Housekeeping problem

George Colombo is correct.

And, after that is in place, simply banning the troublesome elements will help. I know that’s not a particularly desirable solution, but maybe the only one that will work. There’s a positive correlation with the size of a forum and the dickery within.

Or, alternatively,

YOU CAN’T SILENCE ME YOU TOOL

I don’t comment with religious frequency (just a couple here and there) but I’ve been reading your blog for quite a while. I usually ignore the comments because I’m more interested in what you have to say, but every now and then, when the topic is something especially interesting, I do like to read the discussion.

In any case, you already have an anti-spam measure in place here, a simple question to respond to. One possible suggestion might be to have that question become a randomized, rotating question about current Dem politics, Carpetbagger blog posts in the last week, or something along these lines. Most people may need to look up the answer to the question elsewhere on the Internet, which gives them some time to cool down (and weeds out those who don’t want to put in some effort to post– i.e., just want to hit-and-post). You could require the person to answer the “challenge” question up front so that the benefits of the cool-down period are realized BEFORE the commenter starts typing.

I wish you the best of luck… I’m used to debating issues without getting worked up emotionally (a very good skill to have with a family that is pretty far along the left end of the political spectrum, but currently living in a pretty red state with a number of moderate Republicans as friends), but it can be tough at times.

The best solution, and possibly the easiest from your perspective, is to follow Atrios’s example and just throw up a post every now and then reminding people that they have every right in the world to support their own candidate, but if they get pissy about someone going in another direction, that’s only going to hurt their cause.

But something needs to be done to put an end to the quadrennial Democratic tradition of the circular firing squad.

As a big-time Obama supporter, I’m distressed at how much venom lately has come from our side of the table (especially in regards to the indefensible “pimped out” comments on MSNBC).

Come on Obamaniacs.. let’s actually listen to our guy! We want to unite and strengthen the Democratic party. That does NOT mean trashing Hillary Clinton, it means pointing out constructive reasons why our guy is the better choice. Yes that can include criticism of Clinton, but it doesn’t need any venom to go with it. We’re poisoning our own drink.

One of the reasons I enjoy this blog so much is because of the intelligence, maturity, and lack of rant (however deserved) in both Steve’s postings and readers’ comments. I’ve been pretty appalled (and a victim myself) of the crudeness and personal venom that spews forth from readers all over the blogosphere, no matter what the subject and how innocuous the postings are. Like the Internet itself, which quickly became a gathering place for pornography and scam artists, it seems like nothing good remains unpolluted by human nature for too long.

Maybe this is the price of freedom but it does not speak well for our species.

As someone who has been to a (hopefully) somewhat-lesser extent an offending party, those who make the point that taking the high road is also the effective road are right. For those of us politically-engaged, it’s a point to remember.

It’s also a further example of what Obi-wan Kenobe said to Luke: “The Dark Side is easier.”

I shall endeavor to remember.

1) It might be helpful to have a format that supported “ignore” options.

2) It would be even better if you could put offenders on a temporary “default-ignore” that we had unblock to read, so that for a week their posts would read something like “This post was blocked because it did not contribute to the conversation. Click here to see the original post, but please don’t respond to it.” I haven’t seen such a feature, but it should be easily programmable by whomever writes blog-operating software, as a single-click option on the blog-owner’s part. It would make the world a better place.

3) Change your “…..commenting policies” line to “Please, only civil, thoughtful & on-point comments, & don’t respond to trolls – see commenting policies”, and move it right next to the comment box.

4) Unlike #4, I wish you had a mechanism that permitted on-going conversations on specific items without them rolling off the bottom of the active page. Something like the Internet Infidels forum, for example, which lists threads by their most recent comment, but with a better search function, perhaps like the Archives of the Dinosaur Mailing List.

I’m not sure there is a solution. This is the first competitive primary since web based communication has become common. Emotions can run high as people get passionate about their candidates.

Pointing out how stupid someone sounds when proclaiming they will sit out the general election if their candidate loses the primary is as unproductive as it is true. So I just deal with it the same way I deal with stupidity in everyday life – I chuckle, or maybe just shrug my shoulders, and move along.

And to anyone who would suggest any of the Dem candidates would be anywhere near as awful as Bush: You’re dumber than Bush and only half as well spoken.

You could go overboard and get yourself a bot like Yahoo has,that removes comments that people complain about,and bans users outright when there’s enough complaints registered against them.Of course,that would be open to real abuse,.I know,because Yahoo suspended my account,even though I never violated their TOS in any way whatsoever.I never insulted anyone,engaged in name -calling,or anything that could be described as wrong.

But,it’s either that,spending way too much of your time policing the comments section,letting matters continue as they are,or closing the comments to trusted people.

I really like The Carpetbagger Report,but have never posted here,but I have taken the time,now and again to read the comments to various posts,and have been impressed,by and large,by the intelligence your average user displays in their comments.It would be a shame if you were forced to discontinue this service.

I was called quite a few names yesterday (troll, shithead, etc) because I held a different point of view and tried to explain it. I suspect the name calling was from the “long term posters” who wanted to believe that I was against “their” candidate.

For me it was all a matter of semantics.

I think a little tolerance goes a long way.

Maybe you could post this at the beginning of the comment thread or something similar. It is a quote from Barack Obama:

“We can disagree without being disagreeable .”

Steve, Thanks for trying to get a handle on this. I’ve really enjoyed the comments section here in the past, but lately it’s been atrocious. It is happening everywhere, but until recently your site has been one of a very few oasis from the name calling stupidity.

I wonder how much of this is reThug trolls sent out to stir up and balkanize the Dems? They can’t run government to save their lives, but they are past masters at every conceivable underhanded approach to influencing the electorate. I know, tin hat time, but is this really that much different than Rovian whisper campaigns, but SHOUTED?

As for a solution that corrects the problem without stifling debate, . . . crickets.

