Gay Patriot Header Image

New Commenting Rules

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:12 am - July 30, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

I’ve taken inspiration from James at OutsideTheBeltway after reading this posting (h/t: Instapundit).  He has a great set of commenting policies that as of today I’m going to enforce here at GayPatriot.

Commenting and Trackbacks: Commenting and trackback/pingback capability is provided to encourage thoughtful discussion of the ideas posted on this site. We welcome open debate and viewpoints that differ from those of the post authors. That said, we wish to keep the conversation civil and the following policies, subject to change without notice, apply:

  • Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.
  • The use of profanity stronger than that normally permitted on network television is prohibited. A substantial number of people read this site from an office or in a family environment.

And, for good measure, it is probably time to again reference the “About GayPatriot” page so everyone can review our full disclosure statements. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

53 Comments

  1. [Commented deleted by GP as it did not advance the civil discourse on this blog.]

    Comment by Ian — July 30, 2006 @ 11:59 am - July 30, 2006

  2. #1 is a joke, right? :)

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 30, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - July 30, 2006

  3. Do you not find it slightly hypocritical to trumpet these rules of discussion after having broken these very same rules in the previous post, when u accused “liberal career bureaucrats” of being traitors?
    Also words like hero and patriot, really ought to be used only in the presence of a fair bit of irony. words like these used carelessly betrays righteous self-importance, or worse, a childish inability to understand complexity and context of political discussions

    Comment by Chan — July 30, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - July 30, 2006

  4. Chan-

    I judge the bureaucrats by their actions in putting my life as an American in jeopardy because they disagree with the President’s policies.

    Yes, that is traitorous in my book.

    Comment by GayPatriot — July 30, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - July 30, 2006

  5. The people in question are not post authors or commenters, Chan.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 30, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - July 30, 2006

  6. Fair enough, though surely u mean they have different opinions about a single issue to the government, and not that they merely disagree per se. surely u disagree with other actions of this administration eg gay rights.

    And do you really think it so traitorous/dangerous merely to disagree?
    Isnt the idea of checks and balances vital to the country and diversity of views important even in times of “war”, as they expose mistakes and temper decisions. How could u have such confidence that the policies of the president would produce the best results for the country’s security. The best results usu arise from some form of compromise/combination of different views. agree?

    Comment by Chan — July 30, 2006 @ 1:27 pm - July 30, 2006

  7. #2: Not a joke at all. I don’t think I have ever used a profanity in commenting here except perhaps to quote what some conservative has said about me. I applaud Bruce for his commitment to enforcing these rules and I can only assume he intends to do so impartially. By deleting one of my comments already, he has shown that he means business (even though I don’t see where it was in violation of the rules stated in his post.) Consequently, I have no doubt that the comments attacking my integrity as well as that of raj by claiming we are sock puppet frauds will no longer be tolerated by Bruce.

    Comment by Ian — July 30, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - July 30, 2006

  8. I’m sure he won’t, Raj.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 30, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - July 30, 2006

  9. GP: Somehow disagreeing with the with the President, whether publically or privately, doesn’t seem to rise to the level of treason. Actions like revealing covert ops or operatives might make that level.

    Comment by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 30, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - July 30, 2006

  10. Just wondering…with all of the very real and serious threats to Western Civilization gripping the world right now, would a comment be deleted for expressing disappointment that this blog has instead chosen to discuss the sex life of former boy band members or which blogger is most like Gandalf? I sure hope not.

    Comment by bloaner — July 30, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - July 30, 2006

  11. #8: I don’t think it’s wise for you to challenge Bruce’s integrity even indirectly.

    Comment by Ian — July 30, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - July 30, 2006

  12. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Would that include one could not challenge the integrity of a poster who:

    1. Mischaracterizes the points made by other posters in order to draw attention away from the weakness of their own points?

    2. Consistently asserts as fact opinions and misinformation that have been previously discredited?

    3. Consistently makes assertions of fact or law that are demonstrably inaccurate?

    4. Refuses to respond to direct challenges to show proof

    5. Refuses to acknowledge points made by other posters that refute his arguments?

    The integrity rule only works when everyone is held to a standard of integrity. Otherwise, people who lack integrity are free to play games, argue fallacy as fact, and weasel out of honest argument without ever paying a penalty for it.

    Similarly, could you challenge the decency of a poster who insists on behaving indecently? For example, Deb Frisch insinuated threats of violence against Jeff Goldstein’s 2-year-old son was highly indecent, but under these rules, no one could challenge her decency.

    Comment by V the K — July 30, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - July 30, 2006

  13. [Comment deleted]

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — July 30, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - July 30, 2006

  14. Also for the record:

    These rules won’t work. Sadly, the results you wish to achieve, Bruce, can only come about by emulating (blech) DK and DummieUnderground.

