Has the time come to ban comments on the Traveler? That's not a philosophical question or a parlor game, but one driven by concerns among readers that constructive conversation is hard to come by on the site.
By and large, the volume of comments on the Traveler is dominated by a very, very small handful of individuals. And they can, at times, take things to extremes and give no quarter. More than a few times various commenters have accused others of being trolls, simply lurking out there, waiting to bait others into an argument, or made gratuitous comments, and worse.
And a handful of times a year we get private emails complaining about this behavior. Here's just the most recent example:
The NPT comments section has long been hijacked by conservative/libertarian trolls like ecbuck to the point that many of us who would *like* to engage in conversation and intelligent discourse regarding park issues are dissuaded from doing so by the truculent, confrontational, repetitive and axe-grinding nature of such ideologues. I am disappointed in your feckless moderation of the comments section because the parks are my passion and I would love to contribute, but I have come to the realization that I should take my participation -- and views of your ads -- elsewhere.
Now, whether Traveler's moderation of the comments queue is feckless is a matter of opinion. But we can tell you that we lack the manpower it takes to moderate on as strenuous a basis as some might hope.
What begs a question is whether there would be greater reader participation if the comments weren't seemingly monopolized by a handful of readers, some unafraid to wield an ax? With nearly 1.7 million readers a year, and less than a dozen regular commenters, you have to wonder.
Frankly, nothing would be more welcome to us than to see more reader involvement in the site.
The only lasting solution would be to bring an end to comments, which would be unfortunate, as we truly believe conversation is key to understanding, and possibly solving, some of the issues that the national parks face. Over the years we have reached out to those most criticized, have tried "no follow" buttons, and even banned folks, all to no avail.
So, how would you handle this situation?
While you ponder that question, let us repost our Code of Conduct for those who comment:
Code of Conduct
The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.
As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.
For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:
So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.
Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.
With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):
* The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.
* Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.
* Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.
* Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
* If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.
In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.
Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.
Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.
Comments
Don't forget, Argalite, that the Obama Administration made climate change one of its salient issues, and speedily applied it to the national parks. So, yes, it comes up from time to time, since the so-called solution, as I would put, recommends cutting off our leg to save our toe.
It's a legimate concern--and comment thread. Just two weeks ago, my wife Christine and I "visited" the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant bordering the Mojave National Preserve. "My, God," Christine exclaimed. "I had no idea that the plant was so large." Coming off the mountain and into Nipton, one of the heliostats--or an entire bank of them--was obviously out of sync. It burned right through our sunglasses and into our retinas, although I had to look or I couldn't drive. It's not whacko, as you put it, to question something that endangers both the land and health. We saw no "streamers" (birds incinerated while flying over the plant), but our eyes took hours to recover.
We can do better, I think, and had better do better before insisting that climate change is in fact the threat. On that score, allow me to assign all of you a bit of reading from a friend who happens to agree with renewable energy, sans those abusing the fear of climate change. The book, just out from Rowman & Littlefield, is: Daniel B. Botkin, 25 MYTHS THAT ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT: WHAT MANY ENVIRONMENTALISTS BELIEVE AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG. The book is a lesson in how to debate these issues without engaging in endless hyperbole. Meanwhile, it would be good for all of us to examine our "beliefs" once in awhile, since rarely is a belief good science. It may be good politics, but that is another story. Science allows for what we are debating here.
Which is: How to comment from a position of intellectual strength (you've thought about it) rather than be another stray following the herd. If you've thought about it, no one will get under your skin. For to have thought about someting gives your opinion strength. The wonderful thing about The Traveler is how many people have indeed thought about the issues. Now, if someone doesn't want climate change to be an issue, sorry, but it is. And no one on The Traveler made it that way. It rather started with those 25 myths.
Well Alfred, I just ordered the book for my kindle. The brief review on Amazon got my interest also.
Lee,
Thanks for bringing up THUNDERBEAR. I have been out of the loop since I retired in 2000. I will definitely Google and sign up!
