Commenting Policy
February 20, 2006
In light of some recent conversation about my blog (both in the blog-world and on various blogs and with people I love and respect), I’ve decided to come up with a commenting policy for this blog. As this blog is my blog, I ask that you respect this policy. I understand that having your comments deleted on a blog can be frustrating, so hopefully if readers follow this policy, I won’t have to delete comments.
One of the hopes for this blog is that it might be a place where honest dialogue may take place. Many have accused me of intellectual dishonesty and having a lack of consistency in the past with deleting comments and banning. I haven’t been completely consistent, and for that, I apologize. However, it is my desire that this be a space for dialogue and the sharing of ideas. Because of that, dissenting opinions will be found in the comments, I am aware of that; my hope is that people will come to the table with convictions to share as well as being willing to listen.
Below are some guidelines for commenting on this blog:
- Since comments are desired to generate conversation, comments are not allowed which include, or are
primarily, personal attacks against those referenced
in a post, others who are involved in the conversation or the author. Any comment
that is construed as a personal attack will be deleted. This will give
the author of that comment a chance to republish their comment in a way
that allows for constructive dialogue. If the commenter leaves a second
comment that is a personal attack, that comment will be deleted, and they will be banned from the blog. Banning someone should be a last resort, but will happen if the commenter can’t post comments according to this guideline. - Anonymous comments are not allowed. Initials are
acceptable, but they must be accompanied with a valid email address or personal website/blog address. Anonymous comments will be deleted, unless a legitimate reason is
given for the anonymity. - I reserve the right to write posts that do not have the
option for commenting. I may do this because: a) I expect that the exact
same argument will take place that has already taken place on a number
of occasions on the blog; b) the purpose of that post is simply to share
information; or c) The conversation has gone a direction that is
completely unrelated to the post and is not being productive in any
sense of the word. - If a post does not have an option for comments, it is
inappropriate to leave comments underneath OTHER unrelated posts; such
comments will be deleted.
I hope that regular readers and commenters of pomomusings will see
that this is an acceptable policy. I will be consistent according to
this policy with my interaction with comments. I hope that this blog
will be a safe place where conversation and dialogue will be able to
occur. If you can’t agree to the above guidelines, I would ask that you
would refrain from posting comments. It is my hope that this would help
guide us in our conversations, that we would truly be able to make
space for the Other and that we would find out more about ourselves and
others through these conversations.
Posted in Technology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
February 21st, 2006 at 12:35 am
Understandable . . .
February 21st, 2006 at 2:22 am
man considering some of the comments I have been getting on my blog I appreciatte the need for this!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 2:40 am
Nicely put…especially in light of the ‘Vagina Monologues’ comments.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:43 am
Adam, I admire your courage and desire to generate conversations on your blog. You are, after all, responsible for the things said in this forum and therefore, I think you have every right to do as you please with your comment section. I read comments up until the point where they get petty and silly (which eventually, after 20 comments they sure seem to) and then it just gets aggrivating. I can’t imagine what it must be like as the author of the blog.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I don’t, challenge me, please. Don’t hold back, just don’t attack a person or say anything overly porongraphic.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
This seems sensible to me….
February 21st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Adam you have no idea how hard it is for me to put my name in that box.
I am glad you are doing this.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
So I guess comments attacking you for being a [*this portion of the comment has been deleted by the blog operator] wouldn’t make it, right? That’s good, because I would never say anything to attack you personally. Whether I agree or disagree with your comments, I know that personally, you’re a good guy. Only a good guy would plug in and open up a port for us to escape the insanity of Stuart 6 lectures via the web.
Speaking of which, are you struggling anywhere near as much as I am with Reformed Worship? I want to pull my hair out in that class…
February 21st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Adam, you edit out some of Don’s profanity but don’t take the time to set him straight about whose router it actually is? Oh Adam–shame.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Hey do remember that some of us go by and have funny last names. Like me.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Hey Adam - this is Nick, the visitor whom you met at the Covenant Network table yesterday. I just realized that “I read your blog” is probably the most cringe-worthy, dorky thing I could say upon meeting someone for the first time, but it was good to meet you at last…now I’m not as much of a stranger around these parts. Congrats on the upcoming wedding!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Commenting policy?
What are you araid of?
Would Jesus have a commenting policy?
Sounds a little legalistic on your part to prevent people from speaking their mind.
I’m just kidding. :)
Just attempting to be ironic.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Now technically, Nick’s comment above ought to be deleted because it is unrelated to the topic of this post…
Even so, I’m sure grace will prevail. Good policy. Amen and amen.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Dammit, am I the first rule-breaker?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Now technically, Nick’s comment above ought to be deleted because it is unrelated to the topic of this post…
Means he’ll only enforce the rules when he doesn’t like the comment. Here Nick’s comment was favorable to him, so no enforcement. Shows how farsical these blog “rules” are.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I saw the comments you deleted over at Reno’s and some were good.
Why not let people comment who disagree with you?
