Let’s start with a hypothetical: tomorrow I wake up a deranged lunatic who rants crazy rants that are insulting, straw mens and just don’t belong anywhere. Let’s say I violate several BMG rules an hour. And let’s say, after a few months of doing it, I finally get banned.
Does that mean I can just create a new user name and, presto!, I’m back on? Because that’s what’s happening right now – as John Howard, the “egg and sperm guy” has crawled his way back to the forum, this time masked under the pseudonym “they”.
And the most sickening thing about all this is some of the people doing their best to combat John’s insane and irrational words, calling him out on it, have been berated and have had their posts outright deleted on the matter. While that doesn’t describe myself, I know of at least one important contributor to this board – who actually advances discussions and brings weight to the matters at hand – has had his or her postings removed and been warned by one of the Editors.
Meanwhile, someone who was banned and created a new handle has been given the benefit of his doubt… and he’s been far more offensive than anyone on this board over the duration of his postings, and he’s back to his old ways since we called him out on his identity, urging for draconian policies that would punish glbt couples for wanting to have families, perhaps even up to the point of sterilization. How else would he propose to enforce his “Compromise Plan?” And why do we even let this guy stay here?
So what’s going to happen now? Are important contributors going to continue to have their posts deleted and perhaps even be banned over John Howard, or will John Howard be banned again, because he’s not going to go away if ignored and he’s certainly not going to stop attacking all GLBT people on this board… it’s what he’s done for as long as he’s been here, in whatever incarnation he’s existed as. Whatever the post is, you can expect him to weigh in about how we need to combat those pesky GAYS who are out to neuter everyone and make sure we grow babies in labs. This isn’t how to foster a strong netroots discussion, and this extends way beyond any attempts to foster an environment where people are free to contribute.
Bottom line, his posts clearly violate board rules:
Insults, personal attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.
and he was rightly condemned for it before. I expect the editors to do the right thing again.
Update: The Greater Point
Perhaps I haven’t been great in explaining the greater point. I’m not opposed to the fact that “they” and/or “John Howard” have their own personal viewpoints. I’m not even opposed to they/John posting his comments on BlueMassGroup or wherever the hell else he wants to do so.
I am, however, opposed to two different things: First, the fact that while his posts are confrontational, and so-far ignored by the editors, other posters who have only challenged what he’s had to say have been targeted by at least one editor.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, I’m opposed to threads being derailed by outlandish straw mens and lunatic rants that have – and this is the important part – nothing to do with those subjects at hand. If John wants to write about designer babies and transhumanism, that’s fine… but only where they actually belong, dairies that are actually about those subjects (which, presumably, would mostly be his own). You can’t ignore him when he posts everywhere, on topics that clearly aren’t about his homophobic and irrational rants.
peter-porcupine says
…as another is easily created. You poined that out yourself. Mind you, I am taking your word for it that They is actually Mr. Howard, as the only people who really know are Bob, Charley and David.
<
p>That said – any post that violates the rules should be deleted. Period. On many blogs, there is a ‘Report Violation’ button on comments – if Soapblox has such a feature, perhaps it can be activated, and the Big Three can assess if the comment/diary meets the quoted standard.
<
p>Really, BMG is tremendously polite for an Internet forum.
laurel says
Ryan, by “blanket unsupported statements” do you suppose the editors mean something like this?
How many times were “blanket unsupportable statements” made in this exchange? There were many others in the diary that I didn’t paste in, and all on the same theme. It is one thing to make an unsupported statement here and there. Almost everyone does it. It’s usually called opinion. However here we have an example of someone making the same outrageous claim repeatedly, so as to fuel their illogical anti-gay rampage. IMO, if John Howard/they really was concerned about the futuristic form of reproduction that scares him, he would focus on making it illegal for all Americans, not singling out LGBTs for legislative slicing and dicing. But instead he repeats the same insupportable statements relentlessly. By doing so he not only breaks the BMG rules of the road, he maintains a homophobic atmosphere which is off putting, to say the least.
