(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...Dear Readers and Fans of the Blog:
I have gotten a number of comments/complaints about trolling and thought I should just tell you my policy in case you think I should change it. I have two competing principles that I try to keep in balance on the blog. On one hand, I want readers to say what they really, genuinely think and to have a chance, then, to air their views. On the other hand, I don’t want simply to post snide comments by people trolling. And so the rather informal policy I’ve adopted is to post negative comments (so that I’m not censoring) two, three, or four times as they come to me; after I’ve had enough, I warn the person; after that I simply don’t post their comments.
Does that sound reasonable? Or do you think I should (a) simply not post negative comments; (b) post absolutely every negative comment I get; or (c) something else?
The reason I’m concerned is that you, the readers, drive the blog, and are its raison d’être. I write my posts for you, not for me, and to attract more people like you onto the blog. So I don’t want people turned off by my policies.
Speaking of which: please do what you yourself can in order to help the blog. We are a little behind our fund-raising goals for the year at this point, and I want to be *ahead* of them! Please tell your family, friends, neighbors, business associates, acquaintances, teachers, students, pastors, rabbis, imams, doctors, dentists, plumbers, builders, and, well, anyone you know about the blog and urge them to join.
ALSO: please consider making gift subscriptions to the blog (there is an unbelievably easy way to do that: click “Gift Subscriptions” on the Home page).
ALSO: please consider donating to the blog (Also easy: click “Donate” at the bottom of the page). All donations are completely tax deductible, and without them we simply can’t meet our fund-raising goals. Our main goal this year is to do better than last year! That’s going to take some doing, but is well-possible, if you will help.
Many thanks to you all for your advice and support! May we continue to thrive!
I think your current troll policy is just fine. I’m primarily interested in what Bart Ehrman has to say. … When I scan down through comments to your posts, I halt when you respond to someone; then I’ll back up to read what you responded to. This I find quite efficient in cutting down on comments that may not be worth my reading time.
That’s exact l’y what I do. Trolling policy is fine by me.
I do the exact same thing. Time saving feature that helps me get to the meat and potatoes of the discussion quicker.
I don’t know how pervasive the “trolling” problem is. I typically scroll past comments to which you have posted no reply (i.e. comments without a question) so I probably miss almost all of them. What ever you have been doing works fine for me.
Love the way you find ways to let us feel we are on your team!
You are handling those trolls just right it seems to me. We see that even in the catbird seat, you have lots of impossibly irritating situations to deal with.
This is the third time I’ve had to change my calendar for my three-month goal!
As far as I am concerned, the blog is about learning, understanding, and exchange of ideas. If the negative blog is put forward within that context and expresses an objective objection and/or opinion, it should be posted. If the negative blog consists of a personal insult or something of that kind, then it has nothing to do as part of the blog.
I agree with this policy wholeheartedly!
I work on a little website where folks leave commentary. We have a “Be Nice” policy. It means we don’t accept comments that are abusive, impolite, snarky, crass, or incendiary.
I think it’s easy to draw a line between posters who are attempting to advance the conversation or get more clarity, and one who is just attacking you personally (and quite incoherently, in the case of “kentvw”).
If someone who is apt to troll tries to blur that line by actually contributing to the discussion, the joke is on them! But let me assure you, that’ll never happen.
Additionally we use “hell-banning” which is a overly provocative way of saying, “The author of a banned or blocked comment sees the comment in the discussion, but no one else does.”
We find this practice prevents most abusers from creating new accounts just to evade moderation. Probably not worth the trouble if creating an account that is permitted to comment is not easy or free in the first place.
I think your present policy on trolling is exactly right.
Your policy sounds spot on to me. I ran a blog for a few years, which began as a philosophy forum but then morphed into, well, anything of interest. One rule I insisted upon is that contributions should be polite and respectful – after all, the purpose was to learn not to score points or ‘Win,’ whatever that means. And it worked; I did not need to block, ban or censor any posts or comments in the six or seven years of its active life. It still exists if anybody would like to take a look: http://www.boltonian.edublogs.org.
