The Ricochet I Love

 

As an official Ricochet Moderator,™ some days I despair for the grand experiment in civil, right-wing community building that is Ricochet. So much of my energy on the site is spent dealing with sniping and griping that I start to wonder if anyone actually wants to have a conversation.

Too many times it feels like members are here to repeat the same arguments like a Groundhog Day from Hell, burn acres of strawmen, gloat over the fellow Ricochetti they consider their enemies, and bring up every less-than-complimentary thing anyone has ever said to them as justification for their own bad behavior, like a half of a couple that wants a divorce but wants to force the other party to be the one who actually files. Two things have happened in the last few days though that have rekindled hope that this community can actually work as intended.

The first is so simple it should hardly need to be mentioned. Brian Watt created a post on “ecosexuality.” iWe put up a disagreeing post that mentioned that it was in reaction to Brian’s. iWe didn’t hijack the thread to make himself the center of conversation; Brian didn’t complain about being embarrassed by having a fellow member disagree with him. It’s a beautiful model of how Ricochet as a good faith conversation should work.

The second is also a wonderful example of mature behavior. In GrannyDude’s recent post “The Mystery of Male Armies: Redux,” there was a flap over language. One party attempted to make a joke which due to the nature of text fell flat, and the recipient felt offended. The recipient admitted to hurt feelings and requested an apology, which was then given and accepted. Neither party went off-thread to complain about “that insulting jerk” or “that humorless scold.” Neither used knowledge of the other’s personal life to exacerbate the fight or poison the possibility of reconciliation. Neither appear to be holding a grudge that will be remembered for months or years. The thread has returned to being a pleasant conversation.

I realize that not every problem can be solved so easily, that we all have sore spots and wounds from our lives in general and previous conversations on Ricochet. I know that we all have those positions on which no compromise is able to be made. But civility can exist among adults who work to create it, and I’m happy that we still have many of those people at Ricochet.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 131 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I agree with much that Curt ( @curt ) said. The arguments seem repetitive to the editors and moderators because they see the site as a whole.

    I think people are here for the politics. And the discussions are emotionally charged because the threat of impeachment is out there, a fact that makes half the members happy and the other half unhappy.

    What we see on Ricochet is a microcosm of the country.

    • #31
  2. She Member
    She
    @She

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Rather reminded me of an argument I witnessed between a relative and his mother over his statement that someday he wished to purchase a motorcycle. It went somewhat as follows.

    Son: I’m going to buy a motorcycle as soon as I move out of here.
    Mom: I won’t let you. No son of mine is going to get one of those! They’re death on wheels.
    Son: How will you stop me? I won’t be living here!
    Mom: I’ll know where you live. I’ll put sugar in the gas tank.
    (by this time they’re both screaming at each other)
    Son: I’ll have you arrested! Why are you trying to ruin my life!
    Mom: Your death would ruin my life! Why are you being so selfish!
    Son: I’ll put a lock on the gascap then!
    Mom: I’ll slash your tires!

    All this over a bike that was, let’s be honest, entirely theoretical. And yet neither wanted to back down. Each was dead convinced that the other was trying to ruin their life.

    Oh, so you’re the one who was taping my mother and brother when they had that argument . . . 

    (I’m not exactly joking about this.)

    • #32
  3. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    • #33
  4. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I agree with much that Curt ( <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@curt“>@curt ) said. The arguments seem repetitive to the editors and moderators because they see the site as a whole.

    I think people are here for the politics. And the discussions are emotionally charged because the threat of impeachment is out there, a fact that makes half the members happy and the other half unhappy.

    What we see on Ricochet is a microcosm of the country.

    There’s more to politics than the tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Aren’t we supposed to be the party that believes in federalism? How much more could we as conservatives accomplish if we spent the time we do emoting over the president on finding out and influencing what our mayors and governors are up to?

    • #34
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    My husband tells me that duct tape is good for just about anything!

    • #35
  6. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    My husband tells me that duct tape is good for just about anything!

