What We Mean By Civility
Over the last few days, we've seen a few conversations take ugly turns, with comments sinking to personal insults, coarse language, and threats of violence. We've been able to deal with most of these incidents by editing offending comments or, in a few instances, by expelling the members who made them. These expulsions have always been preceded by implicit or explicit warnings -- edits, deletions, or emails -- unless the comment is exceptionally offensive.
The Code of Conduct describes what's over the line, but it has some holes: obscenity, vulgarity, and rudeness are open to interpretation; and, barring "99% of conspiracy theories" but not specifying them raises questions about the 1% that are allowed.
More to the point, it's possible to be passionate -- and these are passionate times -- without resorting to noisy talk about violence, or armed rebellion, or things of that nature. It's possible to rattle the sabers without drawing them.
Finally, the point of Ricochet isn't to identify who can yell the loudest, or who is more conservative than whom. The point is to create -- for those of us who agree, broadly, on some basic ideas -- a lively, smart, civil place to have a conversation. And have another conversation the next day. And the next.
Ricochet, we hope, is a place you'll want to come back to. So as a simple rule, let's not insult each other on the site. Let's not get personal. There's no way to have a useful, interesting, or illuminating conversation when we're calling each other names.
Earlier this morning, Pilgrim suggested the following:
I think it would be a good idea for The Logo to open a conversation on the Code of Conduct - sort of a Ricochet constitutional convention. Two issues that I would want discussed would be 1) the addition and wording of a zero tolerance policy and 2) community involvement in banishment of members that may have stepped one foot over the line. I have my ideas of how those items should be addressed but will hold in the event that this suggestion is taken.
We think that's a fine idea. Please let us know what you think.
- Comment (135)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy. If someone posts something that could be used to denigrate the entire community's reputation, they need to go. It's a pity, because those people are probably pretty good folks who erred in a moment of passion or inebriation. But if Daily Kos or HuffPo picks up on something, we need to be able to show that we clean our own stables.
But I'm not too sure about Member involvement in those decisions. I trust the management and Editors to make sage decisions.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I think the second suggestion is on point. Zero tolerance? For what?
People learn stuff. If a post is out of line, edit, delete, and/or threaten expulsion.
I have confidence in the Ricochet powers-that-be to censor (in the limited context of this site) after the fact. Save the Zero Tolerance for posts that, upon reflection, in context, deserve Zero Tolerance.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I think it's a good idea. One thing I would ask fellow members is to have some consideration for guest contributors, be it in posts or podcasts. There have been a number of comments this week that displayed every bit as much rudeness, hostility, and condescension towards the guests as those same posters have complained about coming from the party establishment. Comments derisively mocking a guest contributor's opinions or analysis aren't going to encourage them to come back, and it won't make others enthusiastic to accept invitations to contribute. By all means disagree with someone's opinion, but don't turn it into personal attacks. If people want to be treated with respect, they need to be sure they're treating others in like manner. That would include respecting regular contributors enough to not continue prior arguments into new posts that have no relation to the continued argument. Please keep your comments relevant to the post you're commenting on. If you want to continue to belabor a point, keep it in the post about that topic.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
If Daily Kos or HuffPo picks up on something... well, I'll cross that water pik stream when necessary. I doubt it will require a Hercules.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Palaeologus
If Daily Kos or HuffPo picks up on something... well, I'll cross that water pik stream when necessary. I doubt it will require a Hercules. · Sep 17 at 11:30pm
I believe management's vision for Ricochet is to become the dominant voice of center/right dialogue on the Web. That will not happen without fierce resistance from the Left, who fear reasonable, intelligent dialogue. The Left will do anything they can to discredit Ricochet as it gains steam.
We don't want to assist them.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
Palaeologus
I believe management's vision for Ricochet is to become the dominant voice of center/right dialogue on the Web. That will not happen without fierce resistance from the Left, who fear reasonable, intelligent dialogue. The Left will do anything they can to discredit Ricochet as it gains steam.
