Sunday, October 01, 2006

Comment Enabler

With a very few exceptions, I can't figure out why anybody would bother with comment enabler. It would seem to give you more responsibility for the content of the comments on your blog. You can always block a troll and delete his comments. Also, some people take personal offense when their comments don't show up on a site with comment enabler; I sure do. Hell, I'd take less offense at a comment being deleted as too angry and than I do at it just being summarily blocked. But if a blogger wants to read every comment before it's accepted, that's his prerogative.

At one point I even considered deleting every blogger from my blogroll that had failed to publish a comment of mine. I suppose it might just be a technical problem wit comment enabler, but I no longer bother linking to or even reading one of the longest running liberal blogs in the city because it happened twice on his site. It's still one of the few things that will keep me from adding a blog to my links list--not the presence of enabler, but the failure of a comment to appear because the name wasn't recognized. That may sound petty or immature, but very few big name national blogs are worth going to without the comments.

Since a comment came back very rapidly, twice, just now, I'll assume it wasn't intentional. But, without naming a blog, a comment that was just refused:
I have to disagree with you, I think it's been more of a feel good week than a good week. Unfortunately, that good feeling seems to be causing the city council to think that the recovery money is about to start rolling in. At least they seem to be voting for new spending initiatives without asking obvious questions.

There's a line about the city being able to access that $150M line of credit from private banks, if a second federal loan doesn't come through. We now know that the private will be much more expensive than previously thought, but the idea seems to be that we don't need to prioritize spending because we're covered.

You recently commented on Adrastos' blog:
"Instead we are talking about a long list of capital project which cannot be funded. The lack of funding will fuel political divisions in the city for the next generation."
You were right, and the feel good week is making that more likely to happen.

I have mine on and I offer you an argument, at least in my case, why. I have so many blatantly false allegations that come in or allegations against private sector folks who I don't really care about taking to task. So I delete those.

Plus I have informants who don't want their comments published in their own words.

What do you think? Justified in my case? I'm curious as to your opinion because I battle with the ethics.
I was specifically thinking of you when I said with very few exceptions, although I do wonder why you don't just set up a separate email account for the blog. I understand that your circumstance is different than most.

Like I said, I do't know why most bloggers would want the added responsibility for what appears in the comments. Philosophically, I don't like limiting what should be an open discussion--minus the comments that might need to be deleted. And there's the personal peeve when the comment doesn't appear of wondering if the blogger dissed me or if it was a technical failure.

In your case, in addition to the comments sections being where you get tips, you've probably reached the point where an open comment section would attract a lot of deliberately disruptive comments.
To clarify. I don't really object to anybody using it, but I don't see the point for most bloggers. All it does (in most cases) is give a blogger two extra chances to offend readers--either by accepting or not accepting a particular comment.

I was curious why bloggers who don't have a situation like Dambala's use it.
it's a brave new world.

at least there is an open forum where you cats can speak and agree to disagree or agree.

thank yall for caring and posting.
I've been turning mine on for periods of time on occasion. I'm trying to deal with a specific and personal case of... trollism/vandalism. I hope it's not too inconvenient. I certainly don't delete anything from anyone who wants to voice an honest... or even dishonest opinion.
I don't think either of you ever block a comment because you disagree with it or even find it vapid. I know that there are good reasons for using it sometimes, but it seems like once you use it, you can be accused of approving every comment. And you piss off people when you deem their comments unworthy. Again, I don't think you all do that. But in general, it's hard to reconcile with the open forum that anonymous mentioned. Obviously trolling occurs, etc.
Oh I agree. I hate to have to do it for those very reasons.
To set the record straight. I did not reject your comment, it is up on my blog right now. I did reject the repeat comment as redundant.

I do moderate all comments and as far as I can remember have never rejected a comment, but I reserve the right to, in my own blog. One of my requirements decorum. If you disagree you obviously can respond elsewhere if you are offended.

My topics are not that interesting to that many people.

I don't know what happened that you thought your comment was rejected.

I did attempt to post a comment here yesterday and it has never appeared.

Perhaps blogger is having "issues".
there is the trolling thing too. I have never blocked any insults towards a matter of fact I usually re-post them as it turns out I'm a verbal masochist and didn't know it.

but Jeff is right too...the trolling and spamming thing is an that Z guy who ran around and posted the same thing (which had nothing to do with the original post) on all our sites. That shit irks me. I think Schroeder chastized him on his own site and he stopped.

I never meant to turn my blog into what its' become, but hey, I'm rolling with it. But I'm worried I'm gonna get a cease and desist order any day or worse a libel suit slapped on me. If I let the comments run wild, I think it would have already happened.

One note on that which you guys may be interested in. When trying a libel, slander, or defamation of character case, the first thing that has to be decided is wether or not the plaintiff is a private or public figure as there are two classes of citizens in the court's eyes. A public figure is one who has "thrust himself into the public vortex". Funny, but that's the semantics of it. So you can get away with a lot when it comes to public figures....Nagin, Meffert, any one holding a public office is fair game. If they sued me, they would have to prove that the allegations on the blog are in fact untrue, which would open up discovery and testimony they would never want revealed. But if someone comes in and posts something about Meffert's wife, or Nagin's wife....which has happened incidentally, I pull that crap off.

I still battle with it, believe me. The problem is that I'm finding myself editing certain comments because I'm not sure if the allegations are true. One guy is claiming that Meffert is a member of the Church of Scientology....I mean even if that is true...what the fuck do I do with that? Is it really pertinent to the issues at hand? It's interesting, but not necessarily relevant.

This whole thing is turning into a damn job. It's starting to lose its appeal for me...but i guess I set myself up for it.

It makes me appreciate the structure of an actual newspaper in the sense that an editor handles all those decisions.
"that Z guy" I remember now.

I did nuke his comment. I had read it on several other blogs before it showed up on mine.

Sorry for the misinformation.
That post was mistake because I combined the comment enabler subject with a comment about whether the city council is becoming as irreponsible as the mayor. It gave the impression that I was personally angry at mominem, when I was angrier at city government. And I have emailed an apology, if anyone's curious.

The comment enabler has always been a minor peeve because you wonder if the blogger even saw the comment. It only makes me really angry if I get the impression that a blogger only bothers to read and approve commets when he recognizes the name of the commenter. But it does seem like a bad idea in general, for the defamation of character reasons that Dambala mentions. I would think that it would give you more liability for the contents of your comments, but I'm not a lawyer.

In your case, Dambala, your blog's probably evolved in a way that you need it. That probably really makes it seem more like a job, but I'm sure you realize how important it is.
Nice blog! Keep working like this!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Old Favorites
  • Political Boxing (untitled)
  • Did Bush Take His Ball and Go Home
  • Teratogens and Plan B
  • Foghorn Leghorn Republicans
  • Quote of the Day
  • October's News(Dec.1)
  • untitled, Nov.19 (offshore revenue)
  • Remember Upton Sinclair
  • Oct. Liar of thr month
  • Jindal's True Colors
  • No bid contracts