Limited interaction

To a degree, commenting on news stories is social interaction; however, it's limited in the sense that there's no real-time feedback. It's more like: dump-my-opinion and watch for a reaction, then respond.

What tends to happen is that most-frequent posters get to know each other to a limited extent, and where they are coming from; from a social point of view, however, there is limited context. No trust is developed.

If feedback is to be truly useful, there needs to be at least a limited rapport between the participants, something which is just beginning to be understood in the online world.

Shocker!

The Internet isn't as democratic as we all thought? It didn't create legions of content producers or stimulate grassroots ideas? It's been co-opted and corporatised? It is now the domain of the lowest common denominator and inspires people to cheap shots instead of grand gestures of good ideas?

Who'd have thunk it?

The hype over sites like Youtube, MySpace and Facebook is just that - hype. The vast majority of postings on YouTube are reposts of TV shows, commercials and (the most original of the bunch), people doing recreations of songs or tv skits in front of their webcams, someone thinking that their version of a joke from the Daily Show will be as entertaining as the original (it's not). MySpace is a wasteland of "thanks for the add!", advertising, and never-changing profiles or inside jokes. Message boards are crass adn reactionary.

We have been given this incredible tool, but we don't know what to do with it. Communication is becoming more and more superficial as speed and conciseness is being favoured over thoughtful dialogue. As stated above, the Tyee is an aberration in this world, but not at all times. I used to enjoy the Craigslist Rants and Raves page - a spot where one is supposedly supposed to post their thoughts on what is great and what is not so great in the poster's world. It used to be a wonderful insight into what made other people tick. Sometimes the posts were ridiculous, but at least they were original thoughts. It has now denigrated into the type of base, small-minded reactionary racism and sexism not seen since the days of the high school locker room.

The early adopters of the Internet has such noble intentions and ideas. A return to the public space where everyone could have their say, no matter how marginalised or out there the view was. This dream has been shattered. Turn off the computer and get outside - that's where the messages will matter.

Some of us yell because we care...

Censoring forums is simply another means to homogenize debate and censor viewpoints the self-appointed mainstream considers uncomfortable and undesirable.

Although it's been said a multitude of times in the past, It seems to have been lost on some people that politics in British Columbia is a blood sport. How many times were the terms 'revenge' and 'payback' used around the 2001 and 2005 elections?

There is a lot of anger out there, and it's not going to be heard if people are bludgeoned into 'playing nice'. I don't expect HEU members who were betrayed by Bill 29 to play nice. I don't expect Cambie Street merchants who've been bankrupted by the Canada Line to play nice. I don't expect people being evicted from SRO's to play nice.

If the discussion online doesn't reflect the discussion in the streets, then it's not a legitimate discussion.

New rules do help

Salon did set up new rules after Gary Kamiya's piece, although they say this was fortuitous.
But I find that their responses from readers have improved. Heather Havrilesky, their TV critic, who has received vile sexist email in the past, wrote a piece on the latest Chris Moltisanti episode of The Sopranos and pretty much everyone disagreed with her. But they did it in such an intelligent civilized way that she actually wrote in and said she had changed her mind about a key point.
As well, I got about six different new insights into the episode, partly because I may have been too horrified by the episode itself to think clearly.
But I found it truly valuable, a great relief because I love the Internet (It's not just a big truck, ya know. It's a buncha tubes. Oh, you knew that?)
I find that I still pass over anyone signed Anonymous. And I still don't see why people don't use their real names, as I do, but that's my uncool hang-up, I suppose.
I'm glad The Tyee is making this effort. I love the site, but the emails add more stress to my life than I can cope with right now. Some of those CBC.ca posters are extreme women-haters. Don't they realize how they damage their own case with their hate? I guess not.
Good for you, Tyee.

alright big boy, how about a

alright big boy, how about a link to Glavin's Story in the Sun?

Or will I be deleted cuz I'm calling you out on your pro-censorship views?

That is certainly one way to shield your readers from the facts oif tyhe so-called antiwar left. It's a great article (yes we've seen it here before) but I can only guess pure churlishness is why it is not in the stories at left.

Freedom of speech means being offended by vulgarity, et al. Guess you didn't get the memo.

Good things can spin off from these Tyee discussions

This is an appropriate time to thank David Beers and The Tyee for creating a forum where concerned citizens can meet and exchange ideas.