What can be done is limited by whatever bells and whistles are available to you behind the curtain, but here are a few thoughts:

1. Registration is not a bad idea; require a functioning e-mail address and then access to the blog only after a confirmatory e-mail has been sent and responded to. This would also help eliminate the trolls who want to post under a multitude of handles from the same e-mail address – registration under a different name under the same e-mail address would fail to process.

2. Some form of moderation; if someone’s acting out, put them in the time-out chair until they can behave; they could still comment, but someone would have to release the comment before the community could see it. You would have to set the standards for that, and make clear what they are, but knowing that one’s over-the-top comment may never be seen might be an incentive for people to bring their rational selves to the discussion.

3. An “ignore” function would be wonderful – sometimes as hard as one tries to scroll past the worst offenders, it’s hard not to read – and react.

4. Maybe you create an ongoing “When ten rounds aren’t enough” post, and when some posts devolve into sand-throwing, clicking on “comments” in that post would redirect people there, and maybe it keeps people from dragging the bickering into new posts. If someone is already in the thread, types a comment and hits the “Submit” button, they get a message – “your comment has been successfully posted at “When Ten Rounds Aren’t Enough;” please click on this link to be re-directed there.” Don’t know if that’s possible (?)

5. Maybe once a person hits “Submit,” they get a message that says, “Are you sure you want to publish this comment?” with a preview of same. For those who may have been hitting “submit” and then regretting it, this might be a chance for them to take a virtual deep breath.

************
I have had more than a few moments of thinking I should take a break, but what keeps me here is not wanting the worst elements to take over and ruin what has always been, for me, the best place to have spirited, but rational and reasoned discussion. I know I have been increasingly short on patience with some of what is posted here, that has been reflected in some of my own comments, and for that I apologize.

It’s something that nearly always happens when politics, religion, race, gender etc are commented on. I have no idea how to police it but I do think those that “go over the line” are exposed for what they are. They seem to be so frustrated with their inability to express themselves in a mature manner. One glance and I just pass right on by. I think most of us do that. Maybe the prohibition of obcentities would so frustrate them that they might go elsewhere. Probably eliminate most of the type comments you are alluding to.

I was called quite a few names yesterday (troll, shithead, etc) because I held a different point of view and tried to explain it. I suspect the name calling was from the “long term posters” who wanted to believe that I was against “their” candidate.

The same thing happened to me (same thread I think actually).

But whatever. The trick (a very elsuive one to master) is not descending to the same level as your antagonists. And even when you do, having enough courage to say “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”

That is how you can tell the reasonable commenters from the trolls and hotheads. They will articulate a position and although they may occasionally get personal, they will also allow for some give & take and acknowledge error when it is made.

Nobody is perfect, nobody’s opinion’s are perfect and anyone who suggests otherwise is worth ignoring.

With all due respect, the pattern I see is that one campaign started using dirty tactics of divide and conquer and voter suppression. Fans of that candidate defended eagerly with claims that politics is dirty, and we can’t let Dems be at a disadvantage by having to play fair. After reading this argument enough times, the hordes rushed in.

That said, it doesn’t help when CB feeds the fire with stories about a maybe real/maybe not so real event where tears may have been shed. Same with the Shuster story. The discussion that followed should have been predictable.

One suggestion, though. If possible, don’t allow people to assume identities of others who have commented in the last month or so. I don’t know if there is one Anne or a hundred. There is one who seems to be very well regarded here, but at this point all I can associate the name with is the sophomoric admonition that someone should, “Grow the fuck up.” There also seem to be a lot of Steves. Just now I noticed a rather unlikely comment from a “Zeitgeist” on the Obama discussion. Just a thought.

I think wvng is partially correct. This is not uncommon as it has happened everywhere I go when I look for political news. Any posting on the Dem race turns into a fight pretty quick.

I’m not going to give the typical RW troll suspects (BTW it’s not any of the normal RW posters here so I’m not trying to point fingers) any credit because that would mean they’re much smarter than their usual comments suggest. A few of them are clever, but not consistently or as a whole.

I’ve seen folks who were the best of internet friends suddenly tear into each other over the Clinton/Obama debate. Despite best intentions, it has devolved into the political equivalent of Yankees/BoSox (or whatever rivalry you think fits best) due to the passions one feels (it’s hard not to considering what has happened since 2000.)

I’m not so innocent here either as I’ve gotten into fierce debates over Clinton v Obama at other sites (pro-Obama/Edwards). I think there should be fierce debates because both are flawed candidates and that should continue because without it democracy would fail. But the debates remained semi civil because as tempting as it was to launch a personal attack, I didn’t because the person was someone I respected and gave her the benefit of the doubt.

And no, I’m not high and mighty about avoiding personal attacks because I have done so in the past on the odd troll that has set my temper off or as a tactic to get under their skin and piss them off.

If this much discussion was done in the MSM and general populace about Iraq in 2003, I doubt that the US would be in the mess it is today.

I’d rather that we keep discussing, arguing and debating the issues. Flaws of character are harder to discuss rationally as we all have differring life experiences and it is hard for all of us to not be emotionally involved.

CB, if I were you and saw something like what happened in the “Pimp” article yesterday, I’d just shut down the comments section for that article. If anyone insisted on carrying it over to others then just ban them or slap them with a “time out.” If that doesn’t work then a registration system. Only registered users can post. First timers have to be “vetted.” Unfair, but it keeps out most trolls and idiot comments.

Start up a Carpetbagger Primary Google Group or Yahoo forum JUST for the primary discussions. Link it to this site and gently point all related comments to that forum for the interim. Every time somebody flames or trolls in the regular comments you can delete them with abandon.

