We had before us today the issue of whether or not a certain individual had lost his posting privileges at this fine Blogmocracy of ours. Wrath isn’t available this evening to put together a beautifully written speech, so I’ll have to do.
As you know, Savage runs the place. But he has handed this gift to us. A blogmocracy. To stand by the principles upon which this blog was founded, the question has been put to the vote. After much discussion this afternoon, we have decided on steps to take in the event that we are visited by another looney toon that wants to wear the stench of a troll like creature. I am including the emails (the main ones) here not to say that all decisions will be public, but to show that our intentions are honorable and that we are all dedicated to the idea of this precious Blogmocracy.
So without anything further… I give you… the Blogmocracy In Action!
DJM:
I say we ban this ass. It’s one thing to disagree with comments, but we shouldn’t allow vulgar insults.
ARWYN:
Ok, it’s already a done deal, but I want to go on record… If that’s all it takes, we can’t be saying such noble things as Wrath on the VERY SAME THREAD like:
Rodan is only expressing his own opinion. His statements can only be attributed to him. We don’t delete, ban, or discourage free speech here at the Blogmocracy, even if it is offensive, unpopular, or otherwise counters our own beliefs. I know this concept is unique for many of the blogs you probably frequent, but stick around, I am sure you will get used to it.
Then POOF – the f’er is gone.
SAVAGE:
I won’t tolerate scumbags!
DJM:
There is a difference between a rebuttal or disagreement, and the vulgar insults ron posted without provocation. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t want commenters to worry they may be personally attacked if they post unpopular opinions. Let neidleman_ron be made an example. IMO.
ARWYN:
I don’t know how many comments were deleted, but if it was just the one that is in the spam folder now, or even a couple that could have been edited to **** out the naughty bits if you must, well… Then we can’t claim we don’t do that as I thought Wrath rightfully did at the time. And I think being all adults (mostly, with the exception of a few sometimes) our commenters can take care of themselves. Hopefully. I mean on and on and on- i see your point. But 2 posts? Did I miss something?
DJM:
I saw two – one is still on the thread, and the other is in the spam folder. Both were spouting foul language directed at Rodan. We don’t need that. I wouldn’t blog at a site which allowed personal attacks, and I don’t think we should let LGF2 become that. We may not always act like adults but I would like to think we are above ad hominen attacks, and that we will protect all our commenters from such. I’m sorry, Wrath, if I stepped on toes. I just thinking its more important to set a firm limitation than to try and coddle people like neidlemen_ron.
DJM:
These are neidlemen_ron’s comments – both unprovoked, both personal:
Rodan — you are one sick f***, dude…one sick motherf***er. But at least you save the rest of us some time by perfectly describing the mentality of the lgf2.com — what else is there to know about this backwater? You don’t care about Iraqis for one reason; they are mostly muslim. Sacrifice these worthless scum, right? They have no right to self-determination so long as they reject Christianity, right? You are one ugly piece of self-loathing trash.
and:
That you even cavort with a f***face like rodan is testment your own character. Assuming you disagree with this caveman’s “opinion”, why would you engage him?
BAR:
I think we are some pretty big boys and girls, I think we can handle being called a f**k-face. It helps to thicken the skin, which only helps in later debates with vulgar people who make personal attacks. In my opinion having a poster making vulgar comments and when we and others reply without using vulgar comments it makes the poster look like a fool. Now if the vulgar poster causes other posters to be vulgar back and it turns into a name calling match, then I would ban them.
DJM:
What are you saying, dude? Wait until our posters get so fed up they either leave or sink to his level? Why let it get that far? Please read ron’s comments I just sent. If that doesn’t warrant expulsion we may as well just turn LGF2 into a free for all. I think we all knew free speech wouldn’t mean unlimited and unaccountable speech. ; )
SAVAGE:
But we still have to set some kind of standard.
LANCE KATES:
The freedoms we push have to apply to all or none. I dislike vulgarity and such. I think they’re a 1.0′r and are just trolling. I say we send them an email nicely saying to not be so vulgar and avoid ad hominem. Add that 1.0′rs are welcome, but pedanic actions are not and that we’d appreciate if they refrained from it. Then post the email sans addresses in a thread for all to see.
