A few minutes ago I deleted a comment from a conservative commenter, “Gaydude,” that was an obnoxious and personal attack in response to liberal commenter “ArthurKirkland.” GayDude then wrote another comment directed to me that I think deserves a wider audience:
Wait, my post criticizing Arthur’s post was removed? Oh, right, this is an Orin Kerr thread. And now I will post a comment that is much less civil than what I posted before, but it needs to be said, even if it gets me banned. (And hopefully it will.) A message to Orin…Orin Kerr, in your quest to prove how fair you are (due to your own Kennedy-esque insecurity that stems from not being loved enough by others in your field), you insist on trying to make everything look fair, even when the situation doesn’t call for it . Notice how you make a comment about both DailyKos and RedState. In this situation, it’s perhaps not too bad, but you do this all the time. If you criticize something from the Left, you will always do the same to something from the Right, even if the things or comments or posters in question are not at all the same in terms of degree, just so you can feel better about yourself. It is not intelligent moderation.
On a side note, this kind of silly fairness desire (that is really not fair at all in reality) is exactly what leads to silly rules in schools, in crime & punishment, etc. You are probably against people who shut off their brains in those areas, but fail to see how your kind of “liberal” fairness thinking is actually quite similar to those who do those things (though the reasons for the desire may be different).
Do not confuse this behavior with that of those who intelligently consider all sides. It’s based on something entirely different.
And with that, please ban me. I do hope that one day you will realize there is at least a bit of truth to what I’m saying here.
A few thoughts in response.
First, I think this is the first time a commenter has criticized my comment moderating on the ground that I am trying to be fair. Normally, those who find their uncivil comment deleted claim that I harbor a bias against the commenter and I am afraid to recognize the deep truth of their message. So this is a bit new, and I appreciate that.
Second, moderating comments can make you feel many things, but one thing it cannot make you feel is deeply loved. The kinds of people who write uncivil comments are the kinds of people who get furious when their comments are deleted. They often write in with very angry responses filled with an unusual number of four-letter words, usually indicating their belief that you have some deep-seated insecurity that is making you not realize how right they are. If you need to feel loved, you don’t generally volunteer to spend your time interacting with that sort of person.
Third, Gaydude is right that I am against people “shutting off their brains.” I always have been, and I don’t expect to change that. I realize not everyone agrees, but then it’s a big Internet.
801d2d says:
Hear hear, Prof. Kerr.
January 28, 2010, 1:48 amAndy Bolen says:
Haha if this dude were a normal person, he’d be really embarrassed right now. But he’s not, he’s the sort of person whose comments need moderation…
January 28, 2010, 1:53 amDave N. says:
I am all for civility. There have been times when certain commenters have been banned and I have not fully understood why, while other commenters have seemingly gone out of their way to be obnoxious with nary a peep.
That said, I appreciate the civility on the VC. I usually don’t even bother with reading comments on other sites because I have witnessed more maturity during kindergarten food fights than I do in their comment sections.
I appreciate the civility here. While there are some commenters I have little use for, I also deeply respect most of the commenters, even if (and sometimes when) I fundamentally disagree with them.
Snark is cheap and easy and sometimes a great deal of fun (and I acknowledge I do my share) but there is a difference between snark and vitriol. When the line is crossed, I appreciate the moderation.
January 28, 2010, 2:06 amJagermeister says:
Prof. Kerr:
Frankly, the comment threads here increasingly come to resemble nothing so much as the film Ridicule, described as a setting “where social status can rise and fall based on one’s ability to mete out witty insults and avoid ridicule oneself.” The only limitation seems to be that one not cross the line into gross insults – but rather confine one’s self to snide innuendo, intentionally misstating opponents’ positions in the most hyperbolic language, and engaging in preening sanctimony. (Please note these observations are most emphatically not directed towards yourself and the other contributors).
January 28, 2010, 2:09 amI have no ready suggestions for the means to avert this incivility – only the observation that many commentators have already slipped into rude incivility long before someone with less self control resorts to more direct insults and in some parody of jenga, gets their post deleted and gets their self banned.
A perusal of the comments in the preceding thread demonstrates that many are without substance, but merely serve as vehicles for insulting others holding different views.
Volokh Groupie says:
Snark is overused on this blog. It doesn’t make a comment or commentator more intelligent or witty. And it certainly doesn’t serve as an argument, which unfortunately many here seem to think.
January 28, 2010, 2:11 amSteve Jobs says:
Sorry Orin, but GayDude’s sentiment is shared by others, including me. It’s just that many, like me, have not chosen to articulate it because it’s not really worth provoking a ban or a demand to call you on your personal line to “discuss things.”
Like it or not, the perception is that you come down harder on conservative commenters who snark (or are nasty) than liberal commenters who are equally snarky (or nasty). It appears to me that you’re overcompensating for your conservative cred by bending over backwards to be “fair” to obnoxious liberal commenters — resulting in a pattern of moderation that is anything but fair.
Of course you will disagree (as will your liberal commenteriat). But the fact that it is mostly your conservative commenters complaining should tell you something.
January 28, 2010, 2:29 amrandom commenter says:
I’m sure you were right to delete the comment. I appreciate seeing really vile comments removed, and in fact would prefer to see more of it. Some politically charged threads here are almost nothing but invective. “ArthurKirkland” himself is more of a name-caller who happens to be liberal than a liberal per se. Perhaps “Gaydude” should take a page out of Arthur’s book and be a little more genteel in how he goes about splashing hate on his opponents.
January 28, 2010, 2:34 amJames N. Gibson says:
We will always have cases like this as new people come on unaware that this site does try to behave better then Huffington Post (which also from time to time has to delete comments).
