Several weeks ago I had to blacklist someone from commenting on this site. They kept leaving long, rambling, nonsensical comments. First, I cautioned 
them privately. When it didn’t stop, I cautioned them publicly. When it still didn’t stop, I started deleting their comments. But that didn’t stop them either. So I blacklisted them from commenting. And you know what? That didn’t stop them either, because they changed their email address just to be able to keep commenting.
Such is the adventure of open media.
On occasion, I have thought about having a Comment Policy on this site, but have avoided it for different reasons. Perhaps the biggest reasons are
- I like rigorous discussion and
- I believe in self-governance (i.e., commenters keeping themselves in check).
Well, after last week’s comments, I’m starting to reconsider. No, I won’t rehash everything said, on what post, by whom. Those of you who followed the “discussion” will know what I’m talking about. The conversation progressively descended into nitpicking, insinuation, snark, and affront (both legit and feigned). And there was some name-calling. Frankly, I was proud of my regular commenters. Lord knows I’ve violated etiquette on this blog and other blogs enough times. So I have a pretty high tolerance (or is it grace) for rough and tumble exchanges.
Nevertheless, as that particular conversation screeched to a halt, I almost felt like I needed to apologize. What should I apologize for? For one, some of the mean things said. No, I think I personally maintained a respectful, even lighthearted, tone throughout the conversation. Sure, I was being forceful. But I did it with a smile and genuine appreciation that people would see fit to engage the subject. So what am I responsible for? Well, I think I’m at fault for letting that conversation go that far. What could I have done to stop it. I’m not sure.
In retrospect, there’s a couple of things I want to clarify about my approach — or non-approach — to comments and commenters on this blog.
I value rigorous discussion. Perhaps that goes without saying. But I kind of cringe when a post gets 20 comments that all say, “Amen,” “Great post,” “You’re bitchin’.” By all means, if you think the post is good, say so. But I’m not looking for attaboys. Many of my posts are designed to provoke conversation, controversy, disagreement, and debate. The downside is that sometimes I can push the envelope too far, be intentionally provocative, and be argumentative. And sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people can say things that are hurtful, mean-spirited, presumptuous, and simply untrue. But that happens when you engage in rigorous discussion.
I don’t mind differing opinions. I have this quote from Aristotle in my sidebar: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” How else do we know if our positions are sound without entertaining contrary positions? The problem with allowing dissent is that on any given post, depending upon the number of comments / opinions, you can find all kinds of things I don’t agree with. Which is fine. However, on several occasions I’ve been charged with condoning someone’s opinion, or the way they said it, just because I left it unchallenged. Listen: The author of this blog does not approve of every comment left on this blog, but he defends the rights of those commenters to say it.
I don’t feel like I have to rebut or respond to every comment. It’s a pet peeve of mine when I encounter a blog post with 20 comments… and 10 of them are the author’s! But that’s another story. I am totally happy letting a point stand unanswered, even if it’s one I disagree with. I recall one of my posts about self-publishing and someone commented about how ALL self-published books were crap. I let the comment stand. Do I believe that? No. What surprised me was the flack I later took for not rebuffing that author. Nevertheless, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to have to render judgement on every comment someone makes here. But, you know, that doesn’t mean I’ll back down from a fight either. 😉
I’d rather err on the side of letting a conversation go too far, than trying to reel it in too soon. Yes, this means risking hurt feelings and potential readers. But I’d rather this be known as a place where we can dig in, grow, sharpen one another, and remain friends, than just have a love fest. So I am trusting that you know when to stop, that you know when to apologize, that you know when to let a conversation go. And that we all stay civil.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts about comments. I value my regular readers, subscribers, and occasional visitors. I’m so blessed by the level of discussion here. Really. I’ve learned so much from you guys. I hope you never feel like you have to agree with me on everything. Yes, be prepared to be challenged! And by all means, challenge me! But at the end of the day, no matter how the discussion shakes out, I’d like to know that truth, respect, and friendship always wins out.
Thanks for putting up w/ my comments, Mike.
Always appreciate your comments, Jill.
I like to read your blog because there is discussion, there are people that disagree with you, and you handle it with grace, as do so many of your commenters. It’s sad that some people become uncivil in their discourse on the internet, but then again, such people may have had limited social skills to begin with.
Mike,
I enjoy your blog because you write thought-provoking and interesting topics. That’s what a blog is supposed to do.
