Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As usual, I failed to make it down to the triangle for the Science Online conference that my friend and colleague Bora works so hard every year to put on. Which means that, once again, I missed the opportunity to meet a few of the Sciblings I've not yet had the chance to meet. It also means I missed the spectacle described by Dr. Isis during a panel discussion on blogging and civility that she, Janet Stemwedel and Sheril Kirshenbaum were on. I'll let Isis explain what happened:
To offer a brief recap, we were discussing how one moderates their blog community. One of the participants commented that he believes ground rules are important to a community and derives his from John Wilkins's. Specifically, John's policy is:This is my living room, so don't piss on the floor. I reserve the right to block users and delete any comments that are uncivil, spam or offensive to all. I have a broad tolerance, but don't test it, please. Try to remain coherent, polite and put forward positive arguments if engaged in debate. There are plenty of places you can accuse people of being pedophilic communist sexist pigs; don't do it here.
Now, I would have said pretty much the same thing (though I would change "offensive to all" to "offensive to me"). I do regard this blog as my house and that means my rules apply. And those rules, quite frankly, are quite subjective: Piss me off and I'll ban you. Does this really help keep the comments civil? Not really. The comments here routinely get far too uncivil, sometimes justified and sometimes not (and sometimes the incivility is led by me - but again, my house and my rules and if you don't like it, go to someone else's house. Or stay in your own.).
But this idea prompted quite a reply:
Another participant expressed concern, admittedly in a tone that implied a strong emotional attachment to the words she was speaking, that this general policy could be used to exclude some voices from the discussion - particularly the voices of people who are classically excluded from the dialog in science. I wasn't prepared for the other discussant - the one who originally said not to piss on his carpet - to then turn around, raise his hiney out of the chair, and yell spittle-laden profanity at the person who had responded to him. And, I mean, raise his voice in a way that frightened me to the point of thinking that things were about to spiral out of control in a horrible, horrible way. I wasn't entirely sure where we were going, but it was nowhere good.
Henry Gee at the Nature Network was apparently there (was he the one who launched the tirade? I can't tell from these reports) and characterizes the counter-argument this way:
Much to my amazement I am criticized very sharply for expressing what I thought (and still think) to be a perfectly reasonable view. The counter-argument is that the enforcement of ground rules is an act of white male patriarchy and acts to exclude certain subsets of society from taking part. I think this is tosh, actually, but some otherwise intelligent and articulate people seem to believe it. Are such ground rules inherently discriminatory, or are they fair?
If that is indeed the counter argument, it strikes me as rather silly - at least in regard to how it works on this blog. Nearly all of the people I have ever banned from this blog have been of the WASP variety (okay, I don't actually know that they were white, but it's a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of them were). Idiot trolls like Mabus, Fafarman and O'Brien hardly constitute an oppressed minority being unfairly excluded from the science community.
I am a passionate defender of free speech, but that means you have the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. It doesn't mean you have a right to say whatever you want here.
Having said all of that, I do wish the comment section on my blog was more civil, at least at times. Unfortunately, I am too busy these days to really police the comments in any thorough way. Especially when a thread gets really long or continues going on and on several days after the original post, I'm highly unlikely to even look at it any longer. I really need an intern (read: unpaid slave) to handle such things for me.
Politics
Comments
So, next year you HAVE to show up.... ;-)
Posted by: Coturnix | January 27, 2010 9:30 AM
You wouldn't pay an intern? I had three internships during college, and I got paid for all of them.
Posted by: catgirl | January 27, 2010 9:44 AM
Another participant expressed concern, admittedly in a tone that implied a strong emotional attachment to the words she was speaking, that this general policy could be used to exclude some voices from the discussion - particularly the voices of people who are classically excluded from the dialog in science.
Its the internet. No one can see you. If you have significant bias or privacy concerns, you have the option of choosing a screen name that allows you to keep your privacy and guarantees that no one can judge you on your race, religion, age, sex, whatever. Problem solved. Sheesh. Its not like internet aliases are so rare that lurkers can extract information about your identity merely because you use one.
