Folks, two weeks ago we played a role in electing Jim Webb to the Senate, Glenn Nye and Tom Perriello to Congress, and Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States.

Thought we elected Mark Warner to the Senate two weeks ago :P

Otherwise, I agree with you on pretty much all your points. Civility is something we should strive for.

Thanks. Fixed now.  :)

wrote a good post on this very issue:
http://doublesingledouble.blog...

We are big dorks and have been regulars in a lot of online communities. It happens on the scooter forums, the wedding forums (http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/alkateeb-v-does) and even in crafting forums ... After all these [nerdy] years, Internet conflict can still make my heart pound. Strange world we live in.  

But this is a great and very interesting post by your better half (I strongly recommend it) that gets to the heart of the dynamic that drives this.

My wife is really into knitting, and she is active on several knitting communities. The idea that some of the people who post on these forums are walking around with big, deadly needles every day should give us all pause.

seems to work fine.  If someone makes a nasty ad hominem, the usual course of troll-rating the comment seems to work fine.

As far as diaries that are trollish, just deleting them seems like the right course to me.

Ultimately, the call is going to be based on what the site editors believe is appropriate.  This is their site -- more appropriately Lowells -- and the rest of us are essentially visitors.  The House makes the rules.

by one person, now banned, who systematically went through and troll-rated comments by people who disagreed with him.  There is more, but that by itself should be sufficient to explain why the editors / front pagers (and I am part of that group) feel impelled to address the issue more directly.

This vaulted "ratings" system seems a little ridiculous and the cause of more than a few problems on this site. You accused someone, I'm not entirely sure who, of troll rating and made a big deal of it, but later other people did the same to me and other users. I don't really care what someone rates me, especially people who don't post themselves, but I fail to see what the rating systems accomplishes other than prompting warning posts and yelling matches.

Aznew, thanks for the really kind comments about me.  Truth, though, is I can get grouchy, and I recognized a lot of myself in your remarks about ad hominem attacks.  If the other person pissed me off, it's also because I allowed myself to be pissed off.  That's giving somebody else far too much power over me.  And that made my own response less effective too.  The particular person may be well-intentioned and feel just as passionately about his (or her) point of view as I do, but the danger of snark is it sometimes fall flat and is misunderstood.

I didn't see the post about Lowell that you referred to.  But I can absolutely vouch for Lowell's integrity.  He and I have had our disagreements, but I've never, ever doubted his sincerity or dedication to progressive politics.  

He's not in this for the money.  As he has said several times, if he didn't agree with a particular candidate, he would not work for them. And he has always disclosed his working relationship with candidates that he's written about.  So, I see no conflict of interest.

Blogging is not objective, non biased reporting - although it certainly can be that if a particular blogger wants it to be on his site.  But for most of us, we blog as a form of advocacy.  Everybody knows Lowell - or me or others - are progressives.  They understand our particular viewpoints.  Given that, there is nothing wrong with any blogger serving as a paid consultant as long as full disclosure is made.  Lowell has always done that.

Thank you for this!  

that there is no such thing as "objective, unbiased" reporting.  Not anywhere.  Especially not in the so-called MSM.  They merely pretend to be providers of such.

I also agree with the kudos directed at you, AIAW.  You write some of the very best material in the blogosphere.

I would just like to add one thing.  It seems to me that in general some within this community are not interested in debate.  There are some people in particular that view any disagreement as some form of personal attack.  Also be careful about saying you know more than someone else does.  There is usually more than one valid viewpoint on any issue.  On economics in particular there are various schools of thought with scholars behind all sides.

There is roon to disagree on economics.

and well said.

I wrote the diary talked about in this entry, but I agree that the site should strive to be civil. What  I disagree with is the thought that the civility should be forced. Commenters have the ability to ignore or chastise a poster they feel are out of line, which I think this is a more democratic method of maintaining a civil site instead a forced system of niceties.

As far as why I made the accusations, I felt I had good reason, if not I would not have said anything. Myself and the other poster involved were both civil until both our comments were attacked by other people, including Lowell.  In a sad irony, a few comments after attacking us, these same people warned us that if we didn't start playing nice we would be banned. I just found it suspicious that this decision to enforce the ad hominem attack rule only came into play so strongly when it involved a supported candidate. Knowing that Lowell accepts political consulting fees, I don't think what I said was a huge leap out there. Maybe I was wrong for saying so without real evidence, but I didn't state it as fact and never was specific about who I mentioned.

Haha, also I'm not the person who voted "Shut up, aznew. You're an idiot." I just wanted to throw that out there.

I never once "attacked" you or Georgetown Student.  I "attacked" (if you need to call it such) an idea.  I felt that the idea presented was laughable.  That was taken personally, as was that person's right.