I don’t mind disagreement either and since I’ve turned 40, I prefer clarity over agreement at this stage in my life. With clarity, I get an understanding of someone’s viewpoint on a particular topic even if I don’t agree with them. (I wish our political discussion could understand that concept….LOL!!)
Keep on pushing and bringing the goods, Mike. It is appreciated.
God Bless,
Marion
I visit your weblog, Mike, because we both write horror, and I appreciate that. I run my blog quite differently, however. Absolute Monarchy.
I’ve always enjoyed the level of discussion here at your blog, Mike, though I don’t comment all the time. Rigorous debate is great for stretching the mind.
I love vigorous debate so I’m glad you put up with us.
I’m sometimes not as gentle as others want me to be. I try to be gentle with people who are tender reeds. But I’m a little less gentle with people who seem to me to be able to “dish it out” because I assume they like debate as much as I do. So I’m always a little surprised when I find a guy who is good at ripping other people, who has tender feelings and is easily hurt.
I don’t know why some people get angry in debate. I don’t. My feelings are never hurt (I don’t derive my sense of worth from people I’m debating) and I never get angry when I can’t sway people to my way of thinking.
My job in a debate is to 1) speak the truth in love and leave it at that, and 2) listen to what the other guy is saying and consider it. Because 1) what other people do with the truth I speak is between them and God and isn’t really any of my business, and 2) if I’m not willing to listen to the other guy, I shouldn’t be wasting his time.
So, I hope you let the debates continue. This is how we learn. Conflict causes us to look at our beliefs and grow.
Sally, among other things, I was upset by something that was said about you in the aforementioned discussion. It was just so unfair. What bothered me most about it is how easily terms like “tolerance,” “acceptance,” “nonjudgmentality,” and “civility” are thrown around… and then abandoned. But I admit to being at a loss knowing what to do. I guess I’m just thankful that there’s people who can take the heat without taking it so personal.
I read your blog for many reasons, including the give-and-take discussions in the comments. If you only ever listen to one side of an argument, how do you know if it’s a reasonable, critically wrought one?
First of all, I appreciate that you allow debate and disagreement in your comments, and give the commenters room to talk amongst themselves. That we are allowed to disagree with you, and with each other. One of *my* pet peeves is when a blogger refuses to let anyone comment in disagreement, especially when the blogger purposely posts on controversial topics.
(That said, I did a little back-searching and found the post you’re referencing, and you are totally in the right to reprimand when a commenter is attacking like that, and I think you did all you could to put a stop to it.)
But I am wondering–what’s with the pet peeve against bloggers who reply to all their comments? Some bloggers simply acknowledge each and every comment as a way of saying, hey, I appreciate you stopping by. Or do you mean specifically regarding posts that create discussion in the comments, and the blogger feels the need to be a *referee* for each and every comment? (Just curious–hypothesis bubbling…)
“…what’s with the pet peeve against bloggers who reply to all their comments?”
It’s important to show appreciation to our commenters. So I totally get showing up to thank them and respond to their visit. One reason it bothers me is what you mention: “the need to be a *referee* for each and every comment.” It also strikes me as a potential sign of anxiety or impatience. Like a salesperson who appears overly eager to sell you that car. Dude, act like you expect customers. Then there’s the sense that commenting on every comment inflates comment totals. So you have 20 comments — 10 of which are the webmaster’s. The other 10 were actually left by only 3 people, one of which left multiple comments. So, in the end, the 20 comments were generated by only… 4 people.
But this is totally my own warped perspective.
Thanks for the clarification. I remember when I did the guest post on here, at first I found myself wanting to reply to every comment, essentially out of the feeling that, hey, I started the conversation, I therefore have a responsibility to participate in it. But the commenters started their own debates, and I stepped aside after a while.
I do understand about the inflated numbers. I’ve worried about that on my own blog. I tend to answer comments purely to let the commenter know that I’ve noticed them and appreciate their input. But I’ve recently tried to combine multiple replies into a single comment.
I’ve noticed that women bloggers tend to be more apt to answer each commenter in turn. It’s like a hostessing gesture–at least, I feel that way about it. But I also haven’t been writing debative type stuff for awhile. When the conversations have gotten more that way at my place, I’ve stepped back. When it’s just a few friends stopping by to share thoughts, I answer them each.
