I closed a Brokeback Mountain discussion tonight because an anonymous commenter with the pseudonym “Charles” was repeating the same comment, arguing for the sake of argument, and failing to honor basic Internet etiquette. Basically, to borrow his own words, he was being childish.
Charles then proceeded to post the same comment again on an unrelated discussion. So I have banned Charles. I happen to agree with some of Charles’ observations, but since the purpose of Charles’ visit was to disrupt discussions and air strawmen, I am inclined to delete his remarks and the resulting side discussions.
I invite others to criticize BBM or other movies from an informed perspective and in a conversational style. I am eager for this web site to engage a variety of individuals with strong and contrary opinions — people who have real names and e-mail addresses and who engage in civil conversation. However, when individuals conceal their identity, repeat the same comment over and over, and argue solely for the purpose of argument, they will be treated as trolls and promptly dealt with.
Mike, I’ve only posted on this site for the past several months, or so. Is there some reason it’s suddenly getting hit by this type of individual? Or could it be that previously banned persons are “reincarnating” themselves under a different name?
I certainly don’t mind banning people if they engage in unproductive “trolling.” Thanks for keeping this in check.
Jeeze…and here I thought that thread was dead and I hadn’t visited it in days. I had no idea it was getting so heated in there.
Phil, I don’t see a pattern of disruption yet, though the number of people visiting XGW has been rising rapidly this month.
Two of the four people disciplined recently (Raj and DaleA) were regulars; Bernie Dehler was drawn to the site by our post about his airing of “It’s Not Gay”; Charles could be anybody. Anybody from the Baltimore area, that is. (I traced him.)
Note that Mr. Dehler wasn’t banned — he’s simply restricted from changing the subject and from deflecting simple but important questions about his integrity.
Charles could be anybody. Anybody from the Baltimore area, that is. (I traced him.)
(groan) A certain judge Murdock has probably stirred up a hornet’s nest of them around here, and in the rest of Maryland.
You realize that trace probably only gave you the machine he posted from, which was not necessarily the machine he was keyboarding on, depending on Charles’ level of network expertise…?
I don’t get it. Why bother? If you don’t want to put your name on your words, that ought to be a signal that you need to think about your words some more. Just want to stir up trouble is it? Fine. Sign your name to it or don’t do it. Show a little pride. Aren’t the ex-gay groups always prattling on and on about personal responsibility? Isn’t it tad ironic that this guy was bellyaching about adultery and lying and he can’t even be honest about who he is?
On the other hand, that would be a kind of ironic conversation for any ex-gay booster to be having I suppose…
I don’t know. I’m far less inclined to review the comments here, if I know they are being edited. Perhaps just insisting people had TypeKey identities would make people think twice. I visit a lot of sites that have, um, colorful comments — DCist.com and WashingtonMonthly.com come immediately to mind — and the freewheeling nature is in the end what makes those sites interesting and well read. Just my opinion.
I don’t get it. Why bother? If you don’t want to put your name on your words, that ought to be a signal that you need to think about your words some more.
Perhaps some of just prefer pseudonymity/anonymity.
Christopher said:
I’m far less inclined to review the comments here, if I know they are being edited.
DCist.com and WashingtonMonthly.com come immediately to mind — and the freewheeling nature is in the end what makes those sites interesting and well read.
Christopher, I tend to agree with you ideologically, but there are different types of sites. Some sites invite just about any kind of comment because the end product for them is not necessarily determining the truth behind an issue, it is traffic for multiple advertisements. I don’t see anything wrong with this but the atmosphere is certainly going to be different than here.
I encourage you to read the “Agenda” link at the top left of the main page of XGW to find out why we are here. Commenters here are expected to back up claims with fact in order to maintain the integrity of the end product, which one hopes will be the truth. You can’t do this without some form of moderating. I would like to point out that Mike has been extremely tolerant, banning very few (and only after practically begging them to participate civilly) and editing almost no one. It is always done in the open and it is never a mystery as to why.
If what you enjoy is a free-for-all, that is perfectly fine and there are an abundance of sites where you can participate in just that. If you want a civil, accurate source for information on ExGay issues, come here.
David
Hiya, if I may ask, do any of you know a good website covering definitions of debate, debate etiquette, etc? I’ve noticed that a lot of the bans have been about strawman arguments, and linking to such a resource might be a positive thing if the viewership is increasing.
I don’t know about “etiquette of debate”, but when you raise strawman arguments, that makes me think about logical fallacies… so I could point you to some pages talking about basic logic:
The Fallacy Files
Nizkor’s page of fallacies
The Atheism Web’s Logic & Fallacies
Sorry if this isn’t really what you were looking for.