NEW RULES FOR COMMENTS
For too long, I have bent over backwards in observing my no-censorship policy by allowing trolls to clutter up this blog with breathtakingly inane comments. I have finally gotten fed up and have decided to institute some new rules. The trolls will scream "censorship," but this is not real censorship -- I will still be allowing readers to express their opinions on the issues. The real censorship goes on at Wickedpedia, Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent, the blogs of Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, etc.. The trolls have been falsely accusing me of censorship anyway, so I have nothing to lose. This is not a matter of me having a thin skin -- this is a matter of this blog being cluttered up with garbage. And my angry responses waste more comment space.
The party's over, trolls.
Comments containing any of the following will be subject to deletion without trace. The examples I show are real -- I am not making anything up --
.
(1) Gossip about the private affairs of anyone -- I have already established this rule.
(2) A comment containing nothing but personal attacks.
(3) A factual statement not based on personal experience or a reliable source. Example -- saying that I lost all of my court cases.
(4) A statement that I or any commenter "knows nothing" about the law, or about science, or about this or that, or similar statements.
(5) Saying that I or anyone else misunderstood something without giving another interpretation.
(6) An attempt to prove or disprove a general statement by using me as an example. For example, suppose that I say, "arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs is a big problem." Then Voice in the Urbanness will answer, "but you have never given any example of where you were arbitrarily censored." A mathematics professor of mine once astutely observed, "we can't prove anything by example because we can never run out of examples."
(7) A misstatement or misrepresentation of a factual statement. For example, suppose a news report says, "Judge Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision." Then ViU will say, "Judge Jones said that he would follow the law in making his decision." That is a misstatement of fact because it is not what Judge Jones actually said. It would be OK (sort of) to say, "Judge Jones implied that he would follow the law in making his decision," because that statement is an opinion. IMO it is a worthless opinion, but it is still an opinion.
I may add to this list if necessary.
A comment containing any violation of the above rules will be subject to deletion without trace. I am not going to accept any comment just because it has some worthwhile stuff mixed in with a lot of garbage.
In some borderline cases, I may just issue a warning without deleting.
I may follow Panda's Thumb's example by establishing a Shithouse Wall file for deleted comments, where readers can go to see that the comments were properly deleted.
I expect that these rules will eliminate 99 percent of the garbage posted by ViU and other trolls.
.
The party's over, trolls.
Comments containing any of the following will be subject to deletion without trace. The examples I show are real -- I am not making anything up --
.
(1) Gossip about the private affairs of anyone -- I have already established this rule.
(2) A comment containing nothing but personal attacks.
(3) A factual statement not based on personal experience or a reliable source. Example -- saying that I lost all of my court cases.
(4) A statement that I or any commenter "knows nothing" about the law, or about science, or about this or that, or similar statements.
(5) Saying that I or anyone else misunderstood something without giving another interpretation.
(6) An attempt to prove or disprove a general statement by using me as an example. For example, suppose that I say, "arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs is a big problem." Then Voice in the Urbanness will answer, "but you have never given any example of where you were arbitrarily censored." A mathematics professor of mine once astutely observed, "we can't prove anything by example because we can never run out of examples."
(7) A misstatement or misrepresentation of a factual statement. For example, suppose a news report says, "Judge Jones said that the school board election results would not affect his decision." Then ViU will say, "Judge Jones said that he would follow the law in making his decision." That is a misstatement of fact because it is not what Judge Jones actually said. It would be OK (sort of) to say, "Judge Jones implied that he would follow the law in making his decision," because that statement is an opinion. IMO it is a worthless opinion, but it is still an opinion.
I may add to this list if necessary.
A comment containing any violation of the above rules will be subject to deletion without trace. I am not going to accept any comment just because it has some worthwhile stuff mixed in with a lot of garbage.
In some borderline cases, I may just issue a warning without deleting.
I may follow Panda's Thumb's example by establishing a Shithouse Wall file for deleted comments, where readers can go to see that the comments were properly deleted.
I expect that these rules will eliminate 99 percent of the garbage posted by ViU and other trolls.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/25/2008 04:58:00 AM
21 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Enforcement of the rules begins NOW. ViU's comment was deleted because his following statement violates Rule #3 (A factual statement not based on personal experience or a reliable source) and Rule #7 (A misstatement or misrepresentation of a factual statement):
3) A factual statement not based on personal experience or a reliable source. Example -- saying that I lost all of my court cases. <
This is a matter of public record and you admit that it is factual. Will you now stop making wild claims about yourself that are not based on fact?
