[the quality of debate] my new comments policy

There was a rare fierce debate on this blog about a year and a half ago, in which I was called effing this and effing that by a commenter whom I applied the gag to but at the same time didn't delete his comments, which surprised the genteel who used to come to this blog but are now frightened off.

In response, I posted my view on the matter and this became the basis of my comments policy, linked from the About section in the Navbar above.

In the same way, I'm updating that today.

A blogger never knows which topics will "take" and which ones won't. How many times have you written , in your own eyes, a super post and no one responds, nor does anyone appear to read it? Then you post something throwaway and it gets 30 comments [huge by my standards].

The issue in the comments thread of the Ayn Rand post [thanks Tom Paine, Xlbrl and Jeffery Small] was where the line is crossed into ad hominem. Jeffery wrote:

However, I, for one, disagree with the comments made about the quality of the characterization in her novels ... if you personally cannot connect with Rand's characterization or style, I have no problem understanding that. But I do have to wonder why so many people find it necessary to belittle her literary efforts and attempt to categorize them as talentless claptrap, rather than casting their views as more a matter of personal taste?

Regarding the comments of xlbrl, I, like Rand, am an atheist, and am greatly offended by his or her remarks that attempts to cast me, and others who do not believe in the existence of god, as sub-human. These comments show a blind bigotry that does not accord with reality.

Xlbrl responded:

One observation in particular is the first thing I examine myself by when I am offended--A remark hurts generally in proportion to the truth it contains. I am not offended. You certainly are ... I never dismissed Rand; I am cautious around her. I did not dismiss you until you actually make your argument. Actually, you made my argurment.

James--Do not hesitate to delete my remarks, since they may cross your over your guidelines. I may have other people to offend today I don't even know about!

LOL. Of course I'm not deleting either and it needs to be examined why I'm not, as it appears to cross into ad hominem in both cases. This is a golden opportunity to analyse this.

For a start, they did not, either of them, come in specifically to abuse but to pursue their line and they did so. First they had to dismiss the other's position and they chose a way to do it which I myself would have worded differently although I ran a post yesterday calling someone a moron. How much more ad hominem can one get?

There are many things to say on this.

For a start, this blog is not specifically political - this post is an example - but it does run political posts which are fairly clearly signposted, I hope. If you come into one of these "debates", then you have to expect a certain amount of roughhouse and the rule applies that if one can't stand the heat, one should get out of the kitchen.

There has to be a fine line though.

The more genteel readers would deplore the roughness with which some people comment and yet these rough diamonds are also the lifeblood of this blog, just as the genteel are. It's my fault for casting the net across the spectra and having different kinds of readers come here.

So the rules on this blog follow a footballing analogy. When a commenter comes in to hit hard with good arguments, well supported, then as long as "his eye was on the ball", other commenters need to realize they may get bumped and bruised - collateral damage.

I would expect, hope in fact, that those other commenters might come back later with cogent arguments and equally hit back hard. This is what I expected on the pagan post and was most disappointed at the quality of the arguments against me - I expected to be torn apart by the pagan community, shredded in fact, at which point I would have gone away, done my revision homework and subsequently returned to the fray.

This, to me, is what online debate is all about. We have a Google facility at our fingertips, so there's no excuse for being ill-prepared.

Back to the ball and as long as our eyes are on it, then it's line ball whether it steps into ad hominem or not. At the same time, it's hardly a defence to immediately call foul, in lieu of an effective counter-argument.

When, however,that commenter at LPUK came in specifically to denigrate Chloe Smith, which caused LPUK, wisely, to review its own editorial policy, then that was pure ad hominem. My "moron post" yesterday began with ad hominem although I hope I explained why, further down.

It all comes down to whether the eye was on the ball or whether the commenter stopped and was more concerned with taking pot shots at the other, with little concern for his own argument. It all comes down to whether that person came in specifically to attack another commenter with intemperate language and this seems to be the more major crime.

Look, we all want debate but more than that, we want those visitors who deigned to click in and having read, to comment, to feel that they're welcome to return and comment again and even more - that they should not have been so offput that they give up on our blog. That is one thing we certainly don't want.

You see the dilemma, don't you? We all have that same dilemma but I have it doubly and triply because visitors to this site come from all walks of life and persuasions, in other words, they're not all a certain type, e.g. male, right-of-centre fellow bloggers, as I am.

Enough words - I'm sure we all understand the lie of the land. :)