    Max, apparently, has an allergy to the adhesive, and didn’t appreciate its depilating tendencies (we told him it would grow back).

    • #36
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    My husband tells me that duct tape is good for just about anything!

    Max, apparently, has an allergy to the adhesive, and didn’t appreciate its depilating tendencies (we told him it would grow back).

    Yoooowwwww!

    • #37
  8. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Curt North (View Comment):
    Let’s just say that all us yard brawlers, both anti and pro, well we give you all some job security now don’t we? :)

    You do know that moderators are not paid, right? The only reason we are doing this is out of love for Ricochet. I’m a slacker but some moderators put in dozens of hours a week trying to keep the peace.

    If you decide to volunteer to pick up the trash in your local park, it’s really not “job security” when people litter. You’d really rather just enjoy the park.

    Was just a harmless attempt at humor.  Yes, mods are volunteers and I appreciate their efforts.  But for some, maybe the time has come to hang it up, I’ve seen mods get testy and redact things that are perfectly harmless.  Do mods have a “term” of service, or are they just mods until…?  I’m genuinely curious how that works, is there a retirement program for mods?

    • #38
  9. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Curt North (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Curt North (View Comment):
    Let’s just say that all us yard brawlers, both anti and pro, well we give you all some job security now don’t we? :)

    You do know that moderators are not paid, right? The only reason we are doing this is out of love for Ricochet. I’m a slacker but some moderators put in dozens of hours a week trying to keep the peace.

    If you decide to volunteer to pick up the trash in your local park, it’s really not “job security” when people litter. You’d really rather just enjoy the park.

    Was just a harmless attempt at humor. Yes, mods are volunteers and I appreciate their efforts. But for some, maybe the time has come to hang it up, I’ve seen mods get testy and redact things that are perfectly harmless. Do mods have a “term” of service, or are they just mods until…? I’m genuinely curious how that works, is there a retirement program for mods?

    The retirement program is when we get so fed up with picking up trash from the litterbugs that we walk away. And yes, it’s happened before and could easily happen in the near future.  I’m not the only one who gets depressed about this place.  There’s really nothing like hearing conspiracy theories about how mods ban members out of personal pique when we bend over backwards over and over again to give members chances to behave, or hear how we’re disappearing posts because we’re in thrall to a lavender mafia, or hear how one of our biggest pains in our rear is given special treatment because they’re our pet, to make one want “to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats” as Mencken put it.

    • #39
  10. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Curt North (View Comment):
    Yes, mods are volunteers and I appreciate their efforts. But for some, maybe the time has come to hang it up, I’ve seen mods get testy and redact things that are perfectly harmless. Do mods have a “term” of service, or are they just mods until…?

    Are you sure retiring longer-serving mods would actually solve this problem?

    I know, for example, folks have sometimes assumed I was the mod making the redaction when I wasn’t, simply on the assumption that I must have been the “testy” mod. This is not an uncommon moderator experience, actually — for users’ inference about which mod is doing what to be mistaken.

    Edited to add: This is one reason addressing moderation complaints to mods@ricochet.com is a useful (and still underused) resource — such a complaint reaches all the moderators and their overseers.

    • #40
  11. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Curt North (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Curt North (View Comment):
    Let’s just say that all us yard brawlers, both anti and pro, well we give you all some job security now don’t we? :)

    You do know that moderators are not paid, right? The only reason we are doing this is out of love for Ricochet. I’m a slacker but some moderators put in dozens of hours a week trying to keep the peace.

    If you decide to volunteer to pick up the trash in your local park, it’s really not “job security” when people litter. You’d really rather just enjoy the park.

    Was just a harmless attempt at humor. Yes, mods are volunteers and I appreciate their efforts. But for some, maybe the time has come to hang it up, I’ve seen mods get testy and redact things that are perfectly harmless. Do mods have a “term” of service, or are they just mods until…? I’m genuinely curious how that works, is there a retirement program for mods?

