« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Best Practices On Banning

By: keepourrepublic (Diary) | February 22nd, 2011 at 12:25 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

This post is meant to be a general discussion on best practices when it comes to banning. With regards to what has happened on Redstate recently: Most of what I read is on the front page. I am neither a regular poster, nor do I know all that has occurred. But from previous experiences in other forums I believe the best thing the Redstate community can do moving forward is to advocate to the moderators best practices to be used in the future.

There different kinds of behavior that may lead to a banning. Immediate banning may be warranted for obvious trolls and the like, but the ban stick should be used with discretion with regard to regular and longtime posters. A moderator should make clear to them that bans are not final and binding, but may be longer or shorter depending upon the situation.

In the event of a single thread flaming out of control the solution may be to lock the thread and/or give a temporary ban (between an hour and 24 hours depending) to various principles in the flame war regardless of which side they were on.

More serious in the long run is the situation where regular contributers who offer decent content may be sliding into bad posting habits. If a poster is being a problem then the first step is to talk to them. Maybe the situation can be resolved with a short chat. If trying to engage the person fails then give the poster a short ban. Ban them for a day, three days, or a week and then let the poster back into the pool.

If the poster comes back guns blazing then they may deserve an instant ban of greater duration. More likely the posters’ behavior might be good for a little while before the the person reverts. The moderator should again try to talk to the poster and give them a warning. If this fails ban the offender for a greater period of time. Ban them for ten days, two weeks, or three weeks and then let the poster back into the pool.

Rinse and repeat with greater bans until the poster reforms, leaves, or is permanently banned.

A significant downgrade in the overall tone of the forum in theory can be avoided with such regular moderating, but even with the best of intentions and mindfulness of their duties moderators may find the tone gradually slipping and they may feel the need to mass ban in order to regain control of the situation. In doing so, however, they risk making the forum even worse in the short term and they risk becoming perceived as arbitrary or ham-fisted. For those reasons mass bans should be generally avoided.

To reestablish a better tone it is a good idea for moderator to start a thread specifically to let the community know that he feels the forum quality is declining, what steps he is considering to resolve the issues, and for input from the community before he proceeds. This puts the community on notice and tests the wind to see if the community will consider legitimate the steps the moderator may take.

The moderator should also make it known for individuals to contact him privately about potential offenders whether it be themselves or others. If posters bring to raise such questions within the thread the moderator should email them privately and tell them publicly to check their mailbox. This serves as the start of dialogue with various offenders and with active good posters. It also allows posters to enter the mysterious process of one on one communication with the moderator to come out unscathed. They will come to the defense of the moderator and his practices. It doing this the moderator heightens the possibility of defusing drama.

The moderator should also make clear that he is not certain for how long the review of the forum will take whether days, weeks, or whatever. If the moderator comes out ban guns blazing then he has created an event, a spectacle, drama. Everyone stops to look at a good wreck. If the moderator bans a number of posters and announces a time frame then the spectacle he is creating will last as long as that time frame. An event, a spectacle, drama, needs fixed points in time in order to occur. The lack of public dates at either the beginning or the end the bannings means less drama.

In response to this process the community may rally together and the moderator might not need to ban anyone. In another community such a thread may stir up the offenders. Many communities might lie somewhere in between.

Outright ban from the forum is a great threat to a poster who may have spent months if not years contributing to a forum. Outright bans will panic and demoralize many vocal members of the community and so should be avoided by making clear that bans are not final and binding, but may last only so long as is necessary to return the forum to a better tone. Some bans may be for only the time it takes for the moderator and a poster to come to a mutual understanding. Some may be longer.

Understand also that if the moderator only bans one person then posters will claim the moderator is singling one out. If the moderator bans several so that he could not be accused of singling one poster out then posters will claim he is using too wide of a brush. Having seen moderators do it both ways it seems to me that it is better for a moderator to be accused of singling someone out then with painting with too wide of a brush. If the moderator paints with too wide of a brush then community members will feel that they too could have just as easily been banned. This risks disaffecting members of the community and the non-posting community.

Hopefully a moderator can navigate the difficult waters of rehabilitating the tone of the forum without much drama or collateral damage. In the immediate months that follow it is important to be vigilant in their moderating so that the forum keeps it’s better tone.

- Keep Our Republic

To iterate the disclaimer from above: This post is meant to be a general discussion on best practices when it comes to banning. With regards to what has happened on Redstate recently: Most of what I read is on the front page. I am neither a regular poster, nor do I know all that has occurred. But from previous experiences in other forums I believe the best thing the Redstate community can do moving forward is to advocate to the moderators best practices to be used in the future.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

Finrod

.

streiff

email to you anyway.

streetwise

No one wants to have an atmosphere that feels like walking on eggshells or broken glass.

The problem with comments on blogs is that they sound like conversation, but last like literature, and unlike letters to the editor in the bygone paper world, they last for freaking ever. For all the world to see.

I understand tempers flare. But there’s a basic difference between the declarative sentence: “I don’t like this blog because of reasons 1, 2 and 3″, and “I don’t like you because you’re an s, and o, and a b. Authors and commenters really need to remember this.

Any banning decision must take into account the conversational circumstances and the altered states of mind that they produce.

streiff

often you’ll see a mod who is tangling with a commenter just disappear from the thread and new mod will appear. This isn’t by accident. We don’t want to boot someone over a personality clash. Sometimes, being human, we mods let our egos get drawn into the fight. We shouldn’t but it does happen. I’ve been guilty of this more than most of the mods on the list.

We give a lot of leeway to people depending upon their tenure and the goodwill they have built up but ultimately we have to make a value judgment as to whether the person’s contribution outweighs their significant negative traits.

Doc Holliday

I think I have had some good discussions with you in the past. Man I am so myopic about this site, if it isn’t about history, patriotism or Goldwater style conservatism, I am just not seeing it lol.
AceInTX

I been in the hot seat and had first one…then a second followed by even a third and forth moderator and I though tI was being played with like someone picking off the legs and then the wings of a fly…

I guess there was a reason for it after all…but from my perspective It came off as mean, nasty and over the top when it happened…

I don’t intimidate easily…but I’ve crapped my pants a time or too…heh
AceInTX

I hate when I do that
streiff

having your legs pulled off one by one. Somehow you always managed to have at least one left and grow the others back
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

We seem to have cured the third party ism
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

…except that very occasionally I’ve seen it posted that people who are banned are asked to hit the Contact button if they want to request reinstatement, which indicates a reversible ban.

(And it does appear that a number of the mass bans on Monday have been reversed.)

Here’s a simple suggestion that would clear up much of the conclusion:

Ban should be reserved for cases where the blocking of the account is intended to be permanent (and which would require a persuasive petition to the Moderators/Directors to reverse the action).

Suspend – per the usual meaning – means that the ban is temporary, either for a cooling off time period and/or a specific limited period of time.

