Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Comment on Comments (Part Two)

Update, 12:30 p.m.: Scanning through the comments, there are several posters who seem to suggest that the ban on a commenter was motivated by partisanship. Far from it. We have always -- and will always -- welcome comments from across the ideological spectrum. It's part of what makes the Fix fun for us and, we hope, for you. What we will not stand for is name-calling and other vulgarities that have no place in civil discourse. If others in the comments section violate this most basic of rules in the future, we will ban them as well -- regardless of their partisan leanings.

Original Post
Yesterday, after consultation with our editor, we took the unfortunate step of banning a commenter on the Fix due to a series of remarks that violated our previous warning to avoid engaging in personal attacks against other posters.

This is not something we wanted to do or enjoyed doing but, as we have said repeatedly, we are committed to making the Fix a thriving online community. Those who name-call and otherwise slander other commenters are not the sort of citizens we want in the Fix community.

We know -- trust us, we know -- that politics arouses tremendous passion in people. That passion is at the heart of the Fix's mission. Our goal is to bring political junkies together and provide each and every one of you a forum to discuss the issues of the day. A free-flowing discussion can't happen if a few people -- you know who you are -- are simply shouting at one another.

Our goal over the coming months on the Fix is to use technology and other means to make the comments section a robust conversation for a variety of voices. But, as always, the best way to ensure civil dialogue is to be civil to one another.

Thanks in advance for your help, cooperation and commitment to this blog.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 18, 2009; 10:41 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Rust Belt Revival
Next: 1,000 Words

Comments

No way . . . you banned chrisfox and left zouk here? Wow. Oh, ok, as a second thought, after zouk punches you in the nose a half dozen times in this very posting, you'll suddenly notice that he is rude and you ought to nuke him. Having failed to note that before. Very just. Very even handed.

You won't tolerate thread jacking, and scrivner is still allowed? And jaked?

And you aren't bothered by jaked's sly encouragement of killing abortion doctors, among other atrocities? OK. Again: wow.

Tsk. CC, I'd like to applaud your move, but please, read your own darn blog if you are going to presume to police it, will you? Or get an unpaid intern or something to do it for you? You haven't a clue what goes on here in your own house. Authority exercised arbitrarily is never respected.

I still vote for an "ignore this commenter" option. You may not know who the dogs are, but your readers do.

Posted by: nodebris | August 24, 2009 1:45 AM | Report abuse

thanks Chris, for the update on the banning. I have enjoyed some civil discourse at times in the comments, but for the most part it's been a chore having to scroll through the comments to find some that aren't full of insults and inane name calling. But I do have to agree that chrisfox was totally baited, however like in school, or a bar fight, both sides have to be barred, no matter who instigated the fight. I just hope that the barring applies to all comment sections in wapo, cause I've seen JakeD on others, and it's the same insults and heated rhetoric, and reports of abuse don't seem to do much.

Posted by: katem1 | August 21, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

rawreid wrote:
"Can't wait to see how 'civil' and boring this blog is going to become. And whoa, looking forward to all the enlightened and erudite conversations we will now have."
_________________________

Apparently it's entertainment and relief from boredom you seek here instead of engaging in those tiresome "enlightened and erudite conversations" among persons interested in civil discourse. Fine, it's a free country, and you've as much right to comment here as others, including me. But I'm forced to wonder: are you no longer getting a sufficient "spew fix" from listening to Rush?? Seems to me that most of his commentary constitutes a prime enlightenment-and-erudition-free entertainment zone . . .

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | August 19, 2009 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Daddy! Daddy! Bobby hit me.
Mommy! Mommy! Juney just called me a name.
How childish you all are. Noone would have been banned if a lot of you guys had not complained.

Can't wait to see how 'civil' and boring this blog is going to become. And whoa, looking forward to all the enlightened and erudite conversations we will now have.

Posted by: rawreid | August 19, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I take a vacation (including a vacation from the internet, thank God) and find that Cillizza has bumped an intemperate commenter from the site. Not knowing the details, it occurs to me that concerns about freedom of expression are not irrelevant. But I'll be honest in saying that my first reaction is "ABOUT TIME!" Good riddance to person(s) who can't behave like grownups. Lack of civility and disregard for the truth are not the same thing, but isn't it amazing how often one finds them in the same comment and coming from all-too-predictable sources?

Vigorous debate?? Bring it on! Politics is a contact sport, after all, and discussions about sex, politics, and religion are BOUND to generate more heat than light.

Rationale discourse, what a concept!

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | August 19, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Now we are going to have "ban baiting"

Posted by: JRM2 | August 19, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

an eye for an eye

Posted by: JRM2 | August 19, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"..please take a civics class and learn what
Free Speech" actually means.

Posted by: newagent99 | August 18, 2009 4:35 PM | "
------
I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, it means showing up armed at a town hall meeting the topic of which is to discuss Health Care Reform and shouting misinformation at the top of my lungs so no one can have any discourse.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 19, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I think people should try to be as civil as possible in all aspects of life, not merely when participating in an online discussion. That said, I am almost always opposed to censorship, which seems incompatible with a society that ostensibly preaches the virtues of individual freedom.

Chris, my main question though is if personal verbal criticisms and "slander" are to be banned in comments to your blog, shouldn't politicians be restricted in their use, hardly uncommon, of personal verbal criticisms and "slander" against other persons? To go further along this path, people in town hall meetings should not be allowed, using this "logic," to articulate strong personal criticisms of politicians. Censorship of online discussions, in my humble opinion, seems to be the effect of reenacting the Sedition act of the John Adams administration.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | August 19, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

@optimyst - Come on in! The water's warm.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, wrong thread.