Posted by: eric | January 27, 2010 9:56 AM
It looks to me like it was Henry Gee who is being refered to. He's quite clear that it was him who quoted Wilkins (please update the link to evolving thoughts btw)and Isis says it was the person who did that who "raise[d] his hiney out of the chair".
Posted by: Matty | January 27, 2010 9:56 AM
While John Wilkins is on my mind, I don't recall if I previously recommended his take on civil liberties in Australia at Drought Resistant Philosopher. And to bring my point back to this post you will see that, despite how his comments policy may be read by some, this is not a man who favours online censorship.
Posted by: Matty | January 27, 2010 10:04 AM
It's curious that people think we're the first ones to confront these issues, or that all of human history up to our own times has nothing of value to offer us.
For all the limitations of the law, there have been some pretty sharp cookies considering "freedom of speech" over the years. "Time, place, and manner" restrictions are a good starting guide to increasing the opportunity for expression without limiting its content. It's certainly possible for private parties to go further without the dangers of the State doing likewise, but I wonder why anyone would consider rules that would pass Constitutional muster excessively restrictive.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 27, 2010 10:17 AM
I have a very similar comment policy to John Wilkins' over at Cocktail Party Physics, and I find it works very well. Helps that we're all women, I'm sure (although we ARE all white. Hmmm.) And on the whole we have very civil comment threads. In four years I've only had to ban two people, tops (one of which was a troll practically begging to be banned).
Seems to me it's not the principle that caused the ruckus, but the unusually vitriolic response to any kind of opposing view. I had to leave SciOnline early Sorry I missed it.
As for free speech, like you, I believe very strongly in it and will always defend it. But I also think people forget that such a right is also a privilege. They treat it shabbily and more often than not, abuse that freedom. It's difficult to appreciate what a rare right it is when one has never lived in a place where there really isn't free speech.
I also think that with rights comes responsibility. People should be willing to stand by their words and be held accountable for them. There are cases where anonymity is necessary, but a significant number of anonymous comments that I see on the higher trafficked blogs and news sites (WaPo, eg) are just nasty, mean-spirited spittle-flecked tirades, often teetering on the verge of hate speech.
I support their right to say those things in a public forum, 100%. But that doesn't mean I want that kind of nonsense on my blog.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | January 27, 2010 11:28 AM
Is there a better phrase in the English language than "spittle-flecked"?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2010 11:48 AM
Like Jennifer, I was at ScienceOnline, though not at this session.
If the conversation was as Henry Gee reported, it does seem to me to be a weak argument. The science-blogging community is large, but very well connected. If someone of a non-white-male-patriarchy was banned or ignored on a science blog on the basis of being a non-white-male, I find it hard to believe news wouldn't spread through blogs quickly. It certainly (and appropriately) does when sexist attacks and language enter debates, and most ad hominems are quickly put down.
Posted by: Glendon Mellow | January 27, 2010 11:55 AM
Wow, two rather radically different characterizations of this confrontation. How Rashomon. I don't know anything about Henry Gee, and only a touch more about Dr. Isis, but I seem to recall Doc I going in to full defense mode of Shakespeare's Sister's ludicrous "all in" comment policy some months back, to the point of silly and distortive characterizations of the type of (male dominated, natch) critiques of the "all in" affair. This seems right up the same alley, which makes me lean toward Henry Gee's account. Anyone else recall the "all in" affair and Dr Isis' observations of it? Am I misremembering?
Posted by: Jack | January 27, 2010 12:09 PM
The counter argument may have been silly. But saying so is kind of missing the point isn't it? The carpet F-bombing seemed to violate his own principles.
Posted by: ppnl | January 27, 2010 12:57 PM
Seems to me it's not the principle that caused the ruckus, but the unusually vitriolic response to any kind of opposing view. I had to leave SciOnline early Sorry I missed it.