Is is quite interesting to hear Danny Bernstein complain about anonymous comments when the chief antagonist and one of the primary reasons this whole thread is even in play is because one of her own GSMA employees is the chief ad hominem protagonist. I know for a fact there have been many complaints about this guy who feels the need to attack people, instead of the subject matter. And more than a few phone calls have been made to the Great Smoky Mtns Association as a result, not that anyone there cared. Perhaps you should get your own GSMA house in order before telling everyone else what to do. If I don't like a comment, then I don't have to read it. But no one should have to read your employees rants about people's religion etc. Kurt is just too nice to eject him like other forums have.
That's hilarious coming from you johnny. The fact is I never commented on this site, until I grew tired of reading your baseless accusations and constant garbage that you post in this comment section. That is what triggered me to comment on an article in which supplied baseless accusations that eventually were proven false in a court of law. Like Trump, you could'nt handle the results. I realize you would like to see me go away because it would be easier for you since few that are in the Smokies will call you out on your BS, but i'll continue to call you out on your baseless accusations, if needed. And I even use my real name, because I'm not ashamed or fearful of what I say. I also am not afraid to wrestle in the mud with trolls and lowlifes when I feel they are wrong, and misguided. Obviously, with the hostility that people like you and EC create in this forum, it does make this comment section rather pointless to develop interesting and useful dialogue and that's probably why so many that are currently enganged with parks avoid it like the plague. Many of the regualars seem to comment here are either retirees, or anonomoys posters that have some sort of vendetta against the Park Service because of one or two rules that were implemented over the years. There are better places to discuss issues related to the NP's than in this comment section.
That is why this comment section is rather pointless in it's overall effectiveness. This comment section is never going to be an accurate or real voice to change or critique the way parks are managed. While the NPT does supply good op-eds from time to time, and also touches on many park related issues that rarely make it on the mainstream news, the comment section will remain a pointless joke, perfect for the John Quillens of the world, but not for people that actually work, and have real world engagement with our National Parks. John, you obviously will never get or understand that.
Alfred just gave the perfect example of how comments get blown up. He assigns reading, but when I gave him the reference for the millions of birds killed by cats and how nothing compares to their estimated destuctive ability on record, he says it was a hit piece. Here Alfred, this is not a made up paper, and the authors are legitimate scientists with a peer-reviewed study: Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2012. Direct human-caused mortality of birds: improving quantification of magnitude and assessment of population impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(7):357-364.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168:201-209.Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2014. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PloS ONE 9(7):e101565. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101565.
Argalite, there is a big difference between a starling, pigeon, sparrow, and an eagle. And don't forget the bats. Any sane environmentalist concedes that free-roaming cats kill millions of birds (although mine have never killed any). George and Gracie, our family duo, prefer hunting down mice and rats. George proudly reports seven rats this year culled from our neighbor's garden. He is so proud of himself he left one in our bedroom. Ugh! That morning I almost stepped on it.
Yes, the wind energy industry would like us to believe that the problem is really cats. No, the problem is their 40-story Cuisinarts chewing up endangered raptors in major flyways. How many are lost? Scientists really don't know, since coyotes and other predators immediately get to the carcasses. It could be ten times current estimates, and this in fact we know. The wind energy industry has asked for a legal "take" of eagles exceeding 4,000 animals a year.
Last year, a bald eagle landed in one of our fir trees. George and Gracie happened to be outside. They were scared out of their wits. No, they won't run from a pigeon or sparrow, but that day they ran like hell.
Unfortunately, the eagles, hawks, condors, bats, owls, etc., can't run from a threat they don't know. In time, perhaps, natural selection will kick in, and the raptors will "learn" about turbines. And solar power plants with 1,000 degree "heat." In the meantime, we are carving up the countryside--and our endangered wildlife--with a grand experiment that will never work, unless the human race seriously reduces its population, but who wants to start doing that?
In science, as in history, there are many people who refuse reducing a problem to its lowest common denominator. For them, it is always two-fourths and not one half. The two-fourths folks want us to believe that the problem is always something else. No, the problem is, having overrun the planet, that we human beings are the ones out of control.
Please, don't blame George and Gracie for being cats. They don't drive cars that kill thousands of their species every day, either. But we humans sure don't care what we kill and never stop to lament. I am perfectly within my rights to declare the human race a biological disaster. I've thought about it, after all. From where I sit, if the world were run by cats (and ours do think they run it), it would be a better place.
So you didn't address the fact that these are legitimate studies and not wind-power advocates. Who cares about your stupid cats?