Earlier today I did something unusual. I banned a new user. And I screwed up. Usually, I ban a user when they're spamming us, and when you do that, you want everything they posted to go away.
But when someone's just been a troll, you want their comments to remain--and you especially don't want to lose the comments of others who've interacted with them, or simply posted on the same comment thread as them. And so there's another way to ban folks like that. It's not something I do often. And because it isn't I absent-mindedly forgot & did it the wrong way. I'm hoping there's a way to restore what's been lost--I know the data's still there, but if the necessary pointers are gone, there's probably not a trick that will restore things.
So the first thing I want to do is to apologize to those who got passionately and thoughtfully involved, and posted comments that may now be lost in the ozone, due to my own momentary carelessness.
The second thing I want to do is talk about why I banned that user, and about the larger questions of banning in general. I usually am quite reluctant to ban people. I like the ideal of free speech, not just as a constitutional principle, but as a civic one. The cure for bad ideas and bad attitudes should be better ones.
But we all know that doesn't always work. And we all know there are good reasons to limit free speech--if nothing else, then because you can't very well hear anyone if everyone talks at once. It's less of a problem in cyberspace, of course, which is one of cyberspaces big advantages. But still, there is a need for structure of some sort in order to preserve enough coherence for any meaningful signal to get through. Which is why we recognize things like being off-topic as usually being unhelpful, even anti-social or downright antagonistic at times.
In this case, I banned a new user because he showed clear signs of being a troll. A new comment on a newish diary repeated his bellyaching that my diary was bellyaching, rather than providing any solutions. He'd already had it explained to him that not every diary could be all things to all people. That there was nothing wrong with a diary being purely critical. There would be others that were not. And he appeared to be utterly clueless about--and utterly uninterested in--any of my past writings about possible solutions. He was factually impaired, as well. Now it's entirely possible that he was just a bit dense and unpleasant. That he wasn't trying to be disruptive, that he just couldn't help himself. It sure didn't look that way to me, but fine. He could always ask to be reinstated. And I told him that Chris or Mike might see fit to let him come back... in a comment that's now lost to view.
But what about the broader issue? My thoughts--and yours, should you chose to share them--on the flip.
The most important question in regards to banning is simple: what's the purpose of a given site? Any policy regarding banning has to be considered in relationship to the purpose of a site.
Does it exist to serve the general public for general purposes? In that case, banning may be appropriate for those who willfully interfere with others' legitimate use of the site. If that public purpose is to allow free expression, then bannings should be exceedingly rare. If that public purpose is to foster a certain kind of community, then bannings may be more common.
Does it exist to further a purpose of the site's owner? If so, then banning is appropriate for behavior that interferes with that purpose. And if that purpose is to promote certain kinds of dialogue, and encourage certain kinds of action, then the specific nature of that dialogue and that action will almost certainly have some effect on what makes banning appropriate.
In my view, part of the reason for Open Left is to encourage dialogue and collaboration, and for that reason, banning is generally something to be avoided, if possible, except in cases of commercial exploitation or intentional disruption. Even in cases where someone appears to be trollish, it generally (not always) makes sense to err on the side of tolerance, because it one does not, it's all too easy to fall itno banning someone just because they piss you off--and the result of that is comfortable cocoon devoid of genuinely challenging ideas and perspectives. Boooring!
The fact that I'm irritated and annoyed by people here is a sign of good health. Not necessarily because of those people, mind you. Really valuable disagreements can be exhilarating. There doesn't have to be anything unpleasant about them. But if there are folks around who seem really annoying, and really don't seem to contribute anything positive themselves, then that's a clear indication that it's less like that anyone truly valuable has been unjustly or unwisely excluded. Of course, nothing's perfect, nothing can be guaranteed, but it's a good indicator, and it's a good bias to build into your system--the noise of a few borderline trolls is a small price to pay to keep yourself intellectually honest in the long run.
At least that's how it seems to me.
Over-the-borderline trolls? Not so much.
How about you?
p.s. Your comments are not gone. Even if we never get the comment threads restored, you can read your own comments on your user page by clicking on the comment ratings (not anywhere else, however.) Small consolation, I know.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