    The practice / office has had to change and morph since it was first instituted 3 years ago.  Originally the mods could only comment in posts just like regular members, but at least had access to the back channel of the site (we use Slack for this) where things could be discussed with the editors, and editors could be called in to do the actual comment redacting, post editing, etc.  At that time, though, there were 4 paid editors who could handle the site in shifts.  That has changed to the point where there are now but 2 editors (Jon and Bethany), and because of that the toolkit of the mods has had to change.  We only got the ability to mod-note and redact comments in 2017, and to do basic edits on posts or lock comments earlier this year.  Other things, in a similar fashion, had to be worked out too, like how exactly the disciplinary ladder works.  

    Which is all a long way to say – the job definitions and functions have been a work in process, and have taken a long time to get to the point where most of the kinks have been ironed out (duct tape notwithstanding).

    Now regarding your specific questions:  There’s never been a set term limit, in part because (as detailed above) the nature of the job itself was still very much in flux, and it would not work to have too many people coming and going all the time.  The other hard part (and indeed the biggest challenge always) is in finding the right people for the job.  Mods should be fairly even handed (we’re not perfect), have been members of Ricochet for at least a couple of years, be well respected by the membership, and have enough time to keep an eye on the site (we’ve all got jobs and / or personal lives to factor in).  At times when there have been shortages or gaps to fill, the eds or mods have reached out to people who they think might fit the bill (quite a lot of people have been asked, but turned the role down).  Others have volunteered for the post (like me).  Some mods have also stepped away from the job after a time, while others have gone inactive for fairly long periods.  If it’s a job someone is interested in doing, they simply need ask.  If there’s a slot (either because of attrition, or because the site has gotten very busy), you may well be considered.

    We have also punted around the idea of people being rotated in and out, and it may get to that point eventually (even the idea of “Guest Moderator for the month” has been discussed).  Eventually, as things settle in, we may indeed get to the point where the mod position can be term-limited, when institutional memories and rules are considered mature enough to do so.  

    • #41
  12. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    I don’t know how we made it through the election without an all out civil war in the member thread. Or maybe we did. I know I left Ricochet for about 6 months because I got tired of the election being re litigated post after post after post. 

    I suppose we’ve lost a few people and they’re missed. I don’t see Claire here much anymore, DocJay is taking a break from social media, others have gone on as well.  But I can tell you that there isn’t anything else like Rico out there so hell or high water it either works here or fades from the scene.  

    • #42
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    When was the last time a conversation about the president was actually a civil exchange of novel ideas?

    Again, this seems so strange to me, because I seem to miss all these conversations.

    This is the sort of question I would ask about a metaphysics thread!!

    I would love a day — a whole week would make me positively giddy — where everyone looks around their lives and finds something else to talk about. What’s everyone’s city council or state legislature up to? What are they doing in their community? What self- improvement goals are people working on? What books, fiction or non-fiction, are people reading and what things are they learning about?

    That’s well said.

    Could it be that you spend an inordinate amount of time in the stressful threads due to the nature of your job?  The group writing threads, for example, seem remarkably peaceful and friendly to me.  (Except the one I wrote one time that was about metaphysics.)

    • #43
  14. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I agree with much that Curt ( <span class=”atwho-inserted” contenteditable=”false” data-atwho-at-query=”@curt“>@curt ) said. The arguments seem repetitive to the editors and moderators because they see the site as a whole.

    I think people are here for the politics. And the discussions are emotionally charged because the threat of impeachment is out there, a fact that makes half the members happy and the other half unhappy.

    What we see on Ricochet is a microcosm of the country.

    There’s more to politics than the tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Aren’t we supposed to be the party that believes in federalism? How much more could we as conservatives accomplish if we spent the time we do emoting over the president on finding out and influencing what our mayors and governors are up to?

