GUIDELINES TO GOVERN COMMENTERS
THE DAVIS VANGUARD
Davis, California
Adopted by The Vanguard’s Editorial Board on August 20, 2014.
The Davis Vanguard Editorial Board (Editorial Board) has adopted the following Guidelines to Govern Commenters. The standards are intended to provide guidance to commenters and to guide the actions of The Vanguard’s Content Moderator, who is designated by the Editorial Board.
The primary intent of these guidelines is to ensure an inclusive, civil tone that will encourage greater participation in the community dialogue fostered by The Vanguard. The Editorial Board seeks to ensure that all readers of the Vanguard are respected and comfortable sharing their views. The Editorial Board recognizes that some limitations on comments may help to limit the extent to which anyone is discouraged from engaging in dialogue based on the comments of others.
To carry out the intent of the Editorial Board as discussed above, the Content Moderator will apply – using her or his discretion – the guidelines below.
A. CONTENT THAT MAY BE REMOVED
1. Off Topic Commenting. Comments that do not pertain to the topic of the main post will be removed by the moderator. For example, a comment on a national issue may be removed if it does not make a clear connection to the local issue. Comments that add to the context and history of a post will generally be allowed, so long as they add to the overall discuss of an issue.
The Content Moderator will need to exercise some level of subjectivity in deciding if a comment is “off topic.” The inferred intent of the commenter may be the deciding factor. Comments that appear to use the comments section of a article to make a point unrelated to the article, will be removed. On the other hand, good faith efforts to explain the connection of a comment to the article and that contribute a perspective related to the main post, may be allowed.
2. Insults Directed at a Commenter or Contributor. Directly calling someone a name that is or could be construed as derogatory will be removed by the moderator. When the Content Moderator removes a post for this reason, they will leave a note as to why with “[Moderator]” in front of their comment or edit.
3. Hate Speech. Comments that constitute hateful speech will be removed. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
4. Debating Moderator Practices. An article’s comments section won’t be used to debate these guidelines or a decision of the Content Moderator. Concern about the removal of a comment should be addressed in an email to the Content Moderator. The moderator will keep confidential all email exchanges related to disagreements, and the identities of those raising concerns.
B. CONTENT DISCOURAGED (or “FOR SELF-RESTRICTION”)
1. Racist, Sexist and Homophobic Comments. Comments that may fall into these areas by commenters, but that do not violate an area of Section A, will not be removed. While offensive, the Editorial Board believes responses that are, or may be considered, racist, sexist or homophobic are best handled by self-regulation or the civil responses of others.
2. Generic Insults. Pejorative references to any general class of people are strongly discouraged. The Editorial Board asks commenters to understand that general insults discourage the participation of others. They contribute to a negative tone and strongly suggest disrespect for the views of others. In some cases, general insults oversimplify the positions of others, which is detrimental to informed and respectful debate. General insults that are provocative are especially discouraged.
Examples of general insults would be referring to those who disagree with a commenter as: selfish, extremist, anti-growth, no-growth, open space extremists, reactionary, change-averse, no-growth NIMBY farmland moat people, moochers, looters and entitled population.
C. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
- Content Moderator Participation in Discussions. The Content Moderator is encouraged to participate in discussion equal to all others. She or he will separate their roles as commenter and Content Moderator.
- Review of Content Moderator Decisions. Concerns about Comment Moderator decisions should be addressed to the Editor of The Vanguard. A response will be provided to the complaining party. The Editor may consult the Editorial Board on these issues.
- Review of these Guidelines. The Editorial Board will periodically review and update these guidelines at its discretion.
- Reader Complaints and Comments. We welcome your comments. Comments for the Editorial Board or the Editor may be send to: info(at)davisvanguard(dot).
“selfish, extremist, anti-growth, no-growth, open space extremists, reactionary, change-averse, no-growth NIMBY farmland moat people, moochers, looters and entitled population.”
Well, you’ve pretty much covered everyone who comments here. I’m sorry, was that a general insult?
I continue to believe naming people from an anonymous pulpit and ascribing motivations to them should be unacceptable. Some newspapers have cited this as a reason for disallowing anonymous comments, “this” being damage to people’s careers from things said in anonymous postings.
I remain astonished at your blindness to the destructive power that may be held by the anonymous. As I have said, I’m not suggesting to ban the anonymous, just to have a few additional guidelines that apply to the anonymous so there is some self-responsibility in exchange for the Vanguard-provided cloak of invisibility. I predict this will someday show itself in a very ugly way.
But . . . I did my best to convince: your blog, your rules.
Within these guidelines, I think we have enough to prevent the most destructive comments that have undone other comment sections while still allowing the freedom of speech and expression necessary. And to be clear, seven people on the editorial board signed off on these guidelines and we had input from Don Shor as well. It’s a balancing of principles here that hopefully will guide a better process. And like anything, we can revisit them at a later time.
Body armor and Prozac shall be business-deductible expenses for the assigned Monitor. This a valiant attempt towards “civility” (remember that now forsaken plea?) in discussions of contentious community issues. It’s ultimate success is problematic.
A modest suggestion towards the notion of seeking civility towards all. Part of the Vanguard posting creed shall say something to the effect, “Bear in mind, when a poster launches into a an emotional-charged message towards anybody or anything, the impact is more likely to be remembered as a unflattering self-revelation of the person making the remarks.”
Here here.
Which is my anonymous concern. The is no there (person), there. How can one feel the shame of one’s actions when they are hidden?
“How can one feel the shame of one’s actions when they are hidden?”
Hello Mr. Miller,
Re: pseudonyms, perhaps because you have a kind of common name, it might be a tiny bit more possible for you to have a shred of privacy.
Lydia
“pseudonyms, perhaps because you have a kind of common name, it might be a tiny bit more possible for you to have a shred of privacy.”
True if I chose to hole up in my house and hide from the world. Given that I am involved city issues, attend council meetings and know the council and several staff: not so much.
