2006-01-31 04:45 pm (UTC)
I'm still quite amused (and yes, a little upset) I was expected to apologise for not being fluffy this afternoon; I thought people knew me well enough by now to know that it's my journal and I'll do what I damn well like with it. As should we all.
Doesn't mean we have to like it ;)
(no, this isn't aimed at you Simon :) hello btw, we've never met. You sound lovely. Nice to have met you.)
Some journal writers are so up themselves as to be painful to read, and some journal writers are just stupid or inflammatory or ignorant or bigoted or insist on reading the wrong thing into some opinion or words.
Some journal writers use language as a twistable tool for their own purposes in an argument or response. Yes, it's a text medium, and yes, words are all we have, but come on guys.
Anyway. My point is that this is livejournal. Someone who makes a post has every right to make that post. Someone who can comment and comments has the right to make that comment. Attempts to control how someone behaves on a journal - their own (as you suggest happened to you) or someone else's (as kake is doing right now) - amount to censorship by another name :)
If you don't like the comments, just delete them already. Or use LJ's built-in features for controlling who can and can't, or screen them, or whatever :)
This is livejournal. It is what it is.
Attempts to control how someone behaves on a journal - their own (as you suggest happened to you) or someone else's (as kake is doing right now) - amount to censorship by another name :)
Sorry, but given that anyone reading here has their own LJ, or can have their own LJ with the click of a mouse, and can write anything they like there, I don't see how censorship comes into this in any way.
Perhaps I used the wrong word :)
Pick a word that means "attemping to control what people post and don't post in an otherwise public forum known for its acceptance of free speech and opinionated rants", or similar, and substitute where I used "censorship".
But then, not letting random people come into my house is censorship, and so are spam filtering, only giving my phone number to a few trusted friends, walking away from a fight, asking somebody to turn off their mobile phone before we go into a theatre, ignoring tramps who shout abusive things at me, and not talking to people who I already know hate me. I don't think censorship is always a bad thing. Most of the times I censor something out of my own life, it makes it better.
2006-01-31 06:17 pm (UTC)
Effectively all I'm intending to say is "please don't be boring at me, be interesting at me instead", and then explain what I mean by boring and interesting. Feedback on how I can change the words to make this as clear as possible is most welcome. I might also need to make it even more clear that at time of writing nobody has bored me enough to make me drop them.
"If you don't like the comments, just delete them already. Or use LJ's built-in features for controlling who can and can't, or screen them, or whatever :)"
But I find the act of thread-policing to be terribly boring, and while I know some people enjoy doing it, the only person who can do it in my journal is me. Also (in my experience of livejournal), in the case where the number of people with access to a post is large, by the time it becomes necessary it has also become impractical. And, more importantly, deleting or screening comments doesn't address the issue that I want to address - I have to have already been bored by them in order to know that I find them boring. Finally, I think your suggestions are quite likely to stifle discussion, and I don't want to do that.
In any case, the feedback I want is not so much on whether my desires are reasonable, but on whether I've managed to communicate them as unambiguously as possible. I've edited the post to make that clear; thank you for helping me realise that I needed to.
I'm not likely to invite someone onto my friends list unless I've seen something of them elsewhere
If I may be so bold, I will interpret this as you having been impressed with them elsewhere, and shall name this interpretation Bob. It suits my next point. ;)
Making it clear up-front what I find acceptable lets me offer people who enjoy being argumentative the option of deciding whether they'd like to participate in this space that I have some control over, or not.
Ah, this is probably the nub of it, and I think it's a clear difference of opinion, and one I'm willing to accept now you've explained it :)
You see, Bob, above, is also the criteria for my friends list. It carries with it the perpetual (until further notice) acceptance that they can read my friends-only posts and comment what they like. My journal is not read-only, even slightly. Anyone can say anything they like while they have permission to do so (as implied by the usages and customs of the community my journal is a part of), and until this is abused, I see no reason to limit it - as you are now doing, or using LJ's built-in features.
Having thought about it, this is probably because I have not felt inflamed or threatened by anything anyone has posted, which may be due to the inane and rather arbitrary drivel I tend to post, as opposed to your occasionally intensely personal and perhaps controversial offerings. However, my point stands :) We differ in how we approach and tolerate our "friends".
And so do we, clearly .:) I'd never have the nerve to tell people what to write and what not to write, but I don't have a problem with "please don't be rude" or "please consider other people's feelings when you post here". Although I'd probably not say "please don't be boring", it falls under the same category.
Edited to add: I think we're covering the "don't post like this" parts adequately; has anyone got anything to say about the "do post this" parts?
Probably the only thing I'd say if I were to post something like this in my journal is a request to comment on the posts that I've clearly invested more in. I dont' really care if a post on how 'bukkake' is a weird word that should apply to doing weird things with chickens attracts comments. And yet it ends up with lots, whereas people are edgy about commenting on, eg, short stories and so on. ;) And they are the ones I always want feedback on, whether it's 'heh, that was fun' (though that's probably the least useful comment) or 'i liked that line!' or 'this bit grated' or 'i don't get why this person was acting like that'. I can't read my own writing as an audience member, any more than I can watch my own performance onstage (even with the help of a video camera you still feel everything you do, you can't watch it as the audience would see it).
And of course, I also have very little confidence in my own writing skills right now. :)
But yes, to relate it back to the discussion - obviously the post that the author has put most into is the one we're least liekly to respond to - either because it seems like too much effort, or because we don't want to put a foot wrong, or because we're not really into thinking that deeply and getting an opinion at this hour of the morning / night.
And yet, even just tiny little comments, on some small detail rather than a broad analysis of the whole, can make the author feel like someone's really read and appreciated what they have to say...
2006-02-01 09:01 am (UTC)
"I dont' really care if a post on how 'bukkake' is a weird word that should apply to doing weird things with chickens attracts comments. And yet it ends up with lots, whereas people are edgy about commenting on, eg, short stories and so on. ;)"
I think my first incidence of 100 comments or more was when I asked people how they were and what they were having for breakfast."And yet, even just tiny little comments, on some small detail rather than a broad analysis of the whole, can make the author feel like someone's really read and appreciated what they have to say..."
I hear a lot of people saying "I didn't comment because I had nothing to say". I'd like to encourage "I read this"-type comments. I suppose the difficulty is coming up with a phrasing that sounds less blunt than "I read this". This post
I'm less convinced by that (the whole "signal:noise" thing). That's not to say that people shouldn't do it - if you like those kind of comments, and people post them to your journal, then everything's fine. The problem comes when people say "Nobody's commented, even with a ., so I don't think anyone's reading this". There are only so many times that I'm willing to say "Yes, you're on my Friends list, so I do read all of your posts, even if I don't comment on them."; eventually I'll just say "Screw it - you're now off my Friends list, so now you do know for certain whether I'm reading your posts or not."
the definition of "obvious" is "obvious to Kake"
2006-02-14 08:49 pm (UTC)
I've been meaning to post and say that I think there's either a firefox extension/greasemonkey script (can't remember which) which stops the horrible above 50 comments behaviour. Should be easy to find if you know it exists.
Haven't tested it throroughly but have it installed and haven't noticed the problem since.
2006-02-23 09:55 am (UTC)
Ooh, thanks. This
looks promising, but you still need to click on lots of "Unfold"s to get all the comments to display, and of course if you go away from the page and come back then you have to unfold them all over again. I wonder how difficult it would be to hack it to give an "Unfold everything" link.
Is that the one you were thinking of, or have you got a better one?