If you want to know why the disemvoweling filter was thrown onto RAL, just take a gander at some of his posts. Top-notch trolling, and frankly, it got old.

This post and the resulting discussion has put the community he has built over the past couple of years on notice to self censor or be prepared to be censored by him. By throwing in ‘being a jerk’ , that censoring becomes extremely subjective and therefore very arbitrary.

That’s what I meant by it’s just kinda changes the tone and may well make it less interesting and compelling.

The rebuttal to my argument has basically been that if I object I must want to be able to post those types of remarks. That’s kinda like saying if I object to an unreasonable search of my home I must have something to hide. I have learned over the years that if you feel that way it is really a total waste of my time to try to convince you otherwise.

Bottom line, it’s his board and and his business. I do wish him luck with it and I hope he finds the right balance. Whether he and the regulars like it or not, many bloggers drift away from sites when they start feeling like they are being monitored. That while obscene, racist or over the top attacks are deleted is probably accepted by most as just understood, if it feels like the whole thing is being conditioned it will lose a lot of appeal. Most of us are here because we like reading or having open and frank discussions about the main subject, real estate, and too a lessor extent finance’s and personal approaches to such.

Anyway, I just felt I need to explain myself a little more, I am not trying to antagonize anyone :-)

Uh, “name-calling” is a form of “personal attack”…or did you mean something else by that? I don’t know, maybe I’m just not clear on the value of these “guidelines”. I didn’t realize there was a true problem that needed addressing in that fashion.

Speaking as a reader who actually contributed in a minor way to the PayPal fundraising, I am disappointed in the application of this new policy (though I’m loving the non-commercialization restrictions!).

And I suppose I could change my handle to Keithsarelosers because that’s not an individual attack either. I’m referring to *all* Keiths, so it’s not personal at all. Oh no.

It doesn’t matter whether the name-calling, antagonism, or swearing is directed at an individual or a group of people, I’ll be deleting it either way.

Imagine a blog filled with monikers like that. Not a nice place.

Scottsman: “You’re right, it’s not, unless you’re a renter. Home owners are exempt.”

No, I’m right because “renters” is a collective noun – by definition it does not apply to an individual person – thus it could not possibly be a “personal attack”.

Regardless of that, I think that most people on this blog would agree that, with the new HoHo Bill, homeowners are the (intended) “winners” and – by contrast – renters would be the “non-winners, a.k.a. “losers”. So there you go – it can be read as an opinion of fact which, depending on the context (not explicitly stated) you would even likely agree with.

Censorship is a multi-edged sword – one should be alert for the unintended consequences.

As far as I could tell, RAL’s posts infuriated people to the point of posting more and generating more page views.

It also is likely to scare away potential commenters and long time visitors, who deal with enough vitriol in their daily lives and don’t care to be mocked and ridiculed by an internet troll/e-thug.

You’re right, it’s not, unless you’re a renter. Home owners are exempt.

Tim’s rules seem pretty easy going to me: “Feel free to express whatever opinion you want, but find a way to express it that doesn’t come across like a jerk.” It’s pretty hard to seriously defend RAL, or his moniker, when that’s the criteria.

It’s not censorship any more than the lines on the highway- go where ever you want, but stay on your side so everyone else gets to their destination safely.

Just curious, what’s a “Cliff type”?

Exactly, and the reason that Howard Coselll was worth so much to ABC – because listening to him got you so pissed off, you just couldn’t turn away.

To be clear, I’m in favor of censoring out personal attacks. But I don’t believe that RAL’s moniker (in particular) is a personal attack.

Intolerance for contrary opinion indicates a major lack of maturity and / or awareness IMO.

You really should be more tolerant and accepting of other people’s intolerance.

Just kidding.

“I think you’re wrong, and this is why” is OK.
“You’re wrong, you must be stupid” is not.

Very concise and well put WestSideBilly.

Can an analogy be made with today’s politics? Does this lack of tolerance for a perspective other than our own say something about our society?

To me it’s a matter of respect for the “individual”. Intolerance for contrary opinion indicates a major lack of maturity and / or awareness IMO.

“I think you’re wrong, and this is why” is OK.
“You’re wrong, you must be stupid” is not.

The former is beneficial to all who read this site (including the ~30 or so regular posters as well as the thousands who skim or get linked here). The latter degrades the forum for everyone except the regular readers who realize what that person is. This blog wouldn’t be very interesting without fresh ideas and comments.

Thanks Tim

(btw I got sensored by Tim. My word "golly" turned into golly–it was funny)

Whoa, I got moderated. =P

I don’t even remember what I said. *scratches head*

So rule by the tyranny of majority wins then, eh? How charming.

Tim’s blog is not a democracy. This is not tyranny of the majority. If anything it is tyranny of a dictator. Except that it really isn’t tyranny, in my opinion. You are free to have your own opinion that it is and you are free to not participate. You even seem to be free to complain about the policy (which is something I think you should be free to do).

Comparing a privately owned and operated blog to a the admin that governs our Republic… Nice analogy.