    More sadly, though, is the fact that such practices only prove how truly fascist the American Castrati have become.

    Eric in Hollywood
    if it takes forever…

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — July 30, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - July 30, 2006

  15. Bruce, good for you. I have tired of the harsh rhetoric and imprudent opinions on the Left… it seems that all they can do is attack, attack, and when that doesn’t work for them, more attack. It’s as if the ankle-biting ingrates come here just to incite, inflame, goad and throw petulant fits of anger. “Look at me! Look at me!”

    I wish the Left was more tolerant of other opinions. I wish they could learn from the hospitable, understanding, conscientious conservatives here that only want to them to act like the good Americans they claim to be and seek earnest discussion in a collegial and cordial enviroment.

    Can it be so unreasonable a request?

    Good for you for articulating these parameters… at least you haven’t been like MikeRogers (Left) or JohnA (Left) or OutSports (Left) or the DemUnderground (Left) or… where they belittle any comment that strays from the strict Left Party line. We have met “Intolerance” and it is those guys and their motley crew of commentators.

    I wish the Left commentators here were interested in dialogue or discussion… sadly most are not. All they want is attention. And we give it in the hope they’ll become better stewards of this great democracy and her institutions when, in some long distant future generation, they are once again entrusted with either the WH or the US House or the US Senate or the federal judiciary or SCOTUS or a majority of state legislatures or governorships or something approaching a base of power… other than the MSM or higher ed.

    I hope the restated rules make this blog a bit more civil and help it to continue to stand out as a beacon of tolerance, thoughtful discussion and for it to be held under the rubric of “Sane Discourse”

    I hope.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 30, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - July 30, 2006

  16. Bruce, I\’m glad you\’ve posted these new rules. They are long overdue. I\’ve read this blog for a long time but have never posted a comment because of the intolerance and name-calling by some of the regular commenters.

    [Comment edited as it contained attacks on regular GP commentators.]

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — July 30, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - July 30, 2006

  17. #15: So Matt, among regular commenters on this blog, do you think those on the right or those on the left have used profanity more often in their comments over the past few months?

    Comment by Ian — July 30, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - July 30, 2006

  18. Comment #16 is an attack on my integrity.

    [GP Ed. Note:  I solved the problem!]

    Comment by V the K — July 30, 2006 @ 9:38 pm - July 30, 2006

  19. To paraphrase #18:

    “Comment #13 is an attack on my integrity.”

    Comment by Ian — July 30, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - July 30, 2006

  20. Thank you, GP, you are wise.

    Comment by V the K — July 30, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - July 30, 2006

  21. By deleting part of my comment, Bruce, you proved what I suspected about your new rule: The rule does not apply to some of the regular rightwing commenters who frequently resort to name-calling and question the integrity, intelligence, patriotism and Americanism of most of those who write as Democrats — moderate, liberal or otherwise.

    Your assurance to V the K that you\’ve solved the \”problem\” only underscores my point.

    I certainly wasn\’t attacking anyone by listing those on the right who are most likely to resort to name-calling et al. Anyone who reads this blog with an open mind can figure out who they are after just a day or two of reading comments.

    [GP Ed. Note:  On the contrary, it was in fact an attack on commenters which is why it was removed.]

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — July 30, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - July 30, 2006

  22. Ms Hunter has a point. How did comment #13 escape your blue pencil, Bruce?

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 30, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - July 30, 2006

  23. It is an amusing but consistent pattern of human behavior that those who point fingers and insist that rules be applied to other people always squeal the loudest when the same rules are enforced on themselves.

    Comment by V the K — July 31, 2006 @ 5:35 am - July 31, 2006

  24. Does this now mean that name calling by certain regular individuals will be banned as well?

    Comment by Kevin — July 31, 2006 @ 7:16 am - July 31, 2006

  25. So, let me understand this.

    Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    So, the next time that someone attacks my integrity by claiming that I am Ian, will be considered to have broken the commenting rules. Right? Pardon my skepicism, but I’ll believe that you would enforce something like that when I see it.

    BTW, when you want to edit a comment, it would be something of a fraud to edit it and leave the name of the commenter on the edited post. Regardless of how minor or extensive the edit. Why a fraud? Because editing a comment can very easily alter what the commenter wanted to say, and nobody else would be able to determine what the edits were. If you want to edit a comment, delete the whole comment, including the commenter’s handle.

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 8:22 am - July 31, 2006

  26. Leaving the name on the edited comment is important, because it forces the commenter to take personal responsibility for the comment.

    And anyone who does not like the rule is certainly free to post on another forum, decrying their mistreatment.