Body armor and Prozac shall be business-deductible expenses for the assigned Monitor.
I agree. 🙂
Alan (and others)… there’s a difference in my mind between those who feel a need a “nom-de-plume” to keep themselves separate from possible pressures at work, etc., and those who choose a “nom-de-guerre” (“nom-de-troll”?) identity. My identity is known to at least 2 board members, and I believe, the moderator, as well as several others in the community, so some ‘peer-pressure’ could be exercised if I go way out of line. Then there are the ‘snipers’, some of whom I suspect use numerous ID’s. Before the term is ‘banned’, I think the word ‘troll’ is actually quite useful, as they tend to hide then jump out to attack an unwary poster.
Good point. We also note that people have been just as nasty under their actual name as they have under pseudonyms – I understand that some feel that an attack under one’s own name at least has some accountability, but from a practical perspective, we didn’t see a huge difference between the two.
And THAT is where you (and the board, apparently) and I fundamentally disagree.
Re: Trolls who hide & then attack,
Maybe no one is hiding. Maybe posters are just busy with their lives and not tethered to their laptops.
Deep Throat called himself Deep Throat. Sometimes pseudonyms are useful. I agree with David that pseudonyms should be allowed.
“As I have said, I’m not suggesting to ban the anonymous, just to have a few additional guidelines that apply to the anonymous so there is some self-responsibility in exchange for the Vanguard-provided cloak of invisibility. I predict this will someday show itself in a very ugly way.”
Alan, what do you suggest as the additional guidelines? David and the Vanguard Editorial Board have put this policy forward as a good faith effort, and I would be surprised if they see the policy as written as “carved in stone.”
The recent interchange between Rich Rifkin and Davis Progressive was evidence that your prediction that “this will someday show itself in a very ugly way” has already happened.
So I as a person who has chosen to post anonymously hope that you will share your proposed guidelines and that they will get a robust discussion here in this thread.
With a tip of the hat to Biddlin, that is my “twopence and a halfpenny.”
I certainly view the guidelines as a living document that will be adjusted. I already received some suggestions via email that may be incorporated when we post these on the new about page in a few weeks.
I actually already did, but no I don’t expect everyone to read everything and who said it.
I agree that pseudonyms have their purpose. I (unlike the Vanguard) believe that if you are accountable by your real name, you will likely temper yourself in your comments, and if you do go on the attack, you are accountable for what you said. Of course, there is one limitation, as this will not work for sociopaths.
Therefore, my suggestions was an additional guideline that those who are anonymous DO NOT:
1) Engage in personal attacks.
2) Do not attack personally or disclose unsubstantiated rumors on non-public figures BY NAME.
That’s it.
Well,****, if I can’t call ***** a ************, then I why would I bother to post.
Seriously, good attempt to find balance , although one so seldom finds really toxic comments on The Vanguard.
Frankly, I think we do a pretty good job of self policing, without the use of excessive force or insidious devices.
Just my twopence and a halfpenny duty.
;>)/
That was part of our thinking – rarely are there really toxic comments and the overall tone is far better than it was in 2009 when we implemented several changes such as required registration and Don Shor as moderator.
David, does this mean that those posting with a pseudonym will no longer be allowed to be called cockroaches with the moderator following up with a cartoon of a cockroach sitting at a computer?
It would be better if such things didn’t happen, yes.
David, thank you. I’m fine with the new rules as long as they’re administered evenly to all posters without any political or personal biases coming into play.
Another thing I think you should address is the problem of people posting under multiple aliases. I know one poster was exposed for this already and in my opinion there are a few others still doing it. Why was just that one poster outed?
How do you feel about members of your editorial board posting under an alias?
The end of the Editorial Board and myself is that these rules are to be applied evenly regardless of views expressed.
So we decided not to take the position of people posting under multiple aliases. We believe that there may be legitimate reasons to do so at times, and as long as it is not abused, we will permit it.
“So we decided not to take the position of people posting under multiple aliases. We believe that there may be legitimate reasons to do so at times, and as long as it is not abused, we will permit it.”
Then get ready for “The three faces of Eve”.
So still, how do you feel about members of your editorial board posting under an alias?
Barack: Then get ready for “The three faces of Eve”.
Why do you say that? When Frankly transitioned from his prior screen name, that prior screen name disappeared from usage. When Tia Will transitioned from her old medwoman screen name, that screen name lapsed into quiescence. Why would you expect a pattern different from that for other posters who have a history of more than one screen name?
The only time I think that there is a heightened chance of your “Three Faces of Eve” concern is during elections, and in the recent June election we saw very little evidence of even “Two Faces” much less three.
“So we decided not to take the position of people posting under multiple aliases.”
Well, I do declare. It may be time to start an argument with myself.
Is there a reason you’re dodging this question?
Barack, how is an member of the Editorial Board any different from any other Vanguard poster?
You appear to be advocating for a different posting policy for Editorial Board members than for all other Vanguard posters. Is that what you are looking for?
As noted last week several posters felt that the Editorial Board was basically running too much of the discussion. At least if the board all posted under their own names other posters could make their own judgement on how much of this is actually the case. Now, of the board I only see Tia Will and David Greenwald posting regularly under their own names, I don’t know if they post under other alter egos or not, and I know of at least one member posting under an alias. On top of that who knows how many other aliases the board members might be using. Now should the editorial board be held to a higher standard than other posters, that’s for you guys to decide. But from the flavor of last weeks posts many feel it’s a problem.
@Barack Palin, your suspicions are well founded, and take it from me that you don’t have to look very far *cough* *cough* to find an example of what you are talking about. (Hint: Look up.)
So, what I hear you saying is that you believe the screename of the poster is more important thant the content of the comment they are posting. Am I hearing you correctly.
The problem is John I think that some posters have a problem with an editorial board member talking about or defending board policies when they in fact are part of the board posting under an alias. Also posters possibly using multiple aliases to talk back and forth with themselves or defend a story they may have written is also in my opinion unethical.
