Rules of the Sandbox
Irradiated by LabRat
Okay, as the discussion that ensued from this post demonstrates, we need to lay some ground rules about comments. We’re still not exactly a big place and things will still go on an individual-by-individual basis, but here are some basic what NOT to do’s if you want to participate in the happy fun discussion playplace that is Atomic Nerds.
1. Do not start out the gate assuming your gracious hosts were hatched from a pod yesterday and are completely unfamiliar with this thing you call “life”. For one, it’s just plain condescending and generally rude, and that will get our hackles up right quick. For two, it’s not true- we are not inclined to speak on a subject unless we know a bitty bit about it. If what we say reveals that we DON’T, then correct us, but jumping to the conclusion that we are gawping ignoramuses because we have come to a conclusion you don’t believe the data warrants isn’t going to make the discussion go any smoother.
2. Don’t tell us how we feel or will respond to your enlightening commentary. See also, rude and condescending. If we’re on a rant you can pretty much safely assume that how we feel about that exact subject is “angry”, but, for a generalized example, if we’re on a tear about irresponsible dog owners, don’t assume the subject of dogs in general reduces us to a quivering irrational mess of emotion.
3. On the subject of “rude”, you may be under the impression that the general worthiness of your content means you don’t NEED to be polite. You are wrong. Courtesy is the grease of civilization, and if you’re unwilling to expend a little energy on some very basic social signals that are shorthand for “Hi, I’m here to have an honest and rational discussion with you.”, then that tells me that the odds on your also being willing to indulge yourself in other respects by being a dishonest PITA are pretty high. Also? Of all the individuals I’ve run across who had this view of life, not once have I run across one whose thoughts really WERE half as brilliant as they seemed to believe, especially given their tendency to throw tantrums when contradicted.
4. As a writer, part of my job is to be readable and understandable, which is why we angst about the look of the site at all. As a commenter, the obligation isn’t quite as stringent, but if you want to have a discussion, being readable and understandable helps *a lot*. I don’t demand Grammar SS standards, but if I can’t follow your sentences or sentence fragments, the likelihood of my having the patience to engage with you plummets. I know some people just plain have a tough time typing, so exactly how much I care about this tends to scale directly with levels of courtesy- there’s typing badly because you’re bad at typing, and there’s typing badly because you don’t care enough about others to put in the small effort make your content readable. Your behavior otherwise gives me a hint as to which is which.
5. If the length of your comments have a tendency to reach or exceed the character limits- which are quite generous on WordPress- you need to get your own blog. This is our house, not your soapbox. While it’s theoretically possible that all of that verbiage is well-written deep thought- and as a serial offender myself in the realm of long comments, my standards are pretty generous- most of the time, it’s got a bad signal to noise ratio. If you’re touching on some larger field, linking to the necessary information (which I may or may not need- see point one) is a lot better than trying to explain the whole thing in the comment. Likewise, if this is a subject near and dear to your heart that you feel only you are the authority on, link to where YOU’VE described it- because if you have this much to write, you could use a place to put it, yes? At your own place- don’t use everyone else’s for free hosting.
6. Follow the Wheaton rule- don’t be a dick- and you’re golden. The Wheaton rule really covers all these rules- they’re just clarifiers for those who may have problems not being a dick, or understanding that being a dick IS a problem. They’re really not likely to decide that it is after reading this, either, but at least now *I* have something to link to in the process of explaining that behavior needs to stop or the discussion will.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
As a member of the comment-wielding community, I strongly protest our good hostess’ attempts at comment control. Studies have proven, and evidence has shown, that comment control serves only to leave polite, law-abiding commenters defenseless in the face of those psychotic freaks who aren’t about to let any amount of rules and regulations keep them from wielding comments in unspeakably destructive ways.
It’s like my daddy told me when I was young: “Son, I don’t wanna ever you see you start no flamewars. But by God, I expect you to finish ‘em.”
Next thing we know, there’ll be advertisements for BWTF t-shirts in the sidebar…
December 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Oh, bother. Either Poppa was drunk when he said that, or he never taught me to proofread. Sorry, Dad!
December 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I enjoy playing with morons far too much to enforce this strictly; this is mostly a policy I can point back to when I’m having to deal with people who have adopted the “I WILL KILL YOU WITH TEXT” method of attempting to win an argument.
December 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
*reads the above carefully*
*ponders his response, with the full power of his vast intellect*
I’m nekkid.
Hur.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“I enjoy playing with morons …”
Not me. I like Bill Engvall’s solution; they should have to carry a sign.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
MarkHB, LOL!
I beginning to suspect that LabRat is actually a GURL!
