Off-Topic Comments
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 in
Blogging
I really need to be off to the office, but I’m moving slowly today and have a few thoughts to record. The work will still be there when I arrive, although I know I’ll pay for my late start later in the week.
A conversation evolved over at Reid’s place. In a post about Iran, a commenter wrote about bin Laden, which was clearly off-topic. I watched as Reid gently and patiently explained why the comment was off-topic and how his policy (for his webspace) was that he expected comments to be on-topic.
The conversation devolved from there. In the end, Reid was called a chickenhawk, a derogatory term reserved by the left-wing (I found the definition on Michael Moore’s website—not linked intentionally) for conservatives who support the current war in Iraq (and, perhaps, other unpopular wars), but who have not served in the military.
It was interesting to watch the thread develop, as a dispassionate observer and in a sort of perverse way. (I really don’t enjoy watching bad things happen.) After the first exchange, I could tell the interchange was deteriorating. I don’t know the commenter, so I have no axe to grind. But there was an element of “this is my position and I’m going to stick to it, regardless of what happens” to the tone of the writing that led me to believe there would not be a positive outcome.
The appropriate response would have been something like “Oh! You’re right. I’m off-topic, I’m sorry about that.” The conversation could have moved on. It didn’t.
It interests me that some individuals, and I mean no disrespect to the commenter, will take a position like that, then stick to it when it’s clearly indefensible. It isn’t even that the comment was wrong—it was an opinion, fairly expressed, just in the wrong forum. I know I’ve taken a poor position, then held it, and I bear the scars for it. It’s not a wise thing to do. It’s much better to admit an erroneous position, retreat from it, and then move on. It’s especially important when someone is as gentle and encouraging as Reid was with this particular commenter.
The fact that the commenter ultimately fell to name-calling was particularly telling. Furthermore, he played the disabled vet card as well, when it clearly had no relation to the conversation whatsoever. I really don’t understand.
The entire interchange made me think about my own webspace and the policy I have. I also thought about my own comments on others’ personal sites. I guess it’s good to think about those things now and again.
While I don’t publish a policy, I have one that’s implicitly defined. I expect to be treated with common courtesy. I expect my correspondents to be civil to me and each other, and to make comments on-topic. Off-topic comments are better left to email. Furthermore, my comments are moderated to prevent comment-spam from getting through. If someone were to publish something offensive, I’d simply not let it be visible, delete the offending comment, and ban the IP address to reduce probability of a second offense.
In the spirit of one of my favorite authors, Robert Fulghum, I’ll say this—“Play nice with each other.”
Later: There’s an additional discussion at Digital War Fighter. Of course, the conversation has been developing over at Photodude’s as well. It’s a free-ranging discussion that encompasses not only the notion of off-topic comments, but why construct a weblog at all. It’s interesting and thought-provoking.
I loathe trying to engage in serious debate or discussion via message boards and blog comment systems for a few reasons. First, people are generally inept these days when it comes to communicating notions, ideas, emotion, mood, atmosphere and intent in written word. Both Reid and Dan demonstrated this problem in their exchange, as just about every blog-comment-system debate does. Secondly, feeding into the first mention, the written communication is immediate. It’s akin to attempting discussion or problem solving via IM, which is furthermore itself akin to being in or around the 9th level of Hades. Many years ago, not only were Americans quite adept at communicating via written word, they utilized a slow, clumsy process to do it – namely message handlers. The delayed method of communication promoted both thorough writing/reading and thinking.
I also hold the opinion the anonymity and abstraction online forums provide their users encourages said users to be assholes.
Also, you promised a response to a comment I made myself on a post some time ago in which I wonderfully demonstrated my own ineptitude at communicating thorough notions via written word. Still waiting…
— Josh 27 January 2006, 23:54 #First, if you loathe trying to engage in serious debate or discussion in a blog-comment system, then why do it? I’m not being critical; it’s a serious question. Your comment rather begs the question.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that both Dan and Reid were inept in communicating. The exchange was not a failure of communication. It was an example of an individual posting an off-topic comment on a site where the proprietor clearly states his policy of keeping comments on-topic. That’s not disagreement; it’s insubordination. Reid clearly stated why he took exception to the post, in a gentle way (at first), then Dan simply denied his infraction. The example was not so much a failure of communication as it was a lack of respect. In this particular case, it was a lack of respect for the website owner’s policy.
Third, I also disagree about use of electronic means for communication. I agree that electronic communication affords a mode of transmission that is, for all practical purposes, immediate. No question about it. But, the speed of transfer has nothing to do with the quality of the content; that’s an individual responsibility. If the individual doesn’t take care with their writing, then the mode of transport is irrelevant. I have personal experience with written letters (sent through the postal system) that are paradigms of poor communication. In my opinion, speed of transmission and quality are unrelated.