@Barack Pailin — Or… how about a board member who hounds other people off the board, and once they are off the board tried to hound them out of even being a commenter?
Brian, if you have an example of either level of what you describe, then you should report it to David.
—Or, you could just decide to stop engaging in that behavior.
Back off, will you? Your continued pestering of me on this forum just makes more *more* determined to continue posting in my usual manner. You’re not going to stop me, OK? Back off.
Barack, in all the time I have been a Vanguard reader, I have never observed even once an example of back and forth talking between the same person using two screen names.
Have you experienced that behavior on the Vanguard?
Brian, I want you to post more, not less. I’m not pestering you. All I am doing is asking you a question based on your assertions. If you don’t want to answer the question, then simply say that. The way things are right now, the question is simply hanging out there in limbo.
John, now how would you even know?
I say stop the innuendo and let the she-it fly.
Let’s all openly speculate about each pseudonym and who they really are. We may be right, we may be wrong, but it sure will make my point.
That can’t possibly go wrong.
To start: I think Alan Miller is actually Alan C. Miller.
Good question Barak. You will never know for certain. However, back and forth discussions clearly do happen on the Vanguard. Tia and Frankly dialogue with one another. You and I dialogue as well. Mark West and Frankly on the one hand and Don Shor on the other, clearly dialogued actively regarding Mace 391. All of those examples provide something of a template to compare newly sprouted back and forth dialogues when they appear. One person providing both sides of a dialogue like that would be a challenge IMO. It is hard enough to keep up one side of a conversation, let alone keep up both sides.
Novelists do it, but, I don’t sense that the Vanguard ia a mecca for budding novelists.
You see, John, by first attacking me and now by playing nice and pretending you never did, that, to the naive reader, just makes me look unreasonable. So there’s no way for me to get out of this negative relationship with you and your aliases. THAT’S why I demand that you STOP engaging me using aliases. OK? Enough. Stop.
No. I stated what the policy was. We didn’t see the need to have a policy.
I don’t have a problem with ed board members posting under an alias, unless it violates policy.
I started the cockroach thing and I posted under my actual name. It was meant to paint an outrageously over-the-top picture to make a point, not a literal insult.
So if I refer to someone who is looting as a looter I am insulting them?
Only if you’re using it as a Randian metaphor.
Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as “an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity — the looters and the non-looters. The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution”.[34]
“Looters” are Rand’s depiction of bureaucrats and government officials, who confiscate others’ earnings by the implicit threat of force (“at the point of a gun”). Some officials execute government policy, such as those who confiscate one state’s seed grain to feed the starving citizens of another; others exploit those policies, such as the railroad regulator who illegally sells the railroad’s supplies for his own profit. Both use force to take property from the people who “produced” or “earned” it.
“Moochers” are Rand’s depiction of those unable to produce value themselves, who demand others’ earnings on behalf of the needy, but resent the talented upon whom they depend, and appeal to “moral right” while enabling the “lawful” seizure by governments.
Looter in this case are the politicians. Moochers in this case, are basically liberal voters.
Neither of these terms are directed at people truly in need.
If you are going to register moderation rules related to specific terms, then I think it should be a requirement that you at least do some homework to actually understand the term.
Offering Balance
“So if I refer to someone who is looting as a looter I am insulting them?”
Not if you are using it objectively as opposed to to differentiate groups of people exhibiting the exact same behavior. At the time of Katrina, I recall photos of a white couple with the caption “residents seeking necessities” while carrying household goods through hip high water, compared with a similarly burdened black couple labelled
“looters”. In these examples, the reporting may have been absolutely objective if the camera crew had been following all of the actions of both couples, or they could have had it backwards, or they could have been displaying conscious or unconscious prejudice about what was actually occurring. The problem is, as viewers of the media, and readers of posts on this blog, is that without full context, we do not know which is occurring.
Offering Balance wrote:
> So if I refer to someone who is looting as a looter I am insulting them?
Then Tia wrote:
> Not if you are using it objectively as opposed to to differentiate groups
> of people exhibiting the exact same behavior. At the time of Katrina, I
> recall photos of a white couple with the caption “residents seeking
> necessities” while carrying household goods through hip high water,
> compared with a similarly burdened black couple labeled
I think that it is important to be consistent and try to call people out on this (and I hope others will call me out). Tia’s example is a good one and I’ve heard many white people only use the term “illegal alien” when talking about Mexicans here illegally (not anyone from Europe or Asia).
Toad may still think I am racist, but I would like him to know that I often used the term “illegal alien” when talking about a white European born cousin who came here on a tourist visa and “illegally” stayed longer than he was allowed to (before he married an American girl and became a “legal” resident).
Do you happen to know the name of the paper, and the date? Thanks.
Photo captioning incident discussed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/business/05caption.html?_r=0
On a personal note re: pseudonyms, I’ve been outed by a few dear friends in Davis so I change my pseudonym often. I don’t do this to write various posts on the same day to amp up my opinion on any given topic. I do this for a shred of privacy. Probably not very affective but one can only do what one can do.
I like David’s attempt to outline what will be acceptable discourse on this website.
This isn’t in the spirit of blogging. The point is that a pseudonym becomes the blogging personality. By changing your posting name, you destroy the connection and blogging relationship others develop with you.
Those that demand people use their proper names don’t really get this point. It should not matter unless they have nefarious reasons: (e.g., want to stifle free speech that they disagree with because people posting with their real name will be more risk-averse given the potential personal damage caused primarily by the armies of left orthodoxy.)
Methinks your point might have been better made if you left out the term “left”. Orthodoxies of ALL kinds often feel threatened, and then ‘behave badly’ to squash those who dare to differ with their world view. Zealots of any stripe tend to be a pain in the arse.
I think people leaning right tend to be more comfortable with conflict and will be directly aggressive over words they don’t like. Conversely, people that are left leaning tend to want top-down rules to make speech “safe” from bad feelings.