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

According to local polling data, Sen. Boxer rarely gets approval ratings above 50 percent:

"Boxer could face re-election fight of her career against Fiorina"

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13095441?nclick_check=1

Posted by: JakeD | August 19, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Is it safe to get in the water again?

Posted by: optimyst | August 19, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I should correct my earlier post: ChrisFox8 often had worthwhile posts and was not relentlessly hostile to nearly everyone here. KOZ was. Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by: dbitt | August 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Banning a poster is a step that any publisher or blogger wouldn't undertake lightly. Issues of free speech aside (and note, that right is FAR from unlimited!), it can have a chilling effect on discourse.

In this case, the poster(s) in question were rude, disruptive and ultimately did not contribute anything to this online conversation except hostility and insults. I'm glad KOZ is gone, but it would have been better all around if he'd heeded the warnings sent his way and changed his behavior.

He didn't-- he probably thought that banning would never really happen-- and so he's gone. Hopefully it'll be a reminder to everyone else here that we can have civil conversations on a passion-firing issue (politics) without doing our best Lenny Bruce impressions.

Posted by: dbitt | August 19, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

CC- bummer that you had to get into the nitty gritty while on vacation/leave. Thanks for doing the cleanup. I hope it works.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 19, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

thanks, again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 19, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

A final note.

A full review of the comments section since I began my paternity leave turned up several comments made by "kingofzouk" on August 10 that clearly crossed the line in terms of our previously stated "no personal attacks" policy.

As a result, "kingofzouk" has been banned from the site.

Let's now move forward in building a more civil discussion on this blog. We have NO interest in banning anyone else from this point forward.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, understanding and concern about the blog.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | August 19, 2009 7:55 AM | Report abuse

It's par for the course that a right-wing corporate media Villager blowhard like Cillizza would ban ChrisFox8 and yet continue to let racist wingnut blowhards like JakeD and Zouk continue to thread jack and harrass people with different view points on here.


Now I see why Cillizza holds that right-wing nutjob liar Drudge in such high regard - he agree's with him.

Posted by: DrainYou | August 19, 2009 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Oh good. We have a new cave troll.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 19, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

I personally have been called every name in the book, how I know I got someone. Does not bother me though, really I enjoy the creativity of pivoting off my nom de guerre.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, I hope you are not going to ban me because I make fun of all your posts that slobber all over your wife and use your mutant offspring as a prop....

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

wow, Robert Novak dying of cancer of the brain... how freaky is that? Troll Dolls DO work !

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Fix. I like this tiny corner of the universe and appreciate you for tending this garden, even if I wish you would tend it a little more...

Posted by: theamazingjex | August 18, 2009 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Some days, I the Fix - and the comments - are the only thing I read in the Washington Post. Thanks for your valuable public service.

Posted by: kenpasadena | August 18, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8, a shooting star you were. You came streaking in from the left, spewing all over the right ... but not adding much to the conversation. I believe I speak for others of us on the left when I say, "You weren't helping."

As for zouk and JakeD, I've said this before: although they often agree, they are not the same person. JakeD endeavors to provide an interesting perspective. Zouk just shouts insults at "libs" (as he calls him).

Posted by: dognabbit | August 18, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

As for the future of the board, having a link to the front page of WaPo.com is a pretty powerful driver of traffic. I expect people will stumble here like I did a year and a half ago and some will stick around. We'll lose some troublemakers and get new ones.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow, so CF8 is a part of discussion board history. If it was anything like it was on here, I can see why he got banned. It wasn't intelligent debate at all. Just a lot of angry back and forth. I'm not quite sure what cf8 was trying to accomplish or perhaps he just had a LOT of steam to vent.

As for quantum physics, I took a course on it like ten years ago. I didn't understand a damn thing (yet still managed an A). That marked the end of my physics studies. Haven't taken a physics or math class since.

LSU has a NOLA campus. It's for health sciences. Has a med school, nursing school, grad school, etc.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I hope that all the great posters who say they are leaving change their minds. Many of you are the best posters here and pulling up stakes will just bring the conversation down to the level of Jaked, KOZ and those pesty gnats that fly in from Drudge every once in awhile. This place wouldn't be anywhere near as fun or informative.

Fight the fight, don't stay out of the conversation.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 18, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, look at these two links, which are related to the discussion here.

Exhibit 1:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/AKBXOD1X1KUG1

Exhibit 2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gilliard

Draw your own conclusions.

Tulane or Loyola or UNO?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 18, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

CC

I have been a casual contributor, seeking to comment only when I thought I had something useful to add. However I have been an avid reader of your blog since it began.

I agree that we should avoid setting Chrisfox up as some sort of messiah crucified for having an opinion. he said something very inappropriate and got a deserved ban.

But like a significant number of your posters - a number of whom are easily your most thoughtful responders - I cannot accept you have banned one and not at least two other regular offenders: both of whom have voiced great delight in your decision. One (hi JakeD) is denying he has ever broken the terms of posting, and the other (hey there, KOZ) is taking great delight today in pushing even harder - I suspect, to see what it will take for you to ban him.

DONT reinstate Chrisfox: DO ban these two.

PS: just to disappoint some, Im not threatening to 'sign off': But I do think your blog is now the poorer for your approach on this issue.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | August 18, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"The shame of all this is that, in his own way, chrisfox was trying to protect the integrity of cc's blog from the two trolls.

And what did it get him? Banned! "

Nah, let's not make him out to be a noble savior or something. If he would have just ignored jaked, that would have gone a long ways towards making the board more tolerable. Eventually, he did let up and it did help. Making fun of people for living in their mother's basements really contributed nothing.