I found my way to this site years ago via a link on Kevin Drum’s site. I stayed for more of CB‘s delightful selection of topics and insightful commentary. At the time I seldom read the comments. I doubt I ever would have except most of the posts require expansion and terminate adjacent to feedback. At some point, someone’s brief comment caught my attention. Over time, I increased my foray into the comments section and certain names became synonymous with provocative and humorous commentary. There is a communal family at this site and it appears to me lately that it extends well beyond the usual suspects. I also noticed a change over the last several weeks. There are too many posts and comments and I can’t keep up. The turn to incivility ensures I won’t even try. Friday evening I read the goulash post (bits of this and that) and was floored to read that Zeitgeist was wigging out. I’m pleased to see CB is taking action.

I strongly support attempts to reign in the civility. Asking people to play nice is effective only toward those who do so anyway. I can related to the passion this election cycle brings. I absolutely despise Bush, the unitary executive cabal and the neo-cons. I am not happy with the GOP presidential candidates. I do not subordinate the needs of the country to party “wins” or single issues. I am begging the Democrats to show the spine necessary to convince me they understand this threat to our way of government and demonstrate risky leadership opposition so I know they are committed and not simply pandering. I actually appreciate the to-and-fro exchanges between HRC and BHO supporters for the occasional insight offered.

I support any solution to the topic at hand that does not distract CB from doing what he does best even if that means doing nothing. I am perfectly capable of scanning comments when I have the time or inclination. It isn’t difficult to detect and ignore comments that shout or contribute nothing. When the thread is long, the “find” option takes me directly to the contributions of those that have my respect. Current events are polarizing, tempers are high and feelings easily hurt. I wouldn’t invest the time or energy necessary to scrub the comments. The most effective solution is to ignore the trolls. ‘Tis but a flesh wound. This too shall pass. Y’all are better than that.

As the long-timer who suggested the truce, I reiterate the suggestion. It is only for ONE weekend, four days. It is not meant to silence anyone, just to get them arguing FOR their candidate, not against the other one.

Now I’m someone who has problems with Hilary, yes. I think Obama is a much better candidate, and I’ll be doing what I can to argue on his behalf. But, as I keep pointing out, we’re going to win in November, with one of these candidates. Whichever one we choose is 100 times better than the ‘Corkscrew Express.’ And the love affair McCain had with the media will be disappearing.
(That was McCain 2000, remember, when he was running against GWB, when he was challenging the Dobsons and Falwells, both positions which were popular with reporters and columnists, and when he was, by all accounts, a charming person to be around. He’s retreated from the two positions — and should be pressed on both of them — and has become a LOT more than eight years older. He’s turned into a sour, ascerbic old man — I’m one of them too, and we ‘s.a.o.m.’s know each other. And now the spotlight will be on his real conservatism. He’s vulnerable, he’s unattractive — compare his rambling incoherence on Tuesday night to Obama’s eloquence, his unwillingness to say anything on issues with Obama’s — and yes, Hilary’s — portrait of America.)

We will win with either candidate, unless we shoot each other too full of holes. And more importantly, the new Democratic President is going to have a huge majority in Congress — and that’s the MOST important thing we should be fighting for. If I think Bill was a coward for backing down on important promises, and fear that Hilary might as well, I know that she will be less likely to if she knows she has a majority large enough to back her. If I worry a little about Obama’s youth, there will be a ton of experienced advisors around him — and that I believe him when he insists he doesn’t want ‘yes men.’

Most of us just watched the Super Bowl as well as Super Tuesday. The Giants won, but both were great teams, and both teams gained in stature by the quality of the opposition. That’s what I want this race to be, not the ‘lesser of two evils’ but the ‘better of two greats.’

Yes, I have criticized Hilary (and Bill, and more Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe) for some of the things they have done, and after the truce — which I will observe — I will feel free to do so again. But if she wins, it still will be exponentially better than the Bush times, better than McCain-Whoever (and Whoever, were the unthinkable to happen and McCain win, is more likely than not to become President Whoever during the next four years — and we should remember that).

Both are qualified, and the idea someone floated that the loser should get the next Supreme Court vacancy is more than a joke. Both would be qualified for that position as well.

So can we stop acting like Republicans, who don’t dare lay out their own candidates’ positives — which frequently don’t exist — but only can say “Vote for me because my opponent is a …” They’ve been doing it since the McCarthy era. We don’t have to.

Anne at 38. I must admit also that it took me a while to write my comment at 33, so I hadn’t read your 27 before I posted. Kumbaya and let the best Dem win.

There are only two choices: Either someone vets the comments and weeds out the feebleminded and troublemakers, or no-one performs the weeding function and comments tend to become unpleasant and finally a waste of time.

I like Carpetbagger Report quite a lot, but rarely read the comments here, or on any unmoderated forum. Life’s too short and today’s issues are too vital to waste time chatting with chuckleheads.

Peace on earth,

The problem Digby is most concerned with is how quickly a woman–any woman– becomes a c__t in the anonymity of the internets. Sexism, not politics, is the issue.

CB, I found you through Kevin Drum too, before he was on Washington Monthly if I remember correctly. The Carpetbagger Report quickly became my favorite blog. The downturn in tone in the comments section here has been pretty sad. Maybe you could require registration, and then use a thumbs up/thumbs down system similar to YouTube. Once a comment gets too many thumbs down (5? 10?) the body of the comment gets hidden, and if you want to see it, you have to click on it. That would allow the community to do some self-policing without real censorship, since the comment would still be there. If you didn’t want to see it, you would have that choice.

And thanks for writing such a great blog. 🙂

First I want to thank Steve for this site. Coupled with TPM, RCP, and reddit I can’t complain for lack of interesting and insightful content.

I enjoy the comments here and hope you do absolutely nothing about what’s going on. Well having threaded comments like reddit would help a great deal in sifting through it, but beyond that I don’t see the point in trying to control the discussion. The comments section is a place for reactions and discussion, to try to squeeze the kind and quality of comments into a box you like the shape of does a disservice to the discourse following a post. Everyone should view this as an opportunity to rise to the challenge and stay objective and understanding while still submitting their own point of view.

