If anything, since I wrote the “state of the conversation” post last week, things have only gotten worse. It’s clear to me that we need not only better enforcement (more on that later), but also a clearer set of rules.
So here’s a first pass on rearticulating the rules. As I always I look forward to feedback from our readers.
- All contributions and comments become the property of Portland Transport.
- Opinions in posts and comments are those of the authors, not necessarily those of Portland Transport. Responibility for those opinions rests with the authors.
- This site has a point of view: that continued over-reliance on the automobile is not sustainable or healthy for our society and alternative choices must become more widely available. This is intended to be the general center of the conversation here. While opposing views are welcome, participation that is of a quality or quantity that combines to undermine the purpose of the site may be restricted or refused.
- Constructive disagreement is welcome, but simply repeating your disagreement is not. If your disagreement is simply to protest our point of view, you should find another outlet for your views.
- Passion and robust debate about ideas are what Portland Transport is about. Passion directed at individuals is not, and will be deleted promptly. Please confine your remarks to policy, opinion and data.
- We assume that everyone who participates in the conversation is sincere. Questioning the motivations of participants, including those whose opinions may be contrary to the general view of the site, is strictly prohibited.
- While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home.
- Skepticism is helpful, cynicism is not. If you need an outlet for your anger at government, the transportation system, or anything else, look elsewhere.
38 responses to “Restoring the Conversation”
YEEEEEEEEAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH Streetcars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(You can’t tell if that’s a howl in disgust or ecstasy, haha!)
Chris –
Its your site but I think you may be overeacting to the most recent problems in a couple areas:
Many people here have agenda’s. Sometimes those are obvious, sometimes they are less than obvious. Sometimes people prefer that their agendas not be clear. That doesn’t make them “insincere”. Rule six seems to suggest that people’s agendas cannot be questioned. But I think it is in the best interests of discussion if everything is on the table. The fact that you are on the Portland Streetcar board is important information in a discussion with you about street car issues. You share that information openly, others might not choose to.
Skepticism is helpful, cynicism is not. If you need an outlet for your anger at government, the transportation system, or anything else, look elsewhere.
This seems to be a direct contradiction with number six where you want to assume everyone is “sincere” and motivations are not questioned. Here, people whose motive is “anger” are in violation of the rules.
It seems to me you are better off sticking to the nature of what is posted, rather than peoples reasons for posting. Whether cynical or sceptical.
It seems to me you are better off sticking to the nature of what is posted, rather than peoples reasons for posting. Whether cynical or sceptical.
I agree completely. But it seems to me there are obvious cases of people just dumping angry rants on threads that really don’t advance a policy discussion. That’s what I’d like to screen out. I think we can identify “angry content” without having to go back to motivation.
Many people here have agenda’s. Sometimes those are obvious, sometimes they are less than obvious.
So how about a rule the encourages disclosure? But I don’t want to have this witch hunt atomsphere where people are accusing other people of having undisclosed agendas.
Chris –
I agree with you entirely.
I actually think you would be better off with a final rule:
“I created this site for the purpose of having informed discussions. These rules were established to give participants guidance as to what is unacceptable behavior. But they are not exhaustive, and I reserve the right to delete comments based on my own belief that they do not make any positive contribution to the discussion.”
Here is a link on the Blogger code of conduct I think it addresses a lot of the issues from the “freedom” side of the discussion. But also the balance to be struck here.
I think the important thing is that you get to make the rules and decide how they are enforced. Everyone else just gets to decide whether to continue to participate … and whine at you about your decisions.:)
what’s up with this rule?
“1. All contributions and comments become the property of Portland Transport.”
fwiw, this is the only blog i read that has that policy. i’m just wondering what your goal is here? so if i write a brilliant essay on the streetcar (hey, nothing is impossible), you have the leglal right to publish it? i just don’t get it.
A suggestion based on rule #3.
Rename your blog to something along the lines of:
“Portland Alternative Transport”
I believe the title is a little misleading as it implies the point of view of this blog may be popular transportation or practical transportation.
For most people, the primary, popular, and practical mode of transportation is a personal automobile.. alternative transportation is transit or bikes.
Chris got the name first. He can call it whatever he wants. Visitors should read the rules before engaging, which clarify the point of view, but even if they don’t, they’ll figure it out pretty quick.
P.S. Side-of-mouth comments suggesting that “alternative” transportation is not practical are not necessary, especially in this thread.
Sorry, that wasn’t a side-of-mouth comment, it is a fact of life for most people [i.e. taxpayers]. Wake up.
1. All contributions and comments become the property of Portland Transport.
That’s not new, we’ve had it since very early on in the life of the site.
We publish the site under a Creative Commons license so that others can make use of the content under relatively open terms. But we can’t grant these rights unless we actually own the content, thus the rule.
Otherwise someone who might want to republish a discussion here would have to get releases from every commenter.
While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable.
Great line!
While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home.
I think it’s just a good idea to just be respectful in comments and ideas. Also in answers, and also to just not take too much offense to certain comments, including some of the blurbs I make. One must also keep in mind if I where to say certain things, I have a different context for certain things that I hold inalienable, such as one’s property rights. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but if someone doesn’t hold those rights as inalienable they could be HIGHLY offended by my stating that emminent domain should be struck down, ad property owners should use just force as supported by the supreme court multiple times.