WRATHOFG-D:
I must go to Shabbat, but my 2c is that this banning was unwarranted. We cannot say one thing (pro free speech, more classy than 1.0) then go about and do the opposite. Ron was an obvious crass mouth, offensive ignoble pain, but as we all know, it is these types of behaviors that we must protect, and are most threatened. Popular points of view never have to be protected by any Freedoms (even on blogs), it is the unpopular ones that do! He/she was obnoxious, no doubt, and he/she should have been, and was called on it. There was no need to go against everything we claim to be and ban him. Ignoring would have sufficed — Ignoring yet with a public (in thread) comment by a Admin (preferrably the victim of his rudeness) that we respect his right on this Blogmocracy to say these things, but acknowledging that he is doing so obnoxiously and will be ignored until he can act mature, would have embarrassed him, stopped his behavior, and kept our values. It would have also very publicly shown anyone reading that we actually stick to our values, and how big of a person Rodan is. If you notice, it seems that Lance, Bar, Arwin, and I would have voted against the banning. This is exactly why we must set up a formal banning procedure. We will beat LGF by being better, being smarter, standing for something bigger, but above all else…..meaning and practicing it. I respect all of you greatly, but this banning seemed too quick, too final.
DJM:
You guys do what you think is best. I won’t object. The guy probably learned his lesson. We not talking about dissent or disagreements. I don’t think we should tolerate such vulgar personal attacks. I wouldn’t comment at a blog where the Admins allowed me to be insulted. I’ve put my 2cents in.
SAVAGE:
I banned that scumbag Ron for one good reason and that is because he came in here popping off shit about Rodan and it was totally unwarranted and uncalled for. I wanted LGF2.0 to be a place to debate certain folks and make it kind of clean but everyone here seems to want it to be a damn free-for-all, anarchic kind of place.
DJM:
I’m with you on this, savage. We can give commenters the freedom to speak their mind – but it shouldn’t be unlimited – they shouldn’t be allowed to just hurl insults at whoever they don’t like. It isn’t fair to those who come for serious debate and it isn’t fair to those insulted. LGF2 is about being able to express your views without being made to feel like shit for doing so. It may not be a perfect forum, but it’s damned better than most.
ARWYN:
I think we all agree on that. But at least an Admin edit and a warning? And a contact email going on the front page so that Citizens can report an especially nasty commenter.
1. Reported to or seen by an admin.
2. Edited and warned.
3. Keeps it up… temporarily blocked and delegated to “spam” for panel review… (which if they keep it up, you’ll get 7 yeseseson review.)
4. Review decision implemented!ta daaaaaah!
RODAN- abstained
To ban, or not to ban
Roll Call
Savage: Yay
DJM: Yay
WrathofG-d: Nay
LanceKates: Nay
Arwyn: Nay
Bar: Nay
Rodan: Abstain
Implemented:
1. Contact email to be added for Citizens to report questionable comments.
blogmocracy @ gmail . com
2. Offending posts will be edited with Admin warning.
3. Repeated need of warnings will not be tolerated.
4. Offending posts are then sent to spam for further review, while the citizen temporarily loses commenting privileges.
5. Upon review, there will be a roll call vote.
6. The Blogmocracy has spoken.
7. Citizens have a right to a fair and speedy trial 
In conclusion: Neidleman_Ron, your posting privileges have been reinstated. Don’t screw it up.
Update: This is not a ban on banning. Simply a procedure to follow so that we aren’t banning emotionally. Savage always has veto power.
Tags: banning
Impressive.
We’re trying!
/but hey, we’re a work in process :-}
//evolving even…
The point is…. Like any blog, there has to be a way to get rid of true destructive influences…..
On the other hand, if we are to seek out freedom for other opinions, we do have to accept other opinions.
That said, horribly vulgar comments and rabid ad hominem is not acceptable. It is often the sign of having NO argument and is what really trashed 1.0.
Is this necessary?
I think it was. We are a blogmocracy or we’re not.
That doesn’t mean you guys will be bothered with every single one, or any of the day to day bull where we go back and forth.
