word of Sean Hannity about Obama’s church, or his school? Link it here, and I may give your opinions some credence. Otherwise, it’s just propoganda designed to divide and conquer the uneducated masses.
Hope the NY TImes will do. They are about as far away from Hanity as you can get. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1178769600&en=41afcb09d29c4acd&ei=5070
Ronin did you get a chance to read this artice from that conservtive rag the New Year Times?
Yes, I read it, but I still don’t buy it. It’s a smear campaign.
Read a timeline of it HERE
Joe its good to have comment policies . But I wouldnt ban users for it becuase they are the numbers and hits for your site. I would find a new way to punish people. Like maybe 24 hour no commenting but they can still read.
I think a no perm ban would be a good idea.
sorry I don’t buy the timeline article. Obama’s current church affiliation needs to be investigated. His mentor and pastor is a rasist. Obama needs to answer some questions. Rich it sounds like you can overlook this, I don’t think we can, the Presidency is too important.