9 Comments

Belated hiatus notice

Hi all – I was away on hols last week, and there were quite a few comments caught up in moderation. Sorry about that!

I’ve released most of them now (apart from the attempts at rape jokes on the Rape Isn’t Funny thread). A couple of others haven’t been published because they were awfully long. Lengthy comments discourage further responses, and thus can be a form of silencing other voices, so I prefer people to cut it down to three strong paragraphs or approximately 250 words. (This is all explained in the comments policy) If your lengthy comment has been held in moderation, please redraft it to be more concise and re-submit.

About these ads

About tigtog

writer, singer, webwrangler, blogger, comedy tragic | about.me/vivsmythe

9 comments on “Belated hiatus notice

  1. OK…I disagree about long comments. I don’t think there is anything wrong with them.
    If people don’t wish to read – they don’t have to.
    Hardly silencing others – why? I don’t get it. In fact given that I’ve seen comments whining that another comment is “so long” – it’s more likely that those making long comments are the ones being silenced.

  2. There’s a reason that newspapers generally limit Letters To The Editor to around 250 words – it forces people to frame their arguments cogently instead of rambling and repeating themselves (or others). As Editor of this blog, I find this standard appropriate and worthy of emulation, thus I “whine” about long comments.

    * Long, rambling, repetitive comments show a disrespect for other readers by not taking the effort to be more cogent and concise and – frankly – readable.
    * Long comments which are essentially a repost of large chunks published elsewhere online show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works via linking to such articles rather than reproducing them.

    As for how long comments act as discussion-silencers: I have seen, over and over on many blogs, how the publication of a 700 or 1000 word comment simply stifles further discussion even if the comment’s logic is full of holes. Because other commentors know that if they don’t address every single point they will be accused of cherrypicking, and the writer of the long comment has already shown themselves to be tendentious simply by the length of their comment, and life is too short.

    The longwinded blowhards get plenty of space elsewhere on the net. Here they don’t, unless they can rein in the verbiage. If they don’t wish to edit themselves for concision – they don’t have to.

  3. My comment above comes in at 231 words, by the way. Plenty of space to develop a point of discussion.

    If the commentor has more, it can always go in another comment, so long as they remember that excessively frequent posts in a single thread are also a way of dominating a thread and silencing others. Two comments in a row, once in a while, is understandable. Habitually posting three or four 250-word comments one after the other would merely be an attempt to get around the ban on overly long comments, and would be frowned upon severely.

  4. (apart from the attempts at rape jokes on the Rape Isn’t Funny thread)

    oh good lord

    I shouldn’t be surprised, but, still…why do people bother to do this?

  5. It is rather pathetic, isn’t it? I’ve decided on a new policy – thanks to disemvoweling, I can publish the edited arsehat comments without people actually having to read the words in full. These comments will be marked with the handy-dandy troll-doll avatar as well. Just to show the high level of pathetic arsehattery out there.

  6. Could I ask about the aim of this new policy? If the idea is to make it clear that the kind of arsehattery(arsemillinery?) feminist bloggers have to put up with, might it be better to redirect them to a specific thread so they don’t get in the way of other discussions?

    Thanks,
    Hugh.

  7. Disemvoweling tends to NOT get in the way of other discussions because the trolls’ “arguments” cannot be read (they can, with effort, be redacted, but why bother?).

    It’s what I routinely do on my other blogs to arsehat comments. Not necessarily all of them, sometimes merely hitting the delete button is more satisfactory. One of the nicest aspects is that disemvoweling so outrages certain arsehats that they stomp off in a huff vowing never to darken the blog again. Win!

  8. It’s a blog comment, not a thesis – so what if someone rambles or repeats themselves?
    Maybe some people have a lot to say?
    I still do not get why this is silencing others.

    I have never seen anyone “accused of cherry-picking” and someone who would do that is pathetic. If others want to respond to only certain points made in a comment, they should do so. I often do, I’ve seen others do it, and no-one complains “but you didn’t respond to THIS part…”. Not a justification.

    Seems odd and frankly rude to accuse people of silencing others by writing what YOU consider overly long comments.

  9. What you’ve seen and what I’ve seen are obviously poles apart.

    I view this as a small contribution to people learning to express themselves more effectively online. Those who find this restrictive and get huffy about it are more than welcome to continue communicating ineffectively elsewhere.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,949 other followers