I’ve been blogging now for over two years, and haven’t had the need thus far to establish any sort of rules regarding the blog or the comments section. As I’ve said previously, I’ve only had to delete two comments outright, and both times were at the request of the original commenters. I’ve edited comments a few times– most were to erase my real name, back in the days when my identity was still a state secret. While I never had to worry about Karl Rove or Scooter Libby leaking my name to the DC press corps, my identity is now an open secret.

However, given my ponderings in the post before last, and the excellent comments therein, I think it’s time I set a few basic guidelines. These aren’t immutable, and I reserve the right to change the rules as I see fit. However, I promise you this: I will inform my readers of any changes. I’m not going to pull a Brian Riley and suppress your comments without explanation. As Christian Vogler notes, “What is important is that the moderator is fair to all sides, as well as consistent.” I will try to live up to this.

As NeilMcD and Chris Heuer both noted, there is “no happy medium.” So, with that said, here goes:

1) All comments are welcome. You may sign using your legal name, or a pseudonym. For obvious reasons, refrain from using “anonymous.” Demonstrate some creativity, and come up with an alter ego; it really isn’t that hard.

2) All comments will remain unedited, with the following exceptions:

a) using my full name, or last name. I know many of you know who I am, and a good number of you now know what I look like. It’s ok with me– I’ve accepted it. But I’d prefer if you either use “Mr. Sandman” or my first name, or even my first initial. I in turn will address you by the name you use, and I promise to do my best to keep your identities separate, whether you’re masquerading as twenty different people or coming as yourself.

b) if you post a violent, harmful, or illegal comment, such as a death threat, I will remove the comment in full as soon as possible. I will also most likely take other action, including but not limited to banning you, reporting you, or other similar consequences.

c) I would prefer if you’re going to post your e-mail address in the body, that you do so in a way that won’t attract spambots. This isn’t for my protection, but for yours. Ways to obscure your address include typing it so that mrsandman@sandbox.com comes out as mrsandman(at)sandbox(dot)com, or mrsandmanNOSPAM@sandbox.com, or some other similar means of preventing others from using programs to harvest e-mail addresses. In the past, I’ve gone in and edited the addresses. But from now on, that’s your responsibility. It’s your e-mail address and your privacy; determine yourself how you want to handle it.

d) I’m not a big fan of ad hominem attacks, flame wars, or similar comments. If such a battle or attack gets out of hand, I will edit/remove these comments, and reprimand the instigator(s). So far there’s been nothing along these lines, but never say never…

3) Unlike a number of bloggers, I do occasionally use profanity and choice language in my posts. Thus, it would be hypocrisy for me to demand others self-censor their language. I do ask that you consider the effect of the words you’re using and why you’re using them. An occasional swear word? Sure. Excessive use? I may ask you to tone it down, or help you do so (although I’d rather you self-police).

4) I won’t revise or edit my blog as a means of promoting any agenda; occasionally, I may go back and fix grammatical or factual errors, should they occur. Otherwise, what I type is what you get.
5) As Aretha Franklin put it, it’s all about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Simply respect me and one another, and we’ll get along just fine. *smile*

I think that about says it all. If I’ve missed anything, or something comes up later, I’ll add it in or modify as needed.

I still haven’t come to any ultimate conclusions about comments and clarifications and policies thereof, but the comments left in the last post gave me a LOT of food for thought. Thanks to all of you who have commented so far.

I want to take this opportunity to address a concern of Mr. Riley’s. He and I had an e-mail exchange following my post, and his very first e-mail outlined his concerns that I had misrepresented the authorship of his blog. He had no initial concerns whatsoever about the fact that he made allegations about I. King Jordan without any proof. He had no private evidence to share about these allegations. He gave no explanations regarding his suppression of comments submitted by myself and others. Instead he stated that he felt I was calling him a liar: “…you are calling me a liar by implying that I lied about whether or not people are helping and supporting me behind the scenes.”

I don’t recall implying that Mr. Riley lied. The pertinent portion that concerned Mr. Riley is this: “…his use of the royal “we,” along with hints and his own statements (since conveniently “disappeared”) that he is not alone in determining the content on and control of his blog, suggests there’s more to Riley’s crusade than meets the eye.”

A “suggestion” that there may be more to the authorship of his blog isn’t lying, in my opinion. The “statement” he made is a comment from the very same post I originally blogged about, which was conveniently “disappeared” within a number of hours. Here is that comment, from Brian Riley’s own hands, in toto:

Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues said…

To anonymous,

We decided to close the anonymous comments for this thread.

Why not use your real name?

This blog is not the work of a single person. There are (deaf) people in the background giving advice on how it should be run.
7:15 PM

Since I made my comments in light of this statement, I really fail to see how I “lied.”

In his e-mail, Riley directed me to the very first blog post on his blog. Rather than forcing you to go there, I’ve helpfully done the work for you, and the pertinent passage is this:

“… I know that very, very few people who look at DeafRead will see these posts on this blog. That’s because I’m banished to the “hearing category” (even though this blog is strongly Deaf-culture oriented and there are deaf people advising me behind the scenes) …”

So yes, Mr. Riley– you’ve said so both in a comment on your blog, and within the first entry on your own blog. You’re correct. There’s deaf people in the shadows behind you. It does make me wonder though– to what extent are they backing you? Are they aware that you are making allegations that you are unwilling to publicly back up with evidence? Are they aware that you indiscriminately delete comments and tailor them to favor your side of the argument? Do they approve of your apparent vendetta against Jordan?

Another question: To what extent are you independent on your blog? What do you mean by “advising”? Is it minimal guidance, or are you a puppet of people that have hidden motives, whether sincere or ulterior? Given that you seem unwilling to have an open and honest exchange in your comments section, given that you continue to make unsubstantiated allegations in your blog without a shred of evidence, and given that your independence is, until proven otherwise, suspect, I think it’s probably in my best interests that I boycott your blog and ignore your comments on all forums as much as possible. I’d like to gently suggest that if my readers agree with this assessment, they do the same.

* * *

One last note: on the post at Riley’s blog that I blogged about. the comments peaked at 20+ comments. They were then selectively edited by Riley to 18 comments. As of this writing, they’ve been pared back to just 13 comments. I have no idea what comments will remain standing after this is posted to my blog.