Good things can happen as a result. Here's proof. Two blogspots arose because on a Tyee thread last year, a group of us lamented the fact that Big Media was suppressing information on B.C. Rail, and the trial of Basi, Virk, Basi.

Yes, you bet there was lamenting, deploring, and handwringing. I remember feeling outraged and desperate at the hopeless situation and said: "We can't just lie down and die! We can do something! We can set up a web-site!"

The mood changed instantly. Yes! Set up a web-site! (Gulp!)

House of Infamy came first because Koot knew how to do it. I tried to join in but the name troubled me. And our voices are very different. So before long, I had mastered the rudiments of bloggery with the result ...

The Legislature Raids came next. I work on it every day for 10, 12, 15 hours -- it's like an airline trip to Australia every day -- with the resulting swollen feet and sore tailbone, because I get so fascinated by what I'm finding, I forget to walk around and restore circulation.

The Legislature Raids recently had its 1st anniversary and has published over 300 articles relating to the B.C. Rail issue. You'd be amazed to know who some of the visitors are (and I'm not telling) but it's a good feeling to know that sometimes I'm writing right into the eyes of the persons I'd most like to talk to.

The two web-sites have worked beautifully together, approaching the Trial of the Century from two very different points of view, supporting one another. I think we have brought a great deal to the subject of the Basi Virk Basi trial which, I am convinced, CanWest wanted to suppress and ignore (at our expense).

Twice in the past week, The Legislature Raids has outed certain key people playing fast and loose with the truth. Today's example is especially apt, and was written by someone Tyee readers know well. (And I'm not telling that either.)

So today it's time to remember that these two good things began right here on a Tyee thread. I'd just like to say Thank You for that.

Oh. As "Editor" of a blog now, I have not the slightest hesitation in deleting rude, divisive, hurtful comments which add nothing to anyone's understanding of the B.C. Rail issue. I've been hit by a nasty swarming (delete, delete, delete) and sexually implicit insults (delete, delete), which make no sense and degrade everyone they touch.

But the trolls soon left. Now I am especially proud that many wonderful people have gathered around The Legislature Raids to contribute, support and encourage us onward and upward.

Our biggest concern now is to continue to keep the public informed and alert, as there's reason to fear that powerful people in B.C. would like to see the B.C. Rail trial dismissed.

And that really would be criminal.

More moderation

I am glad this issue has been raised. I rarely post here anymore because of the
level of the discussion and because of the trolls (left and right) who are allowed to get on their old and tired hobbyhorses.

Having said that, I think the level of comments here is better than those on, say, the "Globe and Mail's" website. They are truly disheartening.

I think this site (and others) needs moderation. Look at "Television Without Pity." Yes, it is a silly pop-culture site, but it is really well moderated and that is part of why it is so popular.

Rules of behaviour are needed: no ad hominem attacks (of the kind Ms. Mallick
excells at, BTW), no "hate," no disparagement of race , religion, or ethnicity. Gag or bann people who troll for responses, who are off topic etc.

Now all of this takes time and money, so I'm not sure how you can do this.

Thanks for engaging

To all who have added your thoughtful comments so far, thanks! And may I urge the many who read comments but feel shy about adding their own views to do so. Registering is easy and our goal, after all, is to diversify the conversations.

A quick responses to El Orso and MyBrainIsOnFire: Be assured we have no intention of censoring views here at The Tyee either because we disagree with them or because they are rooted in a passionate, even angry, point of view. But we are seeking a basic level of civility absent of racist, sexist or personally insulting attacks. Stopping that kind of commenting is not censorship; rather it leaves open the door for others to contribute rather than feeling abused and intimidated by their fellow commenters.

I'm sure we can agree on that.

Dave Beers is a greying old poop.

Oh wait--that's no longer appropriate, right? Still, you can't fight the truth.

As a Tyee contributor I hope I don't shape my writing to the expected response. But I confess that, like a hockey player afraid to go into the corner when pursued by Chris Chelios, I find myself shying from expressing opinions or dealing with topics that run contrary to the perceived ethos of the Tyee readership--at least as expressed in the threads. I try to remember that, as mentioned above, the posters are a small fragment of the total readership.

Winged Monkeys

I have to agree with Marta. Any site in the Gawker Media empire is also really well-moderated, and they go as far as to have auditions, public executions where hateful or racist commenters are highlighted and then barred, and weekly "gold stars" for exceedingly brilliant posts. It works well, and the comments on those sites are half the reason for reading. It's a shame that moderation is needed but some people will always take it too far and abuse the wonderful forum that is online newssites.