    While I agree in theory, the problem is that federalism is in a coma on life support right now, and it is the national politicians and other prominent figures, bureaucrats, organizations, corporations, etc. who have the power to meaningfully influence things.  Not just with concrete actions, but through inaction and signaling.  National Republicans can, for instance, signal to corporate donors which causes and politicians are safe for coordinated corporate bullying.  They can refrain from making an issue out of, say, the New York Times hiring Sarah Jeong, or Mastercard blackballing Robert Spencer from Patreon, signaling that corporate pressures over ‘offensive’ speech can continue to be directed against those on the right of the spectrum (especially when directed against those the Establishment Right views as enemies).  One state government trying to to the right thing with ‘bathroom bills’, for example, would likely be overwhelmed with corporate and bureaucratic opposition at the national level, just as Pence experienced.

    I disagree somewhat with @curtnorth that these disagreements are about Trump; Trump simply runs with what he perceives as the populist passions of the base, an avatar if you will.  The disagreements are largely about whether said passions are legitimate or acceptable, and whether its appropriate for consequential action, or even bold statements, to be made by national Republicans on behalf of their voter base in the face of nationalized (and effectively coordinated) progressive opposition.  This does not mean that federalism isn’t the answer, but it does require purposeful action (and cultural posturing) by national Republicans to empower federalist solutions.

    • #44
  15. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    National Republicans can, for instance, signal to corporate donors which causes and politicians are safe for coordinated corporate bullying.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not a national Republican. Not one damn thing I say or don’t say about Donald Trump is going to make a difference. The vast majority of members aren’t national Republicans who will make a difference either. Given that, why don’t we focus on the areas where we could make a difference instead of just being two choirs trying to sing over the other?

    • #45
  16. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Could it be that you spend an inordinate amount of time in the stressful threads due to the nature of your job?

    Oh, I know it’s because mods have to go where the flags are. That’s one of the reason I wanted to give props to good behavior that didn’t result in flags being thrown, because there have been similar situations lately that did result in flags, PMs, emails, and off-thread griping.

    • #46
  17. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):
    National Republicans can, for instance, signal to corporate donors which causes and politicians are safe for coordinated corporate bullying.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not a national Republican. Not one damn thing I say or don’t say about Donald Trump is going to make a difference. The vast majority of members aren’t national Republicans who will make a difference either. Given that, why don’t we focus on the areas where we could make a difference instead of just being two choirs trying to sing over the other?

    The point is to make it so that national Republicans have no choice but to listen to us.  This requires numbers and motivation on the part of conservative voters.  Generating this (as well as providing an outlet for frustrations, which I agree too often causes things to become uncivil) is the point of having debates on national-level issues.  There are many who take part out of purely philosophical interest, which is not bad, but also tends to leave said person in the position of Benjamin the Donkey from Animal Farm; coping through detached cynicism at the state of the nation, but unable to meaningfully act when finally motivated to do so (I silently compare myself to this character all the time).  Diverting oneself through local activism is indeed a healthier alternative, but is simply unlikely to affect change due to the forces arrayed against it, which can only be combated at the national level due to our unConstitutional federal arrangements as well as the internet effectively nationalizing culture and local issues.  This likewise leads to dispirited frustration, and right back to national-level debate.

    This does not preclude debates and posts on localized issues or activism….but then there is also the problem of most members being located outside the locality in which this is relevant, so conversations naturally lead back to how the local issue reflects national problems.

    I agree that incivility has become a problem, but I’m skeptical that concentrating on conversations about local issues is the solution; not on an explicitly political site, its simply not what most people initially sign up for.  I do think, however, that posts about personal situations and interests can have the effect of ‘humanizing’ what may otherwise seem like random avatars of political opposition, which in turn leads to a greater feeling of community, and therefore greater civility in conversations on national-level issues.

    • #47
  18. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive
    The (apathetic) King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Bravo, and stuff.

    • #48
  19. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Luckily on the internet, no one has to know what your first reaction was. 

    On the internet, no one can hear you scream.

    • #49
  20. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    My husband tells me that duct tape is good for just about anything!

    Max, apparently, has an allergy to the adhesive, and didn’t appreciate its depilating tendencies (we told him it would grow back).

    All tape has depilitating tendencies if used inappropriately.