    Comment by V the K — July 31, 2006 @ 8:49 am - July 31, 2006

  27. #30 V the K — July 31, 2006 @ 8:49 am – July 31, 2006

    Leaving the name on the edited comment is important, because it forces the commenter to take personal responsibility for the comment.

    I would say that this response is silly, but I won’t for fear of this comment being deleted.

    If the comment is edited or deleted, but the name (and date/time) not removed, who is supposed to know what the original comment was, for which the commenter is–in your view–supposed to take personal responsibility?

    BTW, I am presuming that the response was intended to be responsive to my comment #29, but apparently the commenter is unwilling to specifically indicate what it is responding to.

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 9:05 am - July 31, 2006

  28. raj, there’s an easier answer that “escaped” your wily, legal mind… just stop commenting here and add GP to your list of blogs where you’ve been shunned.

    We’d no longer have to catalogue the extensive examples of where your opinion(s) have been presented as fact by you and then proven to be flat-out wrong by others.

    On your point, I like knowing who has been edited –frankly, I’d like to see the IP address of EVERY commentator noted in their comment here. It’ll help sort out fraud of GayLeft commentators using sockpuppets, multiple handles, etc.

    Nawh, Bruce should leave the commentator’s name in the edit section –it helps identify the party in the wrong.

    And when you raised the issue of integrity… I immediately thought that –of course– you’d stop using terms like “BushCo”, “malAdministration”, etc. because it impinges on the integrity of Mr Bush –a person you’ve had some recent disagreement with… excuse me if I remain skeptical of your honorable intention on that point. Silly boi.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 31, 2006 @ 9:06 am - July 31, 2006

  29. raj, writes: “BTW, I am presuming that the response was intended to be responsive to my comment #29, but apparently the commenter is unwilling to specifically indicate what it is responding to.”

    Are you serious?

    Any 1-L student could have figured that out… what is with you?

    Density of thought is not a family value, raj.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 31, 2006 @ 9:20 am - July 31, 2006

  30. I thought my #26 was a rather good example of attacking the argument, and not the commenter.

    Matt, in #28, you raise some good points about the value of knowing who is making unproductive comments, and you do it with your usual force and conviction. Good show, old boy.

    Comment by V the K — July 31, 2006 @ 9:32 am - July 31, 2006

  31. [Comment deleted]

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 10:51 am - July 31, 2006

  32. [Comment edited]

    However I do think that it is important that when the integrity of any commenter(s) is called into question by evidence that indicates otherwise that the person(s) in question provide definative proof otherwise. Otherwise the integrity of any and all commenters may become suspect.

    Providing such proof would go a long way towards raising the level of discourse here.

    Comment by BoBo — July 31, 2006 @ 10:56 am - July 31, 2006

  33. Regarding the deletion of my comment #31, this is getting ever sillier. It seems clear that the proprietors of the web site are trying to drive away any nay-sayers, so that the Republican apologists can feel at home.

    Ah, well, that will be made fairly clear over the internet. Y\’all can run, but y\’all can\’t hide.

    [GP Ed. Note:  Follow the rules then.]

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 11:03 am - July 31, 2006

  34. #32 BoBo — July 31, 2006 @ 10:56 am – July 31, 2006

    However I do think that it is important that when the integrity of any commenter(s) is called into question by evidence that indicates otherwise that the person(s) in question provide definative proof otherwise. Otherwise the integrity of any and all commenters may become suspect.

    Come, come, BoBo, the evidence is in the hands of the webmaster. He/she/or it has my and Ian’s IP addresses. I don’t have either. Presumably, I might be able to find out what IP address my ISP assigned me at any point in time, but I don’t have the slightest idea what Ian’s was, or how to find it out. The webmaster knows both IP addresses, and, if he/she/or it has any interest in pursuing the matter, he/she/or it can.

    Otherwise stated, how in heck am I supposed to provide evidence regarding two IP addresses, when I have access only to information as to one?

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 11:13 am - July 31, 2006

  35. I would say that this response is silly, but I won’t for fear of this comment being deleted.

    Oh, geez, Ian… you SAID it already. If you don’t actually mean to say something, then don’t SAY it in the first place, then try to play games afterward.

    And your comment WASN’T deleted.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 31, 2006 @ 11:21 am - July 31, 2006

  36. #35 Frank IBC — July 31, 2006 @ 11:21 am – July 31, 2006

    Oh, geez, Ian…

    I’ll be interested in seeing whether post #35 is deleted for violating the posting rules.

    If not, then it is clear that the “posting rules” are Quatsch. (Matty can translate for you.)