<
p>I am ok with the editors deleting my post wherein I called “they” a liar. I should have paid more attention to the semantics and stated it in the apparently approved form: “I think they is spreading lies again”, or some such. But what I’m not ok with is the editors selectively picking off my mistakes, the leaving homophobes like John Howard/they to rant at will and repeat blanket unsupported statements all over tarnation. The unfairness is jarring and well below the standard I have come to expect here.
peter-porcupine says
…would be for the rich – someone who can afford the procedure, not necessarily gay people. A Paris Hilton, for instance.
<
p>It’s an odd line with Howard. There are valid concerns about genetic engineering and the potential for human cloning. He just gets astray when he begings his totally unjustified anti-gay rants on the subject.
<
p>That’s why I suggested deleting the offensive posts, but leaving the ones that advance a discussion.
laurel says
if it applies to the whole population equally and doesn’t use the civil rights of a minority as bargaining a chip.
<
p>I personally think users who repeatedly snub the rules should be flat-out banned, not just their posts. But the latter is better than nothing.
centralmassdad says
The problem with John Howard/they is not that he opposes genetic engineering and the cloning of human beings (an eminently reasonable thing).
<
p>The problem is that he views this goal as so important that any step toward it is acceptable; he seems to focus on gay marriage simple because it is a hot topic and therefore an expediant means of advancing his agenda. Even if the goal is a good one, it is unfair and unacceptable to single out gays for the honor of being the first to be so barred.
<
p>It is as if we were to “take the first step” toward eliminating smoking cigarettes by banning black people from smoking, but not anybody else.
they says
But the needed ban would not affect natural conception, and therefore would not effect anyone’s right to conceive with someone of the other sex. It would only ban GE, cloning, and same-sex conception. It’s kind of like a ban on smoking would ban everyone from smoking, but people that didn’t smoke wouldn’t be affected, only people that wanted to smoke. All people that want to do new forms of conception using modified genes would be affected, and same-sex couples would be among them, they would suddenly not have the essential right of every marriage.
<
p>I am not going to get further involved in this thread, but I can’t let moderates like you believe in a misinterpretation like that. While I’m at it, a ban on GE doesn’t lead to sterilizing anyone either, just the opposite: stripping the right of every marriage to conceive is what might require sterilizing people.
<
p>I think I have not been banned again because I promised David not to start up again on this topic all over the place. So hopefully that is an acceptable compromise to you, Laurel and Ryan, I sure appreciate it. Peace.
<
p>Funny irony, huh? The guy who wants to ban something, everyone wants to ban? Ha.
ryepower12 says
The point isn’t that there aren’t valid arguments to be had in the ‘designer baby’ discussions; the point is that these themes, or other ones that are even more homophobic, keep getting propagated by Howard on a regular basis in discussions that have zero to do with genetics, almost nothing to do with glbt topics/discussions and certainly never to do designer babies or “transhumanisim.”
<
p>If Howard wanted to write his diatribes in his own diaries, or ones that were at least about his topics, I wouldn’t care about them. I’d just ignore them. But he routinely and continually chooses to post about them in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with his peculiar pet peeves, so I can’t even do that.
bean-in-the-burbs says
Whether or not the editors choose to ban an individual poster, don’t enough “zero” ratings on a comment cause it to disappear? The ratings are also a response that doesn’t involve ‘feeding’ a troll. There’s nothing more disappointing than seeing an interesting thread derailed into a bizarre side conversation by a troll and its enablers.
laurel says
but i don’t know what the threshold is these days. certainly not enough to disappear anything recently that i’ve been aware of.
ryepower12 says
is if, say, I just gave “They” all zeroes, I’d probably get a warning. If I give him all threes, his post wouldn’t disappear into the nethers. So, obviously those aren’t solutions. What was the best idea I could come up with? As I often do, I thought it would best to put this issue front and center. For one, I wasn’t sure if David/Charley/Bob knew “they” was John Howard – so this was a good way of pointing out several instances where he’s admitted it (and there are several more instances, too). Furthermore, I think the community deserves a say in the matter, as well.
bean-in-the-burbs says
I’d be interested in what the eds. would say. The policy doesn’t indicate that – here’s all it says:
<
p>I don’t think it would be fair of you to give every post by someone zeroes, regardless of content. But it would seem to be entirely consistent with the stated policy to so rate posts that are troll-like, off-topic or offensive.