    • #50
  21. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TomCo9 (View Comment):
    So if anyone figures out how to control human nature, barring chemical manipulation

    We tried that, it didn’t end well, and Max is still mad at us.

    My husband tells me that duct tape is good for just about anything!

    Max, apparently, has an allergy to the adhesive, and didn’t appreciate its depilating tendencies (we told him it would grow back).

    When I was playing football, and they taped your ankles, you didn’t not shave them only once.

    • #51
  22. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world without strong feelings about Trump. Not that things are terrible here compared to the rest of the internet, but I can’t help but miss the lightning in a bottle we had contained for a few years back in Ricochet’s hayday.

    • #52
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world without strong feelings about Trump. Not that things are terrible here compared to the rest of the internet, but I can’t help but miss the lightning in a bottle we had contained for a few years back in Ricochet’s hayday.

    You’re not the only one.

    Man, you and I remember the big fights over SSM.

    • #53
  24. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world without strong feelings about Trump. Not that things are terrible here compared to the rest of the internet, but I can’t help but miss the lightning in a bottle we had contained for a few years back in Ricochet’s heyday.

    You’re not the only one.

    Thirding this.

    • #54
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world without strong feelings about Trump. Not that things are terrible here compared to the rest of the internet, but I can’t help but miss the lightning in a bottle we had contained for a few years back in Ricochet’s heyday.

    You’re not the only one.

    Thirding this.

    It might be more accurate to say that I have a lot of strong feelings of Trump, but nothing strongly supportive or opposed.  I usually lean towards Trump optimism.  I have some strong feelings against certain aspects of personal conduct, some policy critiques, some sheer joy over judges and deregulation, extreme amusement over all the covfefe, and so on.

    • #55
  26. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    I think it would be fair to say that Rico management has taken an unspoken position towards the President and that, overall, that position is generally supportive of his policy victories but vehemently opposed to his negative character traits.  Not that his supporters approve of his character defaults, but rather we look past them and consider that to be talking-point fodder for a CNN or MSNBC panel discussion on how he’s somehow unfit for office.  So it’s disappointing, for instance, to hear two of the three founders on the flagship podcast talk about how great a certain policy victory is, but then make sure to add negative and often snarky remarks about him, they seem to need to show their adherence to a more pure form of conservatism by pointing out how loathsome the man is to them personally.  

    This unspoken editorial position seems to have filtered, in some cases, down through the site – in the selection of the new editor, some mods, as well as columnists and podcasts, and the “language police” policy change last year didn’t help.  To be fair that policy change might have smoothed out some of the member arguments and maybe it was needed to cool things off in the threads, but it doesn’t lend itself to this site being an open and honest place to debate about conservatism and what we think it should be.  Another thing I’ve noticed is that management in general seems to get much more defensive than they used to when this is brought up.  They might feel they are under attack and maybe it’s only natural to get defensive if you feel you’re under attack.  I’m just pointing out a few observations, and Rico certainly doesn’t exist just to placate Trump supporters, after all we have a big and varied community here.  But when so many of TPTB seem to be of one mind when it comes to the current President, it can’t help but influence the direction of the site as a whole, and it should be recognized that this position will inevitably make some members feel less than welcome at times.

    I hope this isn’t taken as an attack on management or the mods, many do listen and the feedback at times is open and productive, like we’ve seen on this very thread.  And overall the mods do a good job, I’ve found myself apologizing many times for a remark I’ve made in haste or before I gave it some more thought (think twice, type once), we’re all only human after all.  We don’t have to agree on everything (how boring would that be?!) and debate is healthy, as long as everyone is open-minded, takes the time to understand what someone else is trying to say, and debates in good faith.   

          

    • #56
  27. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Luckily on the internet, no one has to know what your first reaction was.

    On the internet, no one can hear you scream.

    Oh yeah?????????

    • #57
  28. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Curt, you’ve put together a deep comment, but I’m headed out the door and can’t give it the response it deserves. I’ve flagged it for Jon’s attention, and hopefully he can come in to help explain things as well. 