Using the term suspend I suspect would have defused perhaps 80% of the aftermath of the Monday mass bannings because the message that would have been sent is that the management was sending folks to their corners for a time to reflect rather than that the management was acting out of anger, being arbitrary, settling scores, making a public example, and all the other theories that were floating around the RS public threads (not to mention what was surely going on in private coversations).

Or since Erick used the euphemism “will find their account are no longer active” – her should have added some kind of qualifier “until…” (for instance, “until they can cool off and behave civilly” or something to that effect). As it was, it was assumed that all these folks were being kicked off permanently. (Though in some of the cases, I’m rather sure the deactivation was intended to be permanent.)

I don’t want to micromanage semantics, but I do think that a clear distinction in language between permanent bans and public warning shots would be very helpful in improving the atmosphere and morale of the RedState community.
lineholder

in these comments. The expectations of behavior (so to speak) have shifted, and my impression is that for the time being, a lot of us, including myself, don’t know what they have shifted to become. What can we say? What can we NOT say? What topics can we write about? What topics are now “taboo”? What should we recommend? What should we NOT recommend?

For myself, I’m a Christian, and I’ve cut my spiritual eyeteeth, so the “milk” alone isn’t enough for me….I’m all for the meat. I don’t want the rose-colored illusions that offer sop to my conscience, thank you. I want the tough stuff. I want the hard, cold reality. I want the truths that a lot of people would rather try to avoid or deny.

Regarding the situation our country is facing, all the dishonesty, deceitfulness, corruption, lawlessness…that’s the “meat” in this, streiff. And we’re up against a bunch of folks who have an insatiable desire for power and control, who have grown so accustomed to our capitulating that they see the outcome as being predetermined in their favor. Those Dems in WI and IN that just took off…they’re so extraordinarily smug that we will give way that it is repulsive to people of common decency to see it.

Right now, a lot of us are beginning to look at the hard cold reality of the crisis that our country is facing, and when we see individuals of the left, particularly those elected to serve in a political position, act with so little of respect for this country that they just toss the laws that we value to the side….the hard cold reality of that truth makes us become grim and resolved. We know that we are at battle. The more hard cold facts we have in our “arsenal”, the better ‘armed” we are for “combat”.

The meat of it serves a purpose, streiff. But how much of the meat is going to be presented here at RS? At this point, I really don’t know.
streiff

I’m not sure there are any “taboo” topics on the list beyond pimping third parties or advocating NAMBLA membership, etc. A lot of the problems come in how issues are presented. I’m implacably opposed to both gay marriage and gay adoption but arguing this from the standpoint of “gays are child molesters” is going to cut short your tenure on the site. Weaving a conspiracy theory won’t get you banned but don’t be surprised if you get publicly laughed at as in the infamous “banning churches from Gettysburg” diary.

Hopefully, there will be a happy day soon when both the season and limit on Paultards will be limited but for right now we’re allowing his idiocy to appear in diaries and comments.

My advice on recommending is recommend a diary that you like, ideally one that is sufficiently well written that it should be on the front page.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

We also ban trutherism and birtherism.

Rule 7 is the issue.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

Lineholder, I agree 100% with what you said.

So here’s my question: How is what you said, and a LOT of the posts the last few days pointing out Obama’s involvement in what’s going on in Wisconsin, NOT the dreaded “conspiratorial” tone that the moderators disapprove of?

Somebody please explain to me: What exactly is the bad kind of “conspiratorial”? Is Glenn Beck “conspiratorial”? Would he be banned here? After all, he DOES show the provable connections between, say, Bill Ayers, American labor unions, and what is going on in the Middle East.

Obama was trained in the Alinsky method, in the Cloward-Piven strategy, the most frequent visitor to the White House was Andy Stern head of the SEIU, and Obama co-directed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers, who directed much of the Annenberg money to a group run by his old SDS buddy Mike Klonsky. Is pointing out all these connections “conspiratorial”?

Obama banned all kinds of offshore drilling in the U.S. but gave a big subsidy to Brazil’s PetroBras, which is partly owned by George Soros, who was a major funder (through his 527 groups) of Obama’s campaign. Is pointing that out “conspiratorial”?

The Pennsylvania Depts. of Health and State failed to follow up on any of the complaints about Dr. Kermit Gosnell that were presented over a span of nearly 20 years. Is pointing that out “conspiratorial”?

The great and well-respected Andrew McCarthy wrote a whole book, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” which shows, among other things, the alliances between the far Left and the shariah-promoters, and how the shariah-promoters have hoodwinked, co-opted and even infiltrated our government. Would you call him “conspiratorial”?

Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see how ladyimpactohio’s piece on energy differed significantly from the examples I’ve just given . Yet people here are having fits about her piece for some reason.

I am, as Doc Holliday said he is, a “what you see is what you get” kind of person. If there’s some kind of under-the-surface subtext going on here at RedState, I’m frankly clueless about it. I’ve only been here since this past fall anyway, so I don’t know the history.

So when I ASK a question, it’s not rhetorical, it’s because I genuinely don’t know, and I genuinely would like someone to tell me what’s going on. My question is: What, in many people’s eyes, made LIO’s post “conspiratorial”? Honestly, to me, it didn’t seem any more “conspiratorial” than any of the examples I just gave above.

Thank you, anyone who can fill me in!
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

…and if LIO’s piece was so objectionable, why was it allowed to stay on the “recommended” list for several days?

I feel like such a newbie, and I hate having to ask for someone to just CLUE ME IN — but I’m really frustrated not being able to figure out what’s going on.
Bill S

All we can do is delete or edit, and we almost never do that. And in that case, if we had, the results would have been more or less the same.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

what do you mean, the results would have been the same?
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

…and gamecock was banned? See, I didn’t know that. I tried to read between the lines of all that stuff on Saturday, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure it out. How could gamecock be banned if he had two pieces up in the “recommended” list?

I know I’m confusing the issues here. There was this whole “reco cabal” issue going on. I never could figure out what THAT was all about. I like to reco stuff that I like, and I like it when people reco MY stuff–in fact, I’m thrilled when they do. Oftentimes there’s overlap. Some of the same people who’ve reco’ed my stuff write pieces that I really like, and in turn recommend. Does THAT make me part of the “cabal”? I sure don’t FEEL like part of a cabal. (gad, I hate being clueless!)

OK, so the cabal thing is one issue.

But then there’s this other issue of we mustn’t be “conspiratorial.” So pointing out the mutual, incestuous relationship between public-employees unions and the Democrat Party is NOT conspiratorial, but LIO’s pointing out the Obama administration’s hostility to the coal and oil industries IS “conspiratorial”?