I have disagreed with ArthurKirkland from time to time, and a few times agreed with him. The point is he goes to the effort to make his point intelligently and that requires me to respond in the same manner. Resorting to verbal abuse is the kind of response I normally see of people who have no intelligent response but can’t admit defeat.
In the end I hope that the goal of this site will remain trying to promote intelligent discourse on subjects.
January 28, 2010, 2:35 amMark N. says:
For whatever it’s worth, I can put in another vote for being generally appreciative of the comment-handling (despite once in the long past having been banned for kvetching in an off-topic thread about a David Bernstein post on which he’d closed comments).
Being in academia myself (albeit in a quite different area), my impression is that the number of accomplished academics who also have the ability and patience to engage in discussion with the public at large, especially down “in the trenches” as opposed to from some pundit pedestal as a “public intellectual”, is quite small, despite that being a pretty important part of keeping academia both grounded and useful. I’d probably put Orin, along with several other Conspirators, in the top 5% of academics, if not better than that, in terms of their patience and general egalitarianism in these sorts of things. I’ve certainly never had a comment deleted simply because I disagreed, or anything of that sort.
January 28, 2010, 2:40 amConstantin says:
I love this site, appreciate Prof. Kerr’s commentary, and am not a big fan of the emailer’s tact.
That said, the guy kind of has a point on the merits (not regarding the deletion, but the substance of Prof. Kerr’s writing). I’ve noticed it a lot lately, too.
January 28, 2010, 2:46 amOrin Kerr says:
Steve Jobs writes:
I don’t disagree out of hand: I’m certainly aware of the possibility that I may be so concerned about being biased in favor of my views that I am overcompensating against my views. It’s hard to get the correct line exactly right.
The flip side is that I generally don’t bother to read the comments that I moderate. I mostly just skim for words like “idiot,” “moron,” etc., that jump out as obviously way over the line. (In that sense Jagermeister is right: My moderating policies are very word-based, with more subtle approaches allowed.) Given that, I’m not sure where bias could creep in: If I’m not reading the comment in a way need to know it’s politics, how can I be biased because of it?
Another possibility is that because this is known as a right-of-center blog, it draws more right-of-center commenters who feel emboldened to be more obnoxious. I’m not sure. But I think the key thing is, let’s debate these issues civilly. If you think I’m biased, please say so and present an argument; I’m certainly open to changing my approach.
January 28, 2010, 2:46 amRicardo says:
VC is a blog with probably majority right-leaning readership. That means among the extremists and name-callers, there are going to be more who consider themselves conservative than among other persuasions. That seems self-evident.
I’ve only very rarely seen the kind of nonsense that is (or used to be) routine on the comments section of Daily Kos, Brad Delong or Matthew Yglesias show up here. That’s because left-wing nuts usually find greener pastures elsewhere leaving VC with a disproportionate number of right-wing crazies. Fortunately, there are a fair number of thoughtful commenters on all sides here which is what makes comments worthwhile.
January 28, 2010, 2:47 amCurt Fischer says:
I am trying to think of a comment that will demand moderation, and yet also make Prof. Kerr feel deeply loved. I can’t do it but I hope someone can. He deserves it!
January 28, 2010, 2:55 amOren says:
Or just in general, that for a fixed rate of jerks in the population, a blog with 2/3rds righties is going to see twice as many obnoxious righties as obnoxious lefties.
By the way Orin, I appreciate the sentiment that one should compensate for one’s own opinions as a general matter. Confirmation bias being what it is, it seems like the only way to stay honest. In our field, Feynman referred to it as “bending over backwards” (cue off color joke) and it seems to me quite useful across the board.
January 28, 2010, 3:02 amleo marvin says:
Steve Jobs, I find Orin and Eugene equally viewpoint neutral in their moderation. Do you see a difference I don’t, or do you think Eugene moderates with the same pro-liberal bias?
January 28, 2010, 3:18 amorca says:
“Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice”
January 28, 2010, 3:26 am-Thomas Paine
Anthony says:
While I haven’t kept track of anything about moderation on this board, my experience in general is that a lot of people on one or another side of an issue (liberal/conservative isn’t the only example) underestimate how offensive ‘their’ side is, and incorrectly believe their side is unfairly moderated against. This may be in part simple bias (i.e. you’re much more inclined to find someone offensive if they disagree with you), but a lot of it has to do with communities: if you spend most of your time in one particular community, you may not realize that a statement that’s perfectly mundane in your community is quite unacceptable in another community, and you’ll probably be more aware of actions taken against that community than against other groups. I have been in plenty of online communities where two opposed groups were both convinced they were being discriminated against in favor of the other.
January 28, 2010, 3:27 amDNJ says:
I, for one, want to record my appreciation of Orin’s approach to comments – both his responses and his moderation. My perception is that he is very fair and even-handed. I also enjoy the fact that it’s worth reading comments at the VC, unlike many other popular blogs – there certainly are a fair number of very good and interesting threads.
January 28, 2010, 3:32 amBrian K says:
I can see two explanations for why people would accuse OK of being “too” fair.
1) confirmation bias. every time a conservatives comment is moderated they get outraged and remember it but everytime a liberals comment is moderated it gets ignored because they are outraged at some other liberals comments.
2) different levels of acceptability based on political ideology. if a liberal commentator says X they should be banned but heartily agree if a conservative commentator says X.
both examples are not hard to find either on these discussion boards or on tv or anywhere else politics are discussed.
January 28, 2010, 3:46 amleo marvin says:
I agree. Humility is a necessary condition to an open mind. That’s why I’m so grateful for Eugene and Orin’s frequent acknowledgment of the possible fallibility of their opinions. More often than not I disagree with their policy conclusions, but I never doubt their rigorous intellectual honesty. I wish there were more like them anywhere on the ideological spectrum.
January 28, 2010, 4:07 amDavid Welker says:
As an obnoxious liberal commenter, I think the idea that Orin Kerr is biased against conservatives awfully funny. Next thing you know, conservatives are going to argue that the media is biased against them and that Fox News is “fair and balanced” even though both points are obviously wrong. Apparently, it is awfully convenient to think your the “victim” and any news you don’t like must be biased.
The truth is, many conservatives have a serious victim complex. I remember very well in college when I used to be a conservative in College Republicans when my fellow conservatives would talk about being afraid to speak up in class. They were the victims of the big bad liberal professors. I thought then and I think now that they were a bunch of whiners.
The idea that Orin Kerr is biased against conservatives is completely ridiculous. The problem is, he is like the news section of the NY Times. That is, fairly objective.
Not that I always like it. Mr. Kerr and I have had our differences in opinion on civility.
January 28, 2010, 4:09 amKen Arromdee says:
Exactly. The point of a moderation policy against insults is not supposed to be to get posters to be more creative with their insults or to improve their ability to write insults that fly under the radar. (At least I don’t think it is.) If it ends up getting used that way, something is probably wrong.
And we have one right here in this thread:
(Think about that one for a minute. At first it sounds even handed, but what it’s saying is “if you’re reading this and you’re left-wing, you’re fine. There may be some nuts but it’s not you. If you’re right-wing, and reading this, there’s a good chance you’re a nut, even though I’m not accusing every single person”. )
January 28, 2010, 4:29 amRicardo says:
Ken, an insult is usually directed at a particular person. You seem to be demanding something more along the lines of political correctness: that people should use non-judgmental, neutral language in describing people who adopt fringe (sorry, “non-mainstream”) positions. Do I think fringe right-wing positions are more well-represented than fringe left-wing positions here? Yes, I do. I note that you didn’t point out how unfair I was being to the Daily Kos readership.
And of course I never said there were no left-wing nuts nor did I say there was a “good chance” that any given conservative was a nut. That’s hyperbole on your part rather than an accurate representation of what I wrote. One time I got accused of being somebody’s “sockpuppet” by an anti-war commenter, which is certainly a claim I’m in a position to judge objectively. But I’m sorry to say that it is my observation that this guy is outnumbered in his use of intemperate rhetoric and irresponsible allegations on this blog anyway by his ideological opponents. Again, it seems like some kind of political correctness to say that pointing this out is somehow indecent or uncivil. I’ve noticed even some conservative commenters here have lost patience with some of the more non-mainstream, self-described right-leaning participants.
January 28, 2010, 5:21 amChrisHo says:
Nothing more petty than a moderator deleting posts and then vilifying a poster later while trying to claim the high ground, what is this, recess?
January 28, 2010, 6:27 amDavid Nieporent says:
Orin,
As long as you aren’t deleting comments solely for disagreement (as Brad DeLong does), I’d endorse erring on the side of over-moderation. Sites that allow unmoderated exchanges of insults quickly become unreadable. Broken windows theory.
(By the way, the secret is: just promise Orin a beer, and then you can hurl as many insults as you want.)
January 28, 2010, 8:12 amXanthippas says:
I’m all in favor of deleting comments and banning commentators more frequently, on all blogs. I think there are a lot of intelligent and informed visitors to VC, so there’s often a lot to be learned by reading the comments, and I’d hate to see that undone by trolls and morons who can’t make decent arguments but can launch ad hominem attacks. I know there’s really no way to be entirely consistent and principled when it comes to dealing with unruly commentators, but I think deleting comments and banning people here and there helps keep the rest in line, even when it’s not entirely fair.
January 28, 2010, 8:18 amyarrrrr says:
Someone needed to flame ArthurKirkland for being an ass… too bad it didn’t make it past the moderator…
January 28, 2010, 8:21 amPintler says:
[beery voice]Orin, we love ya, man[/beery voice]
Does that help?
Well, if one is going to err, I think erring in the direction of one’s ideological opponents is the gentlemanly thing to do.
I concur.
January 28, 2010, 8:36 amBama 1L says:
Professor Kerr’s students should take note of this glimpse into his technique!
January 28, 2010, 8:46 amjukeboxgrad says:
There is a history at VC of one or more righty commenters being allowed to get away with using incivil language on a regular basis (for an example, see the list here). I think it would not be possible to find a corresponding example regarding a lefty commenter. Since I don’t think that lefties are inherently more civil, I’m not sure what this indicates. It might indicate that moderation standards here are tilted, in general.
On the other hand, Kerr does not tolerate what some of his colleagues tolerate (or have tolerated in the past). I think this somehow, for some, leads to the unfair perception that he’s being unfair. That perception is correct only if ‘fairness’ is defined as ‘what some of his colleagues do.’ It would interest me if anyone could show evidence that Kerr’s tolerance for lefty incivility is different than his tolerance for righty incivility, but I don’t think there is any such evidence to be found.
By the way, Pintler is correct (“erring in the direction of one’s ideological opponents is the gentlemanly thing to do”). Closely related is another rational basis for a righty to be more intolerant of righty incivility. I think a little incivility is sometimes justified, but when it’s rampant and gratuitous (like in the example I cited), it tends to discredit the speaker, along with people and ideas associated with the speaker. So anyone interested in promoting conservatism should be encouraging Kerr to be especially strict with incivil conservatives. But I have seen no sign that he actually does such a thing (i.e., that his strictness is tilted).
January 28, 2010, 9:00 amcorneille1640 says:
I agree. Also, when I used to teach US history in college, and a student who I didn’t like was borderline between, say, a D and a C, I’d give him or her a C just because I didn’t want to let my bias hurt their final grade.
In response to “Gaydude’s” comment: I once had a comment deleted by Mr. Volokh (not Mr. Kerr), and the deletion was entirely deserved. I felt ashamed, got over it, and went on with my life. It’s just a blog.
January 28, 2010, 9:15 amepluribus says:
Orin Kerr, Eugne Volokh, and Ilya Somin make this site both intellectually rewarding and readable. I don’t consider myself a conservative, and I disagree with many (certainly not all) of the points they and others make here. Gay Dude’s attack on Orin’s fairness is in my opinion absurd, but it is made in a reasonable way and with a moderate tone, and I think Orin has responded to it appropriately. Keep up the moderation, and this site will continue to reward those who visit it.
January 28, 2010, 9:16 amTonetel says:
Orin, FWIW, I am a conservative and I was unconsciously doing the same thing on my own blog/forum. I was desperately afraid of my site being pigeon-holed as a “right wing” echo chamber and wanted to attract a diverse opinion base. After the dust settled and many visitors quit the site over inconsistencies in our moderation policies, I did some honest assessment. I reviewed things on a case by case basis and realized that I certainly was looking the other way for the limited number of left leaning visitors commenting at the site.
I’ll be the first to acknowledge how difficult the role of moderator and unbiased referee can be.
That said, I love this site, but I don’t visit often enough to offer an opinion on you. Only my own personal anecdote for your consideration.
January 28, 2010, 9:22 amhippocrates says:
Poor conservatives. The liberal media was always out to get them, and now the conservative media is out to get them too….
January 28, 2010, 9:30 am1040 says:
having not tripped the moderation filter of prof. kerr, i can’t say what his boundaries are, but it is his and prof. volokh’s posts on this blog that i find informative, serious and thought-provoking even when i disagree with them. also thanks to the other posters for the belly laughs they provide with their posts.
January 28, 2010, 9:33 amEric S. says:
Pretty amazing to see this post directly above a post wherein OK dishes out some weak snark to HoustonLawyer for expressing a fairly common (if perhaps misguided though I take no position) sentiment.
Get lost on the way to Redstate? Really?
January 28, 2010, 9:52 amSteve says:
Anyone who complains about Prof. Kerr’s “moderation bias” but has nothing to say about Prof. Bernstein’s far more egregious lack of balance in moderation isn’t truly concerned about unfair moderation; they just don’t like that their ox is being gored.
January 28, 2010, 9:58 amSarcastro says:
Yes, Eric S. A post discussing the President’s rage against those who disagree with him based on his disapproval of a Court case in the SOTU deserves no snark at all! Clearly the President’s rage was picked up by his speech writers and focus groups!
January 28, 2010, 10:03 amarch1 says:
Having seen flame wars since Arpanet days I sincerely appreciate the moderation on this blog (on the part of conspirators and commenters).
January 28, 2010, 10:19 amMartha says:
Mr. Kerr, I greatly appreciate your deleting the insult-filled ad hominem attacks. I certainly have read a wide variety of viewpoints here in the VC commentary. If your goal really were viewpoint discrimination, I suspect you’d do a better job of slanting the comments.
It’s the generally intelligent discussion here that keeps me coming back. Thank you for making it possible.
January 28, 2010, 10:21 amPaul Horwitz says:
Orin, this is exactly the kind of policy I would expect from a misbegotten, funny-looking pile of donkey excrement who still hasn’t mastered the Bluebook.
P.S.: We still on for dinner tonight?
January 28, 2010, 10:51 amEric Rasmusen says:
Snark is good; rudeness is not. Stupidity wastes the reader’s time, even tho it is not morally culpable. Do keep moderating without guilt; I’d like even tougher moderation. Treat this like an unbiased newspaper’s letters to the editor column and think about your readers, not your commentors, please.
Do remember that witty invective and strong criticism is desirable. But wit is completely lacking in most comments.
January 28, 2010, 11:07 ampreviously banned says:
Orin,
You need to get over yourself.
Two things: the poster was not criticizing you for being “fair”. S/he was criticizing you for _pretending_ to be fair, for divvying the world up into “red” and “blue” camps, trying to plonk yourself in the middle and then believing that that makes you fair.
Second, you once deleted a comment because it said “c’mon, Orin”. You said that was “uncivil.” That’s bullshit. You quite obviously just delete things sometimes because you don’t like them. Why the pretense that you do so on “civility” grounds. I gather that that is what the poster above was irked about: you pretending to be fair.
You’re right, it’s a big internets out there and you (as per EV) can delete whatever you want. Just like I can post from proxies so that I can never be banned – unless EV decides to seriously ramp up the security wall to keep folks like me out.
January 28, 2010, 11:14 amPeteP says:
I also find that Prof Kerr, unlike the other current bloggers here, is too quick to pull the trigger and delete posts, especially based on trivial criteria like ‘he used the word ‘idiot’. That’s pretty lame. I could think of quite a number of words that would be inappropriate here, but ‘idiot’ does not make the list.
The only other blogger who was as quick to delete posts that I’m aware of is the recently departed Posner.
Although I’m sure EV does not wish to be placed in the position of ‘playground monitor’ ( and understandably so ), it would be nice if there were some kind of standard.
Orin – IMO, you are inconsistent in your deletion criteria, and they are not always based on any perceptable rational standard.
I still can’t believe you thought a recent post on one of your threads ( I suspect you may recall it ) that rather pornographically discussed women partaking in certain activities wih dead horses ( yes, truly, that was the post. I am not making this up ) was worthy of being left alone, while a question avbout ‘Do gay rigths extend to teachers cross-dressing in the clasroom ?’ ( the topic of the blog was gay rights ) was deletable.
I believe you often cancel posts based on ‘something or someone just happened to rub you the wrong way at the moment’ rather than any reasonable concern for the quality of the dialog here.
Thus endeth my two cents on the subject.
January 28, 2010, 11:15 amkrs says:
Moderating comments takes a lot of time, as far as I know…
If you’re to the point of arguing about the nuances and subtle biases inherent in a blogger’s moderation, you shouldn’t complain at all.
It’s not as if Prof. Kerr is censoring legitimate criticism or deleting only conservative comments. “Trying too hard to appear fair” is a pretty weak criticism of a moderation policy. Among the conspirators, I think Prof. Kerr probably puts in the most work toward inviting high quality comments. He responds to comments directly and substantively and allows a lot of heated comments from others.
fwiw, I completely agree with the criticism of Justice Kennedy in “GayDude”‘s comment, but see no basis for projecting it onto the blog.
January 28, 2010, 11:57 amDesiderius says:
Steve Jobs,
“Like it or not, the perception is that you come down harder on conservative commenters who snark (or are nasty) than liberal commenters who are equally snarky (or nasty). It appears to me that you’re overcompensating for your conservative cred by bending over backwards to be “fair” to obnoxious liberal commenters — resulting in a pattern of moderation that is anything but fair.”
The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. OK’s indifference to lefty comments in general, not just those that go over the line, is no evidence of his favor. Kaus is harder on the Left for similar reasons. There is great value in reflection and self-criticism, and great danger in forgoing it entirely to pay attention only to one’s putative “enemies,” and their myriad flaws, however evident.
That said, I think OK attempts above all, and nearly without fail, to be judicial in his moderation, and posting, whereas EV is more of a Free Spirit.
January 28, 2010, 12:03 pmneurodoc says:
Leo Marvin, you have impressed me as notably reasonable and civil while advocating your positions. So, I was at lost to imagine what you might have said the other day that caused OK to take down your comment. Did you lose it for no apparent reason and say something truly ugly? Perhaps out of fairness the moderator should give some indication of why a comment was taken down, e.g., “obscene,” “ad hominem,” etc.
Michele Rhee, head of the DC school system, got herself in trouble recently by saying in an interview that she let 266 teachers with seniority go for various reasons, including that some of them had had sex with children. That ignited a firestorm, rightly so I think, since first it begged the question of whether the police were informed of those instances, and second it tainted all 266. Turns out that Rhee “misspoke,” there were no instances of teachers who had had sex with children among the 266 who were let go by the school system. Taking down a comment is not nearly so serious, but an explanation of some sort is warranted, I think. (And yes, I have a very personal perspective on this here.)
Also, it is my impression that OK is far, far quicker to take down a post than any other VCer save for David Bernstein, who is regularly attacked in the most personal terms and attracts ugly responses from the anti-Israel crowd. Indeed, I’m not sure when I have seen other VCers take down comments except when EV took down whacko ones by someone with a really weird nom de plume who kept returning despite efforts to block his posts.
January 28, 2010, 12:06 pmR. Nebblesworth says:
I also find OK’s comment moderation deplorable. Therefore, I demand my money back.
January 28, 2010, 12:19 pmShelbyC says:
Well, given your reputation for incivility…
January 28, 2010, 12:20 pmneurodoc says:
The is not the first time that OK has said something about the way he approached moderation. In a previous post some time back, he observed that something like 50% of those whose posts he had taken down professed to be clueless as to why he saw fit to take down the post. I am one of those 50%, and just marvel at OK’s certainty that he is right and the other party is wrong. Moreover, OK undertook the moderating on another VCer’s (DB) thread, which seemed a bit presumptious.
January 28, 2010, 12:20 pmShelbyC says:
Geez Orin, of course you’re hopelessly biased. I saw you had a whole post recently about horrible and dishonest the debating tactics of the folks you disagreed with were. And this clearly can’t be true, because it’s really the folks I disagree with that are horrible and dishonest, and you and I don’t always agree.
But thanks for taking your time for providing free, interesting content, and for doing your best at comment moderation. Maybe anybody that doesn’t like it can start their own blog and do better.
January 28, 2010, 12:27 pmDilan Esper says:
Professor kerr and I have our own history in these comments threads, but most sites could only wish for the type of intense involvement that he has with his commenters (remember, the man is a full time law professor AND also practices law on occasion).
He’s earned the right to maintain any comments deletion policy he wishes to or to criticize any commentee he feels is being unconstructive.
January 28, 2010, 12:47 pmLTR says:
I like Kerr but a lifetime of being the resident conservative-ish academic is hurting him. He should take a leave of absence from GWU and hike the Appalachian Trail or something to reconnect with the red-blooded male in him. And no, this is not a suggestion that he needs a mistress from Argentina, I’m serious about spending some time outdoors, shooting something, talking with West Virginia truck drivers and such. Then he can come back and ban some liberals.
January 28, 2010, 12:53 pmzuch says:
Oh, indeed. It’s not an argument at all. It just proffers an opinion indirectly without substantiation (but at least with, hopefully, a modicum of humour). 8^P
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 12:54 pmKen Braithwaite says:
It seems to me that Kerr has missed his point. He’s not accusing Kerr of being fair; he’s accusing Kerr of pretending to be fair, and cites as an example an asymmetry.
I don’t know if he’s right, but I do think Kerr has missed his point in this instance.
January 28, 2010, 12:57 pmDimitri says:
Orin,
It seems to me that Dude is not criticizing your desire to be fair, rather, he is criticizing your approach to fairness.
January 28, 2010, 1:04 pmJ. Aldridge says:
You are also against people attacking incorporation, or pointing out the factual flaws of incorporation.
January 28, 2010, 1:06 pmzuch says:
I think Prof. Kerr already covered that subject here.
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 1:08 pmCrazyTrain says:
Orin is against Bingham.
January 28, 2010, 1:22 pmCrazyTrain says:
Also, Orin Kerr has long been an apologist for those who disagree with me.
January 28, 2010, 1:25 pmGreg McNeal says:
Wow, of all the law profs out there I’d never think of Orin as qualifying for “not being loved enough by others in [his] field.” The commenter may be entitled to their opinion, but on the facts I think they are off base. Who doesn’t love OKerr? The dude practically has a Facebook Fan Page.
January 28, 2010, 1:43 pmCrunchy Frog says:
What’s wrong with mistresses from Argentina?
I have been on the receiving end of one of OK’s deletions, that I thought was not merited, but I chalked it up to him having a bad day, and my not having settled my beer debt.
The revelation that it’s keyword triggered explains a lot. I’ve seen plenty of flames prettied up in lawyerese (and been on the receiving end of a few) pass without comment.
This is nothing but rank discrimination against us plain-speaking folk. I demand programs!
January 28, 2010, 1:47 pmBuddy Hinton says:
It is a two way street. Professor Kerr can sometimes help us be careful when we are trying to divine his mincing words on collateral matters to determine his heartfelt opinions on real matters of substance — this is not something we should NOT undertake lightly or without heavy qualifications or without real awareness that we might be wrong. Professor Kerr has taught me that and it is indeed a good lesson.
OTOH, we help Professor Kerr by being patient with him as he comes up to a reasonable level of toleration of the opinions of others. This can be a tricky business. Professors hate being lectured to, but that is one of the main reasons that internet blogs with open comments is the best method of pedgogical communication that has yet been devised by the mind of humankind. On this sort of blog, one’s words must be judged by their rhetorical force and cannot be judged by one’s status. That new & exciting development is seriously blowing of any correctly oriented mind. I can only imagine how much better the Federalist Papers would be if they had the Net then.
January 28, 2010, 2:01 pmBuddy Hinton says:
– is something we should NOT undertake lightly–
January 28, 2010, 2:06 pmvc addict says:
I’m sorry to name names, but this partisan hackery is exactly why the usually excellent VC comments section corrodes into name-calling and unpleasantness. (Cringe-worthy comments of “conservative” blowhards are equally to blame.) Such posters are certainly not going to impress anyone, change anyone’s opinions, or prove anything except that they have a lack of better things to do.
Professor Kerr, please keep your posts coming!
January 28, 2010, 2:15 pmRowerinVA says:
Orin Kerr, I’ve got a request. Never having had a comment here removed, myself (how boring must I be!) I have no idea what your removed comments look like. Would you mind posting a selection of, say, 50 of them, chosen at random (so that you aren’t charged with selection bias), so the rest of us can see some of what you are seeing? I’m not interested in whether you have a bias — I don’t know what kind you might have but I don’t much care, as everyone has priors/biases and hey, it’s your blog, ban anything you want for all I care. But I’m very interested in seeing what a representative sample of banned comments looks like on this site. It seems that a lot of vituperative stuff gets through, so it would be interesting to see what doesn’t. Remove the commenters’ names or not, makes no difference to me. I’m just interested in seeing the content.
As to anyone whining about being banned, pshaw. This site isn’t a public utility. Being denied posting access to 1/10(100th power) of the Internet isn’t much of an injury.
January 28, 2010, 2:27 pmzuch says:
Thread winner?
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 2:28 pmS says:
I am at a loss to understand how Gaydude’s response had anything to do with the deleting of an ‘obnoxious and personal attack’ that he made. Such comments should continue to be deleted.
January 28, 2010, 2:35 pmzippypinhead says:
Wow, even though I find Professor Kerr’s and Volokh’s moderated comment threads to be among a relatively few in the blogsphere that are worth reading, I now see I’ve been missing the point! Takeaway lessons:
1. The real problem that leads to getting banned around here isn’t gross incivility or mindless stupidity, it’s simple over-reliance on lowbrow Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. Major blunder for the moderator to admit “I generally don’t bother to read the comments that I moderate. I mostly just skim for words like “idiot,” “moron,” etc., that jump out as obviously way over the line.” Want to skewer somebody with impunity on VC but only got a 450 on your SAT verbal score? Just use Shakspearian insults that don’t get caught in Professor Kerr’s rudimentary filtering applet, with the help of some very useful Internet aids, such as those found HERE and HERE.
2. Regarding the quote in #1, above: Professor Kerr, “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.” (with apologies to William F. Buckley) – or to put it differently, we all know you’re lying when you say you don’t read the comments. You post entirely too many thoughtful, substantive responses to the comment threads following your posts. Yet another reason your comment threads are worth reading…
Illigitimi non carborundum
January 28, 2010, 2:39 pmlucia says:
Orin–
Your moderation policy is fine.
Everyone has theories about what constitutes perfect moderation, but perfect moderation is a practical impossibility. If the blogger is busy, letting comments appear and scanning for invective is a good method. (A plugin that blocks terms like “moron” etc. can be useful in this regard, but I haven’t found a good one and I don’t want to write one.)
Sometimes you have to ban people. They won’t love you for it. Oh well.
For what it’s worth, I like your posts. I like your moderation.
January 28, 2010, 2:46 pmhattio says:
Haven’t read the entire thread, but would like to point out something Prof. Kerr said (and others have mentioned).
This is really what I see happening. There are more conservative commenters than liberal, and seem to also be more conservative commenters who are over the top. Not that most conservative commenters are over the top (or that there are no over the top liberal commenters). Just that given that there are more conservative commenters in general, more are going to cross the line. Also, waaaay more conservative commenters seem to assume the site in general, and Professor Kerr and Volokh in particular are flaming liberals.
January 28, 2010, 2:49 pmDoug InSanDiego says:
Ha ha ha ha ha! David, you SLAY me!
But, seriously – letting loose with such a Letterman-esque comment this early in the AM is NOT very courteous. Perhaps you recall the early mixed media film “Roger Rabbit”, in which the bad guys dies from excessive laughing. Well, I encourage you to think twice before making such statements lest people from coast to coast pile up in the morgues like firewood in New Hampshire.
January 28, 2010, 2:59 pmA.S. says:
I’ll add an anecdote from my experience with Orin’s moderating – way back several (3-4) years ago when we were all talking about the extent to which Article II justifies the Bush Administration’s policies, Orin was very skeptical of the claims made by Bush Administration defenders. I found the claims much more persuasive than Orin did, and left comments to that effect on several of Orin’s posts about Article II. The comments did not use any of the words mentioned above – there was no name calling, no use of “moron” or “idiot” or any other harsh words, and no real intereaction with other commenters. Just a plain old substantive defense of my (right-wing, to be sure) position and reasons why Orin’s position on Article II didn’t seem right – at least, that’s how I viewed it. Orin wrote to me claiming that my “tone” was “agressive and dismissive”, and asking me to use my real name or stop commenting on his threads (I am still baffled what real names have to do with anything – the vast majority of commenters don’t use their real names). I thought it overly sensitive to ask a commenter to stop commenting based on “tone”, but, hey, it’s his blog. So I stopped commenting on his threads (until this one). Take the anecdote FWIW in respect of this conversation (I’ll add that I think that a right-wing blogger ought to police right wingers more harshly than left-wingers, simply to try to avoid an echo chamber, so perhaps that’s what Orin was doing in my case).
I’ll now go back to lurking on his threads.
January 28, 2010, 3:53 pmDaniel Chapman says:
I, for one, would like to see much heavier moderation. Generally, if a thread goes to over 25 posts on this site, it means half of them are from the same 3 or 4 people and 80% of them are worthless. I think snark should not be tolerated… I can go other places for insults and humor.
I enjoy reading the comments here because MOST OF THE TIME there is at least one or two commentators who know something about the subject that adds depth or substance to the post. Unfortunately you have to wade through 100 comments of crap to find them.
I also firmly believe that there are times when Volokh.com is linked to from left-wing blogs and we get drive-by trolls. I fully support a comment registration system that does not allow immediate anonymous commenting.
January 28, 2010, 4:06 pmShelbyC says:
You weren’t making fun of his clothing, were you?
January 28, 2010, 4:13 pmleo marvin says:
The only such deletion I know of was on last night’s thread that precipitated this one. If you’re aware of another, please let me know. Anyway, my comment wasn’t uncivil, but it was off topic, and leaving it up might have derailed the thread. I’m fine with it being taken down.
January 28, 2010, 4:35 pmgeokstr says:
We are in complete agreement on that.
I asked you a whole lot of times back when you were commenting here regularly what side of the political divide you were on, given that you claimed to not be on the left, but always took the left’s side and bashed the right. You didn’t bother to respond.
Thanks for finally being honest.
January 28, 2010, 4:57 pmwfjag says:
I call Roman [brown] nosing. Besides, I prefer more modern philsophers:
January 28, 2010, 5:13 pmneurodoc says:
So, how about “deleted because OT,” so the impression wouldn’t be left that leo marvin transgressed rather than just wandered. (Not jumping up here to cover your back, really did wonder what it was all about.)
January 28, 2010, 5:34 pmOrin Kerr says:
So, how about “deleted because OT,” so the impression wouldn’t be left that leo marvin transgressed rather than just wandered.
The problem is time. I’m already spending my free time blogging, spending my free time moderating comments, and spending my free time responding to comments. Taking the extra free time to explain to each anonymous commenter as to why their comments were deleted — which of course goes with the inevitable follow-up exchange and discussion as to whether that reason was really justified, whether another comment should have also been deleted for the same reason, and what the true standards are off-topic comments — is something no normal human being would volunteer to do.
More broadly, I assume our commenters are mature enough to understand that off-topic comments can be deleted because they are off-topic without needing a personalized message informing them of that.
January 28, 2010, 6:29 pmGlenn Bowen says:
Orin has deleted some of my posts in the past because I chose to highlight my quotes in bold type.
Ya can’t make this stuff up.
January 28, 2010, 8:07 pmGlen says:
Since this is becoming a “pile-on Orin Kerr” thread, I’ll add my two cents:
I find Prof. Kerr to be intellectually timid.
Whether this manifests itself in a tendency to appear “even-handed,” or a predisposition to support and defend “establishment” perspectives, or an occasionally (welcome) opinionated outburst from which he quickly retreats, Prof. Kerr rarely breaks new ground on any subject. I certainly have little or no information about his personal situation, and acknowledge that there may be many good reasons why he can appear to be a toady. I just know that this isn’t what I look for when I come to the Volokh Conspiracy. There are a multitude of other sources — from the New York Times to scotusblog — where I can find the conventional wisdom.
I also understand that personal attacks are not pleasant to receive, and while I realize that this will likely be viewed as one, I nonetheless urge Prof. Kerr to consider it as constructive criticism. He is a frequent poster and moderator on a public opinion forum. That puts him in the public view, much like journalists and politicians. And like with journalists and politicians, it is reasonable to expect the public to respond critically when he expresses his opinions.
January 28, 2010, 8:42 pmDaniel Chapman says:
“Prof. Kerr rarely breaks new ground on any subject.”
Obviously never read any of his posts relating to technology and the 4th Amendment, have you?
January 28, 2010, 8:48 pmleo marvin says:
Could you give a more specific example of that timidity than the tendencies and predispositions you mentioned, and maybe suggest how someone who isn’t so timid would have handled it?
January 28, 2010, 9:09 pmDan Greenberg says:
The only thing I have to say about Orin Kerr is that I once emailed him a fairly complex question about law and public policy and I was impressed with the rapidity and depth of his response. I don’t know a lot of other people who have clerked for the Supreme Court who are willing to serve as unpaid research assistants. I am grateful for his posts and for his wisdom. I don’t really care if it’s his deletion policy to eliminate all posts and only posts that contain a ‘q’ in the first sentence, and I can’t really imagine why anyone else would get all het up about deletion policies.
In any event, I think Eugene V. once nailed it when he noted that he was puzzled by people who seemed to think that they had some kind of moral right to tell him what he should do on his blog. He went on to say that attending to the desires of others on his blog would start to look a whole lot more like work — and we all know what is usually required in exchange for work.
January 28, 2010, 10:04 pmhippo says:
Steve Jobs nailed it.
And Orin’s attack of Houston Lawyer in the previous thread was bizarre.
January 28, 2010, 10:46 pmhippo says:
I don’t find comment moderation helpful. I did use and like the greasemonkey
January 28, 2010, 11:07 pmscript which enabled ignoring commenters.
Glen says:
I had no reason to expect that my comment wouldn’t generate responses, but other than this clarification, I don’t see any value in continuing this discussion. We’re not a tenure committee passing on his qualifications for promotion.
On the other hand, I also find myself disinclined to comment on Prof. Kerr’s posts, mostly because of what I perceive to be his tendency to use an “out-of-the mainstream” or “fringe position” argument when responding to criticism. He’s of course not alone in this behavior, but I’m not following the Volokh Conspiracy to keep current on the conventional wisdom.
No doubt Prof. Kerr is one of the leading academic experts in this field. But like so much scholarship in the academy these days, I find it incremental rather than revolutionary. And I see him more as a commenter and chronicler rather than as a thought leader, e.g., one who materially advances the state of the art. I certainly haven’t conducted an exhaustive review of his work, so my opinion is just that — an opinion, and an anecdotal lay one at that. For example, is his work cited often in significant appellate decisions? I don’t know, but I’d see that as a contrary indicator.
One recent example that comes to mind was the mild controversy that erupted a few months ago when he criticized the plaintiff’s brief in McDonald v Chicago. Randy Barnett (and several commenters) took some exception with his dismissal of Alan Gura’s Privileges or Immunities argument. He’s of course entitled to his opinion — but rather than stick to his guns, I saw him retreat and narrow his argument on increasingly technical grounds. If he honestly thought that the P or I argument was on the fringe and that the Supreme Court would reject it out of hand, I would have preferred that he say so. And have been willing to accept criticism of that position and the thought processes that led to it.
January 28, 2010, 11:18 pmleo marvin says:
I only read a couple of threads, but from what I recall Orin didn’t criticize the plaintiff’s brief. He just predicted the Privileges or Immunities argument was unlikely to get 5 votes. And most of his responses to others amounted to dissociating himself from arguments he had never made. Nonetheless, like I said, I stopped reading after a couple of threads, so I may have missed the backtracking you describe. (Does admitting that make me intellectually timid?)
January 29, 2010, 12:43 amKirk Lazarus says:
You’d have to be a moron to delete posts just because they use the word “idiot”.
January 29, 2010, 3:10 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » An Exchange on Comment Moderating -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by tim gier, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: An Exchange on Comment Moderating: A few minutes ago I deleted a comment from a conservative commenter, “Gaydude,… http://bit.ly/dlX8fA [...]
January 29, 2010, 8:45 amOrin Kerr says:
Glen,
What’s the difference between intellectual timidity and intellectual modesty?
I do go out of my way not to be the kind of blowhard who mouths off about all sorts of things he doesn’t really understand and makes grand claims that he can’t really support. Such folks are a dime-a-dozen on the Internet. I understand that some people might my different approach “timid,” and not sufficiently “revolutionary.” But I’m not a revolutionary type, so that’s just a matter of preference; if you are looking for radicalism or a revolution, I’m not the right person for you.
As for my blogging on McDonald, I don’t think I have retreated on anything, off the top of my head. Can you point to the alleged “retreat” you think I made? I’m interested in part because Alan Gura has called on me to stop making “ceaseless attacks” on his case (his phrase); if I am both timid and retreating to you and on a campaign of ceaseless attacks to Alan, that would be a good trick.
January 29, 2010, 12:48 pmChris Travers says:
First, I think Orin has been very fair in the way he has moderated.
Moderating is a tough job especially where political discussions are involved. Yet it is one of that makes this board so useful for the community.
I also think it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain an image of being perfectly even-handed in this sort of thing. Moderation by its inherent nature always looks arbitrary, biased, and so forth to those who are out of line.
Keep up the good work!
January 29, 2010, 5:41 pmMark Field says:
What I find remarkable is that so many people are able to read Prof. Kerr’s mind, yet still manage to violate the commenting standards.
January 29, 2010, 7:35 pmChrisTS says:
Glen:
I’m sure all the VCers are glad to learn what you don’t like to read on their blog. You have 2 real alternatives: 1) do not read the posts of those whose efforts displease you, or 2) go somewhere else.
January 29, 2010, 8:11 pm