As an columnist here who has had her share of nasty comments, I always remember the advice my first editor gave me after someone wrote in the paper to call me a feminazi, because I dared make gender in the music industry an issue: the reader gets the last word. We printed the letter, and people wrote to say it was outlandish and we printed those too. I still have the "feminazi" one taped to my fridge.

Anyways, dissenting passionate opinions are always welcome, but if people are going to be domineering, hateful bullies who control the tone of the discussion and make others afraid to speak up-- well, that's not why any of us are at The Tyee, is it? Off with their heads in the (virtual) town square, I say.

Thanks for bringing this up.

More women please!

If a small fraction of Tyee readers are actually commentators, the fact that they're predominantly male, is curious. Men! Will they never shut up? It would great to hear a few more lively, opinionated female voices join the fray. If toning down the level of vitriol makes that a possibility, than I think it's worthwhile.

predominantly male

Are you actually sure that's true?

The name calling ...

For me, it's not so much people's ideas, but the name calling and senseless labelling that is really bothersome. Reading the commentaries has often given me better insight than the actual article about certain topics. Unfortunately, there are too many people posting just to insult people, or boost their own ego. There is no personal responsibility of writing hurtful words when you are anonymous.

I would love to be able to self-censor, and block certain users comments from appearing on my screen. That way, if you don't play nice, no one will read what you post anyway.

Male Vs. Female Commentators

I'd be curious to know if there are more male than female commentators here. I've always assumed it's about 70% male, 30% female because of the usernames people have chosen (and the posting styles), but I could be completely wrong.

I post in Salon's "Tabletalk," some threads in which are largely populated by female posters, and there is a difference in style. That's not to say there aren't disagreements but there's also a lot more discussion of "how" things are said and of tone.

But I pay to post there. It does get rid of some of the more rabid online elements. However, I like the fact that anyone, regardless of income, can post here. Poverty is a real issue in B.C., and the voices of the poor certainly don't get heard in the mainstream CanWest media.

Human nature, trial, error and trial again

As an occasional contributor to the Tyee, and a traditional journalist for much longer, I was naively excited at the prospect of immediate feedback on my reporting... and disappointed by the reality, for all the reasons you identify.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been. Human nature being what it is, the absence of accountability breeds irresponsibility in the most disciplined of us. As my old-fashioned mother used to say: “The mark of a true gentleman is what he will do when he knows that no-one else will ever know”. For what I suspect are related psychological reasons, what we do not have to pay for, we do not value. That’s why we waste water and squander whatever else we relegate to the public commons.

Inviting accusations of elitism, let me suggest another human reality in play. As Julius Epstein has written: far too many people believe they have a book inside them. Usually, it should stay there. That is, an abiding problem for the creative trades is that there are always more people who BELIEVE they have talent than actually do. If you doubt this, watch any of the ‘Idol’ clones. It is the reason why less than five percent of recorded music recorded ever earns back the investment in studio time. It’s also why editors, for all they are reviled and denounced as ‘gatekeepers’, serve a purpose: they save us time by excluding the most obvious trash.

In other words, the problem doesn’t arise from the nature of the Internet so much as the nature of people. The Internet, by its low-to-zero cost of entry, simply provides unprecedented opportunity for it be manifest.

Has this changed how I use the ‘net? Not much. I used it primarily as the world’s biggest, cheapest and most convenient library. For a guy like me who makes a living repackaging information, it’s the proverbial golden egg-laying goose.

But the commentary? The ‘democratic blogoshere’? Too much noise; too little signal. With the exception of rare valuable bites that show up on my search engines, I generally find it a waste of time.

What can be done? Well, moderating helps. But it’s a cost to someone (in this case the Tyee or whoever might volunteer for the thankless job). And of course it simply recreates the gatekeeper syndrome from which the Internet was supposed to free us.

Maybe there’s a technological solution. Perhaps the wizards who developed algorithms to rank Google returns could develop one to sift through posts and seperate the enlightening from the merely flaming.
But even if not, I’m grateful to the Tyee, Salon, BBC and all the other sites that have risked opening fora for comments and chats. Like so much else in life (love, playing the trombone, discovering dark matter), this is one of those things that has to be tried--and tried again and again--even when the odds are we’ll fail the first few (hundred, thousand!) times! As another smart guy told me once: “If you never fail, you’re not trying hard enough.”

Disemvoweling

Here's an Information Week column by Cory Doctorow:
How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over Your Online Community.