We don't want to assist them. · Sep 17 at 11:38pm
Really? I figured the objective was to make some dough (or not lose it) while having fun.
I'll tell you what, though: if Ricochet wants to be "the dominant voice of center/right dialogue on the Web" then censorship cannot be viewed as a merely internal matter.
You're right that it will be criticized for extremist commentary. The key issue, though (presuming that Ricochet is a major player) is hypocrisy.
Ricochet doesn't need to be a free-for-all, but pretending that all of us can blather about liberty and simultaneously accept draconian limits on expression without consequence is... Obamaesque.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth, shall we also use this thread to discuss your question, from yesterday, about whether this site should occasionally open its doors to people who wouldn't describe themselves as "right of center?" You know my view--if we can't occasionally talk to them, and better still, persuade them to join us, we're doomed--but I think I get your point, which I understand as, "It's enough that my office is full of Left-wingers. Can't we have some refuge here?"
What do others think?
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire, I favor the idea. I think the Major had a very good point when he said he was amazed to come here and find out "what progressives think". The echo chamber/group think effect is real and it can cause us to have distorted views of our opposition. If we are going to effectively oppose the progressive agenda, we have to honestly understand it, and address their arguments rather than strawmen that we might dream up.
So as long as we can do a couple things well (be respectful, don't gang up), I support letting honest, polite, intelligent, and most importantly, brave progressives have a say in our conversation.
Sep '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Mark, thank you - that was exactly my original observation.
As the guest in question, let me offer my after action review. I did enjoy most of the exchange. This group blogging can be addictive. Fortunately, that was a day when my duties allowed me to give more of my time and energy then I usually have available.
Honestly, the only time I was offended was when Kenneth questioned my fortitude and even my commission. Many others gracious offered their thanks to us in uniform but he crossed the line that most people recognize.
I can understand if you keep your site to yourselves. All of us find reassurance in associated with like-minded folks. I probably watch Beck and Olberman equally but it is more relaxing not to have to argue all the time.
Just understand that another conservative might not be able to describe how progressives think as well as one of us can. If you honestly want to know what we are thinking, just ask. If you can't stop thinking of it as cultural warfare, you might benefit from creating boogey men.
Edited on September 18, 2010 at 10:17amJul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Palaecologus, I disagree. Applying the same standards for liberty and freedom of speech to Ricochet as to the government is unfair. For example, would a Republican politician be called fiscally irresponsible and a hypocrite for taking out a mortgage of several times his annual income in order to buy a house?
Further, we are all blessed to have Ricochet available as a sober, intelligent place on the internet to discuss conservative topics. I would rather have restrictions on posts than have Ricochet become 4chan or the like.
On the topic of podcast call-ins, I think it would be fun for the powers-that-be to choose and invite one member a week to join them for the podcast. I know I would love to hear several of our members in the kind of open, laid-back conversations that take place on the podcast. Anyone else think so?
Edited on September 18, 2010 at 12:28pmMay '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
A podcast or two ago, I had to listen to a few minutes of "boys will be boys": Robinson was out sick, and the "conversation" turned to a Family Guy-esque series of jokes about Robert Reich's height.
Are we lowly members expected to behave better than that? Or might Ricochet do better to model the behavior it wants from its members?
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Kenneth, shall we also use this thread to discuss your question, from yesterday, about whether this site should occasionally open its doors to people who wouldn't describe themselves as "right of center?" You know my view--if we can't occasionally talk to them, and better still, persuade them to join us, we're doomed--but I think I get your point, which I understand as, "It's enough that my office is full of Left-wingers. Can't we have some refuge here?"
What do others think? · Sep 18 at 12:17am
Someone who is not "right of center" is not necessarily "left wing." The delightful Mickey Kaus comes to mind. And I don't think he'd be (much) abused here.
As for abuse in general, I'm all for it, so long as it is done with style and wit.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
The problem with "zero-tolerance" is that it is usually used as a substitute for a "zero-thinking" policy.