What am I not “getting” here? I would really appreciate it if someone would take me by the hand, treat me as you would a 1st grader, just start at the beginning and walk me through it, and EXPLAIN. Because I am obviously missing something here, and I hate being clueless.
streiff

generally we don’t remove diaries unless they are really offensive. Sometimes one is so blindingly stupid that we decide to pull it down but generally no. That particular diary floating at the top of the recommended list is a example of the logrolling in the diaries that Erick spoke about on the front page.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If you’re genuinely not sure, err on the side of not posting a theory of a vast left wing apparatus.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

Then what the heck do you call what’s going on in Wisconsin? And why have articles about SEIU/OFA/DNC connections in the Wisconsin uproar — and what has QUICKLY and in a coordinated fashion, with pre-printed signs, buses and everything else, spread to half a dozen other sates — why have articles describing all that been posted on the FRONT PAGE for heaven’s sake?

Do you see how inconsistent this all sounds? and how arbitrary? It’s OK when SOME people point out this stuff, but NOT OK when others do? Then it just starts to sound kind of cliquish. I have a junior-high kid; I get enough of that kind of drama already!
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Rule 7 applies.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

…and I can’t see any point on that list that I’ve violated, so I guess I’m ok.
And unless I missed something, I don’t think LIO violated anything in Rule 7 either.
So I’m back where I started: confused.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If you have any confusion about what’s appropriate for posting, err on the side of not doing so.

It’s a straight answer and I wish you’d just accept it.
streiff

http://www.redstate.com/towdogincal/2011/02/20/sad-day/#comment-1924
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

When I write a diary, I try to LINK everything. I try to link everything to CREDIBLE, LEGITIMATE sources. If I am able to SHOW — with good documentation from solid sources — the links between Bill Ayers, Code Pink, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood — which is exactly what several pieces at Big Government have shown — is the fact that you don’t LIKE those conclusions what makes it “conspiratorial” in your eyes? Because events really did happen, and really are happening, whether you label them “conspiratorial” or not.

I’m not bothering with links on this comment, I don’t have time today, but I ALWAYS do on my diaries.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

One of the complaints the other day was that front pagers often post the same breaking news items as diarists. I don
streiff

it you link to Newsmax, WND, Prisonplanet, Lew Rockwell, etc you open yourself to ridicule.
streiff

conspiratorial nonsense. Let’s see, Bush’s grandfather was a shareholder in a company that traded with Nazi Germany….

Was the invasion of Iraq a scheme by the Bush family to destroy Iraqi oil production and make a fortune for the Saudi royal family and Halliburton?

I’m not going to engage in a slang match with you on a particular diary, but it was an embarrassment. It belonged on Newsmax or WND, not here. It was of the same style that had the Gettysburg city council out at night burning churches.

People are free to write books about whatever they wish. As sentient beings we’re free to read them with discernment and take or leave what they say.

Anyone who says the left and radical islam are working hand in hand is looney. McCarthy doesn’t really claim what you say he does.

Do people believing in the same thing acting the same way constitute a conspiracy? I don’t think so. To expect otherwise doesn’t make sense. If you have people who used the Alinsky method … and I’d like to find the advocacy group out there, right or left, who doesn’t … in the past why would they stop now?

And I think Glenn Beck is cuckoo pants on a lot of things, beginning with the products he does announcer-read-copy for on his radio show… Seeds? That haven’t been bionengineered? Puhleeze.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

Would you say Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and David Horowitz are “conspiracy nuts”?

I can’t believe I’m hearing this. You’re saying that you deny everything that’s been posted at BG where they DOCUMENT the links between Bill Ayers, Code Pink, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood?
streiff

the other two not so much.

Like I said, I’m not going to argue this with you. You want to believe it, go ahead.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

that you accept Woolsey and Horowitz — but not Gaffney. It was, after all, Horowitz who wrote the brilliant Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. And you did hear Horowitz’s awesome speech at CPAC, didn’t you, where he called out Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan?

I’m guessing you don’t like Pam Geller either? Is that why she doesn’t post here more often?

Well, I couldn’t disagree with you more — but I will try to respect RedState’s particular perspective in the future. I know that RedState’s just trying to win elections, and we’ve got to be careful about not alienating people. But on the other hand, you need to be careful to not get TOO timid — that is, after all, the problem with the MSM, and why we need alternative media in the first place.

Horowitz sure doesn’t mince words. I’m glad to hear you think he’s acceptable.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

and yes, crops patented by the major companies such as Monsanto and Cargill produce seeds that are sterile — you can’t “save back” seed and replant it the next year, the way farmers have done for thousands of years. That’s just a biological fact. They’re designed that way so that you have to keep buying seeds from the company every year.

Are there no other farmers on RedState who know these basic things? I thought everyone knew this stuff. It’s damn sure not “conspiratorial” to point it out.
streiff

I can grow back year after year.

I’m well aware of how seed is sold which makes those ads so egregious.

Again, if you want to argue this start a diary. Stop it on this thread right now.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

Please don’t whack me, I’m just asking:
You’re saying that I can write a DIARY about something that if I say in a comment thread can get me banned?
streiff

you’re fine.

read the comments from here
http://www.redstate.com/keepourrepublic/2011/02/22/best-practices-on-banning/#comment-45

I’m not going to ban anyone for posting a conspiracy theory. The fact that we let two of them creep up the recommended list should be evidence of that. You might have be show up to poke fun at you but that will be the limit of repercussions.

Now if you start opining on how Jews control the Fed, then you might run into problems but I hope you can see the difference between a nutty theory (maybe not nutty to you or a lot of others) and blatant Antisemitism.
Scope

I think you are looking for answers that just may not be there. If you read the posting rules, linked to above, what should jump out of the page at you is the fact that yes this is a public site, and anyone who wants to sign up and write diaries or post comments has that ability, BUT, it is a privately owned site which has every right to make the rules that they want and see fit to. It seems that you are asking that someone give you a map, or a list of acceptable words, names, ideas etc. What streiff has been saying is that we are mostly adults here, you included, and that there are times when good judgement should be your guide. I do believe some of Beck’s stuff, especially when he plays videos to back up what he is saying, however, he goes way over the top and tries to make his shows sensational, so much so that at times they really belong on the front page of the Enquirer, or whatever rag sits in the grocery line and jumps out to bite you as you pass through, and you just have to hand over that buck to find out what day the world is really going to end.

Whatever you write in a diary or comments should be provable with links to credible sources, direct quotes from who you are referring to, and, it is unwise to use Lew Rockwell or PrisonPlanet for a source to anything. At one time Prison Plant had pictures of the detention camps that the government was going to put us all in. Unfortunately LIO referred to these “detention camps” in a comment in her diary. They don’t exist. At one time Prison Planet had pictures of all of the stops, buildings, facilities etc. that were to be a part of the Trans Texas corridor, where Mexican truck drivers would inspect their own loads and vehicles, while traveling the super secret highway to Canada. None of it existed.

