A Comment Code of Conduct Update and Reminder

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 09-28-2009

Regular commenters on this site may have noticed some slight differences in our Disqus comment system recently. It’s never been perfect — and we still may have a few bugs to sort out — but I wanted to explain some of the more significant tweaks.

First of all, we’ve implemented “Facebook Connect” (that new blue button under “Add New Comment”) to allow you to use your Facebook account to login and leave comments on God’s Politics blog posts — rather than creating a Disqus account. If you already have a Disqus login, you may want to log out and try Facebook Connect, since it has features like allowing you to post comments to your Facebook wall for your friends to see (though you always have the choice not to with each comment). Of course, if you’re not a Facebook user, you can still create a Disqus account and login the usual way.

Second, instead of “show more comments,” there are now numbered pages of comments. I’d been asking for this feature for a long time, and am glad it’s finally been implemented to allow you to reach the end of a comment thread more quickly and easily.

Perhaps most importantly to our community moderation model, the “up” and “down” rating buttons on each comment are now gone. I don’t know if anybody ever used those anyway. Now, each comment now has a “like” and “report” link. Click “like” if you like a comment and want to spread the love, and “report” if you feel a comment violates our code of conduct, which has been updated and clarified to reflect the change. I’ll paste it here, and direct your attention to the last two points for emphasis:

Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree — even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members’ ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others’ beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking “report” on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they’re expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

I want to emphasize that we’re relying on you, our readers, to report abusive posts — this is what we mean by community moderation. Real staff people do review flagged posts, and delete those that we agree are in violation of our code of conduct, regardless of the political viewpoints that are expressed.

And, to be absolutely clear, if someone is determined to be a repeat offender, they are blocked from making future posts. Our operative metaphor is that of a party to which you’ve been invited as guests. And while we expect and encourage lively discussion, we are prepared to show the door to anyone who is repeatedly abusive. This includes the smarty pants types who re-register under different user names. Please don’t come back to the party with a different costume.

We deliberately do not advertise how many “strikes” before you’re out, because again, our operative model is one of hospitality, not legalism. Nor do we have the capacity to issue warnings with personalized explanations, or to haggle over whether this comment or that comment constitutes abuse. We realize and accept that these determinations will always be subjective, and suggest you do the same.

We have limited staff capacity in general, and believe it is better stewardship of our donors’ dollars to prioritize staff time for the provision of content than the micro-management of comments. That’s why we depend on and sincerely appreciate your active participation and cooperation as members of our online community.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners and a photographer whose work can be seen at www.ryanrodrickbeiler.com.

Categories: General

PrimaryCareDoc

Thanks!

letjusticerolldown

Jesus wasn't a Christian either so hope you are are as welcome here as Jesus.

PrimaryCareDoc

I am not even a Christian although I grew up around mostly evangelical friends & have what I believe is aa pretty good grounding in evangelical thinking and have read the Bible extensively & frequently.

I don't identify as progressive or conservative either.

But I find that this is a place where people who seem to take their faith very seriously and try very hard to live it out every day engage in more nearly real, honest, deep dialogue around social justice issues than anywhere else on the web I've visited, and the civility level seems much higher than anywhere else that is an open setting.

I plan to keep coming back, and hope to read more real dialogue, and maybe post some thoughts based in my faith tradition.

Anothernonymous

Well said; I couldn't agree more. It's the hijacking that I also don't like. I have no desire to limit healthy, respectful disagreement.

BTW, I'm still having trouble getting to the end of the longer comment threads.

letjusticerolldown

I believe different comments raise important concerns.

I don't engage this as idle passtime and do not think most persons here do so. Other sites are far worse (in my thinking). But I think many of us also have high expectations--and should.

The question is how to get there. Ashleigh suggests, with merit, that the platform has inherent limits. She suggests a controlled forum for those that want a more focused conversation.

I don't look at the challenge as such a negative. It is a microcosm of the challenge of how we are living out our Christ-journeys in relationship to our citizenship. We have many contexts in which to work this thing out. It does not have to be this blog.

My point, however, is that wherever we show up--this challenge to relationships in which we walk out the good news in relationship with each other, and on mission in this world, remains. Conversation is fundamental to relationship.

The challenge is not only whether I can be self-controlled and govern my own words to reflect God's love--but whether I can learn to use words (and relationships) to bring about better dialogue. I have no problem telling others and myself that we ought do better. Using my words to get us there is another story.

I usually leave conversations when I feel I have reached my limit. i.e. "I am totally powerless to say anything or do anything to alter how this thing is working." And I sign off.

