“Your roof, your rules” –George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones
Lambert here: I’m writing this so Yves doesn’t have to. Because we all want Yves writing two or three McKinsey-quality posts each night, and not wasting her time doing administrivia, right?
Barry Ritholz at Big Picture has what Yves considers to be the gold standard for commenting policy. It reads in relevant part:
[F]ast tracks to getting banned:
- Knowingly posting false or malicious material;
- multiple postings under different names;
- generally engaging in troll-like behavior;
- misquoting your host/overlord;
- being impolite in the extreme;
- using fake/mislabelled URLs;
- ad hominem attacks;
Now, let me state right off that the NC commentariat, 99.9% of the time, shines brightly; the informed and robust debate to be found here is one of the jewels of the web, and in particular the econoblogosphere. And 99.9% of the comments from the NC commentariat don’t fall under any of Ritholz’s bullet points. And you, readers, have managed to achieve that even with a very open comments section. By contrast Ritholtz moderates all the comments on his site and only those ones he has approved appear.
I wish to draw your attention to Ritholz’s final bullet point, which some of you may know as Rule #1 (“Don’t be an asshole”). Here are some sure-fire ways to violate Rule #1 and get banned, should you wish to make that choice:
1. Mention, in comments, that your comment is in moderation or has otherwise not appeared;
2. Complain, in comments, that your comment is in moderation or has otherwise not appeared;
3. Email the admins to mention or complain that your comment is in moderation or has otherwise not appeared;
4. Conflate moderation or spam-detection with “censorship” (ZOMG!!!!) despite repeated reminders that these processes are impersonal;
5. Comment, in comments, on commenting, moderation, “censorship” (ZOMG!!!!) or indeed go meta on commenting at all.
Why are these Rule #1 violations?
1. Such whinging clutters the threads with material that in no way contributes to informed and robust debate.
2. Such whinging doesn’t tell the admins anything they don’t already know, since the admins periodically check the queues for comments and approve the comments that should be approved.
3. Such whinging assumes that the admins are “on call” to manage the comment threads in near-real time all the time. However:
a) There is no funding for, and have been no contributions dedicated toward, the full-time administrator such a level of service would require, despite repeated entreaties and
b) surely, in any case, it would be better to fund writing by Yves (or David Dayen (or lambert)) rather than site administration.
4. Such whinging assumes that the admins do not already know that the reader experience with comments is imperfect.
5. Such whinging assumes that scarce time and scarce money have not been spent in order to try to solve the problems that readers experience.
Finally, Yves’s time is Naked Capitalism’s most important resource by several orders of magnitude. No Yves, no Naked Capitalism. Burned out Yves, Naked Capitalism in ashes. If a single Rule #1 violation causes Yves even 15 minutes of stress (and they have!), that is 15 minutes too many. And the vast majority of Rule #1 violations lately have been about comments and moderation.
So, if you want to get banned, whinge in comments about comments. Yves’s roof, Yves’s rules.