But yeah, jaked should be at the top of any ban list. (the only one on my list) It's just plain ridiculous that he hasn't received so much as a warning. His posts are the most offensive by far. No one else is even close. I'd rather see cox sucking nicknames all day than to see racist screeds and assassination jokes.

zook can occasionally post something interesting. He did remind me that Obama has yet to appoint a CMS director. He would definitely be more effective if he were to integrate himself in the conversation.

Oh yeah, and stop the nicknames. He's just falling flat with those.

But yeah

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Both are considered grounds for banning."

So let me see if I have it. Racism and assassination jokes are okay. Endless trolling, endless repetition of the same stale conspiracy junk is okay.

king_of_zouk can call other posters by sexually explicit twists of their monikers and that's a warning. CF8 calls a racist a racist and that's a ban.

Gotcha.

Banning CF8 without banning The Two Trolls is staggeringly unfair. Ban them or reinstate CF8, better yet both.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Only posted here a couple of times, but I am, or was, a daily reader. I find most of what is posted by JakeD and Zouk offensive and agree that they and ChrisFox sometimes crossed the line. I'd say they are pretty equal culprits but Zouk definitely crossed the line with his nickname for ChrisFox. It was intentionally disgusting and demeaning. If you are going to start to ban, please review the posts over the past year and I think you can find repeated violations of the Post's rules. It would be more effective to monitor and weed out vulgar and off-topic posts. I imagine the repeat offenses would stop after a couple of months.

Posted by: jman4 | August 18, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"Your blog is as dry as white toast without the personalities and threadjackings."

I'm curious why you can't see your way into integrating yourself in the actual conversation. Not saying you need to change your views (you shouldn't), but having to scroll through a whole bunch of random copy and pasted stuff is really annoying.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The shame of all this is that, in his own way, chrisfox was trying to protect the integrity of cc's blog from the two trolls.

And what did it get him? Banned!

Meanwhile the two trolls gleefully rejoice today. Those clowns are right to think that they got away with all their nonsense and someone else took the fall.

Now, we all know that there's no way cc is going to ban the other two so he should just let fox back in.

I think that I (and I suspect many others) are just going to sit this blog out until cc makes it right with chrisfox.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 18, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Personal attacks on me are just fine. But, let me just reiterate: thread-jacking will not be tolerated nor will name-calling. Both are considered grounds for banning.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | August 18, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Talk about asking for it...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Seriously cc. Get over yourself. You host a lefty blog visited by moonbats who love to play and insult together. Did you not get the memo. Your reporting is marginal, your grammar atrocious , your vision singular and your acting skills and humor evidently repulsive

so although I personally loathe the views of drivl and cf, I abhor cowardice and censorship more. Your blog is as dry as white toast without the personalities and threadjackings.

Without us you are simply a second rate journalist without a byline.

Long live the moonbats and wingnuts.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@Cheopys - Welcome to the Fix! I'd recommend a hearty bowl of Mì Quãng in CF8's honor.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@CC - Well said. I am disappointed by the number of posters whose input I enjoyed and are apparently leaving in a huff (drindl, mibrooks, shrink2). Yes, I know it takes two to tango and I've posted in favor of giving Zouk an extended time out. I'll hang around here because of the original content and interesting discussions. I just wish that CF8

By the way, since it's obvious that ChrisFox8 was the bannee, why could the original post of CC state this outright? We all knew it would be CF8 or Zouk.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I haven't been posting of late because a) I've been extremely busy, and b) I hate to say it, but The Fix hasn't been all that interesting over the last couple of months (summer doldrums, I guess).

Nonetheless, I do check in, and I have to say that this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen here. Banning chrisfox8 is an entirely idiotic move.

I personally find both king_of_zouk and JakeD loathsome miscreants, but I would never want to see them banned. In fact, I often find their Bizarro World-view occasionally entertaining.

And how is it possible to ban chrisfox8 and not king_of_zouk when king_of_zouk insists on calling him "chrissuxcox"?

I think you made an extraordinarily stupid mistake.

And as an avid follower of politics, I think you know that the best thing to do is acknowledge your error, reinstate chrisfox8, and move on.

Posted by: Bondosan | August 18, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

One other quick word.

We have already warned "KingofZouk" for the name-calling and the repeated hijacking of threads. There are several other commenters who also seem interested in doing little else but turning this section of the blog into a personal monologue that almost always has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Further thread hijacking is grounds for banning.

Thanks and have a great rest of the day.

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | August 18, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

As a reminder of what my direct question was: "what specific 'Terms of Service' do you contend that I have violated to warrant any kind of disciplinary action?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Jaked:

here's my answer to your direct question to me.

go to hell you racist swine.

There, CC, now you can ban me too.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

newagent99:

Thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on, if the forum stops being fun for you simply because someone no longer gets to tell people "go to hell you racist swine", that's not the type of "comments section [with] a robust conversation for a variety of voices" that Mr. Cillizza is looking for anyway.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

NOLA. let me know

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, because there is no actual subject to this thread I do not feel required to announce a thread jack.

In which LA city are you resident? BR?

I am just wondering for my next trip to or through alligator swamp. If you were on my route, I would try to contact you for a meal or a drink or a coke.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 18, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

it pretty easy not to get banned..
and those who whine and cry about banning ..
please take a civics class and learn what
Free Speech" actually means.

Posted by: newagent99 | August 18, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"To those who would avoid this comments section because they don't like "trolls" I offer this:

If you remain silent because of trolls, then the trolls have won.

