update to comment policy

speech bubbles

You can read the comment policy in full here, but I’ve updated it today. The basic ground rules are as follows:

  • no ad hominem, meaning don’t attack someone– in the comments, me, a character in the post.
  • no rape apologia. Ever.
  • no threats of any kind. Ever.
  • if your comment is a threat or rape apologia, you are instantly banned.
  • corollary: nothing that makes me or my readers feel unsafe. I get to decide what that means, although if someone is making you feel unsafe and I haven’t stepped in, please let me know and I will do whatever necessary to correct that.
  • Second corollary: this blog is a safe space for everyone, but especially marginalized groups. I believe in allowing everyone to have a voice and to have the ability to share opinions I disagree with, so I will tolerate sexism, racism, cissexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, and abelism to a degree. However, if your comments, over time, demonstrate a continued and persistent use of any of these, I reserve the right to ban you.

And now, the update: I will no longer publish comments that include links unless those links are directly related to the post and contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

I very rarely have problems, but I have the comment policy in place so that I can effectively deal with problems when they happen. I don’t believe that completely un-moderated spaces are safe or productive– and I think most (if not all) of you agree.

Carry on!

Previous Post Next Post

You Might Also Like

  • I agree with your policy of not attacking people, but I think you are using “ad hominem” here to mean “insult”, and that’s not what it means. An Argument Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that is directed at the characteristics of the person doing the arguing rather than the argument itself, and does not have to be insulting to be fallacious. It is characterized as a Fallacy of Irrelevancy because personal characteristics of the arguer, whether positive, negative, or neutral, have nothing to do with the validity of the argument being made.

    Not all insults and attacks are made in the context of refuting an argument, and therefore can’t all be characterized as “ad hominems”. I realize it has become a common use of the term, but I think that is largely because people don’t get that arguments ad hominem aren’t bad arguments because they are insulting, they are bad arguments because they don’t prove anything.

    • Well, I did teach 2 years of compositional rhetoric, so I think I know my way around what ad hominem means. If you read my full comment policy, I think you’ll see that I said pretty much all of this.