I like the idea of disemvoweling offensive or otherwise unacceptable posts:

bring in the dunk tank!

Tyee should set up a dating site for these guys. And maybe a monthly writer dunk-tank to generate huge profits. Televise it online to give the lurkers their crack and Burgess a chance to model his Italian speedos. (See I’m making stuff up already.)

Come on now, writers are just as susceptible to bitchy egomaniacal ranting, can go on and on about their personal lives, take their own cheap shots and provide little to no actual research about their chosen topic. And we sometimes even get paid for it, so we should be able to take a little of it back and have skin thick enough to take the occasional shot about cellulite.

Even when the occasional poster crosses the line and start flaming the writer or other participants with crass, nasty or downright scary comments (criminal behaviour like the kind Sierra experienced is a different thing altogether), we get a glimpse of people in their natural habitats without having to get off our butts and travel. Sometimes these are lightbulb moments. I didn’t even know that feminism had failed until a Tyee poster spelled it out for me.

Sad that some journalists hang it up because of extreme forum bullies, what about the writers pushed out of the field by corporate interests and lack of alternate media venues?

I’m going to get all touchy-feely now and risk the end of the tree branch: I’ve learned some very interesting things from a number of tyee posters, ranging from their intimate experiences to excellent educational information. Thanks for that! Sometimes these forum comments fill the void left by lazy journalism.

marta

You may well be right. The only reason I mentioned it is that I've actually been surprised to discover that some posters I'd assumed were male actually turned out to be female.

Personally I think an online name that's gender neutral is probably a good idea. Some people, especially angry garrulous ones, seem to be dismissive or aggressive with individuals they assume are NOT female. Choosing an overtly male or female handle probably tends to drag along some baggage with it too, don't you think?

I agree with most everything you posted on the subject of standards of debate but I must say I think your judgment of what I see as Heather Mallick's sophisticated satire is a little harsh.

The thing I have noticed about Tyee posters who self-identify as female is that they are much more likely to stick to ideas and concepts and stay away from the personal stuff.

The other thing I've noticed is that revealing anything personal or that might be interpreted as nominally weak about oneself is an invitation to a public flaming.

Danielle E

I think the reciprocal of what you just wrote is also true.

I hope that most of the writers here also appreciate that they too are valued and enjoyed - much of the time.

Thanks to all of you, and to the proprietor - with whom I've had my own disagreements from time to time.

On balance, it's a damn fine place and journalism – despite the dyspeptic review from the Times Colonist – is better for it.

Onward and upward.

Globe Trekker

Once when I was filing reports from Vietnam, a guy who was living there--he went by Globe Trekker-- chimed in and expanded on observations I was making. To me it was the ideal example of what the threads ought to be--informed comment, illumination, expansion of the discussion.

alright david it's obviously

alright david it's obviously far too early to make a prognosis of the things to come.

We might have to argue what is racist sexist, etc, though - for instance while it is clear that a male's natural proclivities towards aggression can be expressed negatively, however almost nothing is mentioned of the deadly flaw of females - being overly-protective and stifling to the point that we would all be still in caves "just to be safe" on the extreme end.

Of course both the outgoing aggression in males and the velvet prison of females have postive, constructive roles to play in our joint effort to build viable societies.

But uhh yeah let's see what happens.

Carry On

The Tyee has become a very important part of the community, and I'd like to offer my thanks to David Beers and all the Tyee writers for what they do. In today's corporate media climate, voices like The Tyee's are needed more than ever.

I enjoy reading the comments and making the odd one myself. I do know one author who wrote an article here and was quite hurt by the nastiness of the comments about it. Sometimes the commenters forget that the Tyee writers are actual human beings with feelings (perhaps I've forgotten it myself sometimes).

I encourage people who have not commented here to do so. It can lead to good things, if one doesn't mind mixing it up a little.

Threading

"It is so free that blogs, chat lines and talk threads are often the chosen destination for embittered, deranged people, repelling the intelligent readers who were supposed to make the Internet a new haven for humanity."

Ouch!!! haha... I personally think we're a fun, bright bunch and even more fun when we get going at each other. Hadn't noticed the female/male imbalance, if there is one. I think those of us who post do so because we like to write, simple as that. Why is Mallick's name so familiar? Which column does she/do you write??

El Orso, thank you

El Orso, thank you for your post and for the wisdom expressed within its words.