It cracks me right the fuck up how people who weren't even there know all about how it went down and/or which account to believe.
This is what we call 'bias' people.
Posted by: I was there | January 27, 2010 1:03 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | January 27, 2010 1:07 PM
Ed has hit the nail on the head with his change in phrasing. If you are at someone's blog the host gets to set the tone - it's what offensive to them.
More of a concern to me is the (verbally) violent response to dissent. I saw it described this way by a blogger not Isis.
Posted by: cass_m | January 27, 2010 1:42 PM
I'm having trouble picturing or coming up with which minority group would be excluded from scientific dialogues because they can't say offensive, vulgar things. Normally, this problem comes up with atheists being kicked out of forums for not being respectful or deferential enough to religion. Is this the marginalized group the woman was referring to? The people who aren't allowed to say religion is bull doody?
Or does she mean to refer to college kids, or minorities, or tough guys, or homosexuals -- because they routinely speak in this vernacular, or need to express their anger? At first reading I thought she was complaining that harsh language and rudeness turns away women, but no, she's making the opposite point -- and for, I think, some other group.
Could someone clarify what, specifically, she was concerned about?
Posted by: Sastra | January 27, 2010 2:01 PM
Dare I say that most of your readers are likely White Anglo Saxon Males?
Posted by: MarkusR | January 27, 2010 2:05 PM
My understanding of this argument is essentially that civility gives an advantage to the status quo. If people with grievances aren't allowed to be angry, it diminishes the impact of their grievances.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | January 27, 2010 3:00 PM
My understanding of this argument is essentially that civility gives an advantage to the status quo. If people with grievances aren't allowed to be angry, it diminishes the impact of their grievances.
That seems reasonable if you're petitioning some federal, state, or local government for change. Or if there's a collective public forum that everyone must share - so that if you can't voice your anger there, you can't voice it anywhere.
But really, does the same standard apply to someone's personal blog? Especially when you consider that anyone can start their own blog? How does Ed's occasional dictat materially "diminish the impact" of any poster's personal grievances, when they can start their own blog to air them? I think the house/living room example is a very good analogy, as there are millions of living rooms, and we recognize that the number and availability of forums (fora?) means rules set in one do not materially impact an individual's ability to vociferously voice their opinion 'in public.'
Posted by: eric | January 27, 2010 3:58 PM
If I were a science blogger, what would detonate my rage bomb would be any naif floating in with some of the po-mo crap still floating around in pockets of L.A.-L.A. academia. (In second place would be those with one semester of classical philosophy under their belts; 3rd, Randians...) Unfortunately the first group does include a lot of women & minorities; who then can say that their "way of knowing" is being systematically excluded.
Banning beats apoplexy.
One wonders if Isis or anyone else followed up with the original concern-raiser? That she was there in the first place is intriguing...
(And the feminist in me wonders if a male raising the same "point" would have been met with such vitriol...)
Posted by: Diane G. | January 27, 2010 4:05 PM
First: there's a difference between "being angry" and "venting anger."
Secondly: it's not obvious to me that the People's Front of Judea's cause is handicapped by limiting the amount of spittle its representatives are allowed to spew when ranting on its behalf.
I'm willing to entertain arguments on that second point, but bear in mind that I'm one of the unenlightened sort who wants to know what your objectives are and whether your means actually advance you towards them, not just whether the means themselves are satisfying.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 27, 2010 4:06 PM
Wait, Isis was quoting Wilkins?
*blink*
...
*blink*
*opens mouth to say something*
*blink*
"There are plenty of places you can accuse people of being pedophilic communist sexist pigs; don't do it here."
*walks away*
Posted by: ERV | January 27, 2010 4:21 PM
Yes, she quoted Wilkins because the person who went into the tirade apparently said they had based their own comment policy on his policy (which is pretty much identical to mine). I don't have any idea what all the blinking is supposed to mean.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2010 4:56 PM
Abby, it's not like she was expressing a conversion or anything -- it would have taken some serious wordsmithing to set the context without quoting him, since that was what the whole drama was about.