I for one can’t stand sites that require registration and almost never comment at those places. So if anyone’s sick of reading my comments, that might be the policy for you. But I always think of those things as a big turn-off. Not that I’m worried about people associating my words with my name, as I obviously have a blog which does that. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and reminds me of conservative blogs, where they make a point of weeding out liberals in order to keep their bubble intact. RedState comes to mind, where they even ban conservatives who don’t toe the party line and look for excuses to ban people. Liberals are inclusive people and shouldn’t create barriers to joining the discussion; even if that means the trolls get to comment.

I think people just need to learn to refrain from feeding the trolls. If someone says something pointlessly rude, they’re only looking for attention and will go away if ignored long enough. And I’ve never found it difficult to determine which are which. If someone says something so offensively pointless that you think nothing can convince them to change their mind, then ignoring them is the only course of action. You can blame the trolls for being here, but it’s only your fault for giving them a reason to stay. Again, if you don’t think you can convince them of anything, then you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

And call me paranoid, but I’m still stuck with the idea that these aren’t even real trolls, and that they’re supporters from one group or the other trying to screw with our heads. In all my many years of internet debates, I’ve never seen such vicious trolls pop up so fast and get so pointlessly rude. They just sound like they’re playing with our emotions. If that’s not what’s happening, I can’t imagine why it’s not.

Thus said, I really don’t think I’m going to talk about this stuff here anymore. It’s gotten bad and I feel that nobody’s listening to me anyway and it’s just pissing everyone off. If anyone wants to discuss stuff, we can do so at my blog. But I’m going to try to refrain from doing so here because I’m finding it too upsetting. I debate politics for fun and this just isn’t fun anymore. I might still leave a comment on a particular story, but I doubt I’ll be back to defend it.

This long time reader will harbor no hard feelings if you delete one of my comments. I fully admit I’m out of hand, and nothing’s going to keep me away.

I think the market tends to correct itself. About the time we get one of these posts, it’s flamed itslef out, and it’s kind of like the period I heard a journalist describe after a civil war: everyone looks a little shocked and embarrassed with how low they’ve gone.

I know I lost the stomach for it. But if you must, punt such commentary to an off-list.

I’ll always take messy Democracy over reg. I know, now that I’ve let it out, we’ve found our commonality and defined the boundaries we find acceptable as aparty: no racial politcs or voter suppression, no demonizing other Dems.

I’m with memekiller. No regulation. As Tom Robbins says, “If life gets messy, eat it over the sink.”

I supported Edwards and consider Obama and Clinton to be nearly identical (she is more realistic about healthcare and he had the good fortune not to be a sitting senator during the Iraq War authorization).

That being said, I have been completely turned off of Obama BY HIS SUPPORTERS. You may think it’s a stupid reason, but when the candidates are so alike a stupid reason may be all you need to choose one or the other. A lot of people are blaming it on their youth and relative inexperience, but I have been completely disgusted by the attitudes of Obama supporters and I’m not willing to excuse it.

I wasn’t even going to weigh in, since there are plenty of sensible suggestions in this thread already and I’m an erratic poster.

After reading through some of the drama I missed in the past few days, however, I have to express the desire to see posters registered and authenticated by e-mail and / or IP.

The instances of handle-jacking (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) are particularly annoying. Registration would eliminate that possibility and cut down on the number of drive-by trolls.

That being said, I have been completely turned off of Obama BY HIS SUPPORTERS.

I promise not to comment on this further, but Obama can’t be blamed for his supporters. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he’s advocating this, and it’s a silly reason to dislike him. And honestly, I’ve had suspicions that at least a few of these people might be Hillary people pulling a ruse, because their posts are so blatantly offensive that they will only give people the exact reaction you’re getting; to show how offensive the Obama people are.

If anything, they support him because he’s not Hillary; and it doesn’t reflect on him at all other than that he’s her opponent. And that’s just not his fault. Arguing otherwise would be to suggest that people aren’t allowed to run against her. But again, I promise not to speak of this further.

I’ve been a daily reader of this site for the past few years, though I’ll be the first to admit I don’t usually have a lot to add to the discussion that’s of any significance…

As much as trying to limit or ban offensive comments is a nice idea to solve this current climate of overwhelmingly negative discourse, it’s impractical from an administrative standpoint (CB would spend his day policing comments rather than writing) and it’s a little unnerving to think that expressing an opinion that is seen as negative becomes forbidden.

I don’t know what the rest of you do for a living, but I’m a web developer and I’ve spent time trying to solve comment spam and trolls before, and it’s a tough nut to crack. You can crack down and become somewhat of a totalitarian regime (which is an overwhelming amount of work for the owner of the site, and slows everything down), or you just take it all in stride and try and be the bigger party, which I know firsthand can be really, really tough when people are being nasty and not contributing anything in a positive way. There’s not a lot of middle ground to be had unfortunately that doesn’t require at least some attention and moderation by the proprietor of the site. There are some blogs that require users to respond to an email challenge for each and every post. This keeps the owner from having to moderate, but places a lot of burden on the commenters and does nothing to prevent a determined troll from posting. In an age where anyone can get a new email address at the drop of a hat, requiring a “valid email address” and a registered user only weeds out the folks who don’t have 30 seconds to spare. And then CB has to stay on top of banning new registered users who register only to flame and troll.

For me, I’m not so much concerned that there ARE trolling or offensive comments (you can’t control what people think no matter how stupid it may be) so much as you inevitably have to read a bit of them as you work your way through the comments. And as soon as you start to read them, you get drawn into the negativity. A system like the dunce cap from 37signals, or even just using a certain color to highlight trolling comments, allows readers to simply spot those comments and skip them without having to spend time reading and then figuring out if they are offended by the post or not. The content remains, and we’re not restricting the free flow of information (good and bad) but users who trust the system can simply avoid mentally dealing with trolling comments by spotting the indicator (icon, color, etc…) and skipping right past them.