Dr. Ehrman, personally, if this were my blog, I would only block comments if and when A) they are completely off topic, e.g. baseball, B) they personally insult me or other members of the blog, i.e. ad hominem attacks rather than substantial discussion, C) they are wildly offensive, e.g. bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. Other than that, I believe in the marketplace of ideas.
Do you think the Cubs will win the pennant this year? 🙂
Certainly seems reasonable to me.
Determining whether a comment is trolling or merely critical can sometimes be a tricky judgment call. But I personally don’t think you’re under any obligation to publish or respond to comments that are obviously posted just to antagonize you or other readers. If you find yourself repeatedly deleting a particular person’s comments, a warning might be warranted before you block them, if you’re so inclined, but I wouldn’t be afraid to skip it in severe cases.
It amazes me that people pay money to come here and troll.
I think your existing procedure is appropriate. I like a good discussion with some back and forth, but I am not fond of coming across Ad Hominems or other mean-spirited comments. If people disagree with you or other blog members, it is still possible to do so in a polite manner. I have a rather strong dislike of Christian fundamentalism, but I don’t need to use colorful pejorative adjectives to describe them or critique them. In any case, there are many times reading a post elsewhere on the internet that I just give up on reading the comments altogether because of the large amount of unreasonable negativity.
I teach adult Sunday School at my church (Coupeville UMC), developing my own curriculum. I will, from time to time, quote the blog. All of those attending my class could tell you the cost of a subscription to the blog and where the revenue goes. I don’t know if any of them are subscribers yet, but we’ll see.
I think you should do like Larry Hurtado and give them a piece of your mind.
Prof Ehrman
I would continue your informal policy. Some negativity is OK and is good for discussion but up to point. I enjoy the log not only from what you post but also the follow up comments.
I think your current policy is the best one. I’m assuming by “negative” you mean mean-spirited, personal, challenging your motives, stuff like that, and not simple intellectual disagreements delivered in a reasonably respectful manner. Of course, some of those, after a while, if they dogmatically persist, needn’t continue to be answered or posted just because it’s time to move on.
I like your current “rather informal” policy myself, Bart. Your blog is a treasure. A unique treasure. I think you oughta run it in a way that is comfortable for you.
Many thanks! 🙂
Bart, I think your process is “right on.” There is (all too often) a tendency to go to one extreme of the other. Without opposing views, it just becomes “group-think.” On the other hand if not subject to some checks and balances it is just who can “yell” the loudest (or longest, or most frequently).
Dr. Ehrman,
Perhaps I don’t know the full usage of the word “trolling” but given that one must donate some minimum amount to the blog in order to post, it would seem a curious and expensive pursuit.
Nevertheless, i think that it is reasonable to selectively reject certain comments and eject certain repeat offenders.
To me, this subject matter is rather arcane, yet, important. However, if this substantially became a forum for the airing of religious points of view, or if it became a soap box for the critics of your work rather than a discussion of historical analysis of pertinent documents, people and events, my support would fall by the wayside.
There are plenty of places on the web where those others can go. Keep up the good work!
Seems like a pretty good policy to me.
The comments seem generally very positive from my point of view. I think your policy is working just fine. And when it doesn’t work, I’m sure we can all behave maturely with thick skin, and not pay any heed to those who simply wish to be nasty.
Bart, I think what works best is to allow critical comments that are substantive, that speak to academic issues, and ban comments that contain any non-substantive, personal sniping.
I come to this blog to read your comments, not the readers’ (no offense), I won’t miss any of those posts.
I like the way you’ve moderated the blog.
Absolutely post negative comments! But if the same person continues to post the same general comment without adding anything new to the dialogue, stop posting their comment. I enjoy reading reasoned arguments expressing a different take on a subject but don’t have time to sift through diatribes that contribute nothing.
Unfortunately, moderating comments is probably the only way to keep the blog from getting hijacked by trolls.
The way you’re handling it is perfect, and I wouldn’t change a thing.
I forgot to add what I think constitutes as trolling–harassing/denigrating a person or group; overtaking (I call it hijacking) a thread to cause disruption and incite anger. I’m okay with a disagreement, even a passionate one. I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing. Again, I think the blog well-balanced.