Tim spends his time and money to run this place. You aren’t free to say whatever you want in my living room without the threat of being booted and not invited back. The same applies here.

The rules are simple and straightforward. It all boils down to a very clear concept: Keep it civil.

If you just can’t handle comment threads without name-calling, swearing, and intentional antagonism, then again, I invite you to head on over to Slog.

I wonder how the censoring fans would feel if the newspaper arbitrarily edited content? Do you all love FOX News?

I love the people who say “it’s his blog and he can do what he wants”. Sounds like the Bush adminstration.

There are bubble blogs which deem any political talk to be verboten. Of course, only the political talk that the blog owner doesn’t like is censored.

The problem is that the definition of what is offensive, off-topic or, gasp!, [inappropriate] is very subjective.

That is a problem if a democracy is making decisions. It is a problem if there is nowhere else you can go to make your own subjective decision. It is a problem if the government is forcing those guidelines onto you.

This is Tim’s private property. He can do what he wants. He can enforce his own subjective rules (although if he does so arbitrarily he risks damaging the value of his private property). You have the freedom to go play somewhere else if you don’t like his subjectiveness.

If you did not have that option then I think the freedom of speech argument would be very important.

Personally, I look forward to a better signal-to-noise ratio [...] I want to spend my time actually talking about the issues instead of reading endless posts of “Nuh-uh, YOUR (sic) stupid!”

Congradulations on demonstrating why we need it.

Excessive antagonism, hostility, flaming, etc. detract from the free exchange of ideas. They tend to drag discussion down to a lowest-common-denominator level, which doesn’t benefit anyone. Cutting down on such things by going after the worst offenders is generally a good thing. Keeping the discussion civil means more people are encouraged to share.

Now, “civil” doesn’t necessarily mean “agreeable” or “uncontroversial” or even “unoffensive” — in the case of religious debates, political debates (which often come up here when discussing taxes, lending policy, bailouts, etc.) and debates about money (very common here), you can expect people to get offended and you can expect controversy. But taking steps to keep things civil means people can challenge others with their controversial and possibly offensive views, without fear of being treated as less-than-human.

Overall, Bravo on your new policy.

All the websites that I blog on recognize “softwarengineer” and know I blog civil. I never get censored by Dr. Roubini, a plethora of media sites, etc….they only censor new bloggers or one’s that break civil communications laws. Once you’re proven safe, you’re uncensored and your blogs are published immediately [innocent until proven guilty].

If you censor 100% of the civil bloggers [or delay their inputs for quick responses and reference follow-on blogs] because of a few rotten apples; a lot of intelligent bloggers will leave SB and your readership will suffer. Think about it.

I do have my own blog websites too, look “softwarengineer” up on any search engine; and I have never had to resort to censorship; albeit your website has more readership than mine and that may understandably cause more difficulties.

Bitterrenter, you’re absolutely mistaken that the only “free” choice is to allow anyone to post anything. This is Tim’s forum. He’s providing the hosting. Everyone who posts here is doing so because they’re using Tim’s resources. This site is like his private newspaper and meeting room; when you visit it, you are on his property.

Freedom of speech means that anyone can say whatever they like in public, and anyone can start up their own newspaper… or website… or forum. It does NOT mean that everyone with a newspaper, or website, or forum, is obligated to republish everything that other people send them. If that were true, every newspaper / website / forum in the world would be unreadable.

If you don’t like Tim’s moderation policy, then please go start your own uncensored forum. Have a ball. You can advertise it here! THAT’S the meaning of freedom of speech.

I completely trust Tim to let everyone post whatever viewpoint they want — pro-bubble, anti-bubble, whatever — just so long as they’re not complete idiots about it. The “slippery slope” argument is completely bogus.

I couldn’t disagree more. This isn’t a free and open chatroom. This is a commercial venture. Apple or Microsoft isn’t going to allow you to post whatever you want in their forums or corporate sites and neither will SB. If The Tim isn’t judicious in his use of filtering and banning, then he may lose many of the posters and readers who make his site successful, but that is the risk he must take to make this business venture work. His job is to find the balance between keeping his most active readers and posters happy and presenting the image and message that he wants for this site.

Ironic in a region so obsessed with individual freedoms.

FWIW, I think there are many good and very bright minds who regularly comment on SB. Good and important ideas are discussed here. I enjoy the debate.

I try to keep this simple principal in mind when commenting on any blog: Debate the issue or idea. Never personally attack another commenter.

Any issue or idea can be debated with passion without offending someone else. The moment the other side is offended, you lose your point.

So I don’t see any reason at all not to continue to debate with passion.

I am happy to see that the name calling and baiting practices will go away.

Lkng frwrd t th Jly stts.< hrf="#" clss="rplyt" nclck="rplyt('53893','∓#91;trll∓#93;',''); rtrn fls;">Rply – < hrf="#" clss="qt" nclck="qt('53893','∓#91;trll∓#93;','Dn dl. W r ll wnnrs!\r\n\r\nLkng frwrd t th Jly stts.',''); rtrn fls;">Qt