To Moderate or Not to Moderate...

Based on my own judgment we'll continue to moderate comments here at DC. The recent polls are not that accurate of a measuring stick of the people who actually comment regularly at DC.

When I shut the polls down here were the results:

On Moderating Comments at DC -

Except for Extreme Abuses Let There be a Free For All 45 (35%)
Continue Moderation As Is 49 (38%)
Be Flexible Depending on the Threat 34 (26%)
A Reader Poll on Comments -

Only Prohibit X-Rated Comments 44 (37%)
Prohibit X And R-Rated Comments 4 (3%)
Prohibit X, R-Rated Comments And Personal Attacks 24 (20%)
Prohibit All the Above Plus Ignorant or Troll Comments 35 (29%)
Prohibit All Comments 10 (8%)
My detractors want their cake and eat it too. If I allow a free for all, they'll spam up the combox to the point where no reasonable discussion can take place. There will be personal attack after personal attack, personal charges and counter-charges. That's the nature of the beast when there exists such a potent force like this site with these contributors who speak on the level of the average person for the most part.

If instead we moderate comments, my detractors will claim that I'm censoring speech by prohibiting some very important refutations of our arguments. This is not true nor has it ever been true. We follow a reasonable comment policy.

A third option that I and/or other team members should monitor comments 24 hours a day (or even most of the day) is simply unacceptable.

What my detractors must do is to provide reasons to suggest this Blog would not degenerate as described if there was a free for all, or else they must provide evidence that we have not followed our comment policy.

My goal is to have a reasonable discussion of the ideas that separate us. That's all I have ever wanted. Some people do not share this goal.

Until later, happy surfing!

Oh, and check out a couple of new books linked in the sidebar.

4 comments:

Lynn said...

Sounds reasonable, John. Just got your book.

Marc said...

Keep the moderating policy as it is right now, seems to be working pretty good.

Eric said...

"If instead we moderate comments, my detractors will claim that I'm censoring speech by prohibiting some very important refutations of our arguments. This is not true nor has it ever been true."

Hi John

The fact that none of my posts have ever been prohibited is clear evidence that your detractors are full of crap. While I'm certainly not saying that all, or even any of my posts have refuted your arguments (we all know how difficult it can be to refute a carefully developed argument), nearly all of them have expressed serious disagreements with you and the other members of the DC team. Still, for the most part, I've been treated very well here, and have certainly never been censored. Heck, I can take it a big step further: If you'll allow scholars like John Haught and Craig Blomberg to post articles and comments here at DC, then what in the world makes your detractors think you're afraid of what they (the detractors) have to say? Ridiculous, eh?

feeno said...

I think it sucks, I like to see what I wrote right away, also it makes it harder to have a conversation with someone when you have to check in all the time.

Peace out, feeno