Finally, for your information, someone posted that LIO was in fact the one that threatened to bring a lawsuit against Redstate. She apparently tweeted that from her twitter account, and a moderator picked up that tweet. I also did see a link to a site where Carol Greenberg did in fact bring a bogus Birther lawsuit against Obama, which she lost big time. I believe she has also threatened others with lawsuits as well. Does that give you any more of a clear understanding? Absolutely the whole thing could have been handled much better. The diary in question should have been removed, and she should have been quietly banned. Would you ban someone who threatened you with a lawsuit, that actually did in fact bring a frivilous lawsuit in the past?

Just use good, sound, judgement in what you type. After all, if you got banned from Redstate, would your world end?
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

Also, I never saw the comment in question, only the text of the diary itself. Thanks for the information.
Scope

posted a comment about a big vacant field in Tenn. and said they weren’t sure what it was going to be used for. LIO replied with “Detention Camps?”
Finrod

Many times people who are threadjacking are told to start a diary instead. One time I horribly threadjacked a post of Erick’s– I didn’t mean to, I was just throwing an opinion out there and before I knew it there were 50 replies or so on that subject. I felt mighty abashed when Erick himself responded and said how if he posted what he really felt that he’d have to ban himself for use of language. So I quickly started a diary, posted an apology and a link to said diary, and the heated discussion moved off and to that diary where it belonged.
lineholder

is how it is approached. I think that is what streiff was trying to emphasize above.

Yeah, I did a diary on Dr. Gosnell. I also did a diary on The Third Lantern and Issa as well. Both of which could have been interpreted as “conspiratorial”, depending on a person’s point of view. Granted, I didn’t go as far in depth in either one of those diaries as I could have. The information I provided only scratched the surface, believe me. It was more along the lines of “hey, we have some lawlessness and corruption going on over here…here’s basic info with links…follow it if you want to”.

We’re never going to get back to the point of eliminating some of this corruption if we don’t confront it head on. And people aren’t going to get information about it from the MSM. Setting white-washed versions of the truth out there is like…well, like trying to put out a forest fire by urinating on it.

We have some Repubs in office who are complacent to the point of being wet noodles. It isn’t as if we can depend on them or rely on them to speak the truth about these things.

It just feels like we’re cutting off our noses for the purpose of spiting on our own faces right now.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

I think I get it now. RedState and I just draw the line at different places — i.e., I think Frank Gaffney is absolutely superb and a national treasure; streiff thinks he’s not trustworthy. That is boggling to me — but I’ll just have to accept it.

That old ’70s song comes to mind. “There ain’t no good guys; there ain’t no bad guys; there’s only you and me and we just disagree.”
Scope

he does agree that Gaffney is credible. You may have missed that post.
http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

My question was did he think Gaffney, Woolsey and Horowitz were “conspiracy nuts.”

His answer was “Gaffney yes, the other two not so much.”

But maybe he meant that Gaffney’s OK, and the other two not so much? I.e., exactly reversed?
streiff

so long as we agree that we don’t claim Obama is Kenyan (which implies someone had the foresight to have his birth announced in the Honolulu paper) or the USG isn’t behind 9/11, that the Illuminati, Bilderbergers, and Masons really aren’t all powerful, etc. all will be fine.

c17wife

“No one wants to have an atmosphere that feels like walking on eggshells or broken glass”

streiff

I’ve been doing this since December 2004. I’ve also been on your end as I started here not as a front pager but on the diaries (beginning with this) I’ve been banned from a website (lucianne.com) for thinking the mods were chuckleheads — I was right — and I had a near death experience here at RedState early in my career.

I’d like to encourage anyone with a gripe on how we moderate the site to chime in. We’re always open to learning new stuff and I’ll answer as best I can the hows and whys of our moderation policy as it is executed here.

Scope

thank you for staying above the fray that happened on Saturday. I don’t believe I saw you in that mess. Again, thank you for staying above it all.

I know that all of the moderators are human, with their own personalities, policies, and opinions. I also got the message that there will be much less tolerance for flaming in the comments sections of diaries. I would respectfully ask you if it might not be a good idea for moderators to not reply to comments with snarky, and sometimes leading comments. What I mean by that is that if a moderator expresses a less than positive opinion to someone’s comment, it can and has lead other commentors to pick up on that and then pile on. I am not talking about someone who has asked a poster to dial it back, or to watch the name calling etc. Would it be possible to email a member, and give them a private warning if they are misbehaving or breaking site policy, and, if they continue then to ban them?

Another question I have is is it now site policy to give the microphone to Ron Paul supporters? From more than a few front page diaries, it doesn’t appear that the site is now in support of Ron Paul, or some of the other groups at CPAC. Is it the policy of the site currently to be a very “big tent” for all who enter through the front door, even when they are respectful? I remember reading a comment from a moderator at one point that the “Paulies” would be taken care of by the members with their responses. Would it not be best if we didn’t even get into those arguments to begin with. That seems to be where some threads degenerate quickly, and the name calling ensues.

Thank you for what you do. I’ve always thought you to be pretty darn fair, as well as a few others, and no, I am not sucking up.

streiff

sometimes a banning happens in a vacuum. More often than not the moderators announce, via our super secret email list, “I’m about to whack XXX. If anyone wants to keep him they need to speak up and they need to tell him to cease and desist”.

Often bannings are actually 24 hour timeouts. I, and I know a lot of others, have banned people then turned their account back on a few hours later.

As a matter of course, if you get in a tussle with one moderator you can probably expect a lot of attention from a lot of moderators.

Admittedly, we’re all humans and we all have our hot buttons and our foibles. We also react to phrases and expressions that carry a context. If you want a lot of attention fast, throw neocon in a sentence.

I’m reluctant to give a private warning to people who haven’t been around for quite a while simply because I don’t want to give out my email address to people I’m about to ban. We may or may not give a public warning based on what we’ve seen of the commenter so far.

As to the Ronbots, I would think our front page has shown where they fit in as far as we’re concerned. We no longer have the ban-on-sight rule but usually you don’t have to. Most of them can’t go more that 10 words without accusing people of being neocons or taking money from the Jooooos. I’m sure once the primary season heats up we’ll be whacking them again. Were it up to me, gold-buggery or mentioning Ron Paul’s name in a non-ironic manner would get you an IP ban.

Bill S

but we haven’t won that argument yet, have we?
Doc Holliday

I guess I was just clueless, I did not know there were all these “cabals” and groups plotting and planning behind the scenes. I am pretty much a “what you see is what you get kinda guy”. I have had cross words with some, and the next day it is forgotten in most cases. I just react to what I read. If I do go off half cocked, there is a reason, it will be in black and white. I don’t know anyone here outside of the site.

I know on the gun site I use they use the thread lock as the first method of expressing unhappiness with the direction of discussion. It actually works very well. It kind of tells everyone to just chill and think about what you are doing.

Another thing I have noticed here is that mods seem to have their favorites and least favorites, but mostly it seems like a type of adversarial relationship between mods and “readers”. I know I have been here over five years and have had few enjoyable/informative discussions with any mods or FPs, one or two with Neil but that is about it.