Interesting observation, Cat. I think you’re right about women bloggers being more prone to do this (which provokes a whole other set of questions). In thinking about it, I visit sites that often receive a large volume of comments. In those cases, the blog author is usually forced to step in only when appropriate. So I wonder if the blogger who gets less traffic simply has the luxury that a high-volume blog doesn’t.
OK, remember the bit above where I said, “hypothesis bubbling”? Um, yeah, what Cat said.
She called it hostessing. I agree, but I think it’s part of the difference in the way women and men are wired, too. Women need affirmation that we’ve been heard when we talk, and we are used to giving it because we understand that need. So, a reply says, “I hear ya.” (Tip, men! Let a woman know definitively that you heard her–like repeat back what she said in your own words–not sarcastically, btw :P–and she will not repeat herself.)
Guys, however, are not like that. They can pop their head into the doorway, without even lookin’ to see if you’re there, holler whatever they have to say, and walk off without a second thought. Guy logic: I said it, so she musta heard me. (Or sometimes: I said it to someone else, or thought it, she musta heard me :P).
I also agree, though, that high volume of comments probably dissuades the blogger from commenting a lot. (And THAT, to ME provokes a whole set of questions/observations.)
And further observation (besides the fact that I have no business obsessing about this because I have editing to finish :P), you have an audience that includes women who are always talking about how they think more like men. We read guy books, love action and explosions, write horror, grew up tomboys…and we tend to get how guys think, so when you don’t acknowledge every one of our comments we don’t take it personally.
Just-a-wonderin’–it’d be interesting to look back and see if some of your past commenters (mainly women) stopped commenting at any point, which might mean it had something to do with you not replying to their comments? Hypothesizing again. I need to stop that. Time to edit!
Hey. Aren’t you supposed to be editing? 😉
I am DONE! (Well, this round…)
Good on ya! {high fives}
Hey, as a point of trivia, Kerry made sure to answer every commenter on his Bradbury post at the MLP blog. Seems to me it can also be a way to encourage people to engage when a forum is relatively new.
I missed this post when it first came out but wanted to comment on this exact point. Since Cat and Kat already said it, I don’t have to elaborate, but just add, I simply look at answering each person as a matter of politeness. But there are discussions that simply make it impossible or at least impractical, in which case, a blanket acknowledgment seems appropriate.
Becky
I think it’s the coolest thing EVER that you allow such vigorous discussions on your blog. I wonder how I’d react if I had such vehement opposition to my personal views on my blog. Well, I KNOW how I’d react–I’d probably feel the need to get the last word in. That’s MY nasty little habit, and I’m trying to stop doing that. I LOVE getting other views on things and appreciate the mix of writers you get on here. Sometimes I feel I’m in the minority, but I NEVER feel personally attacked by you! If you can’t reason with others about WHY you believe what you believe, how convinced are you in the first place?
Yes, your blog is often edgy. But I do appreciate that you tackle topics many of us deliberately shun. You have a valuable ministry here, Mike, keep it up!
Mike, that’s what you (a white Christian male) get for saying the word “gay”. If ever your blog seems to need a shot in the arm, just write a post about homosexuality. I’ve never seen an internet “discussion” about homosexuality between Christians and non-Christians that didn’t eventually devolve into the name calling.
I was once referred to a psychiatric website. I guess the person I was “debating” thought my Christian views were a psychiatric disorder. Lovely, huh? (I had the audacity to suggest that homosexuality might not always be purely genetic.)
I posted on homosexuality on my blog the other day, Jessica, and was attacked by an alleged Christian who told me that God only hates _violent_ homosexuality. (New one on me.) My view, however, comes from Romans chp. 1. Homosexuality, genetic or not, is sin just like murder, fornication, adultery, theft, and any other genetic trespass and transgression. So, agreed. Some Christian positions are inflammatory, but the love aspect of such stances is that we are all in this together, and that there is a Way out.
VERY well-said.
I spent the long weekend at my sons’ house reading about schizophrenia (a grandson wants to claim he has it and that excuses his behaviour) and read about how at the peak of the illness the person with schizophrenia will often engage in word salad. The examples given looked much like the comments given on your previous blog. It’s got to be hard when you lose your ability to communicate and your ability to understand.
Sounds like a very healthy attitude to have. I’m not sorry I missed that particular conversation.
-Jimmy