Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Gresham's law works strongly in blog comments unless there is some countervailing force.

Having Sean cull out the dead wood is probably the key thing on this site. Having a gatekeeper automatically cuts off the process before it can spiral.

There are several group blogs with excellent comments -- Samizdata, Volokh -- who form a community of "back-benchers" who add a lot to the conversation. So I don't think that being a solo blog or tightly focused is the key to good comments.

I think it is (1) self-selection of the readership here and elsewhere where the comments are working and (2) ruthless editing by the blog personnel, however that is structured.

Also, some blogs are meant to be conversations or even civil arguments, and they have intelligent posts that do not invite stupid or vicious comments. Others blogs are meant to be mutual-affirmation societies where the dogma is asserted more and more loudly. The latter end up having lots of bitter, personalized disputes on points of doctrinal purity. No fun unless you are an insider with some skin in that particular game. The popular Lefty blogs, e.g. Kos, fall into that category.

I suspect the difference may be related to whether the commenter thinks the comment is actually feedback or merely "feed-into". I.e., on personal/private blogs, which are ongoing for developing a blogger's p.o.v., comments offer more opportunity for engaging in cooperative development; whereas on the news site blogs and perhaps large political group blogs, the original post is perceived to be a "done deal" and any comment can only be an attempt to give definition to the static or to usurp the message.

Alternatively: there is a "phatic-communionish" dynamic at big sites, in which the commenting process is really more about the development of a feeling for community (friends/foes) than the development of ideas.

I think you are probably right about the type of subject matter affecting the commenting. On the other hand, the "done deal" aspect of the post on a large site is not as likely to inspire controversy if it's about cystic fibrosis, e.g. -- or else, if the field of commenters has already been weeded and only bobble-head yes men visit to offer their comments.

Why do I get the feeling that you're talking directly to me with this post?

I've left a comment in the last ethanol post, let's see if it lives up to the high standards being espoused here.

I've mostly avoided commenting on this site even though I've been coming here for some time, specifically because I see so much talking around things, I'm not much of one for subtleties, or dancing around issues. I realize the necessity of avoiding freaking out anybody who might want to hire Dr. Barnett in future. Hence my reluctance.

I get the feeling there are lots of things he'd like to say, actually it's more than a feeling, after closely evaluating some of his writing, which I imagine is edited closely before publication. Editor take note. I'm still working on that mind blowing e-mail guys, at this point it is of dissertation length.

Perhaps the next time Professor Barnett is in St. Louis, I can coax him to the Scottish Arms whiskey bar, and ply him with a few drams of single malt 12 year burgundy casked Glenmorangie, and find out what he really thinks.

Afterwards we can stop off at the Basilica of St. Louis up the street, so he can confess his sins before hopping on the next flight out of town. :-)

Aaron: okay, you've goaded me into it. i'm posting these two comments, even though i don't like them.

have you read the comment policy? let me spell it out for you:

your comments are too long. you have your own weblog. use it. post over there and link over here.

i doubt Tom was talking directly to you or that you even appear on his radar.

your snarky comments are not welcome.

furthermore, you do not show much agreement with Tom's ideas. you do show a tendency to (willfully?) misunderstand them or make them into strawmen. this is also in the comment policy. if you don't basically agree with Tom's ideas, go write somewhere else. if you basically agree, there is plenty of room for civil and concise disagreement here.

Tom's posts here are not closely edited. in fact, some of those close to him beg him to be more guarded and diplomatic.

capiche?

that said, Tom likes scotch, so you might be able to tempt him next time he's in St Louis.

Mr. Sean Mead

In response to your comment, let me just say that I appreciate you posting this comment, and voicing your opinion, but unfortunately my comment on the ethanol post has not appeared, even though you stated that you had done so. That comment was I believe concise and to the point, and also included a response to a comment which was addressed to me. It was no longer than many of the comments I see posted here, so I don't see how you can object to the length. The comment also included links to a Bloomberg and University of Berkeley article in support of my assertions.

The comments on this post was not intended to be snarky, but good-natured and conciliatory. I'm making an effort to conform to a comment policy which I have yet to read, because I haven't been able to find it even though I have searched for it. So I think your response was a bit harsh, given my obvious efforts to conform to the general tenor and tone of this blog, in my ethanol comment. As to willfully misunderstanding and the construction of strawman, I don't see that, but I suppose that point is debatable.

I understand that you are not happy with my viewpoint, but if you are going to discriminate on the basis of those you do not agree with, perhaps that should be so stated somewhere on this blog, so that everyone will know that the debate here is slanted in such a manner.

In addition, if Dr. Barnett would prefer that I do not comment, I would like to hear that from him since this is his blog, I do not immediately assume that your viewpoint is his. Just to be clear, is this statement of yours, Dr. Barnett's viewpoint as well?

"if you don't basically agree with Tom's ideas, go write somewhere else. if you basically agree, there is plenty of room for civil and concise disagreement here."

In that case I will of course no longer attempt to comment, for courtesy's sake. But if I may say, I think that would be a shame, because I believe you could use a little dissent, to shake things up around here. That is what America is all about, freedom of expression, dissent and debate. These precepts are part of our civic responsibility, and without them we ourselves will degenerate into what so many Americans throughout our history have fought and often laid down their lives to overcome.

I imagine that Dr. Barnett himself has faced situations where his viewpoints and dissent were in direct contradiction with the powers that be, and I suspect he paid a price for holding to his position, regardless of the consequences. In that light, I would think that he could empathize with someone in my position, and understand how invaluable it is for a free society to have room for people who find themselves in such a position. Perhaps you should consider conducting your blog in such a manner as well, so that the readers and commenters will be able to hear a number of diverse viewpoints, and decide for themselves what is of value.

It is of course your choice, I ask no more than that you let your conscience guide you.

Sincerely

Aaron B. Brown

PS sorry about the length, no need to post this, I just wanted to be completely clear.