So the problem becomes how to flag these posts in a way that is little or no maintenance for the CB. In a perfect world, allowing trusted longtime posters to take part in the moderation process would be ideal. It would allow CB to not have to micromanage the comments, while allowing the community (via representation) to police itself. However, the WordPress system doesn’t have a user level that allows for comment moderation only. So CB would have to basically give out some level of admin access to several users, and trust that they wouldn’t stray outside of their agreed upon duties (comment moderation). It could work, but it’s not ideal and it opens up the site to the possibility of sabotage at some point. Not ideal.

Nothing groundbreaking I know. Just trying to help come up with a solution (which will probably need to be technical rather than behavioral). I think anyone who is a long-time reader of the site is willing to put our differences on the back burner and elevate the discourse to a more positive level, but all of that is sabotaged by the fact that anybody can wander in and bring it all back down.

Mr. Benen,

When this post first came up i thought that there was nothing you could do. But then one of those crazy little circumstance of life happened. It arose from my current reading of “Politics” by Hendrik Hertzberg. (highly recommended to all, by the way)

Maybe you and the other bloggers could devote a small section of your space to people discussing big ideas about politics. For example, should we consider using proportional representation in the United States? Or, let’s have a big discussion about what we’d like the tax code to look like.

I do not mean parsing the intricacies of a candidates policy positions, because like everything else, that’s bound to devolve into: Candidate A’s farts smell like eggs, but Candidate B’s farts smell like sour milk. Most of my farts smell like sour milk, so i like Candidate B better…everybody knows that if your farts smell like eggs, you’re stupid and corrupt.

Anyway, give it a thought. It would at least give the folks who want to think and discuss a space to do so. And who knows, we might find a way to use this here internet thing to get some critical mass behind some new ideas, rather than just using it to convince, cajole, and criticize.

Thanks

Not a regular here, but I clicked via a link at Atrios. I saw the problems over at Digby’s earlier in the week, and it’s disturbing to see this happen.

I’ve observed that when rude commenters started showing up on software forums, one of two things happened: the forum either got better, or it dissolved. When moderators posted ‘Road Rules’ and started banning offenders, those who remained were very productive and the info was excellent. On the other hand, if the forum owner failed to crack down on rude commenters (who attacked other points of view), the forum was not functioning within a period of two months or less. I have never seen an exception to this pattern.

Building a blog is at least as much work as building a small business. There’s no reason that any rude intruders should destroy what you’ve developed. That’s like letting someone urinate on your lawn. It’s not acceptable.

We all cross lines occasionally, but a good commenter generally needs one or two ‘heads up’, and then they’ll be fine. It’s those who fail to heed the ‘heads up’ that you may want to ban. There’s no reason for them to destroy what you’ve built, and they need to learn there are social boundaries they need to respect. They’ll be better off for it, and so will your blog.

We all make mistakes, but a good commenter learns from their own mistakes, as well as from other points of view. I’ve learned an enormous amount from blog comments at several blogs, and when blogs have good content and good commenters, they become invaluable for all of us — whether or not we agree with their specific political agendas.

Regards, rOTL

Mr Benen, would it be difficult to provide another link next to ABOUT / ARCHIEVES / CONTACT on your site banner titled FAMILY (or preferably less hokey)? This link will provide a list of “registered” handles used by your blog family. To register, one must provide their handle and IP address. The IP address will be one’s password required to create and maintain a Bio (if they so desire) which can be accessed by clicking any member’s handle on your family list. Your site can ensure that no comment post is possible using a registered handle except as posted from the known IP address associated with that handle. This might require multiple handles for those who post from multiple IP addresses.

Here’s how I see it. This will enable any visitor to know who the registered posters are and be assured that trolls are not posting under a registered members identity. I just threw in the bit about allowing members to post a bio. I am interested in knowing more about some of the very clever thinkers you have here. Perhaps the bio will add to the sense of community and make us think twice about flaming someone who we know much more about. Ask Will @ #67 if this is feasible.

As I’ve written here before, this is CBs house — or more specifically, his place of business. If he’s gracious enough to leave the front door open for us to come in and have a chat, we owe him the courtesy of behaving in a manner befitting uninvited, but welcomed guests.

Until recently, when passions inched toward 451 F, the more or less regular commenters seemed to manage the occasional troll or outrageous comment fairly well, either ignoring them or calling them out in a concise and reasonable manner.

It’s my personal opinion that some of us veered from that lately, allowing ourselves to get caught up in the frenzy and thereby contributing to the problem. It’s not a condemnation, just a perception. Whatever we can do ourselves to calm things down helps us as well as CB and his many readers who don’t comment.

Obviously there are repeat offenders who are beyond reasoning, and those, CB has dealt with in the past and can do so again.

Personally, I’d hate to see CB doing anything with the comment section that takes time and energy away from what he loves to do and is so good at — putting together insightful posts that make us think, shout, laugh, cry and sometimes spit.

From a comment you made earlier I believe you can see IP addresses from commenters, right? If so, then I would think that a registration system would work fine, and just changing a name wouldn’t work. I would be delighted to get back to something akin to what we had here before. You could even maybe have a “vote off the island” checkbox that commenters could check next to someone’s posts that are getting to be way over the top on a consistent basis. I don’t know, just some ideas. I’ve been thinking for quite a while that the place is going to the dogs, but I understand your reluctance to try to control it (both from a time wasting standpoint and a freedom of speech perspective).

Mark @ 76 – There can be no doubt that your exclusion of my name from your list is nothing but the strongest of all possible insults and from here on out I will refuse to read any comments by anyone whose name begins with the letter “M”; lest I inadvertently reward you by reading anything you might have to say. You have forever ruined the integrity of the Biobrain family name, and as such, we will burn someone named Mark in effigy at each of our family gatherings. You, sir, have been warned.