Be a billy goat. Outwit or headbutt a troll today. And tomorrow, too."

I don't think many of the regulars feel the need to make this a penis swinging contest. If the forum stops being fun, they leave. The trolls can relish their "victory."

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

OK, then, BYE already!

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"If you remain silent because of trolls, then the trolls have won."

CF8 headbutted the trolls and look what it got him. The trolls HAVE won. Because the "gracious host" supports the same Republican Party they do. So JakeD and king_of_zouk get to use this forum as their personal playground. I'm not interested in reading king_of_zouk's creative namecalling and I'm not interested in reading JakeD's posting the same half-dozen posts over and over.

As for staying and putting up the good fight what's the point? That's like trying to do sculpture while some guy with a sledgehammer keeps busting up your hard work. No thanks. Bye.

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to Cheopys1 (since you don't want to answer my direct question to you):

You claim that nobody said it was "partisan" yet drindl at 12:51 PM posted: "If you don't want to be accused of PARTISANship, please apply the rule equally."

As I have already proven, the rule has been applied equally.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

To those who would avoid this comments section because they don't like "trolls" I offer this:

If you remain silent because of trolls, then the trolls have won.

Be a billy goat. Outwit or headbutt a troll today. And tomorrow, too.

Posted by: Gallenod | August 18, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

CC - I'm with drindl and Rick and many others, bye!

Posted by: mibrooks27 |


CC- little did you know that your stategery of banning a single miscreant would result in the domino effect.

Were you a supporter of the bush doctrine??

the bad actors are falling like flies.

but like a bad austrian accented terminator:

they'll be bach!!

Until then, the average IQ on this blog is soaring today. Just take a look at the other thread.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Bye bye everyone who took the time to teach me stuff.

CC is an idiot, but I liked the page for some of the smart people involved.

Mo mas.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 18, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Bye-bye, mibrooks27

P.S. to michael_zini:

My posts about attempts / threats of physical violence against GWB are admittedly "unrelated" to the thread topic, but I simply responded to rebut the claim that I am "joking" about assassinations as some imaginary reason why I should be banned -- my main point is just to keep the threats against Obama in some perspective -- unfortunately, it happens all the time these days (here were some more against GWB):

Jeffrey Cloutier, Monty Branch, Larry Ward, Mary Landrieu, Wilbur Brown, Arafat Nijmeh, Dan Tilli, Aleksandar Aleksov, Charles Madrid, Declan O'Shea, Raymond Geisel, and Tony Alamo.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

The post by Michael Zini really hits the nail on the head.

You need to take steps to increase the ratio of intelligent comments to vapid comments. Otherwise, the Board will stay what it has become - a place for mindless name-calling.

Posted by: Renu1 | August 18, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

CC - I'm with drindl and Rick and many others, bye!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 18, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Like many others here, I don't understand the logic of banning one person. It takes two to tango & ChrisFox8 did not act alone.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 18, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

chrsifox8 got banned! Look, JakeD and KOZ posted many insults, egging him on. JakeD's untrue posts about Chris' many partnered sex life and KOZ's insulting name, "chris...cox'. CC, this is the single worst decision I have ever observed here. If crisfox has been booted, then justice, simpl common sense, would entail both KOZ and JakeD's being booted, too.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 18, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris:
I started reading the Fix during the primaries and decided quickly that the comment section was not to my taste. Actual, informed commenting on the issues was sporadic, always broken up by consistent trolls.

It seemed clear that there was no moderator, no Fix comment policy, and nobody willing to deploy warnings or the ban hammer. After reading the comments on this post, I see that the worst trolls are still spamming their knee-jerks and vapid, unrelated ramblings. As long as that remains the case, I suspect that your readers will simply remain readers and the comment section will continue to be free of a regular, constructive community.

If any of this actually changes, please put a post on the main page to alert us non-commenting readers that it may be worthwhile to reenter the water.

Thanks.

Posted by: michael_zini | August 18, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Cheopys1 or Renu1:

Post limits are not a good idea because there are 10 to 1 liberals posting vs. conservatives. Again, what specific "Terms of Service" do you contend that I have violated to warrant any kind of disciplinary action?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What a load of bad Kubuki Theater.

Don't know what I'm talking about? See my post below @ high noon.


http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 18, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Here is an idea - institute a limit on the number of posts per week per person. A major problem with the Boards is that that same people (JakeD) fill every Board with idiotic drivel. Who wants to read that? I am just not that interested in JakeD's demented thoughts. He wouldn't be banned, but placed under the same limits as everyone else. As a result, there would be less garbage to read through, more diversity of opinion, fewer mindless posts by the same individuals (i.e., JakeD), and more people would read the Boards.

Isn't that a good idea?

Posted by: Renu1 | August 18, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

(emerging from lurk)

Nothing corrodes a message board more reliably than a perception of favoritism. Several of the best writers here have declared they won't be posting here anymore. The two whose posts incite, irritate, and provoke are still here.

CF8 responded to provocation with insult. I never saw him insult anyone who didn't provoke first. So you leave the provoking trolls. Great.

Nobody said it was "partisan." You do have numerous writers naming the same two posters as more offensive.

(back to lurk)

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

ChrisFox8 didn't act alone.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 18, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

I have the same feeling all of these people threatening to leave will be back just like all those who were going to move from the U.S. if GWB was (re-)elected.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

As for me, I'm done with this blog and I'm really disappointed to feel that way since I enjoy your writing and the topics.

