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