David Beers wrote:

You forget that the "uncivil" response can be equally informative and valuable to the discussion of ideas. In fact some of the greatest strides in human history were made by those who made "the effort" of the uncivil response. The term "civil disobedience" comes to mind.... not an oxymoron in terminology at all.

We need both. The civil and the uncivil response. Sometimes, by gawd, they are even inter-changeable. The civil response can sometimes be at heart coldly uncivil .... and the uncivil response can sometimes be the height of civility.

I think I may actually vomit. Nothing like a "well-moderated" public audition or ever-so-nice execution.

Gold stars? The last gold star I got was in grade two. I'd like to keep it that way.

I now know why the world is tipping so dangerously the way it is of late.

Sorry, I find this constant tampering with the Tyee commentary completely juvenile.

Lynn

While I certainly agree that the threads should not be governed by a "if you can't say something nice..." mentality, there is a depressing sameness to the way so many threads develop. Like water rushing downhill they quickly devolve into continuations of feuds, ongoing personal and political battles between regular posters. When this happens continually it calls into question the usefulness of the whole enterprise.

Beers article

During the '60's, I believe it was the author of L'il Abner who remarked, "What the country needs is more free speech worth listening to." Although he had his own concepts of what was worth listening to (he had little respect for much of the ranting that was trying to pass for social criticism during the period) and many disagreed with his judgment on various occasions, his point shows that there really isn't very much new in the world.

America is still at war and people in a divided culture such as BC (nearly a 'little America' if there ever was one) still snipe at one another with varying levels of sophistication and vitriole.

The author of FRIENDLY INQUISITORS generated a fairly clear argument a few years ago that censorship, whatever the putative nobility of its aims, never quite works. It is up to the readers and listeners who inhabit public space to sap the effects of the arguments of foolish or hostile people by holding them to account with intellectual rigour. Otherwise, the cretins, by eliciting the crackdown on public expression, oddly enough dictate what the rest of us may say.

Readers of the threads following Tyee articles can readily enough discover the posts that lack credibility or worth and can abandon them or criticize them accordingly.

Despite my disappointment in the resort to fallacy ad hominem (the mainstay of talk radio in the US--perhaps here in Canada, too) that often characterizes posts on this site, I nonetheless find it worth coming back to periodically.

One might ask, is it bad taste to call a government official (perhaps) a criminal, or simply an allegation that remains to be proven? I have no hesitation in calling George W. Bush, for example, an evil man (which isn't exactly a legal category, I'll admit). I'd be perfectly willing to adduce evidence for why I think so.

I'm not happy with the notion that some well-intentioned Big Brother might feel it necessary to clip and carve my remarks or those of others who post here. That being said, let me be on the record that I tend to prefer argument to insult.

Conciseness should rule in comments

Enough said already.

Suggestions

First, I really appreciate the Tyee, and SOME of the comments.

the following two rules might help (especially if their implementation could be automated)
--no contribution more than 200 words
--no more than one contribution on a single thread from one address in any 24 hour period

where people wish to provide more background info, this could be done in most cases by providing web references (these might be added to the 200 word limit)

Keep up the good work.

(83 words)

The Deal

Part of it is psychological; many people with poor thinking skills are very lonely, having been disregarded by all around them for obvious reasons for years. Their loneliness expresses as anger for those who clearly think little of the limited thoughts they do give voice to.

Part of it is social; Robert Heinlein expressed the idea that the surest diagnostic test for a sick society is a breakdown of common courtesy. This travels down from the top. Our leaders despise us, cheat us and disregard us, and from this we learn to do the same to ourselves.

And cultural; We have succumbed to power as though it was a pathology. We have infected every facet of our relationships with the idea that anything no-one can prevent you from doing is yours to do, and there is no value but that. Being believed in a lie is the same as speaking the truth, so liars need loud shouting to drown out the truth.

Political is obvious; The greatest part of us want no part of the world the deregulators are creating, but our leaders baffle us with BS and those who choose to believe BS feel deeply threatened by those who notice out loud the Emperor's lack of clothes. They try to hurt those who threaten them with exposure.

But here's the deal: Nobody can choose. Every time somebody says 'I'll decide who can speak and who shouldn't be allowed', that person clearly disqualifies himself for the job. We all think there must be a way to get rid of the obvious spoilers, but how then to ensure that the choice never becomes personal? There are laws of slander and libel. They are all we have.

Maybe we could use those? There must be a way.

...