I can only compare this site to other sites I visit, mostly gun sites. the mods at the gun sites act more as facilitators of discussion and they go out of their way to welcome new people or people who ask a question that does not get answered. I don’t think this place will be like that, but it is the only thing I have to compare things to.

I can only invest so much into this site or any site because I don’t have the time. I will never be in a cabal, I will never be an FP, and I will never get the blam stick. So I don’t really think these things will affect me much personally. I figure one day I will leave or get banned, and when your time is up, your time is up. But I do think the place could be run better. I mean that in a constructive way, I just leave it to others to figure out how if that is the goal.

Bill S

There are people we agree with and people we don’t…we are not like sports referees, who are supposed to be neutral parties in the game. See streiff’s comment below – usually when it comes to a situation where we have a vehement disagreement with someone, we will bow out and let someone else look at it and decide.
Doc Holliday

that is a good policy. I just chafe at the term “readers” and did not think removing the date someone joined was very, how show we say it, reader friendly? Maybe that was just because I was only one week from my fifth year here:)
Bill S

but like usual, no one asked me
Doc Holliday

to the other mods, I kid, I kid
Bill S

Nice compliment. I have disagreements with others in the community on a regular basis (as you know ) But I treat each thread and conversation as a separate one, (usually) without prejudice from prior conversations, so if I get into it with someone one day, I will let it go the next day. We are all human, though, and have our pet issues, so that leaks into some of the exchanges. It may be because I’m old, but more and more, if it looks like something is going to blow up into a big row, I just say what I have to say, let the other person have the last word, and I walk away. This isn’t about winning or losing, as far as I’m concerned.
Doc Holliday

words to live by.
Locked and Loaded

After reading quite extensively about the recent dust-up, I noticed what I thought was a slowdown in reco’s. Even before this, I noticed comments always outweigh reco’s (often by a very great margin), indicating to me that here is a much truer measure of the popularity of a diary. In fact, I have quite often not recommended a diary, even though I followed closely the comments and sometimes posted as well. Especially when a diary already has many reco’s or is on the reco list, I don’t feel compelled to add my own. And certainly, in any diary with more than a few comments, its always possible to find names in the comments that are not in the reco’s.

If there are many comments on a diary, it generally indicates the post is worthy of discussion and an elevation on the page. Sometimes that may not quite be the case. Still yet, some people may not want to comment but would register an anonymous opinion.

I think a workable system would be a rating scale of some sort (could be as simple as like/dislike) tied to a comment count. Although I have no knowledge of WP or the interface of RedState, it seems this system, if deemed worthwhile, could be instituted within the current framework of the site.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
Common_Cents

That can encourage more controversial type posts. Some of the best diaries don’t really require a whole lot of discussion necessarily other than a few high five comments.

How about publishing diaries anonymously for a day or so? That would serve to have diaries reco’d on more merit. After a period the authors name would appear. (would be known to mods all along obviously)
Locked and Loaded

The rating aspect will have to ensure it.
Ausonius

which one finds on other websites, is a counter for the number of times a diary has been read.

Few/no comments or recommendations imply no activity whatsoever: it is obviously quite possible that a diary was in fact read quite often, but for whatever reason many readers did not bother to comment. Perhaps they agreed and thought it needed no comment, or – always a possibility – did not think it worthwhile. Perhaps they just had no time, etc.

Anyway, a counter would be nice for the writer to know that somebody had visited the diary.
c17wife

been here over 6 years and it was a very useful tool for me.
It mattered to me how long a person had been here. Newbies spouting nonsense get my attention.

Yeah…and the term reader burns me as well.
Whatever…
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

We don’t want people hazing the newbies, when 2012 is going to bring a lot of them.
streiff

people blasting newcomers over their date of registration rather than addressing their comments had become a problem in the diaries.

Longevity doesn’t mean ‘smart’. I’m proof of that. It was a useful tool for the mods but unfortunately the price it was extracting was too high.
Doc Holliday

but I don’t see the price as too high. I is a simple fix that does not address the real problem. New people should feel welcome, but when you are new, you should dip your toe in first. I have seen many newbies welcomed, and seen 24 hour paulbots blammed. A person is either breaking site rules or they are not, longevity should not affect this.
streiff

and we were by no means unanimous on the decision. But it is what it is.
Finrod

I understand why everyone’s time since registered was removed from the profiles, even though I disagree with it. Perhaps once a month there could be a post congratulating active users who are having their n-year anniversary on the site that month? That might help to foster a sense of community on the site that seems to have been lost in recent years.
streiff

I’ll bring it to the attention of the others.
Finrod

..
Aaron Gardner

Seriously, I meant that.
Finrod

And I apologize if I’ve been more snippy/irritating than normal lately. It’s not a valid excuse, but I was just coming off a week with the flu when the whole GOProud kerfuffle fit hit the shan, and to put it mildly I haven’t been in the best of moods recently. Thanks for not seeing to it that I got banned. (-:
Aaron Gardner

I have been a grump for the past year and a half since my father passed. Also, VT grates on me. There is a general malaise here that is worse then what I experience in Kosovo, and that is saying something.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

bad mutha on RS…twitter smile…starting to get the non-Dixie allusion yet?
Aaron Gardner

Seriously, I really don’t know what you are getting at. Maybe I am especially dense today.
streiff

allusion to his conflict with Thomas this past weekend. He’s trying to act like he’s joking about it but he’s actually stewing over his banning and reinstatement.
Aaron Gardner
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

especially since I was advised that my account and many others were mistakenly turned off in the crossfire, and now happy to be enjoying civil disagreements and agreements at Redstate since the celebration of our First President who never told a lie, even about a fallen cherry tree.

I choose to be happy and discuss issues without rancor or name-calling. There are many reasonable and conservative positions on many legal and political issues.

In my circles, passive-aggressive can also be termed as polite and civil.

God bless and I wonder ed if you had seen my latest on the coalition in Georgia that could cause Boortz-heads to explode?

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/02/23/the-religious-right-pub-owners-coalition/
Aaron Gardner

That said, I did read your article, but I it doesn’t really get my dander up.
Finrod

Well, almost completely. What is VT?
Aaron Gardner
Finrod

I’ve been watching too much college basketball; all I could think of was Virginia Tech.
streiff

the challenge we face with that faced by a smaller site.

First, we have about 100K uniques a day. Most of those don’t leave comments but we get a lot of comments. The volume alone prevents us from greeting new people. At one time, back in 05 and 06, you could keep one eye on the comments and see new names and take the time to welcome them. Sadly, we’re too big for that individual acknowledgment now.

Second, a significant portion of any new group of registrants show up to flog their particular candidate, or to troll, or to incite. Our subject matter lends itself to conflict and controversy in a way that a lot of subjects don’t. In fact, we are about conflict and controversy.