But your point is valid. I should not make partisan what I can make generic if I don’t want the message to be lost.
“I should not make partisan what I can make generic if I don’t want the message to be lost.”
Agree Frank Lee. I often agree with your point, some of the time with your stance. When you then do a generic “Limbaugh-esque” anti-left attack, you partially lose me and I know you lose a lot of others. Really, I like that you are here and I think you are great for this forum and for Davis, but it’s more effective to make your point when you don’t also deliver a dagger in the side.
Fair food for thought. I do like to pick teams and play them for and against each other for contrast.
My challenge… can I make my point without using the following words?:
Left
Liberal
Progressive
Collectivist
Moocher
Looter
??
Seven or so years ago, I would have never blogged like I do today. Like a lot of more conservative-leaning people that I know I had this “don’t discuss religion or politics” mindset. Then I started to witness what I considered to be the squeaky wheel phenomenon in politics… with the other side of ideas making all the noise and getting all the attention. And then with the Obama election and youngs and minorities getting duped into thinking GOP and conservatism are bad things… and when I stated noting the main press and media becoming overtly and non-apologetically oriented to that other side… I knew I could not complain unless I did something to combat the negative tide.
I saw, and still see, people like clones mouthing political talking points that are repeated on the media… without a shred of understanding of rightness or wrongness.
Also, my kids and many of their friends got screwed in last years of their Davis education. And their job prospects got wiped out by idiot politicians in DC and the states and their stupid policies that caused and are causing so many unintended (and intended) consequences to slow growth and ensure more economic misery. And even in a environment where the middle class cannot afford to pay for the escalating cost of energy, healthcare and education… politicians kept raising taxes while enacting other policies to ensure energy, healthcare and education costs would keep escalating.
So I decided to fight back. And blogging is part of my investment in trying to battle what I consider to be the destructive tilt of the narrative and direction of the city, state and country. It is a tilt that I see increasingly lacking in common sense and fact-based consideration.
Can I do this without going partisan? Probably not. But I might be able to steer clear of many words that stir people up to the point of no listening.
My challenge.
Frankly,
I’m happy to see your pseudonym today and I hope the quake wasn’t too bad in the Davis area.
I’m “frankly” somewhat pleasantly surprised that you believe bloggers have established some kind of personal connection albeit a “blogging relationship” on this website.
Happy Sunday.
Lydia
London my friend – Yes, kinda’ like pen pals!
I have some good blogging friends on a couple of other sites. Interesting that on those sites that require real names, I don’t count a single pal.
Happy Sunday to you too! The dog woke me up I heard our wind chime and our pergola making a thumping noise that sounded like the wind was blowing hard, so I shut the window. Then woke up to the news that there had been an earthquake in Napa…and a complete lack of wind. No damage except me being a bit groggy this morning.
I would encourage David to consider this point as he grows his blog readership and participation. There is a social networking component. I had participated on the Huffington Post years ago until they started blocking people in a hypersensitivity policy change in advance of the acquisition by AOL. In one instant I lost a bunch of friends. I never open the Huffington Post… I consider it vile and too left-biased to be taken seriously. But also because I remain resentful at their lack of consideration of the relationships destroyed from their selfish policy change.
Yes, in being critical of the Vanguard policies, I should say I am very glad that The Vanguard is not banning “anti-PC speech” as some were asking. That would have been a bridge too far for me as well.
seems to me that the vanguard is trying to balance a lot of competing interests and viewpoints
Ok… please, nobody start singing “kumbayah” yet… just had breakfast.
I am extremely disappointed that “self-restrictions” don’t include the suggestion to rein in the number comments that a person leaves on any given post, especially when they involved a back-and-forth between two or three people, trend off topic, and get personal. As I said before, many of us don’t have time even to skim through pages and pages of comments by the same people, much less participate more ourselves. It seems to me that by failing to say anything about this, the Vanguard is really saying that it happy having the same voices over and over, drowning everyone else out.
Use a little self restraint, people. Is that really so much to ask? Try listening instead of feeling you always have to get your half cent in.
People like the sound of their own voice. But they also like making a good point. And one way they can gage if their point is good or not is by the number of “likes”. And if they don’t see many likes resulting from their posts, they will more often back-off and move on. And someone posting a point that gets a few likes may also move on feeling satisfied with themselves. Lastly, having a “like” feature can be enough for some people… they can just click “like” and move on without a comment. That also has a tendency to reduce the back and forth dialog.
I think the VG needs a “like” feature.
” Lastly, having a “like” feature can be enough for some people… they can just click “like” and move on without a comment. ”
Why hasn’t anyone suggested this before?…..
Oh yeah, I have, a half-dozen times, perhaps.
Nobody “likes” it when they have to verbalise agreement with some mimicking mynah of the mind-numbingly malignant media, but every once in awhile, even those jackwagons get it right.
;>)/
davisite 4
“the suggestion to rein in the number comments that a person leaves on any given post”
How would you achieve “reigning in comments” ?
Do you see this as a percentage of the posts on a given thread?
Would you limit the number of posts per day ?
How about if someone makes many comments on one topic, but none at all on others ?
How about someone who has special expertise making multiple posts in their specialty area ?
How do you differentiate this from censorship, whether portrayed as self restraint, or achieved through group pressure or Vanguard imposed limitation ?
Who would you suggest monitor and enforce it if the Vanguard did decide to attempt some form of limitation ? I am thinking about the “outcry” of “not fair” if someone thought that their posts were being unduly restricted.
Finally, how exactly does an ongoing conversation between two or more posters
“drown anyone else out” ? This is not a conference call where one loud voice can tok over others. Those who do not like the way a conversation is going don’t have to wait for the moderator to suggest getting back on topic, or to introduce ideas that they think are being lost in the flurry of posts.
I personally do not favor any form of limitation of number of comments, but am open to others ideas about how this might make a more welcoming conversation space.
I think the suggestion is that those of us who tend to post a lot on particular topics — people like you, me, and Frankly — should consider holding back a bit at times.