Actually I find your posters better behaved than most other Places I read left or right. Maybe the quality of your writing brings the best out of us.
Must clarify that as a Republican I make my comments mostly as an observer of the nomination race. I already decided that I will vote for whoever wins on the Democratic side.
If I may make an observation, I have noticed that a lot of the posting done by people claiming to be pro Obamama read a identical to some of the anti-Clinton stuff I have read in the extreme right’s Blog’s. Seems to me you may have moles in your garden.

I have moderated many a website and forum and only one thing works. Ban early, ban often. Anything else has you spending an unholy amount of time struggling to be fair to assholes until you get burned out and resentful.

This blog and the comments section has been like a corner bar where it’s been enjoyable to shoot the breeze with the regulars, get to know everyone over time and take part in the community’s collective wisdom. The last month or so this place has come to feel more like a family feud than a gathering of colleagues.

Steve, I hope that bringing your displeasure out in the open is enough of a shot across the bow to shake loose some of the animosity that has grown. If some of the offending parties can see now that things have gotten out of hand we can reign this back into the comments section it was.

The truce is a great idea. Violators should be banned for life.

A code of ethics could be posted with a few simple rules: I) No ad hominem attacks on fellow posters with legitimate comments. II) No swan diving: limit comments to one or two per thread. III) If you’re only mission is to proselytize, go get your own blog. IV) If you want to get excessively passionate in discussion with another poster, get your own room. Etc., etc., etc.

Since an e-mail address is required to post, offending parties could be put on notice their e-mail addresses could be outed so that way dialogues on the thread could move off the comments section and into the privacy of your own personal e-mail battles. Okie @ #42 had a great idea of banning comments or commenters that engage in ad hominems on fellow commenters. Maybe Steve could exercise his ability to shut down the comments section altogether when things get to hot and give the site a break from flame wars for a few days or a week. Let the hotheads find another place to vent their aggressions.

It’s also up to us commenters to keep the peace amongst ourselves. The more we act foolishly the less time Steve has to do his things that we all appreciate so dearly. Let’s kill the goose that lays our golden eggs. And let’s not make our favorite candidates look worse for our actions in the comments. Peace everyone.

I don’t know what app you’re using but over at WordPress, you can filter your comments by certain terms. Any comment that has the trigger words in it gets routed the admin for moderation. I know it’s stupid to have to babysit this election season but I’m pretty certain that the comment flame wars are fanned by Republican operatives because, divided, we are powerless.

I too have been a long time reader here at CB’s place, and though I comment rarely, one of the things that immediately impressed me when I first came here several years ago was the quality and intelligence of the ‘regular’ commenters. Like a lot of readers, I’ve been disheartened at the increasing lack of civility recently. Lately I’ve found myself having to scroll through what seems like endless screeds and juvenile attacks on some of the other commenters. Yes, it has become a sad situation and I don’t have a ready made suggestion for how you handle it CB.

Registration does have its benefits as well as disadvantages — it can help weed out some of the obvious trolls and protect the regular thoughtful commenters from ‘handle jacking.’ On the down side, many here have voiced resistance to the idea and I can respect and understand their opinions on the issue. I’d have no problem with it myself, because I don’t comment much and wouldn’t mind logging in if I wanted to weigh in on an issue. Perhaps it’s a matter of the overheated atmosphere during the primary season (are we experiencing ‘Blogosphere Warming?’) and it will pass.

Whatever the case, the last thing I’d want to see CB have to do is spend his entire day policing comments, because that would consume way too much of his time and rob the rest of us of some of his best spent energies: his fantastically written and insightful posts.

However you decide to try to resolve the issue, CB, best of luck with it. I will continue to read this blog religiously and if I have to use the scroll wheel to whiz through the worthless comments to get to the good ones, so be it … it’s a small price to pay for the privilege of reading one of the best written blogs on the net.

To Billmon at 82: Nice to see you again. I hope you realize that you’re missed by a great number of people, myself included. 🙂

Another good friend of the blog recommended that an 11th-Commandment rule simply become the norm

I think Reagan’s 11th is the most evil empowering and deceitful political tactic ever deployed. I am not saying it didn’t work, it did. The right has long known they must deceive to win. By keeping their mouths shut they have allowed the theocratic freak show to become their base.

Here is MAJOR example of what it empowered – it allowed Moon to embed his theocratic, America subverting ass into our nation’s political system.

excerpt from:

U.S News and World Report March 27, 1989
Rev. Moon’s Rising Political Influence
His empire is spending big money trying to win favor with conservatives

On New Year’s Day, 1987, South Korean mystic Sun Myung Moon, who considers himself to be the son of God, told his Unification church followers that he wanted to expand the church’s political influence in the United States. His aim, Moon said, was “the natural subjugation of the American government and population.” […]

…the [Unification] has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration. Although Heritage officials deny it, the foundation has dramatically changed its policy toward the Unification Church. In the early 80’s the foundation, wary of the church’s aims, prohibited staff or fellows from being associated with Unification Church organizations or taking money from the church or church-financed institutions.

As the Washington Times has become the voice of capital conservatives, the Heritage Foundation has become far more tolerant of church ties.The foundation accepts the participation of Lichenstein and other senior fellows in church-funded enterprises and allows its staff members to go to church conferences.

The Unification Church’s newfound influence has occasioned intense debate among conservatives. One group of worried young conservatives meets regularly in private to compare notes about the problem. But little of the debate has surfaced in public forums. “Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don’t want to publicize the extent of the church’s involvement,” says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research.

Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church’s role. That happened when one organization, the Capital Research Center, published a newsletter last November warning of the church’s attempt to create a “centralized world theocracy.” One of its board members, who was also on the board of the International Security Council, resigned in protest, and conservatives charging that the paper was creating discord on the right, besieged the center with angry calls. “We got a very, very strong reaction — almost as if we were the enemy — because we raised the issue,” says CRC Chairman Willa Johnson, a former president of the Heritage Foundation.