However, the ensuing posts were complete over-the-top attacks on me personally.

I could always work on being less inflammatory on how I choose to say things on blogs.  I think part of what led to my phrasing on my comments was the all-out "we're right, y'all are wrong" tone of some of the comments that you and Georgetown Student were making on that particular post.

But never did I, or anyone else that I was aware of, attack another person directly--they were directed at the ideas, not the people.

That said, aznew's diary is much appreciated.

I still don't understand why I was not able to comment in response to some of the scurrilous attacks that were made against me on that thread, including some responses that correct completely  wrong information that was put out there about me, as well as a comment or two in which I was going to agree with you and Martin Lomnasey about a few issues.

However, apparently people had "troll rated" me to the point that I could not comment---something that was not deserved.

Thanks aznew for this excellent diary.

I would reread your comments, but several comments have been deleted from the page. I also know though that at least on the page I can see, you were the first to escalate the tone to the personal. You called GeorgetownStudent "arrogant" and said his argument was ridiculous. You never attacked me, nor did I ever say you did, Lowell was the one who I felt was rather rude to me personally and how I was mostly addressing as being hypocritical in making somewhat personal attacks himself, but then warning others about making such attacks. Also "attacks" is his word not mine, so if you have a problem calling it that you should speak to him and not me. If you are concerned about "over-the-top attacks" maybe you shouldn't be so cavalier about dismissing what other's take personally. This seems to be very much a double standard, and reminds me of the playground bully who bullies a kid till the kid punches the bully, then the bully tells the teacher and gets the other kid in trouble. You say that it was GeorgetownStudent's and my own comments that had "we're right, y'all are wrong" maybe you should reread some of thegreenmiles' or Lowell's comments which echo the same tone if not worse, especially in regards to some of Lowell's responses to my comments. I don't know what attacks you are talking about that you would like to correct, but I would like to know what you would have said in response. I'm also sorry about the troll rating, its something I have been the victim of too.

...the dismissal of the concerns of the people of Arlington is arrogant, and it is--especially when they were promised that I-66 would remain as it is indefinitely.  Promise made 25 years ago or not, it's still a promise that should be kept.

I NEVER called him arrogant.  You need to re-read with an objective take.

As I said, I probably could have said what I had to say in a better way, but I resent the accusation you are making as it wasn't there in my typed words, nor in my thoughts.

You are right, we are all responsible for the tone, and because I perceive it in someone else's comments doesn't justify continuing it.

However, there were several nasty and at times factually incorrect assertions made directly about me personally.  Something as basic as where I live, which you'd think someone might have a clue on based on my very username, was incorrectly asserted (someone said that I live in Arlington, when in fact I live in southern Fairfax County (Mount Vernon), and before that lived in Sterling in Loudoun County--making me rather qualified to understand the plight of long commutes and those who make them. There were also false assertions made about my opinions or why I was arguing my points, basically my motivations, that were rude, but also colored in an ugly prejudice about liberal people.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Please know, I do not dismiss people's take on what I have to say, and hopefully we can work with each other in the future to contribute more responsibly on RK, and be nicer to each other in pointing out opportunities for doing so?

I'm not sure if I'm the 'rude' or 'colored in an ugly prejudice' one (I don't think either my comments or me personally are either of those things, so I'll assume they were meant for someone else), but I did mistake you for an Arlingtonian.  My apologies.

While I do know quite well where Mt. Vernon is, I was misled/mistaken based on one of your comments, "It's about the very REAL meaning of pollution, noise, and traffic in ONE'S OWN NEIGHBORHOOD!"  I read that to mean that YOU live in a neighborhood that would be impacted.  

Knowing that you're a longtime commenter here and in the NOVA blogosphere generally, I thought that if you HAD moved to Arlington relatively recently, you probably wouldn't have wanted to give up your established and respected screen name. Just for the record, my full 'DIMV-lives-in-Arlington' comment was, "DIMV, I'm a huge fan of much of what you write, but look man, YOU LIVE IN ARLINGTON,".  Hard to find that disrespectful I think.

So that's where that came from.  Honest mistake.  

because the major contributors are all very decent people and generally fair. We just went through two years of what could have been a very DIVISIVE political contest and yet folks seem mostly united and proud of what's been accomplished.

When first blogging about Jim Webb - which was the first time for me getting involved with blogging, it was easy to gravitate to the RK site (as compared with others in this state) because of the even handiness of the MODERATORS.  Can't say that anything has changed on that score.

So while I don't know or haven't seen what sparked AZNEW's diary - Civility Does Matter, here, there and everywhere.

Nothing really to worry about .... the RK community is fair.

I agree with what you've said, aznew.  there are generally two kinds of put-downs that have gone on here recently.  The one under discussion, the testiness by a small number of bloggers on our own side, is actually the second one I'll address.  