Gold stars? The last gold star I got was in grade two. I'd like to keep it that way.

I now know why the world is tipping so dangerously the way it is of late.

Sorry, I find this constant tampering with the Tyee commentary completely juvenile.

Best comment on the topic... that said, a more moderated forum isn't going to stop me from visiting... or posting.
IMO, the best moderation is self-moderation -- in other words, don't feed the trolls : )

Blog Comments

The way that the comments are all attached to a specific article (which then gets buried after a few weeks) is like a busy blog. I would rather have a forum, or a few forums, where discussions continue on through out the life-span of a trial and new articles on the front page keep supplying current information as it becomes available; www.alternet.org had a Motet forum for their backend which worked very well, but a few years ago they switched to a blog style comment which focused attention on the article writers, and in the process I think they lost a lot of the news gathering capability they had with the conferences which always got the information first.

The software needs to be able to easily link to single posts, ranges and collections so that useful information doesn't become "lost." When you can do this the length of the topic doesn't become a burden, and the off topic and distracting comments can be ignored.

If individual posts can be linked to then the journalists (writing front page stories) can reference those posts as footnotes. The post in the forum may be written by the journalist, as a way of anchoring their article into the comment stream. Or it could be written by some other poster and it happened to be a handy reference; and once people see what kind of posts get referenced in the articles it would provide motivation to spend a bit more time on a post, and add to the knowledge base. Posts that summarize and layout key points will get referenced frequently and aid in ongoing research and follow up, which is something that is harder to do with the two week blog time span. I think that if we could develop this cooperative arrangement with the writers and the commenters that the quality of posts and the usefulness as a news source would both improve.

I think the Tyee should get a Motet conference.

well i wasn't going to comment anymore...

I had decided not to comment anymore but will get my 2 cents worth in now.

The reason that I don't want to commment is it's mostly men commenting and some get their egos's engaged and go on and on. The comments become very tedious

There are a few though-"Grumpy" and "B C Mary"- that i have actually learned quite a bit from and am grateful for that.

My only fear in removing the comments is that the writers themselves do not like them and have put "pressure" on "The Tyee".

I've given up reading the movie reviews as often mainstream and/or sexist movies are reviewed.
When I posted a comment to this effect-"the guys" ganged up on me and made personal comments about me and I became the object of male anger.
It didn't matter to these "intellectuals" that, at no time did I make a personal comment about Steve or Dorothy-just their choices of movies.

So what is the Tyee going to do? I have no idea, I will contiue to enjoy and learn from the articles. As for the comments, I can take them or leave them.

commenting on comments

I appreciate the Tyee in the vast Canwest media wasteland but unlike the excellent articles the comments have limited value for me.

However, I do enjoy reading BC Mary and Ed Deak--but that type of thoughtful commentary is maybe 10% of the comments at best?

When Rafe Mair or Norm Spectre have commented, using their real names, their views were not respected and engendered some really vicious responses.

I would like a way to scan comments faster and jump over trolls or people making the same old comments.

I like Alternet's format with nested comments (so people can still enjoy a feisty debate amongst themselves or go off a tangent without taking up lots of web space).

Alternet (like the Guardian) also allows readers to report inappropriate comments which must help with monitoring big sites.

I also like the suggestions of limiting comments to 200 words and 4 postings a day on a particular topic.

How to promote dialogue on the web rather than flame wars?

It would be nice to encourage more women to participate.

Two women who regularly read the Tyee have commented to me about how disappointing the comments are. And their voices would add much to a thoughtful dialgoue.

I really enjoy reading the

I really enjoy reading the Tyee, but I no longer read the comments and I have never commented for fear of being personally attacked. The tone of many commentator is aggressive and angry. For real dialogue to happen there needs to be more moderation. I like the system where registered users can flag a post and if a certain number of people flag it as being inappropriate it is removed.

As long as it's mostly ranting I'll stay away.

Character limits are fine the way they are.

Brevity is not always the soul of wit

Upon reading these...

I'm really struck at home much response falls along gender lines.

That my "gold star" and "execution" suugestions went down so poorly has given me food for thought, but I'm genuinely saddened that people feel reluctant to wade into the dialogue, and I can't honestly think of any other solution other than moderated comments.

I think the very nature of the Tyee means that a diverse range of opinions are welcome, and I can only speak for myself, but I really don't think anyone has the inclination (nor the clout) to pressure the Tyee Powers That Be to remove comments that vehemently disagree with articles they've written. I think we're talking about tone and not content, and that it's important to know the difference.