    I will note a couple things that I’ve seen as one who has access to at least a couple of the back channels: there’s no official editorial position getting pushed because TPTB have no official position. Dear Lord … we have boring, repetitive, and tense sniping over Trump in one of our Slack channels  every single day.  The more pro-Trump people don’t write OPs and make lots of comments, which accounts for a lot of the perception of onesidedness, but in terms of the people who actually work at Ricochet, paid and volunteer, we’re split as much over Trump as the rest of the site.

    As for management being defensive, we’ve had members who have made it a point to harass the moderators and recruit other members to share their mistrust if not downright help antagonize them. They were indulged for a long time on the theory that “moderators should be able to take it” and “open debate” until it was clear that not taking a harder line was only making the problem worse. Perhaps we’re a bit jumpier than we should be, but “once burned, twice shy.”

    • #58
  29. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Curt North (View Comment):
    This unspoken editorial position seems to have filtered, in some cases, down through the site – in the selection of the new editor, some mods, as well as columnists and podcasts, and the “language police” policy change last year didn’t help.

    Amy has made sure your comment above (#56) has been forwarded “upstairs” in its entirety.

    I can speak to some of this.  I cannot speak to the selection of columnists or podcasts, except to say that in many cases those podcasts and contributors were already writing for Ricochet well before the 2016 primaries.  I can’t speak at all on the content of the podcasts as, quite honestly, I tuned out of those back in 2013.  So I’ll just confine myself to speaking of the mods:

    The moderator position was created in mid 2015, so well before Trump.  Of the original 3 mods, Midge, Mike Rapkoch, and James OE, Mike was the only one whom you could say came out strongly against Trump.  Midge has been largely neutral on the guy, and James has been mostly pro.  I was the next mod added (after asking for the job repeatedly), and after the primaries I very clearly endorsed the guy.  She (the member) was made a mod right around the election, and has mostly kept her opinions on Trump to herself.  Julie was added last year as a definite pro-Trump mod, and Amy was again fairly neutral in what she wrote.  Randy, the most recent addition, has also been quite neutral on the site.

    There is no editorial policy on Trump.  Believe me when I say, the eds don’t tell us at all how to make any moderator calls regarding opinions on Trump, and if they did then you’d have 3 of us hitting back pretty hard.  But, likewise, us mods have very little say regarding the contributor or podcast side of things (though at times we have fought very hard to tone down or even yank certain contributor posts when we’ve thought they crossed the line).

    But as for moderator actions and judgement calls, unfortunately a disproportionate number of problems have come from pro-Trump members.  That is just a fact.  Yes we have definitely had some very problematic anti-Trump members here, but they’re fewer in number on the site, and the worst of them have simply chosen to leave the site entirely.  And quite a few of the milder anti-Trump members have left as well, claiming that we’re too pro-Trump in our leanings and enforcement.  And each side has routinely claimed that the other is trying to bully them off the site.  It’s not an easy situation to balance out, but we do try, and the eds and contributors stay out of it.

     

    • #59
  30. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    Thanks, this has been a wonderful discussion, and your open and honest replies have given me pause and something to think about.  One thing jumped out at me from Amy’s comment, that Trump supporters don’t write a lot of OP’s, she may have a point there.  As for why that is, I’m comfy speaking for some of us in saying that in the past we’ve seen our posts “hijacked” by the same 5 or 6 anti-Trump members who will try to dominate a comments thread, often with snark and sarcasm, and often enough one of them is a well-known “contributor” who seems to delight in argument and simply doesn’t debate or question in good faith.  Then when we push back, the bickering starts all over again, the flags start, the mods warn and redact, both sides declare victory, and the divide deepens a little more. 

    But to Amy’s point, I can’t deny the fact that many of us HW’s have retreated to our group home.  Whether we’re justified or not in doing so, we have  ceded the main page a little.  We’re not 100% gone, but our absence on a daily basis is noticeable.  This might be leading to the overall impression of Rico leaning against Trump.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.