Oh, and
5) Ban the #$%@s … 🙂

I have to agree that registration does not appeal to me – by the time I get the passwords, etc. straight, I’ve lost the thread. Without knowing what the technical requirements would be, I can make the same suggestion I made to digby. I worry about you spending your time deleting hate speech, time that you could devote to improving my mind with your broad research and incisive analysis. Rather than doing it yourself, could you develop and post a policy of what is acceptable and what is not, then rely on (registered) volunteers to sift through the comments and delete the nasty stuff? I would volunteer to take a shift or two. Hopefully it would not take your operation very long to estimate the typical comment volume for the usual subjects and timeframes, and enough readers would volunteer.

I initially agreed with the suggestion to restrict comments about comments, limit comments to responses to the original post. I rarely comment, and often don’t read the other comments, but not always, and when I do comment, I like to see what the others had to say. So I guess I can’t support that idea.

As to what should be deleted, I find the condescending know-it-all experts are irritating to me (except for the few that support Hillary) but not out of bounds. I assume, since I don’t see it in this forum, that you already screen for obscene language and overt racism, but not for blatant sexism. The Clinton Derangement Syndrom, formerly known as male chauvinism, has some very conspicuous practitioners here. I would not miss their verbal diarrhea, or the vituperation against insufficiently-progressive Democrats and the Repugnants. (I just can’t use the Republican name for the current crop of thugs. It shows my age, but I remember decent conservatives.) If you are getting the kind of hate speech that digby quoted, you are welcome to get rid of it. It’s your blog and you should set your own standard for keeping it clean. I would not let these mutts come into my house and defecate on my furniture.

I basically only comment on one other site and it’s about my other passion, video games. They require registration and ban fairly aggressively to keep the comment section productive. Because video games tends to pull a different demo, I figured it was necessary there but not here.

I wish I knew what the best solutions was. It is downright disheartening to think that long timers may quit commenting or reading because a few fly-by-nighters want to be antagonistic.

I sincerely hope that when the dust settles, all of the commenters I love are still here, and that the newbies with level-heads stick around. I can’t even remember when I started reading TCB, but it’s been years. Keep up the good work Steve, no matter what you choose to do, we’ll weather the storm!

***@56—“At no time should any opinion be expressed about a previous commenter’s position”***

That is the beginning of the slippery slope that is Censorship. If my comment offends, I expect the offended individual to reply—not only because it is that person’s right to reply (re: Amendment One, US Constitution), but also because it is, in effect, their duty as a member of the given discussion-at-hand, if we are to remain distant from the same cowardice that so many of us have derided as regards the current Democratic Congressional Leadership.

An atmosphere of “enforced timidity” is no less a threat to the fabric of the Republic than is the potentiality of a fundamentalist being a heartbeat away from (1) the Oval Office, (2) the precedent of a Unitary Executive, and (3) the ability to launch Armageddon as the ultimate act of literally-interpreted biblical faith….

I know it sounds simplistic, but itsn’t an “ignore” feature really the easiest answer? If you see comments by someone who is obviously not contributing, don’t respond, just hit ignore. It is unlikely they are going to say anythign in the future that you want to hear, anyway, and you avoid feeding them to boot.

Doc Biobrain @ 81 – I thought I had adequately covered that avenue with the inclusive phrase “by no means limited to”, and I humbly beg your forgiveliness, as I am afraid of fire. Seriously, it was inevitable that I would miss a few favourites, such as yourself, President Lindsay and Petorado – I can’t believe I forgot Petorado. Memekiller has some standout moments, ditto Billmon (sorry I’m capitalizing everyone, but to me, they are the only proper names I know).

Really though, the only comments I genuinely don’t care for are those that are mean-spirited, blatantly racist or sexist, or abysmally stupid. I rate Zeitgeist and Anne highly for intellectualism, but sometimes that’s not what I’m looking for – sometimes I just want to laugh at the great comedy much of the civilized world has become. When I want to laugh, Former Dan or Tom Cleaver rarely disappoint. I see a lot of newcomers, and I like most of them. You hit it out of the park, Doc, with your contention that trolls just want to make you mad – even a thoughtful and tolerant rebuttal is as wasted as a furious rejoinder, because they’re a human auto-dialer: they just want to know somebody’s home. Deliberate rudeness is offensive.

I would not favour a tied-to-IP policy either, because I also travel frequently – I’m in the navy, currently visiting beautiful Pearl Harbor – and when I’m away my IP would be different, a government one. I agree with those who suggest it’ll probably die down after this extremely contentious election is over.

Give thought -> 4 yr Bush + 8 yr Clinton + 8 yr Bush + 8 yr Clinton + 8 yr Jeb Bush = 36 years of ‘Family Dynasty’

Mazel tov.

At least somebody else thinks oligarchies are bad.

Steve,
I think BuzzMon’s comments pretty much speak for me.

Also Billmon@ 82 I would also echo what BuzzMon said.

Actually, I would say more. As a life long Democrat, and long term reader, (I’ve probably been reading you and Marbo longer than most on this site.)

I am firmly committed to Obama or McCain. I have been shouted down many times on this front. I understand why that position is Heretical. But, I believe it is a valid one. I hold this position in good faith. And truly believe 8 years of Anti-Hillary partisanship would make this country far worse off than it is today. And if we want a permanent Democratic Majority, NOTHING could be worse for democrats than fielding Hillary.

I understand why this sends Hillary supporters into a fit. But I’m confident they don’t really understand the Hillary Hatred that is lying in wait if she is the nominee or if she becomes president. When I state this opinion I try to be clear about why I advocate this way. And I try to stick to my firmly held beliefs. Not calling people names.

With all that said, this position cannot be stated on CB. Or will have moderators silencing this position, than I have no reason to read CB any more.

But thats just me.

After the last few weeks, I am beginning to believe that many progressive/liberal websites have been infested with GOP rat-fuckers.

These trolls pretend to be Obama supporters while bashing Hillary with some of the vilest attacks, and if anyone defends her they attack and insult that person too.