Posted by: jasperanselm


A hat trick!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

blogging while non-liberal

ban him

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

CC, as you can see, jaked is not remorseful in the slightest and is even indignant that anyone would be offended by his comments. That would indicate to me that he has no intention of cleaning up his comments.

I also find that your updated post stating that this is a partisan reaction to be a lame and borderline dishonest assessment. No one here said that banning CF8 was a partisan issue.

If you want intelligent discussion here on the blog, you banned the wrong person/s.

As for me, I'm done with this blog and I'm really disappointed to feel that way since I enjoy your writing and the topics.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 18, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Cheopys1 or Renu1:

What specific "Terms of Service" do you contend that I have violated to warrant banning?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

And yet, here they both are still. If you don't want to be accused of partisanship, please apply the rule equally.

Posted by: drindl | August 18, 2009 12:51 PM


Ooops, spoke too soon. another in the long line of liberal promises I suppose.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

... but but... some of these people ARE idiots.

Posted by: pdxgeek | August 18, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for banning chrisfox. He was an idiot and highly offensive. Next up, JakeD!

If you eliminate more of the idiotic posters that post frequently, the Boards will become more readable. The Post has many smart readers, but the Boards are so full of garbage that I have stopped reading them. Of course, the Post itself seems to be dumbing down. As a result, I'm in the process of switching over the the Times as my primary news source.

Posted by: Renu1 | August 18, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

AM LEAVING AND NOT COMING BACK UNTIL YOU GET RID OF THIS CRAP. I URGE THE REST OF YOU TO DO THE SAME.

Let's see how Chris feels wiht nothing left but parrot posts by trolls.

Posted by: drindl


Two victories in a single day. whoopeee. Intelligence rules the day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The consensus seems pretty clear, "gracious host," you banned the wrong guy

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

jrosco3:

I agree that racism and assassination jokes should mandate an immediate ban.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

An option to hide all posts from particular users would, I think, go down well. This would allow most of the users to participate in civilised discussion while not actually barring anyone's right to comment. There are several users - others have named them below - while not really consistently breaking the rules, certainly don't add anything to the discussions, and I for one would welcome the opportunity to read the comments without enduring their nonesnse.

Posted by: Breandan_from_Ireland | August 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I believe that I was honestly on "pins and needles". Next survey?

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

As someone who lurks and occasionally posts I keep coming back to The Fix because of the quality, timeliness and good humor of the reporting. I have not been posting lately due to the comments section getting out of control.

I agree with Gallenod's post at 1:19 which is excellent, and sverigegrabb made some good points too. As addressed by DDAWD, racism and assassination jokes should mandate an immediate ban.

The obvious three were undoubtedly the primary offenders. Scriv's posts about microwave beams are off topic so I question why they continue appearing, but at least they're easy to scroll past because he's not posting all day long.

Thank you Chris and your team for working hard on this issue to continue to improve an awesome blog.

Posted by: jrosco3 | August 18, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"That's not a joke"

Quick survey. Who here believes that JakeD was honestly on "pins and needles"?

This is just ridiculous. What a vile, disgusting thing to joke about.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

That's not a joke -- I honestly don't want Obama assassinated, so I was glad he made it through all three town halls -- here are the death threats / attempts against GWB (just from a quick Google search, people in the news for actual convictions):

Robert Pickett, Richard Humphreys, Diane Wilson, Robert Romo, Florence Lockhart, Patrick McMorrow, Volker Czechanowswky, Joseph Mazaqwu, Dan Cvijanovich, Vladimer Arutunian, Barry Eckstrom, Steven Baldwin (no, the OTHER Baldwin brother), John Thomason, Phillip Bailey, Shawn Cox, Scott Rendelman, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Roger Witmer, Julia Wilson, Jessica Moyer, Alexis Janicki, Catalino Diaz, Vikram Buddhi, Nathan Danforth, Timothy Pinkston, Stephen Pyle, Steven Vonieda, Michael Braun, Patrick Bloodsworth, and Gregory Broussard.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Whew! I was on pins and needles the entire time. One town hall down for pResident Obama and no assassination, two more to go.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2009 5:21 PM"

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I never joked about Obama eating watermelons nor did I compare Obama to a monkey -- I also never joked about Obama getting assassinated at a town hall -- I will not resort to ad hominem personal attacks against you. I did point out the FACT that Bush got death threats daily, if that's what you are talking about. I couldn't care less if you got banned, though. That's not a joke either.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

What a load of bad Kubuki Theater.

Don't know what I'm talking about? See my post below @ high noon.


http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 18, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, have we all decided that Scrivener's shameless self-promotion and unwieldy bandwidth chomping is bearable at the current level? :-)"

Yeah, it's not that bad now. I think Zook would be more bearable if he didn't have these sporadic outbursts either, but spaced things out a bit. Maybe I'm just desensitized, but I found chrissuxcox pretty stupid and juvenile, but not all that offensive. I'd have a pretty high threshold for banning if I were running things and neither zook nor cf8 have warranted banning.

I'm just astonished that jaked remains, though. Let's see if this gets me banned, but as far as I can remember, he has been making incredibly racist remarks ranging from subtle (birther stuff, typing HUSSEIN in all caps) to more overt (calling interracial dating "deviant" behavior). Other people have mentioned other stuff relating to Obama eating watermelons and comparing Obama to a monkey.

And then there's him joking about Obama getting assassinated at a town hall. I mean, how can anyone possibly joke about that given what we've been seeing at these town halls? I had to close the page after seeing that. I still cringe when thinking about it. And I don't cringe easily at all.

