For 20+ years, Balloon Juice has had an open door policy. It’s been a place where you can disagree and fight and get over it. Even when John was still a Republican he asked Tim, who had entirely different political views, to be a front-pager. Think about that. The first person Cole invited to be a front-pager held opposite political views. That’s who John is. (Tim F, I still hope that you’ll have time for writing here again.)
Balloon Juice will still be that place. The place where we can agree, or not. To fight and get over it. Or not. Maybe even learn something, and certainly have some fun. Not to worry, I’m pretty sure you’ll still be able to tell people to fuck off, when needed. Cole certainly will.
We don’t have to be nice, but we can’t be evil.
Background
After a particularly hot-button banning a few years ago, we laid out a very specific process for banning so we would never have to go through something like that again. I thought the blog might come apart at the seams, and there are still some hard feelings.
No one was supposed to get banned out of the blue. You got a 3-day timeout, then if you stepped over the line again, you got a one-week timeout. After you served your time, if you did it again, you got a one-month timeout. If you did it again, you were gone. When we followed the policy, no one got banned out of the blue, without understanding why.
To continue the same behavior after multiple, escalating timeouts? I think those folks are making an active choice to ultimately be banned, and they want to cause as much trouble as they can on the way out. Those are the people who will be affected by the new commenting policy, because we will go from 0 to 60 if you are one of those people.
That comment policy served us well. We’re not throwing it out. But now it’s time to refine it.
Right now, we are in an time where the ugliness is at a fever pitch, and we don’t want to go through another 3 weeks like the last ones. That would have been rough anyway, but those weeks were made even tougher by the shit stirrers. (Congratulations, you pulled it off once, not sorry that you won’t be able to do it again.)
It’s totally obvious to everyone of good intent that we don’t have time to waste another three weeks fighting with one another. Right?
There will be gray areas, which is the one thing that is less desirable about this new policy. Before, when the policy was followed, it was cut and dried. Now it’s not. But in the age of ugliness, where the other side is in the last throes of fighting for their supremacy, it seems necessary.
Several people reported Wil last night.
Was Wil obnoxious last night? Yes, yes he was. I think even he would admit that. Repetitive? Yes. Is it annoying when Wil says I told you so over and over again? Yes. Is that ban-able? No.
So Wil got his childish and annoying na-na-na-na-na I told you so one-night whirlwind tour, and we’ll see where he goes from here. I don’t know whether Wil is a long-term commenter who went over the edge during the will he or won’t he discussion, or if he truly has bad intentions. The good news is that it’s up to Wil. If he’s a good guy who, let’s say, wasn’t this best self during this period, let’s show him some grace. If he keeps it up, going from thread to thread to thread, saying the same thing, trying to stir up shit? Yeah, I think that would get him some serious banning consideration.
In Summary
Balloon Juice will still be a place where people can disagree and where we’re very open to new people. John wants new people to be part of Balloon Juice; I do, too. Guessing that most of us do? But we’re no longer open for business to people who are of ill intent. Not that we ever were before, but our process allowed some of those people to do damage on the way out, as we worked through the steps.
It’s when your goal is to derail a thread – or even if your actions are repeatedly derailing threads, regardless of what your intentions are – that you will be up for serious banning consideration.
It’s when your goal is to be hurtful – that’s when you will be up for serious banning consideration.
If your aim – or the repeated result of your comments – is to disrupt, you’re not going to get the 4-strikes process that will remain in place for everyone else.
We haven’t worked out the details of the process with the front-pagers yet, but here are some of my thoughts.
Maybe this will help clarify?
- Front-pagers will only be able to nominate someone for banning.
- Only John can make the final decision to ban a person.
- Being an arrogant, “I told you so” asshole is not ban-able.
- Vehemently disagreeing is not ban-able.
- Having an opinion that is different from most everyone else is not ban-able.
- Having an opinion that is not just different but is the exact opposite from most everyone else is not ban-able.
- Holding an opinion that is unpopular is not ban-able.
- Being regularly annoying is not ban-able.
- Using too many emojis is annoying to a lot of people, and I get complains about it all the time, but that is not ban-able.
- If you state that charters schools are great and that Arne Duncan was the greatest cabinet member of all time, you are dead wrong, but that is not ban-able.
What will be ban-able?
- When you charge in to stir up shit, and you don’t offer anything else, that is ban-able.
- When every thread you comment in becomes all about you and not about the topic at hand, that is ban-able.
- Spreading disinformation. Not mistakenly being wrong about something, but spreading disinformation. That is ban-able.
- Saying all Jews must die. Saying that all the Russian people should be nuked. Equating Palestinian citizens and Hamas. Saying someone should be shot in the head. Just a few examples of what is ban-able.
- When every thread you comment in turns to shit. That is ban-able.
- When you bring up how great charter schools are in every thread and turn every thread into a charter schools thread. That is ban-able.
You are all welcome to share your thoughts on the new policy we’re developing, and talk about where you think the lines and edges should be. I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally, I would like to hear your thoughts.
But I will quote an old boss of mine who said he always wanted our input, and he would take our input under consideration. but this wasn’t a democracy and we didn’t get to vote.
The Change That Cole Mentioned Last NightPost + Comments (310)