But that is the growth point; or maybe I should say, "Might be the growth point." We do need boundaries and a sense of knowing when it is time to leave a conversation or relationship. But, for me, I know that is also the point that God is growing me--because if I scan across the landscape of my life--I notice myself limiting relationships/conversations at the same point.

If we are to be instruments of God's peace we will have to incarnate patterns of relationships and conversation much different than the world around us.

In regards to Anothernonymous well-stated concern I think my perspective is this: I think the blog represents a question as much as a home for progressive Christians. I think it is legitimate for persons to deliver full-fledged, passionate apologetics for their answers to the question. I do not think it is right to change the question.

I think it is fair to argue, for instance, that a conservative philosophy of governance better defends the well-being of the poor. I don't think it is fair to come on the site and argue it is not an issue.

By analogy, if Family Research Council slapped up a Blog on reducing abortions, I think it legitimate for a full argument about who can best do that, how it can be acccomplished, how Federal policy/law/practices affects that goal, etc. I would not think it legitimate, on that site, for persons who think there is unmet demand for abortion services, that is a constitutional right, and morally acceptable to day-in-and-day-out to come on the site and argue that the FRC's question is wrong. And implicitly demand in every conversation that the FRC engage in an argument defending a pro-life ethic.

It is the hijacking--not the disagreement--that I do not like. It is the shifting of the basic question. e.g. "I know the blog is about faith and politics, but I don't think it ought be about politics." "I know you have a priority commitment to end poverty but I don't think that should be a priortiy commitment." "I know you are committed to political engagement but I don't think we should be involved with government."

letjusticerolldown

Do consider there are readers who do not comment back and may love any offering of thoughtful questions and comments you have to make--regardless of whether they agree 100%. Thanks for expressing your experience.

genesis11

I joined this forum only a short time ago. I find it to be peculiarly unfriendly and sharp comments abound. I am not a right winger, but I found my opinions and comments very unwelcome. I am officially getting off of all email lists. Best wishes on chanigng the tone of your forum.

Ashleigh101

I don't think you need his permission to post what you want, but again, your comments are very humble and really reveal your character and relationship with Christ.

Ashleigh101

Reading the comments here, I was thinking the same thing... about how a blog about being responsible, respectful, etc. has turned into a "virulent stream of accusations about who's less civil than whom."

Ashleigh101

1Grace, I've read a few of your comments here and elsewhere, and I am following your train of thought and totally getting what you are saying. And I think you and I have different political views, but I really appreciate and respect the way that you write with a very balanced view... and you put Christ first, and you are able to discuss with others who have different views than you. You seem to respect those who don't think like you, and that says a lot about you. You seem like a truly humble person.

Ashleigh101

For those who are looking for a place where they can share their progressive views w/o interference from non-progressives, I would suggest a forum. I know of many forums where moderation is much easier and the whole setting is different. And, the person running the forum can allow only who they want to post there and "kick out" those who are "dissenters."

It seems to me that the nature of comments on a blog are that anyone in cyberspace who happens to read that blog comments their opinions and thoughts on it. It's not really meant to be a discussion forum, although it becomes that. But blogging and making comments is a lot different than a forum.

So... just a suggestion, but you might want to start a forum where you can be more like-minded and all.

scat

What makes me crazy are those who come to this site primarily to bash progressives. I really don't want to waste my time reading such stuff -- it's pretty much like listening to a kid on the playground going Nyaa Nyaa Nyaa. I try to ignore them but part of me says to be nice and maybe they really do want to find something useful here. The original topic gets buried and it seems impossible to resurrect it once that kind of talk takes over.I have no solution and would really like to hear others' thoughts on it.

squeaky

I fully agree, Letjustice. This site would improve dramatically if the contributors spent time reading the comments and responding to posts. There is far too little of that happening. I know the staff is strapped for time, but I have a hard time believing a contributor can't take a few minutes every now and then to check the posts for the three or four days that the thread remains active.

Anothernonymous

"Is it Ok with you if I speak to church unity?"

Absolutely.

"I respect your ability to see what perhaps I am lacking . I apologize once more ."

Thanks, and I'm sorry if anything I said has offended you. It wasn't meant that way.

1Grace

Understood , will try harder . Is it Ok with you if I speak to church unity ? That I believe is what I as a a fellow believer is called to do . If not Another I will just do my best not to come into your comments anymore . I respect your Love of God . I respect your ability to see what perhaps I am lacking . I apologize once more .

Thanks .

Mick

Anothernonymous

If you want to call it finger pointing, then yes, I suppose that's what I was doing. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, and I think the course this discussion has taken is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about.