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 11:28 am - July 31, 2006

  37. #36: To be fair raj, an earlier post implying you and I were frauds WAS deleted but that post also contained other offensive commentary so I agree that the proof of the new rules pudding and its evenhanded implementation will be if comment #35 and others in that vein are edited or deleted.

    Comment by Ian — July 31, 2006 @ 11:51 am - July 31, 2006

  38. #34 The evidence that the webmaster has can faked by someone who wishes to cover their tracks. In accordance with the standards that you yourself(s) advocated in a previous post, the burden of proof is on you/yourselves. Surely you don’t hold others to higher standards than you do yourself(s)?

    Comment by BoBo — July 31, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - July 31, 2006

  39. Comment #35 is not a personal attack and would not be deleted/edited under the rules. Ian’s rules and Raj’s rules… probably.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 31, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - July 31, 2006

  40. Bruce, you haven’t suggested it yet –or maybe you have in a quiet sidebar email to raj/Ian– that the answer to their problem is to start their OWN bloody blog.

    Kind of like what Gramps did and CowBoyBob and others… and then they’ll learn no one reads the blog and it will fall away into obscurity.

    Oh, would the world only cooperate with our plans and grand design!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 31, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - July 31, 2006

  41. Ian -

    The new rules refer to “personal attacks” and “profanity”, specifically. Can you show me where my #35 contained either of those?

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 31, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - July 31, 2006

  42. #39 — A good call, worthy of Solomon… or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Take your pick.

    #40 — I think it’s great that you encourage others to follow their dreams. Good for you, Matt!

    #41 — I hope other commenters will find your clarification helpful.

    Comment by V the K — July 31, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - July 31, 2006

  43. #41: By continuing to claim and/or imply that raj and I are committing sockpuppet fraud when we comment here, I believe that is a personal attack. You should have noticed by now that neither Bruce nor Dan have suggested such fraud and both continue to identify raj and I as individuals. Maybe they know something you don’t.

    Comment by Ian — July 31, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - July 31, 2006

  44. Ian -

    Once again, I suggest that these new rules do not give you the authority to heighten your personal sensitivities here, nor to create rule violations for rule violations sake.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 31, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - July 31, 2006

  45. Raj -

    identify raj and I as individuals

    Should be “raj and ME”, as it is a direct object.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 31, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - July 31, 2006

  46. [Comment deleted.]

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - July 31, 2006

  47. Re #46 raj — July 31, 2006 @ 2:34 pm – July 31, 2006

    Just to let you know, I have begun to save copies of whatever I post here. Your reputation for your inability to address dissent will become known far and wide.

    [GP Ed. Note:  Threatening blog-extortion isn\’t a good way to endear yourself to me.  And just because I will no longer tolerate your brand of commenting, doesn\’t mean dissent isn\’t allowed.  You are trying to have your cake and eat it.  Move on, Raj.  You are not welcome here.]

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - July 31, 2006

  48. Sounds like a quote from a bad science fiction novel.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 31, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - July 31, 2006

  49. [Comment deleted]

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - July 31, 2006

  50. #47: And your beloved Deutschland is known for always allowing dissent, right?

    This blog is Bruce’s private property. Being allowed to comment here is a privilege, not a right. If you violate the rules, you’re out of here. Is that so hard to comprehend?

    Do you treat your boyfriend the way you treat the other commenters here?

    Comment by Attmay — July 31, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - July 31, 2006

  51. Raj, you act as though other people knowing that you hate GP with a passion is bad.

    It’s a bit like spreading around that Osama bin Laden hates George Bush and wants him dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 31, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - July 31, 2006

  52. #44: Sorry Bruce. I was responding to a direct question put to me in comment #41.

    #45: “Should be “raj and ME”, as it is a direct object.”

    So I made a grammatical error. Big deal. Is that the extent of your criticism or is there more you’d care to contribute to the discussion?

    Comment by Ian — July 31, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - July 31, 2006

  53. According to your new posting rules, it is a violation to challenge the integrity of those with whom you’re regulars disagree. By attributing posts by Ian to me is indeed a challenge to my integrity and vice versa. Those are your rules. Why don’t you enforce them?

    You miss the point, Raj.

    The fact that your integrity is challenged is only a problem when there is no evidence to back up the fact.

    As I have pointed out, there is evidence.

    Furthermore, applying your own logic relative to drug tests that presumption of guilt should be made regardless of results because they can be faked or doctored, since IP addresses can be faked or cloaked, your argument concerning them is irrelevant.

    Thus, Raj, I have presented evidence that you claim Ian’s quotes as your own; plus, by your own logic, since IP addresses can be faked or cloaked, you should automatically be presumed guilty.

    The rules only protect, as it were, people from being challenged on their integrity without evidence that they have none.

    That is not the case in regard to you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 31, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - July 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.