I never made such admission and ViU is not familiar with all of my lawsuits. In one of my lawsuits, I sued the California state university system to try to save the Olympic velodrome on the CSUDH campus -- they wanted to demolish the velodrome to make way for the Home Depot sports center and even demolish the velodrome out of pure malice (I argued that the velodrome was a historic structure because it was one of only two all-new venues built for the 1984 Olympics). I dropped the lawsuit when Home Depot decided to build a replacement velodrome. Though there was no court decision, this lawsuit was hardly a loss -- the publicity about the lawsuit (it was mentioned in a top front-page article in the local newspaper) may have been one of many factors that persuaded Home Depot to build a replacement velodrome. I also won cases in small claims courts.
I should not have to waste my time correcting ViU's deliberate falsehoods.
ViU made other statements that arguably violate the rules, but this one statement was enough. The other statements were obviously ridiculous, but this one statement could give readers a false impression.
ViU is welcome to re-post his article with the error corrected.
The rules are starting to work.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So you want ViU to edit out the points that you are unable to answer?
ViU, you repeated the same statement that I gave as the reason for deleting your comment the first time. You are simply not going to be allowed to state that I said something that I did not say and that I deny saying. You have come to the end of the road. It's over.
Hector driveled,
>>>>> So you want ViU to edit out the points that you are unable to answer? <<<<<<
This is not a point that I am unable to answer, idiot. ViU said that I said something that I did not say and that I deny saying. You are too dumb to know the difference.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hector, you dunghill, now you are lying. Here is what you posted:
>>>>>>ViU said that I said something that I did not say and that I deny saying."
Viu did not say that you said it. He merely said that it was true. You are too dumb to know the difference. <<<<<<
Here is what ViU actually posted:
>>>>>>3) A factual statement not based on personal experience or a reliable source. Example -- saying that I lost all of my court cases. <
This is a matter of public record and you admit that it is factual. (emphasis added) <<<<<<<<
I did not admit that it is "factual" and I deny admitting that it is "factual."
This is getting tiring. I may just start deleting comments without explanation and leave it to the commenters to figure out why the comments were deleted.
> This is getting tiring. I may just start deleting comments without explanation and leave it to the commenters to figure out why the comments were deleted. <
Your claim as to what was said carries little weight. You have a history of lies on the net. If you arbitrarily censor something and then comment on what it allegedly said, you just make a fool of yourself.
Nothing new.
Incidentally, you never answered ViU's question and that has been seen by everyone.
>>>>> Your claim as to what was said carries little weight. <<<<<<
How did I misquote ViU, dunghill?
>>>>> Incidentally, you never answered ViU's question and that has been seen by everyone. <<<<<<
What question was that? I don't remember any question -- ViU may have asked one or several. I don't care.
And ViU's comment was quickly deleted -- how can it have been seen by everyone? You yourself can't even describe how I misquoted ViU.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ViU's question (for which you have no answer) was:
Are you claiming that the judge was giving legal advice or a decision? Don't pretend that you don't know what case we are talking about.
You must be pretty far gone if you believe you are fooling anyone with your evasions.
>>>>>>ViU's question (for which you have no answer) was:
Are you claiming that the judge was giving legal advice or a decision? Don't pretend that you don't know what case we are talking about. <<<<<<<
ViU did not ask that question in this thread -- he asked it in another thread and I gave an answer. I said that I was changing the judge's hypothetical statement because of uncertainty over whether the original hypothetical statement is advice or a decision.
And as I said in the introduction to this blog, I do not feel that I am obligated to answer every question.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ViU's comment was flushed because he lied -- he said "you never answered." I did answer, dunghill, I said that there is no single answer. It is both a decision and advice.
I should have flushed Anonymous's comment for the same reason.
> ViU's comment was flushed because he lied <
You should flush your comment. You lied. You never before gave that answer, absurd as it was.
An interesting standard here. Larry censors posts because he is unable to answer their questions or arguments and then he complains about Ed Brayton who has only banned for cause.
Yet he still wonders why he is not taken seriously?
Larry
Do you require registration? Apparently not. I have found that I have no problem with trolls and damn fools. The problem is that no one else ever posts either. Actually that is OK with me because I learned long ago that you can't change "prescribed," "dyed-in-the wool," "born that way" idiots through reason in any event.
Internet blogs are mostly venues for intellectual trash who love to see their cowardly aliases clutter up cyberdumb. The vast majority have never published anything of significance anywhere. If they had they would be using their real names. I understand your frustration.
My solution is to let whatever they say stand after I have removed them from further participation. I also collect their insults, wherever they appear, and publish them on # 71 on my "Why Banishment" thread. These tactics seem to inhibit the low life. Just some ideas.