The reason I believe that this is true is that these trolls don’t seem interested in extolling the virtues of Obama, they just want to attack Hillary and her supporters. And their attacks not only rely on right-wing meme’s, they don’t sound like any liberals or progressives I’ve ever heard.

They sound like wingnuts, and they all use almost identical language, like they were repeating talking points. They rarely bash Bush or the GOP either. I’ve seen trolls many times before, but most of them just say outrageous things for attention, these trolls go straight for the personal attack or insult.

If I am correct, it’s a two-fer for the Rovians. They get to bash Hillary while pissing her supporters off at Obama. They are hoping to splinter our party, because if we’re united they lose.

I’m sure there are other trolls doing the opposite, pretending to be Hillary supporters while bashing Obama, but I haven’t noticed any.

If it sounds farfetched, think about when that madrassa smear first appeared. They were trying to slime Obama while framing Hillary for doing it.

I got to the 40s before my eyes started to water, so if anyone has made the same points I apologize for duplicating them.

Reading here through the last couple of weeks I do get the sense there are rethug trolls lurking about, not just to push Romney or Paul (amusing as those are) but as provoceteurs against Clinton or Obama. But leaving those aside.

There are some Clinton supporters, and seeming more Obama supporters whose whole arguments seem to come down to “Your candidate can’t win so why are you so STUPID to support him/her”. And the reason why the candidate can’t win is either “they (dumbass conservatives) won’t vote for him” or worse “-I- (the poster) won’t vote for him”. If the Poster can’t come out and support either of the two Democratic nominees in November than I really don’t think they are part of a progressive community.

Now I’ve been called a Clinton Supporter, which is not really true. My first choice was Richardson, whom I thought had the best level and breadth of experience. My second choice was Edwards, for while I’m not poor, I am ashamed to live in the richest country in the world while still having pervasive poverty exist here. But given the choice between the current two candidates, I have given my reasons for supporting Clinton over Obama.

Also, I have, on occasion, tried to talk to the expressed reasons of Obama supporters when I thought I could make a good point. Thus at least one comment to John S. about the whole dynasty thing.

The loss of Zeitgeist, who was a lot better commentor than I, and the sheer childish bragging of the Obama-troll who drove him out, really demonstrated the problem here. The tone here has gone down. I don’t know the mechanical solution to it, registration or deletion or whatever. But I’d certainly love to see something.

It’s been said in the MSM that there is no ideological divide between Obama and Clinton this year because they are so close on their policies, unlike nomination battles past. True as that may be, there is an alignment of more liberal people behind Obama, more moderate people behind Clinton, and we seem to be carrying old wars forward into 2008.

And I’ll just repeat an observation. There is no enemy so bad as the ally in the last war. There are no enemies so evil as those who only disagree on trival issues. It’s as true for politics as it is for religion.

myiq2xu Wrtote:

The reason I believe that this is true is that these trolls don’t seem interested in extolling the virtues of Obama, they just want to attack Hillary and her supporters. And their attacks not only rely on right-wing meme’s, they don’t sound like any liberals or progressives I’ve ever heard.

~

We’ll I’m not sure that you’ve got this quite right, on a couple of fronts. I’m not sure these are “Trolls” and I assume you’d count me as one of them. There are two issues here. Firstly, if you talk about Obama in a positive light, for his leadership skills, his vision on international policy or any of the other good things about him. People start sounding off, calling you Borg, Zombie, Cool Aid Drinker or Wing Nut Praying at the Temple of Obama.

That makes it kind of hard to talk much about his positives, don’t you think?

Secondly, if you’ve been Drinking from the well of Obama Naiveté like I have, you understand that Hillary is a BIG part of the problems we have in America, the insane partisanship, a culture where lobbyists control Washington, and a congress and senate divided and conquered by 50+1 politics.

Most people who support Hillary do so because of her long experience in DC, her insider knowledge, and her ability to “Work” the system. I on the other hand think this is exactly what’s wrong with her. She is built into our rotten system. She is part of the lobbyist machine and so was her husband before her. She has mastered “That Game”. (Hillary is the biggest receiver of lobbyist cash in the election, on either side of the isle.) I believe deeply, that we as Americans need to “Change the Game”.

By that I mean. Washington has to fundamentally changed. This is what inspires me about Obama. His service and beliefs in constitutional law. His stated desire to add transparency in order to enhance participatory government. His belief that an democracy needs an informed and motivated electorate. And his belief and ability to get voters involved in the process. For me, Obama is the “Change” I’ve been looking for the last 15 years.

PS: Yes I believe Hillary will fight fight fight, those “Rat Fuckers” to get herself into the white house. But, I unfortunately am not willing to fight that fight with her.

Oh, I just saw the “Clinton campaign takes on MSNBC over ‘pimped out’” article from yesterday. I didn’t check comments yesterday. I figured that was kind of a “Media Story” But comments in that are freaking ugly. And certainly there were undercover repubs slinging nastyness.

I guess I hadn’t really noticed before, but CB has never really had a troll problem in the past. I guess CB is getting to popular.

You know what they say on other sites. “Don’t Feed The Trolls!”

Anyway. I hope rules don’t start stifling comments.

Well .. I’m real late to the discussion, but had to chime in.

While I agree that registration can be a hassle and drive some folks away, it’s the best way to prevent hit-and-run trolls, some systems allow for folks to ignore certain users, and a rating system of some sort could make it easier to flag unwanted comments, thus helping folks know what to read and what to skip.

Granted, it’s not perfect — some people won’t register, ratings can lead to it becoming a big popularity contest, and it requires some more wok on the back end.

But, from my years of experience on blogs and board, it’s the best way to contain an out-of-control comments section.

Well … the “best” way is for people to tone it down, realize most of us have the same goals (electing a competent leaders, dealing with Iraq, health care, etc.) and show some respect for different opinions. But I don’t think WordPress has a widget for that …

🙂