<
p>It’s a very non-intrusive way to respond to a troll – it doesn’t subject everyone else to a potentially heated and off-topic thread like direct confrontation does.
<
p>
mojoman says
or disagree with someones ideas, I’m not inclined to single someone out to be banned. I would prefer to engage them or ignore them, and let the rating system work, imperfect as it is.
<
p>
<
p>You & Laurel and nearly all BMGers, obviously write well enough to refute ideas that you disagree with, and for that reason, I view banning someone as the easy way out.
<
p>When I first began reading here, I saw JH’s diatribes as an anachronism that I knew existed, but that I rarely saw confronted and engaged. Not following BMG closely enough, I missed the ‘who’s banned’ and ‘who just went away’ box scores, so I figured he just got tired and left.
<
p>I hear the anger and frustration that you’re expressing, but IMHO you can use it to sharpen your arguments and raise the level of discussion.
ryepower12 says
I’m not opposed to him posting his ideas, but they don’t belong in the areas where he continually posts them (just about ANY post, completely unrelated to the subject of the actual thread). What does that mean? I can’t ignore him if I want to! Despite the fact that I’m able to contest his ideas, I’d rather not have to waste my time doing so: it’s not as if anything I write would, or even could, convince him (they’re insane rants for a reason).
<
p>So, if he refrained from his lunatic postings on random threads and just stuck to writing about designer babies and “transhumanism” in his own dairies, or diaries even tangently related to those subjects, then that would be fine. But since he doesn’t do that, the editors were right to ban him once – and ought to do the right thing again.
mojoman says
any more than you can restrict anyone else who frequently posts OT. I’m not trying to dismiss you here, because your point is well taken, it’s just that I don’t think you can ban someone for being a crazy pain in the ass.
<
p>If I were to post on every thread about how we should unfreeze Ted Willaims head and clone him to play for the Sox, you might laugh once, and then you’d be pretty sure that I was unhinged. That’s how I view most of JH’s posts, without the laughing part.
<
p>While the views in question are not nearly so benign, and seem to stem from ignorance & fear, all the more reason to let them see the light of day. Engage when you have to, but remember that for some folks, antagonizing others is the whole point.
ryepower12 says
of course you can ban him for breaking them; they’ve already done it before!
<
p>Online boards and blogs are very easy to ruin; it only takes a few trolls to do it. I know of several people who have stopped contributing to BMG, and I know a few more who have stopped coming all together. John Howard, in his first incarnation, single-handidly caused more than one of them. If someone like John Howard is causing good people to leave, that’s a problem that has to be dealt with quickly and effectively.
<
p>There are a few ways of doing that: banning, or making sure they don’t violate the rules.
<
p>
<
p>And when it ceases to be funny, it becomes annoying and then destructive to the actual board. People stop coming, especially when they’re targeted by editors for reacting to the trolls. If you were that kind of person, I’d be urging for you to be banned as well… luckily, you aren’t unhinged.
<
p>Part of the nature of most liberals is to attempt to be so nice and understanding that it becomes a fault. Sometimes a troll is a troll and they just have to be banned, just like scumbag politicians can be scumbag politicians who just have to go. No, we couldn’t just have a little chat with Joe Lieberman… we had to throw that SOB right out of our party. It’s only a shame we weren’t able to finish the job… but too many people were willing to listen to his “no one wants to get out of Iraq more than me” lies and distortions. In other words, when there’s a gun fight, we better not bring freaking knifes.
mojoman says
as to why you think JH should be banned, but you might want to keep it within BMG or blogs. I’ll just ignore him for right now. If you want to continue push to have him or others removed, I’m sure I’ll read it.
<
p>As far as ‘most liberals …be so nice and understanding’ and all the rest, you’re on a slippery slope there. The guy we’re talking about is a troll on BMG, not a U.S Senator. Pick your battles, and know what you’re talking about. BTW, it’s knives.
