Playground news
It had to happen, I suppose, the care in the community issue that has arisen in the comments field. So now, the playground whistle must blow.
Colin Berry adopts perplexing positions from time to time, notably with his contemptuous but unexplained critique of one of the No Offence items, but he has supported as well as criticised me in the past. It is up to me to be big enough to accept the latter as I appreciate the former, and I do.
And on the question of what can be allowed and what cannot, leaving aside the odd accusation that my response so far was lacking in consideration, he is absolutely right.
From now, and until further notice, no comments will be accepted here from people who are not registered, or decline to be so.
This has nothing to do with the issues canvassed in the No Offence series.
If criminal and civil sanctions exist to punish incitement, threatening conduct and so on, an amateur blogger has to take account of that.
It is plain that I cannot rely 100 per cent on those contributing to Salut! to act as civilised adults, or even to say who they are.
All sorts of questionable behaviour may be at play here, but they are not welcome in my playground. At least the new policy will, or should if I understand correctly how these things work, ensure that people are to some extent accountable for their actions.
Labels: blogging
By Colin Randall @ Friday, March 02, 2007 ¦
30 Comments:
A sad move but, under the circumstances as they've changed this week, the right one, I think.
As I have just said on my blog, it is annoying that stupid people play such stupid games. There are certain people who wish to remain anonymous for their own reasons, but those who remain anonymous because they have wish to spit venom, ruins it for the others.
Splendid. I applaud and welcome your decision. But to the less charitable souls who post to this blog, let me say straight away that there is no attempt to gloat over "having got my own way". The issues raised by the recent comments from anonymouse/anonymice, bordering on threats, are entirely different from the ones that had previously prompted my call for the block.
That was to do with what has been termed "trolling" - adopting a false or concealed identity purely as a means to foment conflict on a blog - unpleasant, but not in quite the same category of seriousness.
I'm sorry that my "contemptuous" comments on your No Offence 2 still rankle, Colin. I ended them, you may recall, with the words "Nuff said" because I did not at that stage wish to linger, but in retrospect it was perhaps inconsiderate to leave things in the air.
I'm returning to Blighty early next week for the best part of a week. There's a wedding to attend, and some TLC needed for a daughter who's been put through purgatory these last few weeks by that mad computerised NHS placement scheme for junior doctors (see today's Telegraph). I'll try to compose something, and tack it onto the end of Offence 2 before leaving, but will then be incommunicado for a while. Thought I'd better mention that now: given the febrile atmosphere that exists on this blog right now, I would not wish my silence to be misinterpreted. There does seem to be more than a whiff of suspicion, not to say paranoia, in the air just now.
See that it is a bit snowy, chez vous, Bill...
We had a good (if that's the word) 15 centimetres dumped on us yesterday, accompanied by 60 km/h winds. Meanwhile, a freight train came off the tracks east of the city, disrupting the evening rush-hour commuter trains. The snow turned to ice pellets and then rain overnight and now is melting. It's a horrible slushy mess out there.
I've just reread Colin Berry's last comment, in which he says that he's going to be "incommunicado for a while...I would not wish my silence to be misinterpreted."
But on Louise's blog on Monday, he wrote: "Speaking of reluctance, this comment is my last to a personal blog. I've made no secret in the past of my preference for the professionally-moderated MSM blog, eg the Telly's, in spite of all my well-publicized gripes ...
The kind of free-for-all that occurs on personal blogs, at least in their present state of evolution, is simply not for me. I blog essentially to discuss issues, and do not, as you know, take kindly to being made the subject of personal attacks, even if I am a tedious old windbag, given to expressing unfashionable views.
So its farewell to you all. It's time to end this chapter of my life and move on.
Adieu, mes amis."
Which strongly implied that his silence here would be permanent and thus not to be wondered at, much less misinterpreted.
Does today's comment mean he's contemplating a return to the bosom of this and other personal blogs? Just asking.
I suppose that now Colin R has stopped anonymous comment, ColinB is willing to come back onto the scene. However he said on my blog, that even though I had done the same thing, he would probably still take a back seat.
Okay, I know this blog is more up his street than mine!
Probably a good thing we didn't make a bet, though, Louise.
I'll try and keep this short, to avoid going round in circles.
I have given up posting to personal blogs, and not just because of the anonymice. There are also the constant snipers, fault-finders, nitpickers etc who blog here under their real name, or who have chosen a user-name and stick to it. I blog for pleasure, not to be put constantly on the defensive.
It should be self-evident why I have posted today after an absence of three weeks.
If it's not, then let's leave it at saying that the sooner my name is dropped from discussion on this blog, the quicker it will become just a faint memory of that guy who took "perplexing positions"
(Colin R's descriptions). Well, here's one position that should not perplex you Colin: anywhere but here.