Anyways, this is a fascinating discussion, at the very least, and I'm pleased to see people engaging.

Fixing the comments section

Why have comments? Whose interests are served by having them?

If the writer of the article needs feedback he or she can leave an email address where people can send them other information. It would be more efficient than having to wade through our various meandering discussions.

If people don't like the comments, no one has to read them. The Tyee is set up in such a way that one can read the articles and ignore the comments, or vice versa.

In my opinion the comments are the domain of those that read them and post them. It might not be entertaining to everyone else but few things are.

If you're sitting at the back of the room complaining that those doing the talking aren't intelligent or witty enough for you, there is a solution, participate. Because no one here is being paid to entertain you.

So write what you want to say and hit "Post comment". That's it. No one can shout you down and no one knows where you live. So please, if you think you can raise the level of the debate or be entertaining or whatever, by all means string some words together and join in.

Of course there's a chance that the comment which you thought was the most inspired writing in human history since a pair of stone tablets won't be as well received as you thought would be the case but if you remember back to elementary school and how you didn't always get an A on your book reports you'll get along fine.

As for the article writers

Some of the faces have changed, I miss Barbara McLintock for example, but I like this group.

Bill is always informative. I like Murray. Desk pounders like Rafe are needed. Terry? .. moving on...

I feel bad that Will's mother locked him in a hotel room for the weekend when he was young and impressionable with nothing to read but an accounting text while she hit the tables, but the result is articles that I bookmark.

Dorothy is too good for this place. Like SouthDeltaWalker I don't always like her subjects but her writing makes any topic a good read.

And what can I say about a man that can write about hockey, movies and eating noodles in places with names I can't pronounce? Steve is a giant among men.

Let the readers moderate...

...and censor as they like.

There is free/open source software available. /. is a good example.

I'm a first time poster and an occasional reader

http://slashdot.org/
http://www.slashcode.com/

Lurkers

I'd like to agree with the comments,

I don't usually have much to add, but I have found a wealth of information in these threads - only, you have to wade through so much nonsense. Perhaps there could be a forum for open discussion (personal attacks, vile comments, etc.) while still maintaining a condensed version of useful posts?

I won't say anything here that I wouldn't say across the table - happy to put my name to it. Perhaps we can practice some of that politeness we're so famous for.

slashdot user moderation +/-

User moderation like slashdot has is at high risk of the "group think" effect taking place.

I would however like to be able to personalize my own rating of commentators that I like/dislike and be able to pay more attention to the better (by my criteria) ones and less attention to the ones I'm not interested in.

I do this already manually skimming over the comments and skipping over the kranks and slowing down to read more closely those who I find interesting. If the blogging software could do that on my behalf then that would make it easier to read the skinny-column single-threaded commentary.

As well being able to see what comments an interesting commentator has posted for other articles would make The Tyee more enjoyable. As others have said you need to skip over a lot of noise by the high volume/low value commentators to find a decent signal.

Some simply talk and talk

Like many I suspect, I seldom read the comments. At one time some brought interesting perspectives on issues.However there has been a growing trend on Tyee and on other spaces I am sure for a select few to carry on never ending dribble and with no respect to the topic at hand they continue to occupy web space. So I say bravo Tyee good moves and I hope the quality of comments will improve

boys behaving badly.......

It's been noted by several other commenters, including myself, that most of those who post comments are men.

This is no accident, "The Tyee' is very male. It frequently reviews mainstream movies that appeal to men i.e. "Grindhouse' and James Bond movies. It also features mainstream sports i.e. hockey-again most of the appeal is to men.

Most of the frequent columnists are male
and two of them Dobbin and Glavin can be patronizing in their writing syle.

"The Tyee" is just not woman friendly.

When I shared an experience in a post about working in a non tradional job and experienced sexism and discrimination. One post called me a "whiner' or some such thing. Would that have happed if I was of minority descent and experienced racism? I don't think so.

The point here is that, "The Tyee", probably inadvertantly, has created what is seen by some men as a "guy's place" and they behave accordingly.

southdeltawalker

I think you're right that some posters have said sexist and unfair things here at Tyee in the past.

I'm not necessarily convinced they're always men though.

However, although I'm not enamored with the 'best comments' rating business - for reasons I posted on the other story and won't repeat here - I do like the 'suggest as offensive' facility.

I think, in cases where anyone finds a comment personally offensive, the ability to let an editor know quickly and without having to write an individual email is a great addition to the space.