Fourth, your assertion that past Americans were more adept at written communications goes without substantiation. I suspect there was plenty of poor writing and thinking in the past as well. It’s just that history has a way of filtering out such things because they are generally unimportant. For example, you can’t compare the writings of Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln with my writings. These individuals were unique.
I agree, though, that the ease of online communication means more of us expose our ignorance than before. Furthermore, the implied anonymity can encourage less disciplined individuals to express themselves in ways that are less than civil or respectful. However, our times have no particular license on trolls. There have always been miscreants around—they’re just more easily exposed now than they were a few years ago.
Finally, in regard to a previous comment, I looked at the text when it was posted and was challenged to find positive ways to respond. By the time I finished working on the project report that demanded all of my attention, then a couple of weeks of being sick, then the beginning of classes and the associated busy-ness of that season, too much time passed. When the topic arises again, as I’m sure it will, I may address your comment in the text. That’s not meant to be disrespectful; it’s an observation of the amount of time passed, my schedule, and the difficulty of retrieving my thoughts on the topic in such a way as to adequately address your comment.
— ruminator 28 January 2006, 04:53 #Thanks for your perspective on the Recent Unpleasantness at my site. I hate it when I have to conclude that my mistake was attempting to reason with the person. In hindsight, the best thing I probably could have done was simply execute my comments policy … off-topic comments will be deleted.
But this guy and I have a history. He’s been leaving comments at my site, literally, for years. Hundreds of them. And we have gone round and round before, even about the concept of off-topic comments.
So my cursed upbringing said that I shouldn’t simply delete the guys comment, as that would be rude. Since I “knew” him, I felt it would be better to try and explain. However, that’s when things got really rude, with name calling and vet cards played.
Perversely, in the end, he came to understand my view, and I gave up on trying to herd cats.
It’s not just this one person, it happened again immediately afterwards. I’ve learned that if someone wants to make a comment, they will find a way. If you don’t give them an appropriate place to leave a comment, they’ll find an inappropriate place. Any “comment policy” you put near the comments box will be seen as extraneous text to be ignored. Any attempts to enforce your comment policy will be called “censorship,” and you may be called a lot worse.
But the other thing I’ve learned over the years is that 85% of the comments are worth the hassle the other 15% may cause. I’ve just got to do a better job of keeping my frustration at that 15% from ruining the whole stew.
— Reid 28 January 2006, 07:56 #I’ll answer the first question and be done, exactly because I loathe this forum.
In short, I do not do it and have not done it for quite some time. There are instances and subjects I feel enough about to warrant discussion regardless of the forum, but really Dave….sometimes we all have to do things we don’t want to.
In regards to this post itself, I didn’t click the “post” button with the desire for it to become debate, you did that yourself. I did not ask to be challenged or to have my assertions broken down in the manner in which you did and feel no need to respond to that.
Finally, being “challenged to find positive ways to respond” didn’t keep you from replying here, did it?
What a prime example of just what I posted about. You communicate no mood, atmosphere or intent (I myself am not at all adept at this) so I am left wondering very much in regards to your post.
— Josh 28 January 2006, 10:13 #Reid: I dropped by your place this morning to see what was shaking. It was with immense amusement that I found the second off-topic post, and then your response. The irony was just too rich. It was with significant effort that I refrained from posting a number of remarks that, while they could be considered funny, would be so at the expense of the other individuals involved. So, I held my type and just laughed to myself.
Josh: Don’t take my response so personally. My response wasn't intended that way. Instead, my intent was to look at what you wrote and respond in a reasoned fashion. That’s all. If you had emailed me, I would have responded in a similar fashion.
It appears you’ve gotten bent out of shape. That wasn’t my intent either, although I knew there was a risk of misunderstanding from previous interchanges in my comments.
If you didn’t want a response, then why did you comment? While I don’t always respond to comments, I often do.
There’s nothing wrong with debate and the comments provide a forum for such interchange.
At this point, I’m left wondering just what it is you want. Clearly I haven’t provided it.
— ruminator 28 January 2006, 12:23 #“It appears you’ve gotten bent out of shape.”
I’m always bent out of shape. I wake up bent out of shape. I think I was born into this world bent out of shape. I could not possibly have “gotten bent out of shape” seeing as I exist in a continual bent-out-of-shapeness…
— Josh 29 January 2006, 14:39 #http://wired.com/news/columns/0,70214-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
— Josh 16 February 2006, 10:08 #http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html
And your point would be???? ;)
— ruminator 16 February 2006, 12:04 #My point is I’m not the only one you disagree with :P
— Josh 16 February 2006, 13:27 #