The gay discussion got argumenative but if someone disagrees on Palestinian issues and your unconditional support of this side you delete them and the link they posted.
Seems like you are uncertain of your facts or else just unwilling to hear the other side.
Not sure what is the reason but its a shame. Those discussions are the most interesting.
Just allowing the posts where people say ‘great blog adam’ or ‘ you are so right dude’ is not the mark of someone that is comfortable in their ideas.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
I stole your idea dude. peoples need to learn respek
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
I posted a comment on Liam’s blog, and this is what I got:
“Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
yep,I have comment moderation on. I am not playing games anymore.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:56 pm
>>>>Shows how farsical these blog “rules” are.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Adam,
I’m wondering why you deleted my last two comments, but not my first one. I’ve re-read your rules and they don’t explain the inconsistency. Doesn’t that just prove my point that your “rules” are completely arbitrary?
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
John, I appreciate you asking. It’s clear to me that you’re just trying to provoke something here to “test” my new rules. Your first comment was fine. The second comment you implied that Liam was a “little fascist comment censor” and I thought that was a personal attack, so I deleted it. It doesn’t help your cause that you’re using a fake email address.
I am not interested, and I won’t get into a debate/comment-war about trying to prove all the potential ‘loop holes’ in my comment system. It’s not perfect, but it exists to help create dialogue on this blog. I hope you’ll understand that.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Adam,
but you also deleted my comment saying that you deleted my comment. What rule did that break?
re my email address, I don’t post it for spam reasons.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
John, I deleted it because of the email address, but thanks for clarifying why you are using the one you are. I’m going to assume that your name is John.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
“John, I deleted it because of the email address,”
That’s the same email as on my first comment. Yet you didn’t delete it. That’s odd. Obviously you still have some kinks to work out of your new system.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
adam i am truly sorry that you have to deal with such antics on your blog as seen above. it truly is a sad world where time is efforted in such ways. and people wonder why you wear your “america is scary” shirt and i wear my “so far i am unimpressed” shirt.
peace…
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Censorship is scary.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:18 pm
censorship implies a rite to speak. none of us have a right to speak on adam’s blog. the logic that implies we do is faulty. this is not public space, but adams. just because he is nice enough to allow people to comment does not mean we deserve it. as for my blog. my comments existed initially purely for me to get props. now people feel they wanna discuss stuff on um. fine. but they are still my comments, not the worlds. like I said, if you want freedom of speech, enjoy it on your own blog.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Liam,
You said “censorship implies a rite to speak. none of us have a right to speak on adam’s blog. the logic that implies we do is faulty. this is not public space, but adams. just because he is nice enough to allow people to comment does not mean we deserve it.”
Yes and no. Adam does have a right to have a commenting policy as boundaries are a necessity. But to say we don’t have a right to speak on Adam’s blog because it is not a public place, but Adam’s, in my opinion is faulty. By having a blog means a person has gone “PUBLIC”. People can comment anything they want and the Blog author has a right to delete as he/she deems appropriate. If someone does not want differing opinions, comments, etc., then maybe one should keep a handwritten journal. Blogs are public.
Thanks for your thoughts and i appreciate your comments.
Pax,
Adele
February 24th, 2006 at 4:46 am
“and people wonder why you wear your “america is scary” shirt and i wear my “so far i am unimpressed” shirt.”
That’s obvious–because you all are rebels.
I have a shirt that says “What would Scooby Doo?”
We’re really sticking it to the man with our t-shirts.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:11 am
>adam i am truly sorry that you have to deal with such antics on your blog as seen above. it truly is a sad world where time is efforted in such ways. and people wonder why you wear your “america is scary” shirt and i wear my “so far i am unimpressed” shirt.
That sounded like a personal attack. At the very least it was a dig. Had it been addressed to Adam, it would certainly have gotten you deleted, if not banned.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:55 am
>>>>But to say we don’t have a right to speak on Adam’s blog because it is not a public place, but Adam’s, in my opinion is faulty. By having a blog means a person has gone “PUBLIC”. People can comment anything they want and the Blog author has a right to delete as he/she deems appropriate.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“thats why malls are so bad, because they are public space that is not public property, they are controlled by idividuals [sic] and groups with the right to control space.”
Um, why is that “so bad?” And wouldn’t the extension of that logic make Adam’s blog “so bad”?
February 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
“thats why malls are so bad,”
Yup. I agree.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Liam,
got it. thanks for clearin g that up!
February 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
>>>>Um, why is that “so bad?” And wouldn’t the extension of that logic make Adam’s blog “so bad”?
February 24th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
So you’re saying Adam’s blog is like a mall (bad) and that’s good.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
“So you’re saying Adam’s blog is like a mall (bad) and that’s good.”
Right, that was my point. Still not seeing the connection here, Liam. You might provide more example of how you see a blog related to a mall.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
>>>>>Right, that was my point. Still not seeing the connection here, Liam. You might provide more example of how you see a blog related to a mall.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Yeah, it’s pretty clear.