<
p>
ryepower12 says
I’m glad I’ve presented a solid argument and that you agree on my general point.
<
p>While you may not agree with me on my liberal vs. conservative chatter, I do think it warrants mentioning. There’s plenty of scientific evidence that has been gathered showing that liberals and conservatives tend to think in quite different manners. Conservatives, in general, tend to be far more authoritarian – thinking much more in terms of an us vs. them mentality, and thinking in terms of there being winners atop society and everyone else is at the bottom, doing what they’re told. The political bottom, for the greater part of the last two decades, often was politically comprised of liberals, especially in their minds.
<
p>That viewpoint makes a lot of sense when you consider the fact that movement conservatives, in general, find compromise to be intolerable to the point where they’d even turn on the few of their card-carrying members who have compromised in the past (John McCain being a prominent case). It doesn’t matter what the need is, or even the fact that most conservatives really may not be opposed to a specific reform (there are plenty of republicans out there who think campaign contributions need to be reformed, for example). The fact that Republicans would work with Democrats to solve those problems – now that’s unforgivable.
<
p>Furthermore, there are plenty of authoritarians who actually consider themselves in the latter group (the bottom) and are quite willing to bow down to their authority figures – or at least they were, when Republicans were winning. It isn’t an accident that the Republicans had a civil war in the wake of their party being outed as led by mostly inept scoundrels. Although, these same people will probably quiet down to a mere peep yet again if McCain’s able to win and climb that later to the top. It’s for these reasons that I’ve quickly began to think of psychology as being one of the most important aspects for liberal and progressive people to study if we’re going to take back our country.
<
p>I say all of this because it’s important that liberals don’t let authoritarian figures rule the roost. We need to be heavy handed at times, if we’re going to be able to beat the GOP. And, yes, that includes the minor case of internet trolls. If we can’t bring the gun to the gun fight there – when it’s seemingly so damned trivial – we surely won’t be bringing them to the important battles, either.
peter-porcupine says
Your analysis sounds like some PoliSci students drinking beer on week ends, to me.
david says
who is responsible for this general line of argument. You could start here.
peter-porcupine says
I revert to my comment to Ryan – guys majoring in PoliSci drinking beer…
<
p>(btw – I am a Goldwater conservative my own self, but would never use the arguments Mr. Dean does.)
ryepower12 says
While John Dean is certainly one of the people taking up this theme, here’s an even better source, where John Dean actually started to learn about this stuff. Not even polisci! LOL
<
p>Don’t take it too offensively, PP, I tried to make the point that these thinking patterns are only a general characteristic. There are plenty of conservatives who aren’t authoritarian – and I’d consider yourself among them.
david says
I think Dean’s point is that many true conservatives (like Goldwater, and, he’d say, himself) are not authoritarians, but that the authoritarians have taken over the Republican party without much regard for true conservative principles.
mojoman says
taken over BMG ?!?
laurel says
unfair sentencing have. who needs equal justice in the blogosphere, after all?
mr-lynne says
laurel says
the rules of the road. some of us are being held accountable to them, and others are not. this bothers me.
bob-neer says
Because of your piercing mind and evidently exceptional ability. đŸ˜‰
laurel says
truly astounding. one would think you would have enough respect for bmg users not to laugh in their face when they raise valid concerns. are you trying to induce me to leave? i can’t imagine any other reason for such behavior. and that you would do so on the same day that you’re rolling in glory over bmg getting recognition by washington post is really sickening.
lolorb says
only apply to certain people. If you are obnoxious and repetitively insult regulars, spout garbage and outright lies and don’t know how to link to a fact, you’re too valuable to the argument. Rules are tossed out regularly. I’ve stayed out of this post because I haven’t followed the John Howard saga, but I think it’s become a case of wanting more new posters (doesn’t matter what kind) vs. actually maintaining the rules of the road.
lightiris says
You’ve been Bobbed, I’m afraid. Keep your chin up, take a breather, and remember that there are a lot more people here who value what you have to say than some of the landlords would have you believe.
laurel says
that something very similar happened to you last year. you have reduced your participation greatly since then, much to the detriment of the blog. well, i can certainly understand why you stepped back.
bob-neer says
But as I think I told you at the time, it has to be said without making personal attacks.
sco says
Members of the Republican State Committee are an endangered species in Massachusetts and must be protected from having their feelings hurt. Liberal activists, however, are a dime a dozen and can easily be replaced if driven away.
lightiris says
but with all due respect Bob, I was responding to a personal attack, which you either inadvertently or conveniently overlooked when you chastised me.