Well, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It's like the health care debate. The nastiest, most inflammatory, and most violent people are the ones who ended up getting their way despite the fact that most people disagree. I guess this is a political board, so there's no reason for it not to mimic what is apparently political reality.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

@Mark - When hunting for some material the other day, I came across some older posts of Zouk where there was give and take. Those days appear to be gone, though I will admit there has been some responsiveness from Zouk of late. I suspect that it takes too much effort when one is posting every few minutes on various blogs. My posts tend to come in bursts when I have a little free time. And I *never* use others' material without citation.

dbw is another conservative regular around here. Although he/she won't bother responding, there's something novel there.

Speaking of free time, I'm out of it. Having to referee a proceedings volume from that conference I attended recently.

Toodles, all.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

@CC - I don't hold that this was politically motivated or even unjustified. However, I think that CF8 was deliberately provoked into crossing the line and he was the subject of vulgar and personal attacks. Zouk crossed that line a long time ago and has deliberately flaunted the rules of the forum. He's a troll who adds nothing to the discourse around here and I am sick of having to scroll past pages of material copied from elsewhere.

Gallenod had by far the best post of the day in my view.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod, that was perfect.

bb - I have had civil discussions with KOZ. I will concede that I only look for information here so I ask questions when I see something that piques my curiousity. KOZ does so when he uses "Austrian" economic theory to support a point. We used to have those discussions more often when JD was a regular poster. JakeD did recently when I began to think his opposition to end-of-life counseling was because he actually does not want anyone removed from life support regardless of their individual wishes. That could be seen as consistent with the approach to abortion that it can never be a doctor-patient decision. CF8 and I had a pleasant conversation about the linux operating system.

It has been more typical that I and you have had to "scroll past".

Let me add that two of the regular "conservative" posters here, "vbhoomes" and "reason5", often have different views of the facts then the current majority and they present themselves politely. Nevertheless, CF8 [and some others of you - you know who you are] would insult them because you disagreed with their views, in the same way that KOZ often does when he disagrees with yours.

These posts are not our lives and none of us know each other. I have been called a "hypocrite" and a "troll" here on many occasions. So what? I am only interested if my opinion is criticized, which usually happens because of facts that I had not considered or that I had discounted. Then I learn something. I am neither going to be or not be a hypocrite because of a disembodied poster's opinion of my character.

BTW, have we all decided that Scrivener's shameless self-promotion and unwieldy bandwidth chomping is bearable at the current level? :-)

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 18, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Bravo to 'Gallenod', especially, and also to 'Blarg' for their sensible assessment of this situation!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | August 18, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I think those who follow the comments section know that the number of times I've resorted to name-calling of my fellow commentators could be counted on two of the fingers of a single hand.

As many far more erudite figures than I have shown in the past, it's quite possible to excoriate someone / something we disapprove of without transgressing the bounds of decency.

Politics isn't (usually) classified as sport, after all, so the intensity we might show at a football match ought to be absent from this blog.

That said, I do find it strange that ONLY ONE of the 'Gang of 3'--to MY mind at least, the one who gave the smallest degree of offence--was banned, whilst the other two (who consistently monopolise the comments section for their tiresome and repetitive polemics), have apparently got off scot-free--other than the brief warning directed to one of the worst offenders, posted by CC just prior to his holiday.

As CC knows well, perception is EVERYTHING, and the fact that the other two miscreants remain unchastised (doubtless their degree of fanaticism is such that they will permanently remain unchastened)--whatever the rationale--is NOT the healthiest of signals for dispassionate even-handedness here.

My faith remains, however, undiminished that in time these two will either undo themselves or provoke CC (and his editors) beyond the point of their superhuman endurance.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | August 18, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This isn't the first time someone has been baited and hooked. Some people are very good at walking right up the "the line" (no pun intended) and getting a rival to cross it. People play that game every day in politics, sports, business, etc.

There is a simple reason flame wars erupt on bulletin boards like this: posting in plain text is both impersonal and ephemeral.

Without tone and pitch of voice, body language, facial expression, etc., the actual words displayed as text only represent about 7% of what we get in face-to-face communication. Whoever reads the text may project their own interpretation of what's missing.

By ephemeral, I mean that the text you type on your screen seems to vanish (albeit temporarily) when you push the submit button. But the catharthis you achieve by typing a rant will quickly vaporize when the heat of the moment passes, you see the text in the Comments section and realize that you might have just gone a bit too far.

Experienced writers choose their words carefully and for maximum effect. We can write to inform, inspire, or enrage. If you know what to look for and how to interpret it, you can avoid getting sucked in by people who are here mainly to push buttons and create (or maintain) controversy.

I've done this message board dance since before HTML and the Web existed. Here are my suggestions for staying out of trouble on the boards:

1. Lurk for a while. Before posting anywhere, read the comments for at least a few weeks. (I read The Fix for several months before finally posting.) Yes, there is an urge to jump right in and start swinging away, but it pays to know the community and its characters before you mix it up with them.

2. Never post while angry. Angry peple make mistakes. If you can't recognize when you're aggravated, learn to.

3. Alway preview before submitting. That little time gap as the page refreshes may allow you to see something you missed or should have left out.

4. Address (or attack) ideas, not people. Dismembering someone's fallacies is a far more effective way to point out that they're an idiot than just calling them one.

5. Cite your sources. Don't expect people to believe you just because you're charismatic--we can't see you, just your text.

6. Don't feed the trolls. If a comment looks like it was meant solely to light a fuse, it probably was. Ignore it (and the poster) and stick to rational discussion.

People like zouk and JakeD know exactly what they are doing and how far they can go. While I probably agree with them on issues about as often as David Souter agreed with Clarence Thomas, they excel at inspiring (inciting?) discusion and apparently conduct their campaigns within the behavioral limits of the management.