Bart, I’m not sure what constitutes trolling around here. For perspective, let me relate a discussion I recently got into at a political discussion forum that is not, shall we say, heavily moderated. Somebody started a thread entitled “Would Jesus buy a gun?” I’m pleased to state that a small majority of respondents replied in the negative, but there were some who went to considerable pains to quote scripture to try and prove that yes, Jesus would be a gun owner if he lived today.
Mention was made of his having told his disciples to buy swords shortly prior to his crucifixion. I pointed out that he seems to have felt that two swords would be enough, and that perhaps the point was simply to have swords so that their not using them to defend Jesus when he was arrested would be more meaningful (this of course would mean that he planned that entire scene in the garden, though maybe not the part about the ear). Some fairly disrespectful responses ensued, and my character was variously impugned.
I sincerely hope I’m not one of the trolls, because it’s kind of a relief having a place like this to discuss Christianity on. Let’s just say there are trolls and then there are trolls.
If a person is deliberately offending you intending to get an angry response from you then you should not post their comments.
I sure hope I’m not a troll… but even if I am, I really think that the free exchange of ideas is always the best…
So far as I know you’re not!
Hi Bart, I think your approach is fair and sensible.
As a reader I’ve noticed the odd trolling comment or two; although to be honest the people making them are just making fools of themselves. It’s not annoying, although it would be if the place was littered with them. The potential disadvantage to censoring posts int he first instance is that very occasionally someone makes a crass outburst to let, off steam, but then is persuaded to more productive discussion.
I think you get things about right.
Dr. Ehrman, you are a remarkably open-minded person, even in the face of people who are much less so. It brings to mind a couple of lines from Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If” that goes something like “If you can bear to have the words of truth you have spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools…”. I commend you for this, and for your tolerance of dissenting views. However, as you are well aware, there is a difference between a respectful difference of opinion and someone who is obviously trolling.
I think your trolling policy is reasonable, but a little too tolerant, in my personal opinion. By all means, please continue to post dissenting or critical posts. But I think people who post anything that is obviously meant to demean or denigrate your character should be warned once, and after that he/she loses posting privelages. Deliberate personal attacks, meanness, or nastiness has no place on this blog, as far as my opinion goes. If I want to read that sort of negativity and disrespect, I only need read the comments section on pretty much any online news article, unfortunately. This blog has become a part of my daily ritual, a peaceful place of reflection, contemplation, and thoughtful discussion. I value free speech very much; but I value deliberate meanness not at all.
Thanks for all of your efforts, as always, Dr. Ehrman.
Great line from Kipling!
I have been turned off by blogs that post snarky comments and those that don’t add to the discussion. I see little of that here. Maybe because you police it well? Anyway, it’s great to read and support. I always learn something interesting. Thanks
Your trolling policy sounds reasonable to me.
I would not allow any ad hominem attacks to get posted. They are fallacious arguments by definition, so we don’t need to see them.
Disagreeing comments is fine, as long as everyone is being civil and respectful. The best way to deal with haters is simply not respond! Personal attacks and bullying should not be tolerated. I prefer if members give *concise* critiques of positions rather than essay long ones.
I believe it is absolutely salutary that you post what the members write. Divergence of opinions is great. This enriches the blog and confers an honesty to it that is extremely valuable. I also feel very comfortable here and never thought of the blog as tool for “indoctrination” of your world view. Nevertheless, I personally and vehemently dislike deliberate offensive posts. Sometimes I wonder why you don’t just delete them. Congratulations for that. Sometimes I respectfully ask myself why someone that feels so insulted by what you write would pay to get upset.
Yeah, I wonder too!
I think your current policy is sound.
I don’t want to see any of the negative comments similar to the one I saw within the past few days. In fact. after I read it I said to myself, “I’d pay double the annual fee to keep from seeing this and other negative comments.” And I will do that!
I would like you to eliminate all of the negative comments. And there’s no need to warn people a certain number of times. I don’t want you wasting any time keeping track of whether you’ve already warned someone once, twice, or any other number of times. Just delete the darned negative comments and move on to the appropriate ones.
Life’s too short for any of us to read or respond to those negative comments. Keep up the great work, Bart!