But I think most people would like to know where the line is. And that it isn’t left up to one person’s interpretation.
Song and Dance Man….
this was the first real discussion of a banning (other than sura) of this type, so we thought it was important that i be laid clear and open (’transparent’ as the Obama Administration pretends to be) so as to avoid calls (mostly by annoyances) that we’re just the same as lgf with different hot button issues.
We’re also a budding blog and kind of made it up as we went along, so we’re establishing basic policy now that we’ll follow in the future.
Wow.
Kudos to all of you admins (and especially to Savage) for respecting blomocracy!
I think Wrath is right that most offenses can be handled by citizens admonishing and ignoring obnoxious posters. But I also think you DO need some mechanism to handle repeat offenders who offer nothing but foul vitriol and won’t respond to peer pressure. It looks like you’ve setting up some pretty good procedures!
There’s a place for obscene language; a forum like this is not one of them.
The Hannity Forums have decent rules on how to act and how to get banned there as well. Ad hominems are strictly forbidden among other things. Check out there rules for a good guideline as for what to put in place here. You can also make your case in the moderator thread at Hannity if you face a banning and are restricted to that thread alone. I don’t know, just a suggestion.
Well at least you guys are trying to set some standards.
I hope all can practice what they preach, particularly the leadership.
Dude, how about permission before publishing private email correspondence?
I actually agreed with this banning. I understand where Wrath is coming from about the whole “pro free speech” thing, and I definitely support that effort here, but as the saying goes, you have free speech rights, but you can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theater.
IMO, ron was saying things that were completely uncalled for and demeaning, without provocation and without any respect for everyone around him. From what I read, he was also telling outright lies about rodan, without backing it up.
But that’s just my two cents. Besides, one banning isn’t going to turn the site into 1.0.
This is silly. There is no leadership here. If savage runs the place, he should have final say. Period.
BTW, if you really want a “Blogmocracy” why don’t you just give EVERYONE Admin privileges. That’ll solve the whole mess.
I’m out of here before LGF2 becomes the laughing stock of the net.
Well, I see we have democracy in action, everyone is not happy. I’m sure as Lex has said, this has been properly addressed in other forums, probably don’t have to reinvent the wheel on this. Private emails should be respected, but the intentions here seemed good. F bombs are not constructive and will drive out many lurkers from joining in. On the other hand heated discussions are what keep it interesting, or we become 1.0.
/ All this freedom is just exhausting.
Good job guys…..again nice blog.
Good for you guys. Good for the Blogmocracy.
What say you, Neidleman_Ron ?
DJM, why are you so pissed off? I can understand if your own correspondence wasn’t approved for “publication” (note for the future: this should have been done), but actually you come off very well. As do the others, for that matter. 1.0’s “process” looks very sleazy in comparison.
As for including everyone in a banning decision, this isn’t necessary. Perhaps 2.0 should be called a blogopublic, as it is closer to a democratic republic than a direct democracy. Republics do have executives and judiciaries.
gclaghorn, you say, “I understand where Wrath is coming from about the whole “pro free speech” thing, and I definitely support that effort here, but as the saying goes, you have free speech rights, but you can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theater.” In fact, though, this is not a crowded theater where life or death will be decided in minutes.
I haven’t bothered to read ron’s stuff, except what was posted. Clearly, this kind of language cannot be allowed to continue. But really, sometimes reform is possible–and we’ll know soon enough if it isn’t. The worst thing about ron’s stuff seems to be that it is nearly vacuous. Remove the foul language and he is saying close to nothing.
The prohibition on “ad hominems” seems to me to be a real slippery slope. It is too subjective. We also don’t want to make this so much of a “safe space” that disagreement becomes dangerous. Further, a good writer can always insult without breaking any rules, but a bad writer can’t. Do we want to create a forum where bad writers are at such a disadvantage? Frankly, I think we should toughen up anyway.
P.S.: It might be good to reinvent this wheel here, as some of the other wheels are square or lopsided or go flat too easily.
When my kids use naughty language I ignore them. That way they learn that naughty language equals no attention. And attention is of course what they’re after. The same approach can work here. Ignore childish (i.e. trollish) behavior.