Can we get back to real politics, instead of message board politics, now? :)

Posted by: Gallenod | August 18, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with banning chrisfox8. I do disagree with banning ONLY chrisfox8. There are worse offenders. Chris was one of the 3-4 posters that deserved to be banned, but he wasn't top of the list.

Hopefully WaPo.com be able to get those technological fixes in soon, so individuals can choose who to ignore. In the meantime, bans aren't a bad solution, as long as you use consistent criteria and ban everyone engaging in the offensive behavior. So far, you haven't done that.

Posted by: Blarg | August 18, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

R.I.P Robert D. Novak.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Can't believe this is the first time! Personally, I think you should ban more, I stopped reading the comments section a long time due all the trash here. (And next time, don't make such a big deal out of it.)

Posted by: ambolt | August 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

(coming out of lurk)

I read the post above with glee. At last! King_of_zouk gone! Now maybe I'll register and post here.

But the second post here is from king_of_zouk. This guy does nothing BUT personal attacks, and scatalogical ones at that. Changing other posters' monikers, calling the President a bimbo, that's ALL he does.

And then we have this JakeD character, trolling this board every day, all day, breaking up every thread with racist posts.

There are some posters I enjoy reading here, and chrisfox8 was one of them. But if you're going to ban anyone it should be king_of_zouk, no question. NO question. And that JakeD jerk should be right behind.

Between all the "Republican resurgence" drudge and very clear favoritism toward Republican trolls, I won't be posting here.

Looks like chrisfox8 got banned for calling JakeD a "racist jerk." Well you can ban me too, Mr. Cillizza, because I think he's a racist jerk too.

(back to lurk)

Posted by: Cheopys1 | August 18, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I thought you were leaving and urging all other libs to do the same?

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"Update, 12:30 p.m.: Scanning through the comments, there are several posters who seem to suggest that the ban on a commenter was motivated by partisanship"

I don't think many people are complaining that this was a partisan move. The complaint is that cf8 is nowhere near the worst offender.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"You can both take it up the @ss, for all I care. I have never posted a lie."

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse"

Exactly. And what about when kingofzouk called CG8 'chrissuxcox"?

Or when JakeD said the Easter Egg roll should be done with watermelons this year?

And yet, here they both are still. If you don't want to be accused of partisanship, please apply the rule equally.

Posted by: drindl | August 18, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"@DDAWD - I looked at today's posts and didn't see CF8. Given the rate of his postings, if he hadn't been banned, he'd be here today. Although he has contributed to the comments in a substantive way, the continued back and forth amongst CF8, JakeD, and Zouk made me give up reading on occasion. He was upset that Mark and I occasionally directed a civil reply to Jake, even though he and Jake or Zouk would trade dozens of messages back and forth (Zouk getting equally nasty, Jake doing a rope-a-dope).

BB"

Yeah, you're probably right. That's really screwed up. There's only one person who should be banned from here and it's not cf8 by any stretch. His back and forths with jaked were annoying, but he had improved a LOT recently. Plus he is pretty knowledgeable about environmental issues. Pretty ironic that the person to get banned was someone who actually made somewhat of an adjustment to his behavior.

But yeah, I wasn't expecting this place to become a haven for jaked's racist screeds and assassination jokes. It's absolutely disgusting that he is allowed to stick around. Chris C and I apparently have VERY divergent views on what constitutes civility.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Unless and until you are aggressive and unapologetic about banning commenters who do not contribute to the discussion, I see no reason to bother reading the comments.

Every now and then, I check in on the comments on the Post. It's embarrassing. It's not a dialogue. And, with all due respect, you are deluding yourself if you think eliminating one person's filth will have an impact.

Posted by: rovner | August 18, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"You can both take it up the @ss, for all I care. I have never posted a lie."

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris

If you're going to ban people for vulgarity than at least do it fairly and equally...

My last post

RickJ

Posted by: RickJ | August 18, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris

I agree with the others if you have removed Chrisfox and not Jake D or Zouk. JakeD in particular has filed some personal attacks (one of which I reported) that I found offensive. Oh well. I guess it's not equal opportunity banning here..

You can count me out as well...

RickJ

Posted by: RickJ | August 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Zouk's posts are odious and bratty.

There is no place for a thinking person to start correcting him or argue with him: just nasty prattle with no toe-hold for discourse above name-calling and "says you." He's brings nothing to the table.

I'm keeping it clean.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - I looked at today's posts and didn't see CF8. Given the rate of his postings, if he hadn't been banned, he'd be here today. Although he has contributed to the comments in a substantive way, the continued back and forth amongst CF8, JakeD, and Zouk made me give up reading on occasion. He was upset that Mark and I occasionally directed a civil reply to Jake, even though he and Jake or Zouk would trade dozens of messages back and forth (Zouk getting equally nasty, Jake doing a rope-a-dope).

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

"Wait, how do we know it was CF8?"

Process of elimination. Scan the thread for others who fit the criteria "Those who name-call and otherwise slander other commenters are not the sort of citizens we want in the Fix community" and you will see they've all posted.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 18, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I wondered if it might be ChrisFox8. I have had many interesting discussions with Chris, who had a lot to say. He also was unable to let something slide and often was nasty in his commentary. Zouk treads on the line--not merely for previously offensive language, but for repeated plagiarism and direct attacks on other posters. I welcome anyone to find a Zouk post that has actually added to the discussion.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 18, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 18, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"by banning chrisfox you have taken a major step towards making these boards utterly worthless. Soon you will have nothing but posts from king of kook and joked."