I’m not familiar with the term “trolling”. From your post it sounds like it means someone writing nasty comments. Personally I wouldn’t make a comment to be nasty so if it came across that way I would be happy to be told so and have it blocked so I could reword it. I have no interest in reading someone’s nasty comment. It doesn’t add to the blog, it detracts from it.
I think your “informal policy” is fine. Although I don’t see a necessity to post negative posts that are just personal attacks, it does allow you the opportunity to counter them if you wish or at least point out that they don’t really have an argument. That’s especially helpful given that some consider you controversial and you want people to hear your side of something. But there is no need to just keep posting negative personal attacks if there is no argument there worthwhile to discuss.
Thanx for asking Bart but I find you have developed a great balance. It is also easy for me to flick past handles that I recognise as having little to offer.
Also, I think I just remembered that several months ago, it may have been mentioned on the blog that there was a way to “block” posts from a particular member if we no longer wished to see his/her posts. Is that correct or is my own faulty memory a prime example of the fleeting, inaccurate nature of memory? If this is accurate, you may want to remind folks on the blog how to “block” the posts of someone that we no longer wish to view.
Thanks
We don’t have the capacity to do that on our form of WordPress, but we’re inquiring of the developers to see if it’s possible.
Dr. Ehrman I am sure at your campus you could find a computer science major who is looking for an internship or some experience to put on his or her resume if you ask some faculty in that department?
Your “balance” seems fine to me. It’s pretty easy to recognize an overly negative comment quickly and just skip it. Personally, I rarely respond to any comments from “others” so it is not a big deal for me. I had some very bad experiences on other websites where I thought I was “discussing,” but there really was no “discussion” so I tend to avoid such things now.
Save yourself a little trouble and delete a step! Since I adopted a “3 strike rule” in all matters of life it really simplified and unstressed the process. There’s no point in wasting your valuable time dealing with doofi. One certainly know’s when they are doing it just for the sake of provocation. We should all be adults here.
To a certain extent, I would think it would be the customer is always right. But having seen you debate all sorts of people who disagree with you, I would guess you can tell the difference between someone who wants to understand or dispute a point, and haters who just want to lob insults or have a pointless back and forth that would never be resolved. That would be the dividing line for me.
Trolls know who they are and only deserve a summary delete. If they talk like trolls and act like trolls, chances are they are nothing but a troll. Zap them!
Why don’t you model after Computer enthusiast site http://www.slashdot.org? If you go there you will see points under moderation. The user who is a member can filter based on scores -1 to +5. By default only a score of 1 is given. This ensures trolls can be heard (after 2 warnings) the account is banned. However, users who contribute are ones who can filter. Yeah more work Dr. Ehrman for your web developer but will ensure those who really want to dig can but most who want intelligent posts can get what they want too
Thanks!
There are “trolls” on the blog?
Can’t say I’ve ever noticed any!!
Side comment here, professor: how do you put a picture into my profile? When I pull up my profile there’s no place to insert a pic, but I see other people have pictures in their profile, including my identical twin brother. Just call it a sibling rivalry thing. 🙂 Help!
Thanks.
I have no idea! Maybe someone else can help out here!
Pattycake: Thanks for the help!
I think you have to be on a computer desktop to put a picture on your profile. In the top, left-hand corner you should see the W for WordPress and a little dial symbol beside it. Click on the dial, then click on the profile icon. Near the bottom of your profile, you should see a rectangular, white box to upload a pic.
Editing the pic to fit into the square perfectly is a whole other story.
Keep the policy as is! It’s refreshing to see in this overly censored “I’m offended” culture—Hey! That sounds a lot like “and then many will be offended.” Maybe Jesus was talking about a 1948 fig tree and Revelation was talking about black helicopters after all… I do a “liberal Christian” webcast (although I consider it “conservative” because I try to conserve the original contexts—which is why your blog is an asset to me—but whatever). I’ll mention your blog (although some of my fundie viewers would def end up being the very trolls you’re talking about—they troll me and I’m a Christian). But I honestly believe your blog is worth more than you charge… I imagine most people who understand the value of your input would be willing to pay a few more dollars a year (myself included)… but there’s probably an algorithm that says otherwise…