I was a public enemy no. 2 the other night in leading the rebellion. And I am cross-posting a little from another thread but this needs to be said in this context.
As a contributor and as a professional commentator Mike Murphy is different. In Times vs Sullivan, the Supremes ruled that those that offered themselves up to the public (politicians, entertainers, etc.) are held to separate standards. Criticism of their public acts is fair game as long as you do not act with "actual malice," that is, knowing that what you're saying about them is untrue. Murphy makes a living commenting on, as well as running, political campaigns. As such, his performance in that role is fair game, including questioning motive.
When I offered up the Ricochet video, it was fair game. That's what I do for a living. If Rob writes a lousy script, that's fair game, too. Just don't question our heritage or mental capacity.
I'm off to work. See you later.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
The term "zero-tolerance policy" gives me the heebie jeebies. I beg you not to use it in any code, no matter how well-intentioned.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I sincerely hope that we have somewhat more than zero-tolerance for making fun of Robert Reich's height. That's just comedy gold, and I wouldn't last long on a board with such a policy (yeah, yeah, big loss). Zero tolerance leads to all kinds of trouble at schools. My goal is to keep it somewhat less risque than the podcasts. They are, after all, semi-professionals, with a keener instinct for where the line is. But when Dave posts about hiring an escort, it seems an absolute crime against entertainment to let that slide by without a double entendre. It's what Rush would do.
As to non-conservatives, by all means. The left has been in an echo chamber for decades, which is why we win an awful lot of elections despite being trashed in the press. The emergence of new conservative media, while a good thing, carries the danger of cocooning. Don't want to lose our edge.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Please, no "zero-tolerance policy" here. We're here because we trust your judgement.
Please, no "left-of-center" here. I'm here to escape from such opinions. If we want such ideas, we all know where to go.... and it ain't far.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
@Clare: Hearing what left-wingers have to say.
I'm fine with that when they have something to say, an idea to express, a thought to convey.
What I seek to avoid when I come here is the mindless trollery so common on "public" comment boards.
Ah, but one person's mindless trollery is another person's trenchant observation. To paraphrase the supreme court justice whose name I forget at the moment "I may not be able to define trollery, but I recognize it when I read it."
Forget zero-tolerance, that's an attempt to substitute a rule for informed judgment. I have confidence in the Ricochet editors to keep order, like I'd rely on a restaurant owner to bounce a quarrelsome drunk. It's a private enterprise & I can take my $3.47 elsewhere if I don't like how the establishment maintains decorum (whether too strictly, or too leniently).
Re: What We Mean By Civility
How about we take off the table the phrase "zero-tolerance," since those words have come to be associated with so much lunacy, and substitute the words, "highly intolerant," which would amuse us all?
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Let's sort out a few philosophical points. There is no constitutional right to free speech here. The right to free speech is a negative right--it means only that the government can't abridge it. We're a private entity, we can abridge whatever we want. What we're discussing is whether the principle of free speech should be applied, not the right.
But free speech is enshrined in the Constitution not only because of the natural-law arguments in favor of it, but because of the teleological ones--the idea is that in a society that protects speech, the best ideas will (ultimately) out in open debate. So in a sense, the question is: What's the main point of Ricochet? Is it to arrive at the best ideas? Or is it to create a community where like-minded people feel relaxed and comfortable? Both are noble goals, but I think one will have to be given priority over the other.
Me, I vote for the former. I'm more interested in finding the good ideas than I am in feeling comfortable. But I'm aware that I'm not entirely like other humanoids this way.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
Me, I vote for the former. I'm more interested in finding the good ideas than I am in feeling comfortable. But I'm aware that I'm not entirely like other humanoids this way. · Sep 18 at 4:18am
Obviously, I don't vote for the former absolutely. We need a balance. But when it comes to a question such as, "Should self-identified Leftists be welcome here, if they're willing to be polite?" I'd say yes. And I'd like to think the arguments are so persuasive on our side that after hanging out here for a while, they'll defect--or at least better understand why some of use hold the views we do.