Not that lack of context is necessarily a problem, but it looks like this time she decided it was desirable to associate Wilkins with the f-bombardment that offended her so much.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 27, 2010 4:57 PM
Oh I see what you mean now-- I got the impression that Isis fancied herself a fan of Wilkins.
I was literally speechless at that thought considering the circumstances in which John left, and the fact any human/goldfish/highway/turkey sandwich can be called 'RACIST CLUELESS SEXIST ELITIST WHITE D00D!!!' on her blog.
Got it.
Posted by: ERV | January 27, 2010 5:30 PM
ERV, Ed... seriously... what went on in the SB backroom that resulted in the mass exodus a few months ago?
I remember DrugMonkey writing a post doing some handwaving to make it seem like there wasn't an exodus... but like all handwavings, all it did was bring more attention ot the fact that something happened. But he never clarified why so many long-term, popular blogs chose to leave at nearly the exact same time, stating different reasons, but always hinting that there were other more important reasons for leaving.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 27, 2010 5:42 PM
Actually, the reason why I said "offensive to all" is that I really do not mind being offended occasionally - I'm not that precious. But if someone is offending most of the inhabitants of the living room, I will ban them. So far, I haven't needed to ban anyone but one troll, and him for trolling not offending.
I have no right, at first blush, not to be offended, but I do have the right to ask people to change their behaviour in my blog. What they do elsewhere, an it harm none, is of no concern to me.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | January 27, 2010 5:49 PM
This is the post I was referring to @26:
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2009/06/departure_a_short_and_incomple.php#comment-1683560
In particular, the conversation between Dunford, Afarensis and DM that followed.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 27, 2010 5:53 PM
I have never quite understood the idea of telling someone else how they should host their blog. I mean that's like telling someone how to host their party, etc., if you don't like it, don't go back. I tend to agree with Ed on a number of issues, but not on everything, when I disagree I tell him so, but in the same mentality as someone who is a guest in another's house, IE I don't scream vulgarity at him as I jump up and down on the sofa and light his dog on fire. I mean really, that's just common sense.
Why wouldn't you remove commentators who don't follow very simple rules? If you make moronic comments that insult others, detract from discussions, are offensive to the host, etc., you don't get to come back to the party, why should you get to stay on the blog? If you don't know what the hell you're talking about and show no interest in learning but instead demand that everyone else shut up and listen to your ranting, again, you wont be invited back, again, why shouldn't that be the case on a blog? For example, Heddle and King of Ireland represent, I believe, generally the minority view that you would often see on some of the sci-blogs sites. I disagree with them far more often than I find myself agreeing with them, but I wouldn't dream of banning them if I had my own blog. On the other hand, some of the jackasses who show up here and spew idiocy, I believe Ed has been more than justified in banning and would have banned as well.
Again, I have to wonder why people make such a big deal about something that should be a common sense situation. [note: I don't know anything about the argument that followed and limit my response purely to the notion of blog etiquette]
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 27, 2010 6:47 PM
The people I tend to ban are not banned because they've offended me; I'm rarely offended. They're typically banned because they annoy me, almost always by just being plain old fashioned idiots. It's entirely subjective, I admit. But since it's my blog, I'll ban anyone I please for any reason I please. I don't need a good reason to do it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2010 6:48 PM
Well, Dr. Goo, apparently nothin happened *smile*
Ed wasnt there.
John has moved on.
And Im just gonna bring it up until the end of time because of the laws of my people.
Posted by: ERV | January 27, 2010 6:49 PM
doctorgoo-
There are some things that were said in private that I'm simply not at liberty to talk about in public. There is no single reason why those bloggers are no longer here.
