Democracy In Blogging Are You Serious?

This post is just to point out that Blogs are not entirely democratic nor should they be. Like democracy Blogging has its limits.

Assuming you are the typical blog reader you will undoubtedly have read miles of comments on posting. In your reading you will have either seen a person banned from commenting, banned someone, or been banned. Swim in this pond long enough and you will bump into this log some time or other.

The general reasons that will get you banned on most blogs are as follows;

1. Being abusive to any poster
2. Spamming
3. Abusive language
4. Too many comments
5. Unusually long comments

While the last two generally won’t get you banned they often get you a warning but if you ignore the warning then you might get banned. I apply this to only the most active of the blogs I edit, most of the time I will ignore verbose posters for the sake of content.

Spamming is offensive plain and simple it is the internet equivalent of tele-marketing and billboards. Those that do this are determined to make the world an ugly place, and don’t care as long as it gets them a few more bucks in their pocket and who cares if it works (which it doesn’t) some one will still pay you to do it.

On my blogs I generally ignore abusive language, unless it is vulgar for the sake of being vulgar and serves no purpose to the comment. Swearing or cussing is an integral part of ranting it is an emotional expression that has its place. That said I rarely allow swearing at a person. If you say something like “that is B—-S—” I don’t mind but if you say “you’re an A–H—“ you will likely find yourself banned.

The main reason that I will ban some one from posting a comment is personally attacking some one. It is an issue of respect. I accept that not everyone will like everyone else. I had two bloggers get into a fight on my social issues blog, and I banned both. If one of the two parties had waited for me to ban the other, only one of them would have been banned, but NOOOO you had to get just as nasty as your opponent and you know who you are both of you children. (Side note – If you decide to apologise I will let you both back in to play in the Sand Box.)

That said there are two Bloggers I know do not get along and have banned each other from posting on their respective blogs, but I let post and debate on mine. I don’t stop people from fighting I just wont let you scratch each others eyes out.

I have one more reason for banning people and many won’t like this (I have rarely used it).

6. Because I feel like it.

This is a catch all just to point out that the Blog owner is God and in the case of multiple editors part of the pantheon of Blog Gods.

Respective of this point I don’t use this reason on “The Art of the Rant” Blog as I have co-editors fellow Immortals who must agree before some one is banned.

Here are a few arbitrary reasons that I have banned people.

I used to have a blog on that was on health issues (by invitation only) and there was one issue I would not allow to be debated, abortion because the topic is so emotionally charged that fighting and abusive behaviour was inevitable. (It is the reason this blog is gone).

If you posted a comment on the topic pro or con I banned you, no questions asked. That said the pundits did not listen and so I had to shut it down. In that pond if the sharks don’t get you the piranhas will so I don’t swim there any more.

Another reason is because the person posting posted comments unrelated to the article in question. I banned a guy for posting on hockey during the play offs, I let him back on when the play offs were over.

A typical posting from this guy went something like this (paraphrased)

– “I agree there needs to be control over bidding on public contracts…. Hey did you see the Sens v the Pens last night Alfredsson kicked ass that was an amazing goal in the second period, but Grapes got it all wrong in his view of the goal etc… (and three more paragraphs on hockey)”

If you are going to write a response a three word comment on the topic followed by a 2000 word essay on needle point, hockey or navel lint is not appropriate, unless you are discussing needle point, hockey or navel lint.

So as you can guess this post was really to lay out the rules of debate on my blogs.

I am posting it on the Art of the Rant as an example – If the pantheon (Mike Abdul or Jim) disagree let me know.

And even with all these rules over the 7 or 8 years I have been blogging I think I have banned less than 6 people (not counting spammers)

I tend toward a referees position on blogging, I get the parties in the ring have them join hands in the middle and yell fight as they break and head to their respective corners. A fair fight is all I ask.


One thought on “Democracy In Blogging Are You Serious?

  1. Norm St. Cyr – in his comments on The soldier does what he is told, has so far called me beyond repair and called my arguments childish. He is walking a tight rope that might get him banned, but as yet he hasn’t said anything nasty only arrogant but that is a trait I share so to this point he is forgiven.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s