Third, our theme is conservative in the primary and Republican in the general. As such we will not have people pushing 3d parties, fringe candidates, etc. We also have a base line of orthodoxy we enforce. We’re not here to debate the merits of the traditional family or a strong national defense or the free market. Adhering to those basics is the price of admission. So some of our time is devoted to this area.

Lastly, we are concerned about comments that can reasonably, or even unreasonably, be construed as racist, as anti-Semitic, or other things. Sometimes people find that out too late.

As mods we try to weed out the stupid, the crazy, the bigots, the one-trick ponies, the troofers, the birfers, the conspiracy theorists, because not only are they an assault upon the intellect they drive people away from the site.

Unfortunately, we are at a point where most contact between commenters and mods is adversarial unless we have an existing relationship with you.
Doc Holliday

And I agree with your priorities. I do think some have a way of gaming the system, by getting away with personal insults way too much. But like I said I agree with your priorities and I realize this can seem like herding cats. I just offered my two cents because you asked. I don’t think I could do a better job. If you gave me the blam stick, on the wrong night, this would be a ghost town lol.
hoosierteacher

First, thank you for being involved in this conversation. I’m glad to see so many mods rec’ing and participating with this post.

I have an idea about the front page (I hope this isn’t considered a thread jack). Forgive me for the long winded wind up, but here it goes.

We tout the site as being (in your words) “conservative in the primaries and republican in the general”. With respect, the current manager of the site doesn’t abide by this. I know the philosophy isn’t a hard and fast rule, and I respect that Erick has a right to his opinion as anyone else does.

In fact, I agree with Erick to a point. For example, I don’t care who wins the primary, I won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate regardless of party. I’ll sit out, or vote for the pro-life candidate. Still, I wouldn’t call myself a single issue voter. A candidate has be pro-life, but the candidate who is the best fiscal / national defense candidate remaining gets my support. I won’t support someone that doesn’t abide by all three legs of conservatism, but I understand that within and of the three legs there will be imperfection. In my view, if a president is pro-choice, he’ll stain the judicial branch with his nominees.

But here’s my question. Why do the powers that be create a philosophy that they openly go back on? Erick said he would vote for a democrat over Castle in DE. I would vote for neither and just vote down ticket, but that isn’t the point. Erick has also made similar comments about politicians in his own state he doesn’t like.

I was offended when Erick attacked Dan Coats in Indiana, whose conservative record is solid. The reasoning was that Coats was too old, and had left the senate before. Though Erick was kind enough to e-mail me to reassure me he wasn’t attacking Coats, he went on to fire a parting shot at Coats even after Coats won and was our candidate. I still feel that we (the voters and party faithful in Indiana) were badly mis-served by Erick.

It wasn’t a matter of “conservative in the priamries” in this race. It was a matter of age and dismissing Coats’ service to the Bush State Department as “running from Indiana”. Erick just picked the guy he liked better.

I can’t speak for GA, VA, or DC writers, but I do have an idea of how folks view things in Indiana. Coats is an icon in the state with conservatives (especialy amongst those wanting an alternative to Lugar, who has always been the “moderate” of the two). I appreciated and respected the younger candidate that was being touted as the “tea party candidate” too.

But in the end, the feeling I get is that Coats won because folks outside of Indiana were dictating to hoosiers which candidate we should call “more conservative”, and made Coats out to be the inside choice. I’m not an insider, but I was one of the people calling the Indiana Family Institute to try to get Dan’s friends to push him into running.

I just think we alienated voters in Indiana (who picked one good man over another good man), and got laughed at by the nation (republicans and democrats alike) for the O’Donnell support.

O’Donnell (currently under investigation by the FEC since Dec and mulling a Dancing with the Stars gig) had a track record that folks in her state tried to warn national level blogs about. There was the witch comment on a lefty talk show (Maher), her firing from a conservative institute (she then sued them and got laughed out of court), she lied about her collegiate record, she got video taped having a one night stand with some young punk, and her campaign hinted that her opponent was gay.

RS had no business backing that kind of a record, but we did it to spite Castle? Really?

We were right to back Rubio, and I think we were right to back the losing effort against Reid (though I have mixed feelings). I also think the NY Dede what’s her name thing was handled well too. We were certainly right to bump Specter. I recall a lot of soul searching on the site about Chafee.

So in a sense, I’m a hypocrit for being all over the map on when to support whom. But so is the site. And it seems silly to have the philosophy “conservative in the primaries, republican in the general” when we really aren’t. The truth is that our front page management (like any of us) has differening ideas depending on the race.

In Indiana we had two conservatives in the primary, but we chose sides (and chose wrong, according to Indiana republicans). In Delaware we took the conservative alright, but should we have sided with someone who turned out to be so unhinged and without any chance in the general? (For the record, it wasn’t her conservatisim that was the problem. It was her).

I like the idea that, unless Red State is making an endorsement as a site, that front pagers (including the management) stick to the diary section. I’ve read a few posts on the front page that didn’t seem to get the support of the members (or even all of the staff), and when complaints were made, the excuse was that “I’m not speaking for Red State”. Well, if the post isn’t representative of the site, should it be on the front page?

A lot of the time I read opinions where the writer even acknowledges he isn’t on the same page with all of the staff. (Leon did this recently. I agreed with Leon’s post, but was it reflective of Red State’s stance on the issue?)

I know we have room for different opinions, but it seems that official opinions belong to the staff, NOT the membership. That makes sense. But I also want to know sometimes (as I’m reading a post) “Is this the opinion of Red State, or the author?” As with Erick’s previous endoresements, personal or public, they seem awful official if they are on the front page.

This can be a major problem. Recently there was a favorable comment made about Ron Paul at CPAC. A reading of the entire article made it clear that the author (a front pager – Jeff I think) was no friend of Ron Paul. But if a member had made the same observation that Jeff made (about the energy for Paul), he could have been banned.

I apologize for rambling, and if you’re still with me I salute you. I have a stomach virus and I’m in a lot of pain, so I hope you can forgive my thoughts being a little dicombobulated.

In short, perhaps the front pagers (including the big guy himself) should use the diary section more themselves. If their positions are sound (and the writing is good), I’m sure they’ll get the rec’s. A few staffers even use the diary section from time to time. But I think some don’t when their posts really do belong as a diary. If some front page staff (including management) DON’T use the diaries, it looks a lot like they believe they are speaking ex cathedra whenever they speak. I’m just a member, but I don’t like that.

Thanks for all that you do.
c17wife

That is craziness. There are no cabals. Just long time users that have been participants on this site for a long time being hammered. For what, I’m not exactly sure.

You hit on a big point here-

“…Another thing I have noticed here is that mods seem to have their favorites and least favorites, but mostly it seems like a type of adversarial relationship between mods and
acat

Part of the reason Red State feels different is that it is different. It’s grown quite a lot, and some of the additional elbow-throwing is because most people can’t be at a like-family level with all the various posters.