Tia Will, you didn’t read what I said. I explicitly couched this as “self restriction” and “self restraint,” not as a policy imposed from above.
And you are wrong about the drowning out. I don’t know why it is so hard for you to see that when there are so many comments from the same people, over and over, that it becomes too hard and too time consuming for many of us to wade through.
I like Frankly’s suggestion of a “Like” button (or, since that is probably trademarked, some equivalent).
“I think the VG needs a “like” feature” . . . . . . . . . . . . #mini-throw-up#
As I said before, many of us don’t have time even to skim through pages and pages of comments by the same people, much less participate more ourselves.
Boy do I ever agree with this! I like the conversations but keeping up is time consuming. I like the like option. A better way to search for new activity on a topic of interest would be nice. At one point I got emails when new comments were added but that feature disappeared. And it generated a blizzard of emails. The site still has problems when viewed on an ipad.
I appreciate attempts to keep the dialog civil and self restraint with the political trirades.
I’d like to take a moment to explain the cockroach image and quotation that I posted. It was from archy and mehitabel, a newspaper column from the early 20th Century that was later published as a book and turned into a musical. archy (lower case) was a cockroach who spent the night typing the columns on an old upright manual typewriter by jumping from key to key. All of the columns were in lower case because he couldn’t work the shift key. mehitabel was an alley cat. The illustration I posted was by the creator of the Krazy Kat comic strip, George Herriman, who illustrated the books.
archy was a noble cockroach. His quotations, such as the one I posted, were world-wise and profound. It’s a great book that was introduced to me by my father when I was young, and which I highly commend to others. You will not view cockroaches the same way again, which was kind of the point. But given that it’s literary reference that’s two generations old, I guess I should have known better. Kind of like Thurber or Mencken, he’s slowly slipping away from public recognition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy_and_Mehitabel
Yes, it’s important to pitch literary references to the likely intellectual, cultural, and developmental level of the likely audience. That’s for sure.
Ain’t you all in the most educated town, West of the Delaware river?
;>)/
I appreciate (and often deliver) obtuse references. Thank you DS, for that one. It allowed the image to sink in, and your after-the-fact explanation made it even more interesting. I will do my best to look up the referred-to literary cockroach when time allows.
Frankly
“This isn’t in the spirit of blogging.”
I think that I may have a more varied and broad definition of the “spirit of blogging”.
There are blogs that are clearly conversation spaces such as the Vanguard where like you I have made friends and
verbal sparring partners ( equally enjoyable each in their own way) from participating. There are other blogs that are more centered around the description of a skill, or experience, or individual narrative and not so attuned to the
conversational aspect. There are other blogs that appear to be primarily ideological driven forums for touting one’s own philosophy rather than any attempt to engage in a reasoned or spirited conversation.
As I gained experience with the Vanguard, I have become progressively more comfortable with this venue. I am hoping that with increased civility ( such as we have already seem over the past eight years) that more people will join in the conversation while the “regulars” will remain engaged.
All good points. I should have qualified it as a “community blog”.
When someone new steps in they might be intimidated by all those more experienced posters. But really that is the cool thing about a blog… you can just insert yourself into the conversation… and if you have something interesting to say, others will just start talking back.
I’d like to echo Davisite 4’s comments about reining in repeat commentors. I don’t think the repeated back and forth amongst 2-3 commentors contributes much to this blog – and I usually just quit reading when I see this happening.
2cowherd
So I would also like your thoughts on the questions that I posed to davisite4 above.
I would not begin to know how to implement such a rule without discouraging people who have interesting, novel, or just differing views from expressing those views.
While my perception was that there were comments made in favor of some form of limitation, there were also comments made against it, I am sure that we could revisit the idea if someone developed a suggestion that did not verge into censorship. Also, I think it is important to consider whether there should be a different set of “rules” or guidelines for editorial board members than for non affiliated posters. At this point, I would not be in favor of that, but would be interested in the ideas of others on this issue in terms of the pros and cons please.
I, too cannot imagine how this could be implemented. Frequent use of the modern social media acronym T.L.D.N.R. (too long did not read) by those so annoyed could help get the message across to the verbose that often their point is not made if it is not concise and therefore not read.
I appreciate the efforts of the editorial board to promote civility in commenting here. Like some others, I am nervous that the “generic insults” provides a slippery slope toward censorship, but you have adequately addressed that in my view my putting them into the “content discouraged” or “self-restriction” category. Like some other commenters, I am disappointed that anonymous commenting will still be allowed. I betray my old-school journalistic biases, here, and it may just be a case of my adjusting to this new world of online social interaction. But here’s the case for transparency:
Disclosure of the names of commenters allows a reader, in journalistic parlance, to “consider the source.” That reader can decide how much weight to put on a fellow commenter’s assertions if they know where they are coming from. Not knowing the true origin of the assertions that can be made online could change everything.
I will make up an example. We will soon be engaged in a great debate in this town over the Nishi-Gateway project, innovation parks, and other economic development initiatives. A proponent of one particular project, under current rules, could launch an online attack on a rival project while hiding behind a pseudonym. Would such a maneuver really advance public discourse or confuse that discussion?
I am open to others’ views here, and have enjoyed today’s discussion, including ironically the comments of some anonymous posters. I can say that, as a regular contributor, I have always posted using my real name, and have never feared negative personal repercussions or experienced intimidation for expressing my opinion here.
Well said.
It sure is. And to my surprise, this discussion, in latter stages, to evolved into something that has been insightful and constructive.
Let’s use Nishi/Gateway as an example… what if a writer wanted to give factual/historical information about particulars of the proposal, because they have been VERY familiar with its iterations in the past, but their name would disclose that they had gained that knowledge as an employee or consultant of the University, the City, or a developer? Assume they have no axe to grind except unbiased information? Do you honestly think that others (if they did not ‘like’ the facts) would fail to impugn the writer, assuming that they had biases? Unless the answer is NO!, there is a perfectly valid reasons why someone might choose to post anonymously. Unless you’d just like to hear “spun” versions of facts…
A certain poster assumed I was a firefighter, and went so far as to call be by the name of the Union president. Repeatedly.