Like any sizable group of people, particularly a group of really smart, strongly opinionated people, there are conflicts among the SciBlings. I've not only stayed out of those conflicts for the most part, I've barely paid attention to them at all. I have more important things to do. I've gotten along just fine with nearly every one of my fellow ScienceBloggers that I've met, even ones I initially didn't really get along with.
I made the mistake of getting really nasty with PZ Myers a couple years ago (and he with me), both in public and in private. I was embarrassed by my behavior when I had some time and distance to look at it, and especially after we met in person and got along just fine. And after that, I decided to just not get involved in those fights; nothing good can come from it. After all the vitriol that was spilled between Chris Mooney, PZ and many others, I still like nearly everyone involved and I've just stayed out of the fight.
I don't mean to be preachy here, especially since my own behavior has been so bad in this regard in the past, but I really wish some of my colleagues here would give each other the benefit of the doubt a little more often and try to communicate positively rather than throwing bombs at one another. But if they choose to do so, I'm still going to make the decision to stay out of the line of fire as much as I can.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2010 7:02 PM
This would be November of '06, by the way. Definitely Ed's crowning moment of awesome. I don't know why he tries to distance himself from it.
Posted by: Brandon | January 27, 2010 7:27 PM
"Dare I say that most of your readers are likely White Anglo Saxon Males?"
FYIAD.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 27, 2010 7:49 PM
For most debates, I think you have the perfect attitude--just stay out of it.
But the Mooney fiasco is one debate where I am entirely on one side: PZ had every right to be angry with Mooney. Mooney attacked PZ in his book for no good reason at all, and in describing the issue left out a ton of relevant details in order to paint PZ in the worst light possible.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with PZ's desecration incident (I fully understand why most people don't like it), I don't think any sensible person could read Mooney's account of it and see it as anything other than an uncalled-for hit piece on PZ. PZ has every right to be pissed about that. I sure as hell would be pissed if someone did that to me.
Posted by: Wes | January 27, 2010 8:39 PM
Wes @ 34 - I considered myself an accommodationist on this issue until Mooney started pushing that position. He almost single-handedly moved me off his dime (though I'm not sure where I stand now, just not with him).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2010 10:55 PM
Wes-
The Mooney vitriol started long before he wrote his book when he was attacked, along with Matt Nisbet, by a whole bunch of the other ScienceBloggers over the framing thing. I haven't even read what he wrote about PZ in his book, nor have I bothered to read any of the responses to it. Nor, frankly, did I bother to read most of the framing stuff once it turned into a screamfest on all sides. It's just not worth it to me. I have no desire to choose up sides between people I really like and respect.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2010 11:06 PM
This discussion clarifies the situation that Dr. Isis was referring to. The comments signed "cromercrox" are apparently written by Henry Gee.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 27, 2010 11:53 PM
I should point out that I don't agree with the argument I gave. I was just explaining it. Look at Frederick Douglass's Fourth of July speech for a good example.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html
He really lays into his (friendly) audience, but he doesn't have to call them slavery-excusing child-raping cracker-ass honkie bitches. His speech hardly would have been effective if he had. Incivility amounts to assuming bad faith, which is never a way to get anything done.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | January 28, 2010 12:13 AM
A few things to help clarify.
1) I don't remember writing anything about Shakespeare's Sister. I Googled my blog and can't find it.
2) The things that set Henry off were not said by me, but by Zuska. Because I was the one helping to moderate, I became invovled to tell him to sit down when he became angry. I did not say that I think blogs should have no rules and I did not say that people should he allowed to say whatever they want on a blog.
3) I don't happen to necessarily disagree with "Don't piss on my carpet," except that you can't limit yourself to such a simplistic policy. During the session I offered an alternative definition of civility and, as I explained on my blog yesterday, I said that a blog writer or community manager needs to be willing to review his or her own goals for the site and manage the commentariat in a way that helps them reach those goals. This has to happen repeatedly the community grows and matures.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 31, 2010 8:49 PM