Assuming C17 refers to military transport aircraft, let me try this analogy – take a lieutenant who’s used to knowing the details of everyone in his unit, which groups work well together, who’s the best at one thing, who has family troubles, etc. – and jump him straight to major. The same knowing-all-details approach cannot work for most people – beyond a couple hundred faces, it all becomes a blur of “others”.

The other analogy for this is a pastor going from a church of 500 to a church of 5000… the approach that works for smaller groups does not scale. The usual phrases include “victim of his own success” and “peter principle”.

I’m not sure about the C17 thing but .. if you or your SO are in the armed services, then thank you both for your sacrifice. Wife of an armed services person is no easy road.

Mew
c17wife

gratitude.

I know exactly what you are saying. But…
This “blur” of others included people that helped build this site into the community it has become. Either by their writing, their advocacy, or both. Some of these people were heavily invested in RS one way or another.
And for some to slash and burn the way they did over the weekend is just inexcusable.
Truly, we are eating our own at this point.
Maybe RS isn’t big enough for all the egos anymore. I dunno. But I do know this, it makes me sad. Very sad. I’ve been here since RS 1.0 and never did I expect to see this kind of scenario play out.
I guess in the end, RS really wasn’t that much different than any other place. And that is a shame in my book.
AceInTX

massed ya gal!
acat

Hadn’t had the chance to say hello to her until now.

Mew
Doc Holliday

I was here the night all this went down and still did not understand it really. All I know is Vassar had a lot of posts go up to the top and some mods really, really did not like LIO. From what I can tell LIO offered up some compelling arguments but may have taken them too far, into a conspiracy way. That may have been on purpose, I don’t know. The only other thing I know is some guy named Tom Crown basically repeatedly insulted everyone in the diary.

I first heard of Cabals and the other things Erick mentioned, well, when he mentioned them. I just thought the place was above board, or I never thought about it at all. I know Vassar was a good writer and was very kind to me in his comments. I know I recco’ed LIO’s diary because I do believe Obama is trying to destroy our coal industry. Now some of what she said seemed a bit out there, but I agreed with the main sentiment.

I don’t think the mods want us to discuss this again, so I probably should not have written what I did. But that is a fair and truthful commentary of the extent of all I know about the issues, which means little or nothing.

I got fed up with this place for a specific reason not long ago and I left for about 5 weeks. I came back with a post now and then, and then had some good conversations, with good people and later had a diary hit the recommended list. BTW, my last diary was a flop, it was probably my fault because I threadjacked it in the first post lol.

Maybe you should just take some time off from the site? If you still think of it as a home at some point, you will likely come back. I know when I left some said I would never stay away because I needed the place. The reality was I did stay away and I came back because I wanted to, there were some discussions that interested me. I did not need to come back, I wanted to.

You need to do what is right for you. You should only be here if you enjoy being here. If this place makes you angry or unhappy, I am sure there are better things you could do. Don’t waste your free time, spend it wisely. Good luck to you whatever you decide.
c17wife

I have been on a partial posting hiatus from RS since the 08 election. Partly because of geography and partly because I hate the techno of the new site. But I’ve always read.

Thomas Crown is a former FP and moderator. He taught me much about how to be an unapologetic conservative. He had my back many times with trolls.
His behavior this weekend is beneath the TC I knew and admired. And that makes me sad.

Again, there are no cabals. Just good people trying to do a good work to get the word out. We all want the same thing. Or at least I thought we did.
acat

because all that can ever be is a wish. I’m sure if we were to compare notes we’d find differences pretty quickly, and yet all I want is to have the opportunity to speak, to listen, to agree to disagree, and together to put shoulders to the wheel, and push back the liberals.

Where conservatives most often lose is, as you say, when we disavow our own fellows, usually over something much smaller – but much nearer to us – than our disagreement with ruling elites.

Or, to sum it up, nobody can hurt us like family because we let nobody else get as close.

Mew
Doc Holliday
Doc Holliday

I take each person one on one. It is impossible for everyone to like everyone or everyone to agree. I chat mostly with people of like mind but I am sure 90 percent of the people here are on the same side. If someone challenges my views in an interesting way, I enjoy chatting with them as well.

just try to cheer up c17wife, that is all I am trying to get you to do

and I very strongly agree with Acat in thanking your for your service as a military spouse.
AceInTX

and twitter back and forth…(for those of us who understand twitter…I do not)

If emailing a buddy is forming a cabal…I would imagine a bunch of us are guilty as charged….many of us have met at Red State Gatherings…Many of us meet and chat on other sites…many of us have exchanged email addresses….Many of us got each others email addresses From Red State since we used to have them posted in our profiles back in 2.0 days.

ther is no conspiracy…there are no cabals that I know of…and I’d LOVE to see the proof to show those that exists if I’m wrong.
Doc Holliday

I am kind of a loner. I don’t think emailing would constitute a cabal. Now you better not talk bad about me though! lol. I am not on twitter, facebook, myspace etc, I don’t even have a 3g phone.

I am just going to stay out of it because I don’t know any more than what Erick wrote. I didn’t even know who was banned, I did not know my old friend/nemesis GC was banned. He and I debated here for years, but stayed on friendly terms.

In the end this is their site and they make the rules.
c17wife

…there is no conspiracy
AceInTX

now it’s a conspiracy and a cabal to talk to one another off the site?

I’m sorry…If I’m wrong I’m wrong…but unless there are proof that there was a consious effort to block access to the reco list….I fear this was ill considered…

and again…this excludes the douche bag that is suing Erick…what a stupid move that was
AceInTX
Bill S

would consider that to be a privacy problem. I know I would. (and of course what I think is universally true… )
acat

but I see how it could bother others.

Mew
StandardCandle
barleycorn

Thanks to keepourrepublic for posting this diary and especially to streiff for doing an excellent job explaining the whyness of the wherefore.

A couple of suggestions from moi:

It has been correctly pointed out that things went on out of public view and therefore we should trust the moderators. I would ask that that also be applied in reverse. By that I mean, sometimes it feels like certain moderators assume knowledge (and therefore possible ulterior motives) on the part of posters that may not exist.

I tend to be strictly BIG PICTURE in my outlook here. However if I realize that someone else has an emotional stake in a news event I will modulate my comments accordingly.

Suppose Moderator Fred has a child sick with cancer. That fact would greatly alter how I respond to a post by him on anything touching on health care, insurance, etc. My point being that even some stuff that moderators think “everybody knows” may in fact be news to certain of us.

Perhaps a gentle nudge should be the first response to a comment that approaches or goes over the line, as opposed to an elbow in the teeth.
streiff

and that does happen. The greatest variation you will see amongst moderators, though, is probably over the issue of gay marriage. What will get your bell rung by one of us might get no comment at all by others.
c17wife

if there truly were things going on behind the scenes, perhaps we should have avoided all the personal attacks and carried out discipline behind the curtain so to speak. And not been quite so proud of throwing around the Krakken, eh?
lineholder

a lot of us agree with this sentiment. There were other options regarding how it could have been dealt with. But it wasn’t out choice to make. And even on Saturday evening and Sunday, as the whole situation unfolded….I’m not sure that it would have made any difference at that point.