Guys thank you, I was taken out of context. I’m not into rebuilding a defeated enemy. I could of took him,on but I love the fact you all had my back like this. Thank you fellow LGF2ers!
DJM, I wrote an email to all asking permission.
You replied with… AND I QUOTE:
“YOU GO GIRL.”
I have forwarded the email that you replied with to you, DJM. To help with your memory.
We either have standards or we do not.
If you want the standard to be that you can ban someone for being an asshole, then we can’t claim to be any better than Charles.
And the bragging about it thread was over the top.
I think Wrath’s PoV was the correct path to take, I think it belittles the ideals of the forum to ban someone for being a dick.
Ron was obnoxious, rude and his distortion’s were there for all to see, they were easy rebuttals for Rodan to deal with.
It would be a shame to see DJM leave the forum, I can , however, understand his desire to punish Ron for his rancid turn of phrase.
The blogmocracy in action was the correct thing to do.
Arwyn – you said a few things in that email, including a point made to savage (which is what I was agreeing to) and a reference to “future” procedures.
What’s done is done.
I have no problem with the action taken.
That y’all took a representative action in determining what to do with ron, is commendable.
I would like to add, that having a ban on banning is almost as extreme as banning for not being a sycophant.
The banning stick, much like the school principle’s burnished ass punisher, is an effective deterrent.
For me, a troll that comes in spouting profanities with a regular member here, is as judicious a use of the practice as can be imagined.
If the person was a regular, and got into a flame war with another poster, then the admin and other posters could intercede.
I would caution not to overreact to what the idiot across the blogosphere has done, but to view each action on it’s own merit.
Were it left to me, I would have banned the nut-job, and erased all traces of his existence. In a forum like this, where many issues get discussed, from varying perspectives, an inflammatory attack like this, that goes unpunished, will erode the overall quality of the blog.
If you recall, the venomous effect that American Infidel’s flame war with reaganite, and subsequent stalking blog had on so many, years ago. Had the idiot taken charge, and not allowed that to go on, so many would not have felt disgusted and left. AI eventually got banned, but not before much damage was done to the credibility of the blog.
Each case is different, but I would not be as forgiving to a troll.
A.I. is a friend of mine….I blog with her at BabbaZee’s place….things she posted about two years ago…are here today.
SM
Who’s AI?
And what do you mean about stuff from 2 years ago?
storeagemanager,
I was cordial with her, until she went wild with reaganite, who is still a friend of mine, and I talk with often.
Irrespective of all that was involved in that flame war, you certainly remember the deleterious effect it had on others on the blog.
A prompt and decisive action by the blog owner would have had a positive effect, instead of the souring effect his inaction caused. That is the point I was making, and not an attack on your friend.
I understand.
Oh, and while we are on the subject about blog admin actions.
Never-never-never-ever, allow someone to start taking donations for a charitable cause, by a poster on this blog.
/ever
But…lol…those guys didn’t like me either…not one bit…lol
I don’t remember your nic, from when I was there, so don’t know who did or didn’t like you.
I left after the Bayou King sham, and when CJ said for us “to take it someplace else,” after allowing his blog to be used for he fund raising. So we did, and CJ’s attitude changed, from not taking decisive action, to being a total anal sphincter.
His behavior shifts are well recognized, now, but some of us recognized it early on.
I was never banned, I just left because he was so incompetent at managing his blog.
There is no ban on banning.
Just a procedure so that we’re not banning emotionally.
And Savage always has veto power.
Alright, then.
Uh…what about fund raisers?
The idea of a “democracy” without limits is really anarchy. Free speech still doesn’t give people the right to personally slander a individual or use speech to directly incite violence upon someone. When Sura was banned, that didn’t bother me one bit, and it had nothing to do with disliking Sura’s perspective on things. Sura kept posting pure flame material that didn’t establish a point on anything, really only mocked others. It was pure trolling designed to push people’s buttons into a chaotic insult rants.
Disagree? I’d question the commenting more if we didn’t
But you still have to eventually deal with hardcore malcontents who’s only objective is to insult and send the thread spiraling down into the septic tank.