I trust that a poster who collects a certain number of such 'offensive' ratings will be cautioned and the offending remarks may well be redacted.

A poster's sex should not be the object of critics here, or anywhere, and the Tyee's policies, I expect, will tend to reflect that much more clearly now that people have an easier way to bring their feelings to the attention of the editors.

One small point I hope you won't mind me making. I do happen to be male and it troubles me a little bit that anyone would assume that means I can't deal with people as individuals and ideas as ideas without becoming personal or sexist.

Thanks for reading.

Writer Boys are behaving just fine

I disagree strongly with southdeltawalker about Tyee writers being a problem. Glavin is a fine writer and a thoughtful journalist. He's not patronizing, although he is obviously smarter and better informed than most of his readers, which appears to annoy many of them. Dobbin is a shill for the NDP, but that's fine too, since it tells us what the NDP is thinking.

I've found stories about fashion and lifestyle on this site. Lots of stuff on pop culture. Funny pieces as well as political ones and some that manage to be both. I don't find it alienates women at all; there is a good mix of stuff.

The only sexist and/or racist comments I've ever seen have been from the posters. Usually it's a handful of the regulars who, apparently, have too much time on their hands probably due to the delightful personalities they display here.

"The Tyee is just not woman friendly"

Ah, but I beg to differ... anyway, I think that's why I like it so much. I jump right into the mosh pit and duke it out with the best/worst of them- c'mon, southdeltawalker- that's what it so GREAT about the Tyee comments. You have a chance to let the writer of the "Grindhouse" review, or whatever it happens to be, know how you feel. How many time have you read something (like since you were a little girl) that just made your blood boil but you had no way of expressing it to the writer/editor/publisher, etc? Here you can...

Online bullies, etc.

Unfortunately, more and more people are being turned off blogging because of such things.

But it's not only what goes on in a comments section that makes things rather ugly; there is plenty of outright sick and criminal activity going on behind the scenes (via dummy sites with (criminally!) libellous content, hate mail, threats, etc.).

As members of the blogosphere, should we allow such riff-raff to spoil the experience for everyone else? No, far from it. The riff-raff is best ignored and left to stew in their own filthy juices. The rest of us will go on writing and commenting.

A dictatorship of editors....

...could be a new collective noun, if it isn't already.

But it's almost the only way to go, considering how depersonalizing the so-called digital commons has turned out to be. I support some form of moderation, hoping, as always, that 19th cent. English scholar Leslie Stephen's dictum will always be remembered;

I've found in recent months, due mostly to a lack of time to waste trolling Tyee, that I've developed a peculiar blindness when it comes to idiotic comments and inane articles. There are times when I truly don't even see them any more. It isn't a perfect blindness by a long shot, but it's become a great timesaver. What Clueless and Iddiott think matters not at all to me anyway, as long as the facts are straight.

I'm tentatively prepared to support the ideal of hands-on editorship with a very light touch - the harsh swear words don't get to me in print like they would in person where the full force of the vituperative invective can be amplified by posture or popularity or lack of privacy into a truly organ-freezing storm of scorn that pulverizes self-worth. I understand that others might feel differently.

And....

Thanks to Bailey and El Torso for the education. Most excellently said.

And is GWest an editor at Tyee yet? Should be. Nobody else keeps moving the sewage along and lifting out the nuggets for general inspection with greater facility or economy.

Tyee, for all its faults (and it's gained a few more in recent months) is still a better alternative to the MSM than many other sites. 'Nuff said about Canwest - Elbert Hubbard said it already a hundred years ago:

Is that enough "nice" pills for one day?

Sorry

That's "El Orso"

A wiki, wiki world

When I first started writing for The Tyee, I loved the idea of being part of an on-line community. I even wrote some of my stories specifically to spark comments, tossing questions to readers to see what ideas would emerge from the internet ether.

But at some point, the chances of a comment after a story actually relating to that story, became purely coincidental.

I'd get private comments from Tyee readers -- some of whom are now ex-Tyee readers – that the off-topic comments and personal exchanges between posters made this felt less like an online publication, than a private chat room. It not only turned them off the idea of commenting, it turned them off reading The Tyee.

So… good luck with the experiment.

And I hope the comments keep coming in – on topic -- with all the attitude you’d expect from Tyee readers… Because when people truly get spinning on a story, I still think there’s a chance for magic to happen. It's a wiki world out there.