Goodness, how unequivocal. I guess now we'll never know what he had against No Offence 2. Shame.
I've told Colin R that he will get his explanation in a day or two. Nothing in my previous comment should have been taken as a reversal of that intention.
Bill Taylor's persistent forensic examination of bloggers' comments is not just tiresome. It's against the entire spirit of blogging.
hmmm...I wondered how this registering business worked. A simple 'standfirst' explaining what to do for newbies could be a good idea. Somehow when I clicked on 'post a comment' it informed me I was posting as Tim. Well... I am Tim, Tim Sinclair!
Colin Randall and I can both vouch for Tim's bona-fides. He's another persistent forensic examiner.
I take a week's holiday and Colin R has gone from former promoter of anarchy and 'free speech' to a censorious old maid.
Is the food in Le Lavandou giving you indigestion?
You need to do some reading of recent history, Richard. It's been ugly around here.
Bill I am perfectly willing to accept that the stuff that Colin has taken down was unacceptable.
I am not prepared to let go a manifest demonstration of double standards by a member of the perfidious nation.
One minute Colin is high mindedly preaching the benefits of 'free speech' and scolding those wishing to defend the individual against the extremes of the press. The next he is imposing his own barriers to free commerce between nations.
What's it to be? Or has hypocrisy become so embedded that we no longer aspire to be ridden of it.
I'm not sure I follow the logic, Richard. How is taking down something that is unacceptable demonstrating a double standard?
Glad to see that AG posting was taken out - when I think how I was slammed for calling dog poo something else!
Uprighteous from Tunbridge Wells
(no it's not, it's me - this a joke...)
You journalists play with words and meaning!!!
The double standard is accepting the necessity to restrain the bloggers oneself , but disputing the right of a jury, appointed with due legal process, to contest the correctness of publishing an article. (Criticising a restaurant as it happens, but Colin’s contestation was in principle not the particular case.).
I do not say it is wrong to criticise the decision of the jury in specific terms as to what one can say and what one cannot say. What is wrong is to criticize the jury, using the ill defined, emotive ‘free speech’. Suggesting that the jury’s restraining action is against ‘free speech’ (whatever that is) and Colin’s is not. What the jury did is no more against (or actually for in terms of greater good) liberty than what Colin did. They both recognize the need to restrain language for the general good.
But Colin (and a slurry of journalists) thinks he has the right to make the call on when to restrain language but not a jury of citizens. (Hence double standards, one standard for Colin another for the jury. You with your last post slide back to the merits of the individual texts whereas the point was clearly argued in principle)
We all know this slippery stance is justified by the journalists’ self interest in establishing themselves as the control point of what gets published and what doesn’t. In fact what we need is for the citizens to exert greater control over the media in order to decrease the excesses of violence, pornography and general trash which is corroding our societies. Thus I take strong objection to the criticism of the principle of citizens’ juries being involved in the decision process. And no we don’t need to mix that up with the absolute good of exposing corruption and abuse by powerful agents. We can get to keeping the good bits and binning the rubbish.
Words and meaning will always be open to a certain amount of interpretation. But I think what you're talking about, Richard, is greater control over the TABLOID media rather than the media as a whole. Even so, that would be the thin end of a dangerous wedge.
I won't ask you to repeat what Anne Gilbert said and then recanted, Louise. But was it in rhyming couplets?
It wasn't in rhyming couplets, Bill, because as far as I know, nothing rhymes with the word "penis".
Also, it made no sense whatsoever -but that's free verse for you...
Over mine, too - just gross.
way, way over...but then, I can't do the cryptic crossword, either :-)
now you see it, now you don't...
There is a sort-of rhyme I can think of. But not on a Sunday.
I'm going to be up all night trying to think of one now.
Damn you, anne gilbert.
Richard is unlikely to persuade many people here that he cannot see a distinction between a critic's right (raison d'etre even) to criticise - to use the specific example in question - and threats, real or perceived, that happen to be made in writing, on a blog. It's the difference between causing offence, and actually or potentially committing one.
That was more or less what I said (at some length) last night before blogger decided to swallow my post and I couldn't be bothered to write it again.
I was sent the missing sequence of posts by an anonymous blogger - it wasn't pretty. There were no opinions offered, just nasty threats. Surely that's a crime?
If I were you, Gigi, I'd take off your email address from your blogger info...
Now, now, girls don’t get bitchy; I personally find ‘shit’, ‘penis’ and ‘damn’ perfectly acceptable.
Much more so than a journalist who denounces, as being contrary to free speech, the findings of a jury of citizens, convened in accordance with the legal process of a democratic country, which, after due deliberation, declares that a fellow journalist had overstepped the line which lies between proper criticism and prejudicial comments not acceptable under the laws of the land.
Post a Comment
<< Home