As it is, even tho’ my full pseudonym is hortense pierce, I am portrayed as male… by someone at the Vanguard know who I am.
What is the basis for this fear that you will be “impugned” if your name is known? The very purpose of this blog is to encourage vibrant discussion and to air disagreements over the local issues of the day. Anonymity is what impugns the credibility of anonymous posters more than any other factor, in my view. Come on out of the shadows. It’s really quite safe out here.
Dan wrote:
> Come on out of the shadows. It’s really quite safe out here.
It’s “safe” for people that have “safe” views.
If you are a parent that thinks we need more parcel taxes and teachers raises you won’t have a problem posting under your own name, but if you are a parent that thinks we need to elect Jose Granada to the school board and vote for less parcel taxes and teacher pay cuts you better not use your real name if you want your kid on the volleyball team (or to get a Stanford recommendation letter)…
P.S. I supported the school parcel tax and we all know that a parents views would never have anything to do with who gets on a sports team/AP class or special program…
South of Davis,
Can you cite a single case in which someone’s child was actually left off a sports team or didn’t get a recommendation for college because their parent opposed a parcel tax measure? Or is that theoretical?
Dan wrote:
> Can you cite a single case in which someone’s child was
> actually left off a sports team or didn’t get a recommendation
> for college because their parent opposed a parcel tax measure?
> Or is that theoretical?
I don’t want to give out any details, but let’s just say that people tend to help out people they like and don’t help out people they don’t like. Just like a gay liberal pro-tax democrat would have a tougher time in a southern bible thumping city getting a teacher to take the time to help him out with a recommendation a Christian conservative anti-parcel republican will have a tougher time getting someone to go out of their way to help him in Davis (a city that for the most part only embraces “diversity” that is left of center).
P.S. You may have missed it but if you search the Vanguard for Nancy Peterson Volleyball you can read (a LOT) about an incident where many allege that the (bad) behavior of a parent resulted in her daughter getting cut from the volleyball team.
You keep this up, Dan, and I’m about to fall in love with you!
Phil,
My wife is already getting suspicious about my spending more time with all of you than her yesterday.
South of Davis,
You did not provide any credible evidence that anyone’s child was punished because their parent objected to a local parcel tax measure. You seem to be using unjustified fear to justify more fear. The Nancy Peterson example is off target. I read all of those posts, and she got in trouble for apparently trying to use her authority as an elected board member to dictate how the coach did her job and indeed whether she would remain coach at all. It had nothing to do with her expressing her First Amendment opinions. In fact, part of the criticism was that she was hiding in the shadows while she took some of these actions.
I rest my case.
davisite4
“I am extremely disappointed that “self-restrictions” don’t include the suggestion to rein in the number comments that a person leaves on any given post”
I am sorry if I misconstrued your comment as being in line with several from previous threads that even went so far as to suggest a percentage of the posts which should be placed by members of the editorial board and others that suggested that the moderator should not post at all. Never the less, it does seem as though you are advocating for some form of restriction even if self imposed. So I think that my questions are still relevant as I am not really understanding just what it is that you are objecting to and therefore was hoping that you might have some more specifically designed suggestions as how to get to a space you find more inviting.
I am objecting to the same people posting over and over again in the same article, often either repeating themselves or engaging in a back-and-forth with one or two other people, especially where the back-and-forth devolves into he said-she said or other issues that are at best tangential. It’s even worse when the same people beat the same drum from one article to the next (you know who you are).
I am suggesting that the Vanguard have as a policy that people show some self-restraint when it comes to such behavior, that commenters err on the side of listening rather posting repeatedly. If the Vanguard made this a policy, it might at least set the tone for what is expected and encourage that behavior, because right now it seems mostly dominated by bad behavior, and so that bad behavior is the norm. Also, yes, perhaps other commenters could from time to time say, hey, that’s not productive or we’ve heard this already. But it would still be up to the person to show self restraint. We’re up for that, right? We’re Davisites.
“(you know who you are)”
sssssssh . . . . . maybe they don’t.
If one looks at this thread and a couple of the prior threads on the military vehicle topic, it looks like I am caught red handed with both a drum and a beater in my hands.
I never thought asking for a simple answer to a simple question would be so hard or so time consuming or such a burden on others. Next time I’ll self-regulate, and let the unsubstantiated accusation against one of our public servants stand as written.
John: Your efforts to manipulate others is no more attractive now than it was under your previous personae. Why don’t you simply try offering your opinion, or in your situation above, simply refute the accusation (if you have the evidence to do so)?
Mark, I offered my opinion in the original post.
When Brian replied “I strongly disagree with your assertions, John. The purchase of the vehicle was “over the top,” and shows that the chief has developed too much of a police-centric view of law enforcement. We need someone with a broader vision.
I responded,
No manipulation. No acusation. Simply a question. A question that only Brian can answer. He is the only person who has any evidence one way or the other. He chooses not to share that evidence.
John:
Brian’s post didn’t require any retort from you, let alone one with the intent of trying to draw him into a deeper conversation. You believe that the Chief of Police “is one of the best city employees that Davis has” and Brian disagrees. Simple, move on. Nothing more to see here.
Instead you jump in with your ‘simple’ questions, which may work well in a one-on-one private, verbal conversation, as they are active listening techniques that may help you to understand the point of view of the person you are conversing with. In a public forum such as this however, they come across as intrusive, arrogant, accusatory and manipulative. That is just as true now as it was a few weeks ago with your previous persona.
Now rather than re-posting another couple of paragraphs of things you have already said in a vain attempt to justify your position, why don’t you just try listening?
I have listened to what you have said Mark, and what I hear you saying is that you do not want there to be dialogue on the Vanguard, just individual posters putting out their point of view on a subject and then stopping posting on that subject after they have done so.