In any event feel free to present your views on my weblog -
john.a.davison.free.fr/
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
John A. Davison said,
>>>>>> Do you require registration? Apparently not. <<<<<<
Registration would just be a hassle for commenters and would not solve my problem of vandalism by trolls.
>>>>>>> I have found that I have no problem with trolls and damn fools. The problem is that no one else ever posts either. <<<<<<
Your problem is that your blog is completely disorganized -- you add your new posts to the comment threads of old posts. That's why you get so few visitors -- your Sitemeter shows that you average only about ten visits per day.
>>>>> Actually that is OK with me because I learned long ago that you can't change "prescribed," "dyed-in-the wool," "born that way" idiots through reason in any event. <<<<<<
Very true -- I have found that trying to reason with trolls makes me feel like I am trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps knocking away the spoon and spattering the food and making a big mess.
>>>>>> Internet blogs are mostly venues for intellectual trash who love to see their cowardly aliases clutter up cyberdumb. The vast majority have never published anything of significance anywhere. If they had they would be using their real names. <<<<<<<
That is certainly true of Voice in the Urbanness and a lot of the "Anonymous" commenters here. They usually just say that I am wrong without even trying to say why. These trolls are just jealous of others' work and so they try to sabotage it.
>>>>>> My solution is to let whatever they say stand after I have removed them from further participation. I also collect their insults, wherever they appear, and publish them on # 71 on my "Why Banishment" thread. <<<<<<
I do not know how to ban individual commenters on this blog and banning individual commenters is against my principles anyway. Banning individual commenters is usually done by means of IP-address blocking, but that is unreliable (IP address numbers change, particularly for Internet users who use dynamic IP addresses to connect to the Internet) and can unintentionally block other Internet users who share the same IP address. The only things I can do are turn on comment moderation or delete comments after they are posted. I delete comments only for extreme cause, e.g., (1) gossip about my private affairs; (2) blatant lies about objective facts, e.g., saying that I admitted something that I did not admit and that I deny admitting; and (3) saying that I misunderstood something without giving another interpretation.
Larry
My blog is NOT disorganized at all. It simply does not use the typical format. Why should I keep introducing new threads when I am primarily concerned about only two topics - the mechanism of organic evolution and global warming? It certainly makes good sense to me.
If visitors are two damn lazy to read what I have to say and respond to it in civil fashion, it certainly is no reflection on me.
The real reason they refuse to participate is transparent to me. It is because they are unsure of themselves. That is why cowards use aliases and devices to avoid civil exchange. They are intellectual cowards, pure and simple.
The main reason I have little traffic is because everyone knows that while I may remove a commenter, I never delete his comments. That seems to be a very effective means of separating productive intercourse from mindless, compulsive, sterile drivel. I also collect, identify and publish insults. They may be found at message #71 on my "Why Banishment" thread.
john.a.davison.free.fr/
My purpose in having a weblog is most certainly not to convince anyone of my deterministic stance, a position I share with Einstein. Rather it is to establish that view for all to recognize. So far I see no reason to abandon it. What MUST and WILL be abandoned are Religious Fundamentalism and Darwinan atheist mysticism, neither of which have contributed a scintalla to our understanding of the living world.
Nearly all weblogs and so-called forums are little more than magnets for congenital intellectual dwarfs who happen to share a common "prescribed," congenital view of the world. I regard my blog as a cut above "hatethinktanks" like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes, EvC and RichardDawkins,net, just to mention a few. Uncommon descent isn't much better thanks to David Springer, the most self absorbed, egomaniacal bully of all time.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes
Thanks for linking to my blog. Feel free to paticipate there.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
>>>>>> My blog is NOT disorganized at all. It simply does not use the typical format. Why should I keep introducing new threads when I am primarily concerned about only two topics - the mechanism of organic evolution and global warming? <<<<<<
John,
But those two topics are very broad -- you should introduce a new thread every time that you introduce a new significant subtopic under either of those two topics. This blog also has broad topics, e.g., the evolution controversy and the holocaust. Imagine what this blog would look like if I had only one thread for each of those topics.
>>>>>> The main reason I have little traffic is because everyone knows that while I may remove a commenter, I never delete his comments. <<<<<<
That statement is self-contradictory -- how can you remove a commenter without removing his comments?
Larry
If you had read my blog you would know that I have never removed anything that anyone ever said but left them all as silent testimony to that person's character or lack of same. I repeat that is one of the reasons I get so little action. I am quite content with my system and regard it as vastly superior to that employed in most weblogs.
"What happens in cyberdumb stays in cyberdumb."
"I did it my way."
Frank Sinatra
I also enjoy calling anonymous commenters cowards which is exactly what they all really are.
I love it so!
John A. Davison
Post a Comment
<< Home