First, I'll discuss another type that's come up here at RK.  It's the berating of an RK blogger in "rudeness on steroids."  It's the personal take-down.  There's an example of this first type of incivility (posted just the other day) as what began as a rant against me personally.  Here's the link.  This attack was addressed to me.  I leave it you you to characterize this.

I also think that there is a crucial difference between what some on the far-wrong wing of the GOP mean by civility, and even "hate" and what   we mean by it.  For them, civility means agreeing with them (or else) and generally acting deferential to their line of thinking.  They have a unique meaning for bipartisanship (i.e., give in to whatever the Republican radicals want) and they have a different meaning for "freedom" too.  "Hate" is the label applied by them whenever we vigorously condemn hate against us--or against anyone else. "Freedom" means free only to submit to their way (or the highway).  

This type of attack comes from the crowd who'll "generously" (sarcasm) leave you alone until you stray into any statement they don't like and then watch out: Then they'll hound you or trash you publicly.  They'll assert it is we who are "sick," we who do not rake them personally (private citizens that they are) over the coals.  We just speak out against some leaders who willfully fail us, undid the Constitution, lied to us, or misused us.  Or we speak against candidates such as Sarah Palin.  God forbid we take on the completely inappropriate behavior of Sarah Palin, her terribly ill-prepared candidacy, or what she let go on at her rallies.  Any honest conservative would be appalled at Palin's insufficiencies, behavior, lack of knowledge, and general empty-headedness.  And they were.  But these people are so blinded by the "right" they cannot see what's right.  I am talking about folks who can't handle anything, especially anyone who contests their orthodoxy and their spin on their world.  How dare we?  They hate those who do not conform to their ideology or their idea of what relationships are.   They hate those who are different.   And then they call us haters. It would be amusing if it weren't so cynical.

Then (secondly) there's the verbal sparring that went on within our own side of the aisle on this blog.  Unfortunately, the tactics have overlapped a bit with some of the above (i.e., the arrogance of thinking yours is one's own way of thinking is the only correct way).  And it still borders on abusive to put down people the way the commenters from our own side of the aisle did.  But it doesn't come close to the take-no-prisoners approach that I mentioned in the first case.  

Still, there are numerous intelligent, thoughtful, articulate bloggers who post here and none deserves the condescension and snottiness that was (ironically) unleashed against them by a small number of bloggers from "our side."  I wonder if they know how they come off.  Furthermore, some of the bloggers here not only have a degree, but have several, including multiple advanced degrees.  So, please, enough, with the put-downs of others' cred, degrees, or whatever.  And, it should go without saying, those with no degree deserve common courtesy and respect too.  Self taught people have much to contribute too.  

Just because the web is sometimes like the "Wild West," doesn't mean it has to be.  We can feel what passion we feel for ideas.  We can get upset at the powers that be. after all, as the saying goes, "if your not outraged, you are not paying attention." But let's not (ever) self destruct.  I think there is little chance of that happening here.  But just in case, a few folks don't have the message, it is not the culture here.  And why would we want to mess with it?
______________

Is your link correct? Its one of your own blogs. Sorry, if I'm confused.

I was referring specifically to a comment posted there by one "krishl."

Oh, sorry. I think the comment has been removed now though.

I didn't realize it had been removed.

In the above I use the word "you" generically and not to address aznew.  Also, please excuse the error in which I should have said "you're" (in the last paragraph).  

This is the sort thing that needs to be echoed on online communities like this one. We all have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the site. I would suspect we would all like to maintain our own personal integrity as well.

So how does one do these? Don't use harsh language against another. Personal attacks are always unacceptable. If you feel the need to be snarky about a point then make a note that you are being snarky so everyone knows. Otherwise, keep the personal to yourself. Just because someone attacks you or your argument, even personally, is no excuse to launch an attack of your own. Debate the points, the data, the merit of the argument but never the person.

Rating comments should always first and foremost be based on the quality of the comment in adding to the discussion. Sure, we all tend to rate comments that we agree with but the important part is to rate it based on its quality.

As long as we all maintain a healthy degree of respect and personal integrity then this place will be a community of integrity where political debate can occur safely. I won't get into the personal issues that have occurred lately but I can say that RK has a lot of respectable people and I cannot understand why this recent storm happened save to say that personal attacks are simply never acceptable.

So let's get back to work.

I wrote this diary to get this issue out into the open, and I think most interested parties have had their say.

Without making any judgment about what has transpired or who started what, I think the clear consensus is that is is everyone's personal responsibility, and our collective responsibility as an online community, to be respectful in our comments and ratings, while at the same time honest and vigorous in expressing our opinions.

I'm certainly not closing off debate -- I couldn't if I wanted to -- but Tiderion has a point. Let's move on.