Quick Housekeeping Note
[A Quick Warning: Although this is an Off The Cuff post, it isn’t all that short. If you wanted a two-liner, you would certainly be excused for turning back now.]
In the interest of transparency, I wanted to let the community know — all official-like and everything — that we have banned two regular commenters. Or to be more precise, we have have banned one and yet again re-executed the ban of the other.
The commenter known as A Compromised Immune System (ACIS), as most long-time readers surely already knew, was our oft-returning sock-puppet who most people refer to as MA despite the fact that he/she was banned many times prior under different pseudonyms.
In addition, I have banned the commenter (mostly) known as ScarletNumber.
While I was happy to wave goodbye (again) to the sock puppet, I confess some reluctance to banning ScarletNumber. Over the past year and a half, we have tried numerous suspensions of commenting privileges with ScarletNumber when a combination of two things occurred — one, when one of the editors or moderators asked him to curb a certain behavior; and two, when he refused to do so. He was given another suspension earlier this week and continued to comment under different names; this morning we let him know if he continued to do this we would turn the suspension into a permanent ban. After he was notified he continued to comment several more times, each time to say — for all intents and purpose — “Fish You, I’ll comment when I feel like it.” And so I dropped what those in the biz like to call the ban hammer, but what I tend to think of as a sad reminder that even at a site that strives to welcome all kinds of differing voices into a community not everyone can fit.
I don’t know that Erik ever kept track of how many bans we had prior to my time here, but since I’ve arrived I think we’ve had a total of three. (Assuming, of course, that you count all of the sock-puppet’s various incarnations as one person. Which I do.) It’s a tough balance to achieve, and each time we do we know we’ll irritate as many people for the ban as we do when we decide to let someone slide and stick around. I’d say that such is the case on the Wild West of the Intertubes, but the truth is it’s a pretty universal constant in any community.
Both at the League and now at OT, when faced with the Ban/Don’t Ban dilemma we have always tried to err on the side of the Welcome Mat — and we will continue to do so as long as I am the EIC. A benefit to this philosophy is that we have a thriving community of people of different political, religious and cultural views. But the other side of that sword is that sometimes the people we agree to give one more chance sometimes make the experience of commenting here less fun for others. If you’re one of those who has had a less fun experience here because we don’t throw around the ban hammer more easily, know that I am not blind to this. For whatever infinitesimal degree that it means Jack Fish, I’m sorry about that.
Anwho, if anyone has a problem with the bans (other than — and I can’t stress this part enough — the people who have been banned) feel free to contact me.
Thanks again, all of you, for everything you do here.
While it is unfortunate, I don’t there’s an alternative to banning people occasionally. Trolls can distort the space around a blog so completely that it becomes nearly-impossible to have a sensible conversation in their presence.Report
I have come to the same conclusion.
That said, I have suggested alternative disciplinary measures in the past when persons have been straight-up eighty-sixed, and it is pleasing to know that temporary measures were enacted before stepping up to a permanent ban.Report
I don’t particularly mind trolls on blogs.
It’s when they get into politics that they start becoming a problem…
(and the ones in High Finance are already a problem, but they aren’t MY problem…)Report
I won’t miss the sock puppet, but it’s unfortunate that Scarlet couldn’t play nice.Report
I know the sock puppet is generally disliked, but when he can hold his temper, he makes genuine contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, that’s always proven to be a temporary state.Report
Not to worry- I am willing to step up and contribute as much attitude as I can manage. You’ll think he never left!Report
I tend to dislike bans in general and seriously prefer the whole temporary “sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done (before being welcomed back)” thing.
But there are people so toxic that the people you *WANT* to keep around will leave if the toxic folks stay.
And you’re stuck between choosing this or that outcome.
Which sucks.Report
It’s very sad to ban someone. But the flip side is how that person’s behavior creates hostility that encourages other voices to self-ban.
My first foray here was a huge welcome, particularly from @jaybird , and a huge UGH from someone else. I didn’t participate after a few attempts because of that ugh. I did read occasionally, but only lurked. I re-engaged when 1) that person was banned and the hostility he spread was obviously no longer here and 2) the blog actively engaged in a review of how to broaden voices and encourage more women to participate.
Banning people is like thinning carrots. Carrot seeds are small, it’s nearly impossible to plant them spaced far-enough apart for each seed to have room to thrive and grow a nice carrot root. It’s heart-breaking to kill all those little carrots as you thin the plot and make room for the carrots left behind. But you won’t have a crop of beautiful carrots without thinning and weeding and watering and fertilizing. It’s how you tend your garden; and editing has a publication (or website) has a lot in common with gardening.Report
Excellent point.Report
I would say that OT does an admiral job with the banning and not banning, so thank you.Report
Banned! For consecutive
consonantsvowels (gosh darnit) in name.ReportNote: I do not have banning power, which is sad, because this place has entirely too many people who are not Braves fans.Report
@chris
Cut then you would be here, all alone…Report
and that would be a brave new world.Report
Banned (in my head)!Report
Now I’m picturing Chris as a fervent tomahawk chopper.Report
Banned (I don’t do the chop).Report
Chopped for not being a true fan!Report
Touche.Report
I am kind of odd that I always had a fondness for MA/ACIS but I suppose we always got along because of close enough politics. His or her antics against others were too far though.
I don’t understand the reluctance to ban Scarlet Numbers considering that he or she always just existed as a kind of chaos agent and their trollish comments were far more common than their substantive comments.Report
Sort of my feelings as well, as to the both of them.
I’ve never said this before @Saul, but you & I tend to agree a lot more than I state overtly.Report
Really? I always imagined that those of you on the left were kind of embarrassed to have him on your side. I can’t recall him ever having anything intelligent to say. He’s pretty much a living strawman.Report
But that’s how you think of everyone to your left.Report
If that were the case, I wouldn’t give you guys enough credit to think you regarded him as an embarrassment. I say that mainly because I feel that way about analogous people on my own side.Report
Embarrassed? Meh. More annoyed than embarrassed. I’d need more of a connection than mutual occupation of a vaguely defined political space to feel that way. He derailed conversations and wasted bandwidth. Good riddance.Report
In fairness I sometimes wondered if MA/ACIS wasn’t a conservative doing liberal performance art.Report
I think conservatives and libertarians get more slack because we expect them to be uncivil.Report
I’m with you on the reluctance over ScarletNumber – he spent most of his bandwidth on being a jerk. That he occasionally slipped up and made some kind of on-topic contribution to the discussion doesn’t change the fact that he was mostly just here to be a jerk. He was given chances to shape up and didn’t take them. That’s about that.Report