All the same, it’s done. So where do we go from here?

I really don’t like the way we seem to be going after our own right now. It’s going to take an all out effort, all hands on deck (so to speak) to turn things around.

We have a common enemy. That’s what we should be focusing on, isn’t it?
streiff

a lot of the conflict that spilled out onto the site had been brewing behind the scenes.

Also unfortunately, some of the people had profiles on the site and personalities behind the scenes that precluded negotiation and handling things quietly.
c17wife

This was a choice that was made. And it could have been made differently.
At least own that the actions done were done the way they were calculated.
streiff

and as you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t call my statements poppycock.

A choice was made because a small group of people decided they would take over the management of the diaries part of this site and set about to intimidate anyone who challenged them by going directly to people who they, wrongly as it turned out, thought would support them over the site management.
Scope

“We also have a base line of orthodoxy we enforce. We
streiff

but the description is correct.

c17wife. we’ve been together on this list for quite a while. I don’t want to revisit the whole weekend brouhaha but there is no doubt that there was a group of users who were gaming the recommended list. I received emails at one time asking for reccos. Yes these folks were friends but it doesn’t change the fact of what was happening and what some of those folks were doing in their spare time — like essentially trying to set themselves up as part of the site management. If you’re going to shoot at the king you gotta kill him. In this case the king was merely annoyed.

Anyway, this is and always has been a community. Unfortunately, as the site has grown we’ve developed a front page community and diary community with some differences in style ans societal norms. Hopefully, we’ll fix that in the upcoming months with some changes.

As I said in another place on this list, a lot of us have noticed that our interactions with posters is increasingly adversarial. Most of that is due to the number of comments which has changed our role, over time, from a facilitator to a state trooper. We need to fix this, too, IMO.
tex41lb

New to political activism I am here largely to listen and learn from the experts. Generally I feel unlearned about almost all issues and thus am reticent in speaking on an issue that sparks in me a need to comment. Partly this is a reflection on me, but it is also a reflection on my uncertainty as to what is acceptable or not in the response I want to make.

There is an underlying threat of expulsion for the unacceptable comment, or worse a put down that merely reinforces a commentary’s uncertainty.

For me a general guideline and some definition of what is and is not an effective comment would be helpful. For example I now know not to use the term neocon or the name Ron P**l! If there is a blogging for dummies I will read it! With respect. L Beale

pastisprolog

about something or other, at the suggestion of another poster, to help clarify some things, as he said you were the moderator that time. I never heard back from you. Does this mean 1) you didn’t get my communication, or 2) you didn’t have a reason to respond? Thanks.
Wubbies World

Though I try to read regularly, I guess I missed out on some of the flame wars. I totally missed Thomas Crown and what happened there. I have not had any run in’s with some of the people I think were banned (I am uncertain of who all they were- so I am speculating here).

I did catch some of what was going on and was amazed it was allowed without the BLAM stick coming out sooner.

I think an email, accompanied by a “check your email” comment would be a great idea. If the person doesn’t get the hint with personal one on one contact, then yea, they deserve to get banned. I do like the temporary ban as well, but I am unsure how that would be defined.

Streiff, I have had good exchanges and warnings from you. I am glad you are as even handed about things as you are. I appreciate it. Thanks.

pastisprolog

What I never enjoy are people who think an insult is a logical statement. For what it’s worth, on a different site, I once observed a gun debate in which everyone was just insulting each other. Hundreds of posts consisting of little more than, “You’re too stupid to understand,” replied to with, “You’re stupider.” The actual language used was fit for a chain gang. The whole thing was school-yard childish.

This is what I think was beginning to happen here just before the bannings. I suppose off-line suggestions from the moderators were unable to restrain the pointless invective.

I hope the vigorous debate continues, just without the ad hominem invective.

As for trolls, hackers, Ronulans, birthers, tin-foil hat wearers, people who like Liza Minnelli and others, there are other sites, this is a conservative political site. There are specific sites for those other subjects.

One question though for streiff. As much as Christianity in inseparable from our nation’s founding and is, therefore, fundamental to the modern conservative movement, I don’t think this is the site to debate theology or Christian apologetics. Am I right?

Bill S

Yes, you are right.

And I’m all for banning Liza Minnelli fans, too.
streiff

though often threads head in that direction.

SoFiMil

AceInTX

Finrod

…

pamela1631

and Mod when she went off the deep end one night upon finding her ex-husband had a new wife.

Or when a long time member got drunk and started sexually harassing (including pictures no less) all the women and some of the men. Or when the college trolls showed up-that worked out well in the end. They were in their college computer lab and the college took a dim view when presented with their escapades. Spammers are in a category all by their lonesome.

I understand the warnings, issuing violations, take a break for a while then come back or the go away for good. It is not easy to do especially when a friend is on the other end of the issue.

Balance is not easy to come by when words fly.

luciusacius

I have been a member of Redstate for about one year. I guess I am still a newbie. I started out very hesitant to comment because I was new, didn’t quite grasp the culture and personalities here and generally believe that discretion is usually not a bad idea. I have posted a number of comments and have gotten over my hesitation. I have not written a diary. I have drafted three, all dealing with firearms issues, which I am well aquainted with. I deleted all of them because I felt that my attempts were not up to the average diary standard at Redstate. With this background I watched the mass banning with a good bit of shock.

First, what did Vasser Bushmills do to get banned, and, secondly, is it permanent. I did not know him, or anyone else here for that matter, but have recommended almost every one of his diaries. His content is exceptional, he is a natural storyteller and he has a felicity of style that motivates and makes you want to read more. I am not part of any cabal, but, make my living from writting and speaking persuasively and his work here was exceptional in that regard.

I think that a little more information about the reasons for particular bans would help me, and perhaps others, understand what happened. VB was one of the best things about this site (OK, I like Moe and his perfect brand of snark, too). This doesn’t feel the same as it has the last year.

juana

more of an explanation for this ban would be appreciated, especially in light of the comments on another popular diary by eburke. The shameful comments by T Crown and the actions of the “Kraken” would put off any newbie wanting to advance conservation thought.

juana

I mean conservative thought – would not want to be beaten up here.

Change Jar Conservative

Would it have been possible to simply limit people to one recommendation per day and solve the issue?

Or was it a case where people were creating IDs simply to recommend things up?

Bill S

runner12

this turned out some great comments and cleared up some things for me as well. It needed to be discussed and you did it in a respectful and productive manner.

Thanks should also go to streiff for being willing to explain the “why” behind some things.

keepourrepublic

n/t

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Best Practices On Banning

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL