A New Venture -- OrinKerr.com:
I've decided to experiment with a new blog. Starting today, I am splitting my time between the Volokh Conspiracy and a new solo blog, OrinKerr.com. I imagine the new blog as a kind of "lawyer’s lawyer" blog; all of the posts will be about the law, with an emphasis on current legal debates and a broader perspective on the legal academy and the legal profession. I'll continue to blog here at the VC about general topics, but my legal posts normally will appear only at the solo blog.
In case you're wondering, I'm trying this experiment for two reasons. First, I find myself increasingly drawn to more legal and less political blogging topics, and I'm not sure I like the juxtaposition of the two that is common at the VC. I gather lots of readers like the combination — the VC's sitemeter stats are proof enough — but for a range of reasons I'm interested in creating a sharper divide between the two. The new blog will have a much smaller readership than the VC, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Second, starting a new blog will let me try a new approach to comments. At the new blog, most comments will be by invitation only. I explain the details in my first post, but the idea is to promote comments by a specific group of legal experts and commenters rather the general public. This isn't very populist of me, I realize, but I think it fits the focus of the new blog: Comments can add tremendous value to a blog post, but legal experts and informed commenters tend to add the most value to blog posts about the law. Of course, my posts here at the VC will continue to be open to all.
Anyway, the plan is to try the new blog for a month or two and see if I enjoy posting there. If it doesn't work out, I'll fold up shop and post exclusively at the VC.
Comments here are enabled (naturally, please keep it civil).
In case you're wondering, I'm trying this experiment for two reasons. First, I find myself increasingly drawn to more legal and less political blogging topics, and I'm not sure I like the juxtaposition of the two that is common at the VC. I gather lots of readers like the combination — the VC's sitemeter stats are proof enough — but for a range of reasons I'm interested in creating a sharper divide between the two. The new blog will have a much smaller readership than the VC, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Second, starting a new blog will let me try a new approach to comments. At the new blog, most comments will be by invitation only. I explain the details in my first post, but the idea is to promote comments by a specific group of legal experts and commenters rather the general public. This isn't very populist of me, I realize, but I think it fits the focus of the new blog: Comments can add tremendous value to a blog post, but legal experts and informed commenters tend to add the most value to blog posts about the law. Of course, my posts here at the VC will continue to be open to all.
Anyway, the plan is to try the new blog for a month or two and see if I enjoy posting there. If it doesn't work out, I'll fold up shop and post exclusively at the VC.
Comments here are enabled (naturally, please keep it civil).
Related Posts (on one page):
- Just A Reminder:
- Good Luck to Orin:
- Curse you Orin Kerr!!
- A New Venture -- OrinKerr.com:
Best wishes.
Your new site's rules will ensure that only feedback meeting your standards appears. But it may also ensure that some worthy feedback is not delivered at all because some people will not go to the trouble of composing comments unless they are assured they will appear, an assurance they do not have since they do not know whether you will approve their comments.
The new site's restrictions on posting of comments also sacrrifices the educational impact of give and take between those who are informed and intelligent and those who are less so. Some of the best posts I've read have been responses to the questions and claims of the ill-informed and even to ill-considered statements. I guess I'm saying that back and forth dialogue does have some advantages even when some of the participants are not up to snuff.
Of course it's your time and effort to spend as you see fit. I hope it works out for you.
I have said before that you are one of the primary reasons I read the VC, along with the ensuing conversations. My main fear with your new blog is that your moderation policy might be too constricting, and perhaps overwhelming to you if you must review and approve every submission by uninvited participants. But if you can make it work, or find a more manageable alternative which gives you a sufficient check against trolls and other abuse, then I will hope to be a regular reader and possible participant (if welcome).
Very good points about making sure comments aren't too restrictive. My hope is to find the right balance, and I'll see if what I'm imagining is workable. If it doesn't work, I'll ditch the plan and try something else.
Orin, you got my email addy. Live dangerously LOL.
Anyways, I definatly recommend Word Press, its made it really easy to Blog.
- Porte Venn
Seriously though, good luck with your experiment. I am not sure about the wisdom of trying to separate Politics from Law thought. It seems like the vain effort of trying to separate Philosophy from Science. I could be wrong though. Experiment on brother!
:-)
Our legal system is politics ... one cannot alter the contents by merely changing the label on the bottle.
Sounds like you are planning something like the "friends list" which is found on live journal. So instead of being a public bar it would be more of a private club, where the procedings are televised (to stretch a metaphor). I like this system, since it makes for a more civilized conversational enviroment.
Concerns of course is that the blog discussions will develop tunnel-vision or group think. I hope that you invite people who oppose your points of view, but likewise can discuss the issue in a well reasoned and polite context.
I noticed on one bb, where instead of it being invitation only, it was a combination of registered users and very heavy moderation, they managaed to keep the discussion civilized in a political forum. Once the name calling posters were eliminated, and everyone was forced to talk in a reasoned manner, issues could be discussed. Of course that forum went in a conservative/libertarian direction, as the people who hadn't learned to really argue were excluded.
good luck
Although I don't often agree with you, you're the only blogger on the VC whose posts consistently offer civil and informed discourse rather than what often seems like little more than partisan ranting. I'm looking forward to the new site where it sounds like it'll still be possible to read and engage your views. I don't know how you manage to post so often and so well (on top of everything else you do) but I'm excited about a new location for said posts.
More like Ricky Martin leaving Menudo.
The menudo reference was wonderful.
Good luck!
I wish you the best in your solo endeavor. I will certainly read your new blog, though, not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to post. I hope you will continue posting some of your analysis here about particular recent events, like the NSA program, for comments. Though I do not always agree, your analyses are always well written, clear and easy to understand. Your writing style encourages thoughts from both sides of an issue.
Keep on keeping on. Good luck.
One caveat, however: Going to a moderation queue format like that, you may want to install a Turing code filter. Sifting through 40-50 spams every couple of hours, just to review a couple of genuine comments, can quickly become maddening.