<
p>The individual I called an “ass” attacked my personal integrity and boldy attributed to me hateful views I do not hold. I responded by calling that person an “ass.” So to the extent that I was personally attacked, I responded. Yet there was no accommodation for that in your rebuke. And there was no similarly chastising comment to the person who attacked me who happened to reside on the other side of the political fence. You will recall the brouhaha that caused, but I don’t believe you truly understand (or understood) why. Those who were around at the time and are still here now might.
<
p>A long time has passed since then, however, and I am (slightly) older and smarter. I invest more wisely. Laurel would do well, I think, to invest less here than she does because I sense that the unfairness she perceives causes her genuine personal pain. And it’s simply not worth it.
bob-neer says
Which is why I wrote that. I was being sincere. I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious and I certainly wasn’t laughing at you. I’m sorry if you took it that way and I hope you accept that apology.
<
p>I personally think the concern on this thread is misplaced. First, in my opinion it is a sign of weakness to try to ban ideas and people. Viva freedom of speech. If you don’t like an argument, refute it. If you don’t want to refute it, ignore it. I understand the, “liberals are nice, but weak,” argument advanced by Ryan and, as I said, it is in my opinion, respectfully submitted, actually a very weak argument itself. It results in places like DailyKos and FreeRepublic which, sadly, are more similar than they are different, atmospherically speaking, and are generally not interesting places to learn — although there are exceptions. They are, rather, places to shout and bask in the self-satisfied approval of fellow believers.
<
p>Second, I do feel very strongly that the operative word in the above is, “argument.” “Trolls,” as many people call them, actually do make arguments, however absurd, and therefore I have no problem with them. Personal attacks, however, are not arguments, not constructive, and should be minimized — lest BMG become an anger-fest like DailyKos/FreeRepublic. I don’t think there is any deliberate bias or intentionally one-sided enforcement of rules. In practice, however, since many comments don’t get read by an Editor, and since we don’t have a “report abuse” button because of the limitations of the SoapBlox system, it is easy for me to imagine that some people feel they are being treated more strictly than others. My response to that is, first: apologies, that wasn’t the intention — not every comment gets read by an Editor; and, second: two wrongs don’t make a right — to avoid this kind of aggravation for everyone, please just don’t make personal attacks.
<
p>Third, even if one doesn’t like the above arguments on philosophical grounds, consider the practicalities: (a) there is no way permanently to ban someone as long as we allow anonymous posting: the individual in question can always move to a different IP address and create a new account; and (b) there is no way to prevent someone from hijacking a thread as long as we want to allow unmoderated comments.
<
p>Thanks to everyone for all of their thoughtful comments. đŸ™‚
peter-porcupine says
1 – LightIris and Laurel are excellent posers and commenters, and their opinion should be respected.
<
p>2 – You need to get that Abuse button – it will enable better policing and prevent hijacking.
<
p>3 – I resent being called a troll again and again. NONE of you three have done it, but it happens often enough, and I am insulted by it, as I do not call names. (THERE! I’ve got THAT off my chest!)
bob-neer says
Sorry about the troll-sults: an infantile kind of name calling peculiar to this brave new blogosphere. In my observation, it is almost always a sign of weakness by the person calling other people trolls. Far stronger to engage, or ignore, I think.
<
p>In any event, I dare say we all agree than an abuse button would be helpful.
lolorb says
I rarely agree with you, but your perspectives are always worthy of a read. I don’t remember anyone calling you a troll, but they were very wrong to do so. You add a lot of insight.
ryepower12 says
is the only answer, though banning an IP address certainly makes it a lot harder for someone to break rules, that’s for sure.