“Don’t be a dick”
That pretty much sums up my philosophy of life.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Redundant as it may seem, it’s necessary to remind people of the basics at egaulr intervals.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
You’ll have to pay me to play with morons.
And I only play with dicks when…
oh. never mind.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Being fleetingly serious (just to prove I can), the “Blog Comments” thing is quite an interesting questing. Do First Amendment rights extend to the blogosphere? No, they don’t. The ‘net, by it’s very nature, extends beyond countries and therefore has no charter or constitution, no rights either individual or collective. It is, quite literally, a state of anarchy except for the occasional times when a gubment bumbles in and thumb-fingeredly tries to control things (breaking them thoroughly in the process, as dough-witted leviathans are wont to do with delicate, pretty things).
This state of anarchy, by some, is seen to be entirely one-sided: commenters on bulletin boards, fora, blogs et cetera seem to believe they have the “right” to say anything they like, and all the host of their neurospew can do is sit there and gaze in horror as their brain bile incites the corticate to (quite justified, but nevertheless misguided) rebukes.
I have noticed that these people I mention above are “second-wavers” and later. That is, people who never connected to anything at 300 baud. People who never dialled into a BBS. People who never ran an archie search. People who never used the Internet before the World Wide Web existed. And people who never used it before AOL and the ilk made it so easy to connect that even a gibbon could do it. As these people arrived later to the internet, I will refer to them as “Tards”. Simply because of their tardy connection, you see - nothing else. Honest.
Anyhoo, Tards seem to carry this feeling of Empowerment and Entitlement around with them - I’m on the Interwebs, I can say anything, and everyone else has to listen! They often get quite irate when some moderator disemvowels them, deletes their comments or bans their username, IP, subnet, or in rare cases invades their country and topples their government.
Can’t think why - because this is the salient point that Tards seem to miss out on. The door swings both ways. There’s a good reason why websites et al are referreed to as “Hosts” - I am currently being hosted by Stingray and LabRat. Were I to make a stink, I would be making a stink at their place, at which point I would hope they’d do what any sensible host would do when their guest’s making an arse of himself.
Dumpsters may be involved.
Also, as a poster on someone’s site, it becomes important to bear something else in mind. Tards are like Mogwai - feed ‘em after midnight, and they *CHANGE*. They change into Trolls. Responding to their comments nourishes them and makes them fruitful. Completely ignoring them makes them shrivel on the vine, and occasionally lash out in petulant whining that’s never anything but funny.
Gh0d knows it can be hard - some Tards are adept at crafting statements which scream - scream! - for the application of the verbal twathammer, but it’s always best to resist, and to simply shower them with the silent scorn of not even bothering to reply to them. I wish I were always able to.
But yes, I’m always for good moderation, and much as it all kicked off with Breda not letting someone crowd her out of her own personal space and blogging about it, also blogs and boards come with their own digital death-stares and virtual Louisville Sluggers, which can and should be deployed when a Tard’s being rude. Otherwise, how will they ever learn?
Sorry for the ramble. Netiquette’s a thing that’s grown a lot more slowly that internet usage, and it’s commonly one of my buttons.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I’m reminded of Lazarus Long’s statment in Cat who Walks I AM a proponent of free speech. But there is no free lunch. This room is paid for by the circle, you want to make a speech, hire a hall.
Sums it up, really. Anarchy CAN work, after a fashion, and I certainly enjoy it when it does. A banhammer is a useful tool and one that needs to come out of the box once in a while.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
well, i was gonna ask if the ban on the ““I WILL KILL YOU WITH TEXT” method of attempting to win an argument.” also applied to the “i will kill you where you stand” laser eyeball glare method of attempting to win a barfight…
then i saw rule 6, so i won’t.
jtc
December 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
MarkHB,
It wouldn’t matter if the ‘net was entirely within the U.S.; the First Amendment is a restriction on government censorship.
There’s no right to freedom of speech in my living room. Someone may call their hostess a bitch at Roseholme Cottage, but they’ll be doing it on the far side of the sidewalk after dusting their clothes off.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Tam,
You know this. I know this. A lot of people just seem to think that the First Amendment means “I get to say what I want, when I want, where I want”.
Sometimes I think people just get brainlock over the fact that there’s a bit of paper saying what the Government can’t do.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Sorry! Hobby horse of mine, I know.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Like my rambling screen wasn’t my own hobby horse. Apology entirely unnecessary.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
That’s OK, y’all- I’ve ridden that pony around the ring a number of times, just never before here.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Why do I feel like #3 is aimed indirectly at folks like Mr. Beck?