Comments
We have discussed policies regarding comments behind the scenes several times. For those interested, here is the general policy.
- The author of a post is the authority of the post. They can delete and edit comments. They can close comments.
- Any contributor can edit a comment that is potentially libelous. In particular, comments dealing with other bloggers on the Internet and their personal situations are generally not researched to confirm veracity and simply redacted.
- The prefered method of addressing inappropriate language and writing is through redactions and notes.
- Each author is free to ban persons from commenting on their posts. Commenters that don’t respect this will be brought before the group and a decision to ban them from the blog will be made.
- The only right a commenter has is the integrity of their comment will be respected. It will not be maliciously modified. It can however be redacted. Anonymous commenters, especially, and those who do not provide valid email addresses have fewer rights.
Most of us don’t believe in creating rules for informal spaces. Most would think The Golden Rule should suffice. Fortunately and unfortunately, we have passed the threshold for number of readers where being more explicit is necessary. In the end, we have about a dozen comment policies and those won’t be articulated further except on a corrective basis.
As a side note, there has been talk of ending commenting on Vox Nova permanently. While some will see this as conspiratorial, for the most part it has to do with size. Despite claims to the contrary, we don’t all agree on everything. What is considered edgy in some circles of partisan commentary is considered crankish in other corners. One way to resolve conflicts over comments - and let me emphasis how much we loath having to debate bans behind the scenes - is to end comments. There are times comments really add to the dialogue. More often and most importantly they tend to make a blog’s reputation. While I think there has been incitement at times for which authors are ultimately responsible, too often comments have devolved into childish bickering. While we aren’t the biggest dog on the block, we are big enough that we would survive without commenters coming to see what train wreck they can cause or enjoy. Despite that, there are comments that are quite enjoyable and really add unique perspectives.
December 3, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I think these rules stink…I want to be able to have a war of words with anyone I choose in the comments. How dare you guys limit me and my freedoms…you bunch of cathlofascist…
just kidding
thanks for placing some parameters around the lively dialog held in the comments, they are a great feature of this blog. keep up the good work Vox Nova team. peace to all
December 3, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Ditto what Padre said: I think there is a distinction between 1. a troll (an author of posts whose aim is solely to inflame) and 2. a sincere but controversial commenter.
Comments are a great way to be heard in a public forum, and I would be disappointed if I were not able to comment.
December 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm
[...] turned off on this post. For a good summary of the VN contributors’ thinking on comments, see this post. Frankly, it seems evident why certain folks want to comment on this particular post: the [...]
December 3, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I think these rules stink…I want to be able to have a war of words with anyone I choose in the comments. How dare you guys limit me and my freedoms…you bunch of cathlofascist…
Hehehehe!!!!
December 4, 2007 at 12:55 am
I personally make an effort to balance some of the left wing views completely unrelated to genuine Catholic viewpoints. I do this because when I first got here, I had a hard time distinguishing it from a place like democraticunderground.com
There is room for discussions relating to “Catholic, pro-person worldview, yet diverging in our socio-political opinions, we seek to provide informed commentary and rigorous debate on culture, society, politics and law, all while unwaveringly adhering to, and aptly applying the principles of Catholic doctrine”
But seriously, this blog doesn’t seem to welcome diverging socio-political viewpoints very well.
I post when I agree with something, but more often than not, I post when I disagree with something. Due to the nature and tilt of some of the comments here, I believe that discourse and challenging is necessary. Maybe disabling of comments wouldn’t be necessarily taken down to the bickering level if the tone and attitude of some of the posts by contributors that are supposed to represent Catholics weren’t so divisive in and of itself.
December 4, 2007 at 12:58 am
Correction:
I personally make an effort to balance some of the left wing (to me )views…
Addition:
I think it would be difficult to engage in vigorous debate if comments were disabled. I guess all I’m trying to say is that many times the tone of the original post dictates the course of the requisite discussion.
