Price Tags commenters are a good bunch: they generally add content and insight.
But occasionally a topic comes along that unleashes the inner troll. Then we see a lot of back-and-forth, highly repetitive and increasingly personal posts that eventually drive others away. It’s just gets too negative.
So, folks, make your point; just don’t make it too often.
Consolidate your thoughts, and add some original content.
Respect your fellow PTagger.
Amen, Gordon.
Thank you, Gordon!
I’m one of those driven away by that behaviour, so I hope the repeat – and repetitive- offenders get the point. Thank you.
i think each person should only be allowed 1 comment per blog post! if you need >1 comment start your own blog and blog it there 🙂 please and thank-you!
Why ? Is this not the point of a commentary section to encourage a debate ?
Allow positive comments only, too ? No negative or dissenting opinions ? Then all sing “Kumba Ya” ?
The trend on this site is increasingly and disturbingly toward one-way bike-only self-promotion to the exclusion of any and all dissenting opinions (ie. the denial of debate), remarkably similar to Vision’s denial of consultation. Two peas in a pod. The censorship is also biased in favour of cyclists’ interests to the exclusion of truth (not uncommon in other parts of the world, but a shocking reality in Vancouver, the city of alternative lifestyles and tolerant acceptance).
I’m starting to suspect that you actually believe yourself what you write.
Susan, this is a private blog. The authors and administrators can allow or not allow whatever they want. I think you have been granted an enormous amount if leeway given you only ever post about one topic from a singularly myopic position on repeat.
We get you don’t believe the city consults with any integrity. We get you think they prefer cycling above all else. We get it. Do you have anything else to add on any other topic without bringing those points up?
Don, you appear to be writing in an official capacity?
Nope, just a guy who understands the difference.
Although this site can certainly be controlled and manipulated by the editors as their site, which is exactly what they are doing, it is hardly “a private blog” despite your claim; it is open to anyone (avid cyclist or not) who chooses to blog on it. That is, by the way, the nature of a “blog”: open communication, an exchange of ideas, which does allow for the free debate of one or more topics. I certainly agree that entries and responses should be kept monitored for trolls, the deletion of expletives, untrue disrespectful comments, or comments that are unrelated to the topic at hand, but not to delete the views and facts that an editor or blogger simply disagrees with from subjective bias or wants to hide from other bloggers when the comments are truth. Censorship is dangerous because it maligns and misrepresents facts; it is also a violation of basic human rights. Most recently (in the past couple of months) on this site, a number of my comments have been removed for “violation of comment policy,” but there has been no violation of policy, and other comments of mine and other bloggers have simply been removed completely without any indication or explanation by the editors at all. I have specifically asked for an explanation and not received any. Please keep in mind that just because someone is able to attempt to silence another does not mean that one should do so or should be able to do so, especially in a democracy. I can understand the concern about repetitive comments, as they may indeed become boring if the readers are the same few bloggers, but that is the fault of the site or blog for not attracting a greater diversity of readers, and many of the blog articles on this site repeat the same topic (eg. the ugly house on Point Grey Road), lending themselves to repetitive comments. Respectfully, it isn’t right or fair to blame bloggers for this.
It’s not my claim, it’s fact. This is a private blog operated by individuals who are under no obligation to allow you or me or anyone else to say whatever. By censoring people they may lose their audience, but that is their choice.
If you feel censored then by all means start your own blog where you will have complete control over what you allow to be published or not. You complain about not receiving an explanation for your posts being deleted, you are not, nor am I entitled to one. If you don’t like the rules, don’t post. Simple as that.
“….start your own blog….”
Amen to that!
Not as simple. Freedom of speech is not encouraged for a healthy debate ? Any issue usually has numerous pro’s and con’s, and/or can be looked at favourably or negatively depending on your worldview or place in the city in general. Is it not appropriate to hear these multiple angles ?
A view from the US on shutting down debates and dissenting opinions: http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/08/how-the-left-is-weaponizing-the-american-legal-system/
How is open to the public “private”? This is a contradiction in terms.
Whether or not I have my own blog is irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which is who may contribute to this site and why.
susan, you are not paying for the bandwidth or hosting. The blog owners are. The blog is privately funded, edited, and managed.
You are not a blogger, you are a commenter. The bloggers are those who write articles, either Gordon, Ken, Sandy, or various others. As a commenter, you agreed to the commenting policy when you posted your comment. Comments may be removed at the discretion of the editors. Get used to it.
What is the benefit of merely preaching to the choir? Advancement in education and the search for truth depends on adversarial argument, which exists because of knowledge deficits that must first be identified and then filled with new knowledge through the exchange of ideas and the examination of available evidence. Deny this process and you prevent the search for, discovery and recognition of new knowledge, including truth. Are you admitting that this is your (and your Council friends’) M.O. on this site?