We will have to agree to disagree on that. Robb Davis once called the Vanguard a “dialogue space.” I see it that way as well. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
A dialog is where two people choose to converse. What you are doing is attempting to manipulate someone into a conversation they do not wish to have, then criticizing them when they fail to engage. You and I are having a dialog, one that others probably find annoying. In the case of you and Brian it was a monologue.
davisite4, DavisBurns, Anon (from previous thread), and anyone else who shares this concern,
Since I am a frequent poster, and member of the editorial board, I am taking the concern you have expressed seriously.In attempting to address this point, I would like your thoughts about a certain recent exchange, in so far as when or if this type of exchange represents your concern, and if so, at what point did this occur.
On this thread the following exchange occurred :
“Offering Balance
“So if I refer to someone who is looting as a looter I am insulting them?”
Not if you are using it objectively as opposed to to differentiate groups of people exhibiting the exact same behavior. At the time of Katrina, I recall photos of a white couple with the caption “residents seeking necessities” while carrying household goods through hip high water, compared with a similarly burdened black couple labelled
“looters”. In these examples, the reporting may have been absolutely objective if the camera crew had been following all of the actions of both couples, or they could have had it backwards, or they could have been displaying conscious or unconscious prejudice about what was actually occurring. The problem is, as viewers of the media, and readers of posts on this blog, is that without full context, we do not know which is occurring.
Subsequently Don Shor found and posted the pictures.
What becomes immediately obvious from these photos is that I made some factual errors in my post in terms of the what the actual photos showed ( a black man, not a couple) and my post made the implication that these pictures were from the same news agency.
I was also bringing in a distant, geographically distant event which I believed suited the issue being raised.
So given this as the background, some questions just for clarification.
1) Was the question that sparked all of this relevant to the discussion ?
2) Was my response appropriate or is this an example of a comment that people feel
distracts from the conversation ?
3) Was Don’s posting of the source material appropriate and relevant ?
4) If a poster other than myself wanted to call me out on the factual errors of my post and use that as part of the basis for an objection to the point I was making, would that be relevant and appropriate ?
5) Is this the type of exchange that you are referring to ? If so, could you please say at what point you feel greater self restraint should have been exerted ?
Tia:
Against my better judgment–and deliberating avoiding the exchange cited above as a show of neutrality–I’ll take a stab at what point might be found in your reconstructed narrative.
“Race” is a highly volatile and provocative issue (an amazing grasp of the obvious). Some folks who thrive on this site just enjoy poking a fork in somebody’s side and see what happens. Others respond predictably, and away we go. Down that path where comments are shaded, expanded, taken completely out of context, in silly attempts to gain the higher moral ground, while misrepresenting other views in the process.
Value of end product? Zilch.
“Some folks who thrive on this site just enjoy poking a fork in somebody’s side and see what happens. Others respond predictably, and away we go. Down that path where comments are shaded, expanded, taken completely out of context, in silly attempts to gain the higher moral ground, while misrepresenting other views in the process.”
Kinda says it all.
Tia wrote:
> Was my response appropriate or is this an example of a comment
> that people feel distracts from the conversation
We ALL (even Frankly) will admit that there are racists in modern America. Many like Tia seem to think racism is a MAJOR problem when in reality if you looked in to the actual problems like dropping out of high school, and high unemployment “racism” has almost nothing to do with it. Going back 10 years and posting about a (factually incorrect) “racist” moment after Katrina to “prove” a point is almost as bad as reminding us (yet again) that some Americans were enslaved 200 years ago…
Certainly there are racists. There will always be because there will always be tribalism and ignorance. Look at the racism and tribalism in the Mid East. There we still have medieval cultures that support genocide of whole races or tribes just because of differences.
But SOB hits the nail on the head. In the US, racism as a social problem has shrunk to the point of being immaterial in the discussion about equality. Those that continue the racism drumbeat, either because they gain personally or politically, or because they are dysfunctionally living in the past, or because they are hypersensitive to a point beyond the capacity for objectivity… are detracting everyone from working on the real solutions for equality. The problems in the black community have very little to do with acts of racism… yet that is the primary drumbeat we hear.
By the way… the reason that Ferguson is under-represented in blacks on the city council is that blacks tend to not vote. One reason that is given for why blacks do not vote is that most of them are renters… and home ownership provides a stronger attachment to the community and motivates people to vote.
Now, some people will rush to say that the lack of home ownership is an example of racism. And that would be the same stupidity that I mention above. Because the issue is 100% economic. And the crappy education system is primarily responsible.
If we really want to solve the problem with black under-representation in economic success, we would be focusing 100% on reforming the education system.
We will also need to focus on economic growth so there are enough good jobs.
And when you hear those the quickest and loudest to claim racism is responsible… note their political orientation with respect to support for education reform and economic growth. They tend to not support either.
Frankly: And the crappy education system is primarily responsible.
Suggestion to the board. I liked the old bulletin boards that allowed for ongoing discussions that might have been somewhat off-topic for a given posted article. This is one of those topics — is American education crappy or not? No evidence will convince Frankly otherwise, and I won’t address it here, now, but the bulletin board would be nice for this kind of situation.
Frankly: If we really want to solve the problem with black under-representation in economic success, we would be focusing 100% on reforming the education system.
And the follow up is how do you want to reform the education system. There are certain reflexive answers that seem to be the solution but aren’t, on closer investigation, and then there are other responses that better address the ground-level issues.
Sorry – I meant the blacks in Ferguson. But there are similar situations in many big city inner suburbs as the result of section 8. This allowed low income blacks to leave the inner city housing projects and the idea was that they would integrate with middle-class people in the suburbs as a way to more successfully integrate. Apparently that is not working very well as most of the left’s attempts to force integration and equality through social engineering don’t work very well.
Everything is solved with greater economic participation. And what is the best way to help low-income families to increase their economic participation? Again, the solution is contained within ideas for education reform.