December 4, 2007 at 1:52 am
As I noted above, authors do tend to influence the comments received. Feedback in the comments and emails received are noted by all the contributors. At a corporate level, the blog contributors are conscience of how other bloggers’ posts are received. As issues arise, they will need to be addressed. Particular issues are best addressed in private however.
Diversity is always and always will be an issue. There are some who were invited that simply had other commitments. There are others uncomfortable with what was considered the breadth of acceptable opinion amongst contributors. Many conservatives will concede, even publicly, that the Catholic blogosphere in so much as it is representative of Catholic opinion is overrepresented by conservative opinion. Part of this is simply the Internet. You will find more traditionalists and libertarians online than you will find amongst your neighbors. The Internet thrives on minority voices.
My response is not intended to be personal, but I do feel a defense is warranted on this point. You have compared some of the commentary to the democratic underground. One of the debates I’ve noticed you enter is the immigration debate. Let me be clear: I’m not going to debate here. However, you like others I’m sure believe that your opinion is within the realm of acceptable Catholic opinion. I’m not familiar with a single bishop or bishop’s conference that has advocated erecting a wall on our Southern border. The USCCB’s position on immigration is considered ‘liberal’ in this country. I can’t think of a bishop off the top of my head that has drastically deviated from the USCCB’s position. This is not to argue the issue specifically. This is a long way to argue that your harmony with the bishops may be more the issue than any of our contributor’s affinity for democratic policies. This is not to say that there aren’t a diversity of opinions on various issues. There are however a number of issues where both of the parties are outside respected Catholic opinion.
December 4, 2007 at 2:03 am
Dorothy Day about thinking in the Church:
“There is a lot of freedom in the Catholic Church.”
Vox-nova is a decent blog with good conversations. Conservatives who rule in other blogs will find little comfort on this blog. But, this is true of all opinions.
Good luck. This is an excellent blog.
December 4, 2007 at 2:04 am
Understood.
Noone’s perfect. I’ve learned alot from commenting here, but noone here is 100% in accordance with the Church and that’s why the discussion should be kept open.
Off-current-topic: However I want to again mention I don’t think people need to be inhumanely stopped from immigrating. I was suggesting that the laws on the book are indeed just, which is what was in question. Catholics are obligated to obey just law. The discussion centered around what is just.
December 4, 2007 at 2:19 am
I have found that on many blogs, the rules as to what constitutes “reasonable discourse” varies widely. Much of it has to do with logically tearing apart some poster’s points. Nobody likes to look like an ass, and so comments get “moderated”.
What the heck. This is your place. If I find the need to comment on something posted on a blog in which I cannot comment, I have a few venues in which I can do it.
The Internet thrives on minority voices.
And nowhere is this more apparent than Vox-Nova.
December 4, 2007 at 3:02 am
But seriously, this blog doesn’t seem to welcome diverging socio-political viewpoints very well.
I am sorry you feel this way. I personally think that any blog that accommodates both Alexham and Michael Iafrate, or both Jonathan Jones and Morning’s Minion, has got to be more welcoming to diverging socio-political viewpoints than most. Perhaps I am biased.
December 4, 2007 at 3:20 am
Thank you for these clarifications; they make sense to me.
December 4, 2007 at 4:55 am
noone [sic] here is 100% in accordance with the Church
Unless you are claiming that some of the VN bloggers are verging on heresy (even 5% heresy), then claims like this are unhelpful. Daniel’s Dorothy Day quote is a good one and it reflects the reality of Catholic Christianity.
December 4, 2007 at 5:22 am
“I personally think that any blog that accommodates both Alexham and Michael Iafrate, or both Jonathan Jones and Morning’s Minion, has got to be more welcoming to diverging socio-political viewpoints than most.”
And I’d say any Church that accommodates both St. Francis and St. Joan of Arc, G.K. Chesterton and St. Simeon Stylites, has got to be more welcoming to different viewpoints than most. :)
February 25, 2008 at 10:25 pm
What a ridiculous set of rules for a medium meant to encourage open discussion and the exchange of honest ideas.
Then again, this is a religious blog — which, in the end, pretty much explains everything.