<
p>That said, if Howard isn’t banned (again), then at the very least the editors owe it to the community to make sure we aren’t reading about transhumanism in posts about a candidate announcement, etc. Maybe you’ve already spoken with him, but at the very least if he’s going to spout those … unique … ideas on this community, he needs to do it in dairies that are actually about those subjects (which, presumably, would be mostly his own). That would certainly create a lot more work for you three, but that’s a fair way to approach the matter as well. I’m just not that patient (which is saying a lot, because in general I have almost infinate amounts of patience).
sco says
It’s called a zero. If the editors would let the community itself suss out what content it considers abuse we wouldn’t expect you to read every comment and approve every posting.
pipi-bendenhaft says
I agree with you that Laurel exhibits a piercing mind and exceptional ablity – she is one of the major reasons I enjoy reading and commenting on this site, so I take her presence and participation on this site seriously.
<
p>Laurel has agreed that she erred in using the word “Liar” in her comment. (She shouldn’t have called him a “liar” but really, he was lying about the level of national leadership “support” for his “compromise plan.” Laurel was wrong on style but right on substance.)
<
p>Since I am new to this site, I am unfamiliar with this John Howard person. I do not know what caused you to ban him in the first place. I do not know what threshold is for banning. Since I used to work in HR, I understand that no one should assume that no action has taken place, so I do not know if you have also sent a note to Mr Howard
about his part in the exchange.
<
p>I do know that other sites also ban people, some simply for political disagreement – I would hope that would not be the threshold. But I think both Ryan and Laurel bring up a good point about degree of post-hijacking (versus occasional digression for which I have certainly been guilty). I think the question for me is what degree of post-hijacking is acceptable if it is regularly done for the sole purpose of advancing a single solitary issue at the direct and disrespecful disregard of the diarists and other commentors. I am not sure how this repetitive pattern of post-hijacking behavior qualifies as “debate in a respectful manner.” Surely this should be addressed, if not by banning, by instructions to whomever owns the “they” account to welcome their single issue focus as a Diary, rather than as repetitive, disruptive, and disrespectul post-hijacking.
<
p>I should note that I was one of those who engaged “they.” Two of the “they” comments that Ryan references in this diary are his response to my post. My post was triggered by what I believed to be “they”‘s peculiar comments to Ryan and Laurel. Please remember that the Diary topic was on Clinton & Obama’s stand on a PA amendment to ban marriage equality. It was not about human cloning or conception rights. Perhaps I should have taken the lead from lightiris who decided, after a point, simply to ignore “they”.
<
p>Laurel and Ryan regularly post thoughtful diaries on a range of interesting topics. They both also post regularly on LGBT issues, which I appreciate, and I believe adds positively to the diversity of topics on this site. I would hate to lose Laurel’s voice (in her Diaries and comments) because she feels her right to “debate in a respectful manner” is not being thoughtfully defended by the Editors (regardless of if or what sanctions you apply to Mr Howard).
<
p>Finally, I really enjoy BMG, I’ve learned a lot from the exchanges and people on this site, and I think that you and Charley and David have done great work at creating really excellent site. Laurel, imho, is part of that excellence.
bob-neer says
Laurel took offense, unfortunately, but I stand behind what I wrote. She makes lots of great comments, I think.
cannoneo says
My favorite John Howard moment was when Nikki Tsongas’s daughters posted a peppy “our mom is running for congress!” diary, and he demanded to know their mom’s position on eggs and sperms. Ew gross! Who wants to ask their mom about that?
freshayer says
…we should ban using :), đŸ˜‰ & ;( along with IMHO or the less pejorative IMO. Seriously, most of the time on BMG it is way more civil that your average town meeting on night 3 or 4 even when the trolling is in full operational mode.
<
p>The occasional coming in from left field post or commentator is the price of democracy, a price I willingly pay just to have the right to free speech and healthy civic debate.
joets says
from the current deval debate and roll with “who cares.”