Does this mean DJM will stay?
DJM—– Your point about leadership is a good one. Whatever standards and procedures you guys come up with should be subject to his personal approval before being set up as “law”, IMHO.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t abandon the ship here. You have added so much to the place and have an important, distinctive voice.
This blog has come a long way already and I think it will continue to prosper, as long as we all have a little patience.
SK——– I really, really hope so. I think his contributions here are extremely valuable.
All societies and i use the term loosely, have to have standards of behavior to which participants adhere. If folks don’t adhere to those minimalist standards then they are asked to leave. It’s as simple as drawing the line in the sand regarding ad hominem attacks. NONE will be endured and that’s it! Feel free to disagree strenuously with what is said BUT as soon as the argument degenerates to name calling then the line is crossed and one is asked to use the door.
Obvious trolls, agent provocateurs or just plain nutters should be warned of the rule and then left to run free….. until they transgress and then they should have their arses handed to them on a plate and shown the door. There is nothing more spicy than a little counter culture angst or running off at the mouth craziness to add spice to an argument. As long as there is no ad hominem attacks on participants in a debate everyone gets to have a laugh at the ‘crazy’s’ utterances and we all smile and move on. These guys are a joke and are only serious in their own pea brained ego driven delusions. Humour them, Laugh at them and they will eventually run away because the one thing that REALLY pisses them off is to laugh at their inadequacies and lack of rigor in thinking. In the meantime they add a bit of comic relief! Without opposing views we end up with an echo chamber and that’s the last thing we need, as LGF 1.0 has found to its cost! Just ensure that the trolls get short shift .. and they will … because it’s in their nature to not be able to keep a civil tongue in their heads. They will all eventually self destruct, as these guys just can’t help themselves!
I say allow these idiots in but warn them about where the line is and if they cross it show ‘em the door.
Simple really.
I don’t think Ron will post here anymore. I have a feeling it was a 1.0′er who came here just to stir things up and was picking a fight.
I agree with the song and dance man
I hope DJM doesn’t leave. Considering what’s out there, this is a darn good blog. And, it is young and will have to go through some growing pains. This incident is just one of many I’m sure the Admin. will have to deal with. IMHO, they’re doing it the best way they can until they get things sorted out. It may not have been necessary for them to bring this out in the open, but I think they’re trying to illustrate their honesty in their pledge to not willy-nilly ban people. And, let’s face it, free speech IS limited, such as falsely yelling “fire” in a theatre. So, that being the case, no matter how good the intentions of the Admin. are, they do have to be careful of what’s being said here and act accordingly.
Having said all this, I just want you to know that I believe “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me!”
I know everyone means well here but, I’d rather these things be taken care of behind the scenes.
the parsons
in the future it likely will be. We just wanted to make sure the community knows that goes on behind the scenes when it comes to such things. That way no one can say that we’re as subjective and moody as 1.0.
Lance, not being willy nilly is good to know. I often didn’t post on LGF but when I did I would be accused of strange things only because they were paranoid or I didn’t post often which made them suspicious. If just made me not want to post and of course what good is a blog if no one is comfortable enough to post. So I will keep reading and posting here for now. Good luck and hello to you all.
I dunno about this post gang.
If I were thinking about being a troll around here, I would think that seeing a post like this would encourage me. I mean, look at all the fuss over some adolescent insults. The shots were aimed at Rodan, but DJM is the one who winds up getting pissed off. I’m sure needledick is laughing his ass off.
Or was this intended as bait?
If you were thinking about being a troll you would also see that you will get a fair warning, but bullshit will not be tolerated.
Isn’t Blogmocracy grand?
I would sure like to see DJM’s nic reappear.
Me too. But I don’t want to see others disappear either.
I thought doing this publicly was a good idea…
It looks like ALL the citizens and Admin’s want DJM to stay put, his insights are of tremendous value and only make this website that much better.
Who else is going to give us a good pro-evolutionary view point besides his great posts about radical Islam.
DJM
I hope you didn;t leave. LGF2 would not be the same without you.
I think ron is a vulgarity himself but I don’t think anyone should be banned ever the one exception being real-live physical threats.