Jeff,
The management of the site has invited open public access; it is not restricted (at least, not so far) to specific individuals or only segments of society, such as HUB members, like yourself. Hence, it is NOT a “private” site. And, no, a blog is not merely the articles published on a site but also the comments as responses from members of the public. You would be wise to look up the definition.
“Blog: A website, similar to an online journal, that includes chronological entries made by individuals. Blogs provide users with forums (or a comment area) to talk about each posting.” (BusinessDictionary.com)
Good work. Perhaps you would like to write a blog post, and submit it to Gordon for consideration as a guest author. Then you could be a blogger. Until then, commenter.
No, Jeff,
Read and learn:
“Blog” (noun and verb) refers to the site, all its postings, entries and reader feedback:
“To blog is defined as to write on a website that comments on current events or a specific topic. Short for Weblog. An online journal and forum for commentary that doubles as a public discussion board. Blogs have rapidly gained popularity, particularly as a means of political and social commentary and activism and of marketing one’s talents online—a replacement for old-fashioned paper resumes. Blogs are often designed with space for immediate reader feedback.
Verb:
(1) To write and post an entry in a Weblog.”
Webster’s New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Why would you downrate Webster’s Dictionary? They are the authority on the definition of the word, not you or me.
No idea. Perhaps because you rewrote it to change the meaning?
What others really want to know is why you uprate your own posts every time you post. Strange.
What is the point of downrating a dictionary definition? What kind of person negates truth?
Stay on topic.
Make your point. Once.
If clarification of your point is required, do so. Once.
If clarification of someone else’s point is required, request it. Once.
Arguments can be called stupid. People shouldn’t be.
Be polite.
Seems simple to me.
Simple is as simple does.
No way. This place is too tame.
So many bouncers. Closing ranks must be instinctive.
Tolerance used to be a sentiment to aspire to. It is clear that contrary viewpoints are now frequently hounded and shouted at across the spectrum of on-line chatter.
The internet seemed at first to be a wonderful new medium with shared considered viewpoints on anything and everything, for everyone, from across the world. Now groups huddle in echo chambers and ridicule cintrarians.
It’s no wonder that many news sites have stopped welcoming commentaries.
Contrarians
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…. the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race….If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
(John Stuart Mill in “Law as Protector of Individual Liberty,” Chapter II)
Well said.
The best thing about the Internet is that everyone has a voice.
The worst thing about the Internet is that everyone has a voice.
Same goes for voting.
What’s better ? Men only like we used to have ? Whites only like we used to have ? Working men only like we used to have ? IQ test ? One vote per $10,000 earned ? Additional one vote per kid for each parent ?
People vote with their $s already. Democracy counterbalances that.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Winston Churchill. He said it in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
I can’t believe you don’t understand the difference between private and public. Honestly, in baffled.
People seem to be struggling with the notion that an invitation to someone’s house to participate in a lively conversation/salon/forum on subject A is not an invitation to discuss subject B.
Or shout down people discussing subject A.
Indeed the real suppression of speech going on is by those who attempt to derail conversations and the voices of others.
One day the host may invite you over to discuss subject B. But that is up to the host.
In many cases A and B are related.
Some hosts welcome a debate, as they know the world is complex and cannot be neatly categorized !
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers !
Exactly!
Either/or is a logical fallacy; it assumes total disassociation of ideas and only binary alternatives. These are futher logic errors of over-simplification and hasty generalization.
Spartikus, I can’t say that I have ever been invited to a party at someone’s house with the proviso that I have to talk about only one subject, nor would I attend such a party. Hardly hospitable to be so restrictive to one’s guests.
Yes, clearly you are “in baffled [sic].”
There you go again with your mysterious quotes. If only you’d just say what you mean.
Interesting how this reasonable request for more substance and less noise has disintegrated into a noisy squabble over the definition of a blog. Enough already.
Writing and words have now become so cheap with the stage, the pulpit, the free PA system provided by open comments from generous hosts. When ideas become too undervalued by blizzards of unedited, repetitive sentences, then it may be time to attach real value to words. Moderation is censorship only to those who do not understand the importance of editing, and who think more = better. In fact, this is an issue of quality, not of quantity.
There are ways to make every word count, and that’s to add more value to them. The Globe and Mail used to have an automated 2,000 character countdown (one space or letter counts as one character). Many sites disable the comments sections after seven days. Every sentence counts. No one can claim censorship or undemocratic motives because everyone is treated the same as everyone else. Some editors / posters / moderators chose to keep comments closed on issues of sensitivity, and rightfully so until someone figures out a way to elevate the cost of words above the free level. There will always be bullies and abusers as long as it costs so little to bully and abuse.
You should know.
From the original post: “But occasionally a topic comes along that unleashes the inner troll. Then we see a lot of back-and-forth, highly repetitive and increasingly personal posts that eventually drive others away. It’s just gets too negative.
So, folks, make your point; just don’t make it too often”
42 posts about not overcommenting, 17 of them by susan/Mary
Did you not read the original post, susan?
?