Wait, how do we know it was CF8?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Cillizza,
I find it odd that you would ban someone like Chrisfox yet let someone who is far more incendiary like zouk to continue.

You can count me out of your blog.

Goodbye.

Enjoy the rabid hate-mongering of JakeD and Zouk.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

And I think I've also used drooling drooge, camel-brained, ninny, scaredy cat, glue-sniffer,thoughtus interuptus, post-operative skeezer, bumblehead, Republican drag queen, bourgeois milquetoast, short-fingered vulgarian, snot-for-brains, goober, shorty, gimpy, government-health-care-accepting hypocrite, entitled git, senile stooge, tranny-wanna-be,vegan saint, elitist poseur, closet conservative, stoopid, old saddlebag, dumb as a trout, anti-human and peurile.

But I mean it all in the nicest way 'cause I love you guys.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Cillizza,
I find it odd that you would ban someone like Chrisfox yet let someone who is far more incendiary like zouk to continue.

You can count me out of your blog.
Goodbye

Enjoy the rabid hate-mongering of JakeD and Zouk.

Posted by: JRM2 | August 18, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

BLOG-SPAMMING: ORGANIZED POLITICAL 'DISINFORMATION' OP?

TO: Chris Cillizza

Chris,

There appears to be an ulterior motive at work here: a highly organized campaign of blog-spamming by apparently paid operatives who may be working, directly or indirectly (via contractors) on the public's dime.

May I suggest you contact Rozlyn Mazer, inspector general at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Ask her if she is investigating the possible misuse of public funds to conduct ideologically-motivated blog-spamming of a wide variety of political blogs and mainstream media web site comments sections.

The underlying purpose, as I read it, is to pollute political discourse, a means of burying opinions that do not comport with the ideological orientation of Orwellian authorities within certain agencies, commands, directorates, or corporations and lobbying firms.

The juvenile back-and-forth, personal attacks, etc., appear to be a not-very-creative blog-spamming tactic -- the systematic generation of what I call "cyber-effluvia."

Here's a link to a short article I wrote on this subject, with a sublink to an ACLU blog thread that memorializes instances of apparent official interference and disruption of the telecommunications of unjustly "targeted" American citizens -- apparently including many journalists:

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 18, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you, Mr. Cillizza."

LOL the 71-year-old Stanford Law grad sucks up to the blog author.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

CC- If it's chrisfox you banned, and left zouk here, I am leaving this board. Could someone answer this for me?

I agree with Jasper and koolkat -- the only ones who really lower the discourse and prevent intelligent discussion are the posters kingofzouk and jaked..

PLEASE TELL ME, MR. CILIZZA, WHY I SHOULD WASTE MY TIME SCROLLING PAST INANE DROOL LIKE THIS ALL DAY?

"In a liberal's view, facts lower the discourse. budgets stifle conversations. Morality has no place in the lingo.

Free abortions for all!!! anytime, anywhere."

I AM LEAVING AND NOT COMING BACK UNTIL YOU GET RID OF THIS CRAP. I URGE THE REST OF YOU TO DO THE SAME.

Let's see how Chris feels wiht nothing left but parrot posts by trolls.

Posted by: drindl | August 18, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Banning rulebreaking commenters is nothing to apologize for. You should be do an end zone dance and fist pump, and then challenge the next fool who wants to take you on!

Posted by: tailwagger | August 18, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Who is it? jaked is still here and he's by far the most offensive poster. Zook was the only one I saw get warned by name, but he's still here (although seems to be the most agitated about this)

Posted by: DDAWD | August 18, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris, its a start. If it were up to me, I wouldn't stop at one.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 18, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and CC..........remember what led Froomkin to get the boot? Decreased traffic to his blog. Good luck!

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 18, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't think "damned fool" is so bad.

I know I've used geriatric, loathesome toady, nitwit, smirking creep, cretin, blowhard, mingy minger, diaper-load, pudding-headed, spindleshanks, spanker, wah-wah baby, bone-head, Darwin's dustbin, subhuman, hatin' hater, red-faced screecher, loser, quitter, pixilated, delusional dunderhead, spokesman of the medical industrial complex, euthanasia-ready foamer, protector-of-the-rich, jughead, evasive skink and idiot here -- you really can't spend the whole day saying "I think you are mistaken, sir; allow me to point out the error in your thinking."

Political discourse has a history of being a little colorful.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 18, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Chicks dig pundits, a second term heals, campaigns last forever.

Posted by: mesondk | August 18, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Yep, there's zookie..........he's really enhancing the fix blogging experience again today.

Might be time to find another blog. The lunatics are being allowed to overwhelm this one.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 18, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

in a liberal's view, facts lower the discourse. budgets stifle conversations. Morality has no place in the lingo.

Free abortions for all!!! anytime, anywhere.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

by banning chrisfox you have taken a major step towards making these boards utterly worthless. Soon you will have nothing but posts from king of kook and joked.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 18, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

It was a nice try CC but you obviously did not ban the correct commenters as they chirped in below. They are the ones that lower the level of the discourse on the blog.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 18, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Thanks CC

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 18, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

you missed one, the closing comment for yesterday, just a representative sample:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you're a damn fool.

Posted by: drindl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is that vulgar or an attack on another or both? this is one of the calmer posts.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Big government Libs exercising the right to squash free speech.

but as long as they were just manufactured astroturf, it's OK.

CC - are you collecting an enemies list? I would like to be on it. It would be an honor.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 18, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mr. Cillizza.

Posted by: JakeD | August 18, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company