This is not a matter of stereotyping and it's not a matter of judging. I was simply pointing out what kind of blog this is and asking for recognition of that fact from people who post here. "A war of us against them?" I hate to tell you this, Mick, but that war started a long time ago, and it's in full combat mode throughout our culture. What I was trying to do was stop it, at least in this one space and for this one discussion. Would you please help out a bit? Thanks.

1Grace

"Instead, we have found that the loudest and most persistent voices have been from the beginning those of right-wingers who, you guessed it, diss and ridicule our faith. It is only human of us to resent this."

Yes I don't think he realized he started the finger pointing with his comments . Another did mean to start a war of us against them . I believe he honestly feels one side is atatcked more then another . I think it always feels that way . When i was a republican I noticed the anti republican comments more then what I see now .

I notice the stereotyping of the left more and more . Thats why I justify myself myself only through Christ , and when i fall from that I realize its my human nature . I am sure if we were having coffee or something Another would be a man I could have a great conversation with and pray with and have much more in common . Thats my Hope anyway .

I notice even still myself I will allow a comment go unchallenged that will stereotype another believer if he happens to be on the far left who has made another comment to me that i felt was inappropriate . Shame on me also.

Nathan Bedford

The topic of this blog gives the readers a rare opportunity to evaluate the way that we react to the various contributions. To me, it was clearly heading down a path that makes it less relevant and I was tempted to join the others who have selected other formats. It seemed to me that there were repeated instances of the original topic being hijacked by someone who would repeatedly change the subject to whatever his (or her) pet peeve happened to be.

I think it's still possible to salvage this site. Anotheranonymous and others have suggested this might be possible, but I don't think it's possible simply by publishing a set of rules. Three things that I think might help rescue this forum are:

1. Don't respond to entries that consistently change the blog subject or which are personally insulting.
2. Don't respond to entries that you simply don't understand. If you failed to understand what the individual said the first time, chances are that additional dialogue will simply muddy the waters.
3. Continuing dialogue with someone whose interpretation of the Bible differs from yours is fruitless. As Seth Godin wrote in his book, "Tribes", "...a fundamentalist is a person who considers whether a fact is acceptable to his religion before he explores it."

calledme

Oh my Lord -- this stream has become the perfect example of all it can be when it's at its worst. An issue about respecting the intent of the Christian progressive posts, concern about folks who comment here to work out their frustrations on a group of people whose perspectives have to be nailed down as one political perspective or another...I want to grow as a Christian and as one who lives the life Christ empowers us to live.

I don't mind creative disagreement -- but I hate it when faith flies out the door with the first comments and never reappears because the whole focus has turned to conservative vs. liberal name-calling.

I hate it that a blog about being responsible, civil and faithful turns into a virulent stream of accusations about who's less civil than whom.

Why can't we talk about Jesus and His ministry and the work of the Holy Spirit in a world dying for lack of love and ministry from those who are called to provide those things?

What we demonstrate most is that our thinking never moves beyond the worst common denominator among us -- the need to justify ourselves at someone else's expense.

letjusticerolldown

Thanks for comments.

letjusticerolldown

Thanks for update. I can actually see all the comments and post responses. Wow!!

My biggest frustration is with the relative silence from the 'invisible hand' managing the blog. Good dialogue does just not happen. In person. Or online.

A platform for conversation does not create productive dialogue.To me Sojo has allowed the 'tool' to meander without direction.

I am sure there is ongoing consideration of this--but it is invisible to the readers and commenters.

When was the last time you asked: "What could we do together to build more productive dialogue?"

It would seem a legitimate question since the blog was launched with a theme of a new kind of dialogue. I know I have posted many comments along these lines. I don't expect a personal response. But sooner or later it would be nice if you would articulate what you are trying to accomplish.

When vision and strategy are not being articulated I usually infer there is not one--or there is interest in not sharing it.

My "pet peeves" about the management of the conversation is contributors who do not read what others have written. Are you hosting a bulletin board where contributors slap up their thoughts--or are you hosting a dialogue? It is contributors that never as much as come back on and say "Thanks for reading the post;" let alone adding "After reading comments I'd like to clarify....and let me pose this question for consideration....."

Commenter after commenter has expressed frustration about seeking a higher quality dialogue. Each of us has responsibility to contribute in a way to accomplish that. But Sojo and the contributors lay down a framework that makes that more or less likely. And I just get irritated when you do not do small things that would help greatly--or bother to explain.

We can't read your mind.

BlueDeacon

That, frankly, is not what I read from you. It's not that the conversation
has "broken down": in many cases it really hasn't even started. Jim Wallis,
who was raised in an evangelical church, understands this as much as anyone.