[moderator] I think this is getting pretty far afield from Vanguard Comment Policy. I see how you got there, but perhaps the discussion can now wait for a thread that is more directly on this topic.
Oops… Agree. Tia started it. She needs a time-out if I get a time-out.
South of Davis
Actually, my post was not about racism per se. I wrote it in response the direct question about whether or not one could be judged adversely for calling a “looter” a “looter”. My whole point was about the limitations of judging the accuracy of that comment and how I would give anyone a pass who actually observed a looting episode and was accurate in their representation. The rest was just an example and I really had no point to “prove” since my answer was essentially “it depends”.
And I will freely accept my time out. Can I get off with time served Frankly, since I have not posted for the past 5 hours ? ; ).
No, I did not have a problem with that exchange.
Many of comments on this article are a better example of the behavior I find problematic:
https://davisvanguard.org/commentary-why-focus-on-innovation-parks/
davisite4
Thank you for taking the time to respond more specifically about your concerns.
I will always be appreciative when people who are expressing a view different from my own are as specific as possible to help me understand. I admit to being a little surprised since I thought that amidst the ramblings of the conversation admittedly some of which ran rather far off topic, there were facts and tidbits about both our town, the surrounding communities and the individual posters of which I had been previously unaware.
Maybe there are. Again, my point is (and this is the last time I’ll repeat it — the Vanguard is either concerned about this or it isn’t) that I don’t have time to wade through the ramblings and repeated postings from the same people saying the same things to find the few nuggets that may or may not be there.
You’ll find the Vanguard to be much more lenient of certain posters going off topic than others.
You get a pretty free forum to express your views.
Did you see the thread about Hate in Davis the other day where my posts were pulled but other posts about the same subject were allowed to remain? In fact the post that I responded to was allowed to remain up while mine was pulled. I don’t think I stated anything that should have been deleted. When I questioned the moderator I was told that life is unfair. Is that how you want to run your blog. And this whole thing about writing an email to you or the moderator, I have a pretty good guess on how far that will go.
Actually, if you would email me in that situation I would explain my reasoning to you and be happy to have a dialogue about it. But if I do it on the thread in question, it’s off-topic and defeats the purpose of having pulled it in the first place.
I was reading through this and thinking about the movie The Giver. In that movie, one the common utopian community rules is to “use exact language”. It was laughable what that did to actual communication.
I agree with Dan Carson above:
I am nervous that the “generic insults” provides a slippery slope toward censorship
I would go a bit further though and say that I am alarmed by it… not just nervous.
The problem is that we move into individual preference. The way I look at it… those with low sensitivity filters need to learn how to pick their words more carefully. I put myself in that camp. However, those with hypersensitive tendencies need to self-identify and practice growing thicker skin. Because if we leave it the wild west, the latter will not participate. But if we try to control everything so the most sensitive don’t get their feeling hurt, we will lose the former participants.
For me there is a clear line of demarcation when a poster moves to personal insults. That demands 100% censorship and admonishment. And if we have someone that continues, I would support the VG banning the poster from participation. That can be done by banning the IP addresses that the poster uses.
What I won’t support is any attempt to ban generic commentary that someone finds offensive as long as the comment has a basis in intellectual opinion. For example, someone that writes “most white people are racist.” deserves censorship and admonishment. However, someone that writes, “in a study conducted by xyz, it determined that most white people harbor racist thoughts.” Or to write “I think many white people are closet racist based on my own personal experience, for example…”
Some of the best opinion writing causes the strongest response. A strong response is not justification for censorship. More often than not it is an indication that the reader should open up his/her mind, think deeply, and respond intelligently.
I have to agree with Dan and Frankly here, and I will go a bit further to state that in my opinion this new policy errs on the side of protecting the hypersensitive. The policy further demonstrates that the leadership of the Vanguard fails to hear any voices here other than their own, as they have completely ignored the valid complaints about objectionable behaviors by certain members of the Editorial Board and the Moderator. In fact, they have enshrined those objectionable behaviors as appropriate.
This is David’s playground, and he is free to set the rules of engagement however he prefers. That said, I see no reason to believe that this new policy will improve the environment for community engagement, though I do believe it will lead to greater opportunities for the Vanguard leadership to talk among themselves without fear of interruption.
First of all, this isn’t “my playground.” This is a 501c3, I’m the executive director, but there is a board. We discussed the issues and we both read through and heard the complaints. We will continue to monitor and tweak. Right now, there is only one board member aside from me that is regularly participating in discussions. Michelle may ramp it up again and perhaps Matt. But Joe and Daniel almost never post. The issue can be revisited in the future.
“Michelle may ramp it up again and perhaps Matt.”
Perhaps Matt?
LMAO
weren’t you the one complaining when i inadvertently outed people?
I didn’t out anybody, I never named Matt ever, get your facts straight.
Matt continues to post regularly, just under a different persona (as you well know).
i don’t understand why all of this matters. you don’t know me, i don’t know you. i don’t know anyone on the board except david. let it flow?
Aren’t the “generic insults” just “discouraged”, not banned?
Yes.
” One reason that is given for why blacks do not vote is that most of them are renters… and home ownership provides a stronger attachment to the community and motivates people to vote.”
Another reason being new Jim Crow voting laws and practices enacted by predominantly old, male, terrified, financially solid, Christian, Caucasians.
http://americanbydefault.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/voters-missing-ballots-and-longs-to-frustrate-ya.jpg
;>)/
Is that an insult to old, male, terrified, financially solid, Christian, Caucasians?
Merely an observation.
;>)/
And general insults that are provocative innuendo are double-secret especially discouraged.
If discouraged has no consequences, then there really is no issue.
They can be edited out. But I’m really hoping people will respond to gentle reminders.
“They can be edited out.”
I think, then, that would be “not permitted”.
There is a difference between ‘can be’ and ‘will be’. Moderation actions exist along a path of increasing impact.
I’ve used the “Cancel Reply” button a couple of times and frankly, I “like” it.
;>)/