Thus we come to the simple conflict. Some people like it, some people definitely don’t. Both sides of the argument are offensive and reprehensible to each side of the debate, but none the less no one should get so harried as to harague others on the blog.
…summary, that’s a good rule and about the only one that TRULY needs to be reinforced. But at the same time with some decent communication.
i know that rule is not new, i just had never had the opportunity to ask about it in a thread. i wasn’t aware that the site was published under a creative commons license, maybe you could put the seal in the main template.
Apparently “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply if you are from Massachusetts. Go back!
Chris, Peter –
Perhaps “property of” is an unnecessarily strong word? (Although brief and to the point.)
I admit I haven’t read the Creative Commons license, but would something like the following work in place of the “all posts become the property” rule?
– Bob R.
Adron said:
“I think it’s just a good idea to just be respectful in comments and ideas. Also in answers, and also to just not take too much offense to certain comments, including some of the blurbs I make.”
>>>> but Adron, I have to respect you, because, to me, you are open and honest about your “agenda,” even though I disagree a lot of times with your solutions.
As for other posters, I do not think it is necessary, on this blog, to attack their motivations or agendas. Anyone who carefully reads posts can ususally divine for themselves where the poster is coming from.
Chris:
The comment left at 3:34pm strikes me as the type of comment that should get removed, it breaks several of your rules and doesn’t really do much to add to the conversation. Any reason why it’s still around?
Doug, the rules are still being discussed. I won’t start enforcement until I settle on a final form.
Boo hoo. I still can’t believe people still respond to [fill in the blank]’s inane posts. Just ignore them. Sorry for cynicism/sarcasm but hello, people!
Looking forward to another ‘state of the conversation’ discussion in a few months.
Everything I ever needed I learned in kindergarden, anyone?
Can we please get back to discussing transportation?
On a serious note: does anyone know about how long it takes for a 100 car, loaded freight train (free flow – no stops) to travel from Portland to Boardman on the UP? Or from Vancouver (east of the yard) to Whitcomb on the BNSF? I’m calibrating my model and I want to have it right (or at lest close). Thanks.
All contributions and comments become the property of Portland Transport.
I suppose it could be “Contributors grant a permanent, non-exclusive license to Portland Transport for the of their contributions and comments.”
Putting the Creative Commons logo in the template is a good idea. I’ll put it on the to-do list.
How about changing:
We assume that everyone who participates in the conversation is sincere. Questioning the motivations of participants, including those whose opinions may be contrary to the general view of the site, is strictly prohibited.
to:
Transparency is appreciated, but respecting privacy is required. Posting under a real name is preferred. If you prefer to use a pseudonym, please use the same one consistently. If you have an affiliation or other factors that readers might reasonably use to assess your comments, we request that you disclose them, but that’s your choice. However, questioning the motivations or sincerity of participants is prohibited.
Chris is already aware of my concerns regarding the transparency/privacy issue, but for purposes of discussion I want to reiterate a point here:
I’m concerned that some of us regular posters here, simply due to the fact that Chris has a lot of responsibilities and demands on his time, are being held to a higher standard than others.
For example, I’ve had several heated debates with a noteworthy and well-known regular critic here, one who routinely questioned my motivations and biases and the motivations of others.
Over the many months that I’ve posted here, I think I’ve been reasonably open about where I’m coming from and what I do. When this well-known critic demanded my real name, I gave it. This person reviewed my online resume and personal homepage. I’ve also provided publicly links to transit and neighborhood websites I manage and I’ve provided some information to this person privately. Yet when my turn came to demand some reciprocal transparency, my attempt was politely censored.
I would propose a more flexible rule: If you are going to demand to know someone’s motivations, biases, conflicts and affiliations (or you assert/ascribe direct motivations, biases, etc. to a particular person here), then you must also disclose the same class of information about yourself and your activities that you demand of others.
On a related note, for quite awhile, I’ve had posting/moderator privileges here, and Chris has recently clarified that I have the right to remove offensive postings. I have thus far elected not to do so because I’m often involved in direct debates with people who I might consider to be stepping outside of the rules because it doesn’t feel right to me to referee debates I’m having on someone else’s blog. Perhaps once these rules are better clarified I’ll be able to correctly judge when it is appropriate for me to step in and moderate and when I should just sit back.
– Bob R.
Proposal: This site has a point of view: that continued over-reliance on the automobile is not sustainable or healthy for our society and alternative choices must become more widely available. This is intended to be the general center of the conversation here.
Issue raised: What if the automobile turns out to be more sustainable and healthy than mass transit? (For instance, we recently discovered that buses are quite unhealthy to the air & Trimet, after all these years is now cleaning up part of its act) Are to ignore that which is better, if it turns out to be the automobile (in some form)?
Proposal: While opposing views are welcome, participation that is of a quality or quantity that combines to undermine the purpose of the site may be restricted or refused.
Issue raised: Perhaps we are reading this differently, but it appears to say that if someone uses high quality evidence to show that transit is not the best choice, that may be restricted? And if a high quality posting gets 10 objections, would answering each of those 10 would count a too much “quantity”?
Thanks
JK
Often times what is not stated can be as contentious to some people (including myself) as what is posted. For example: an alternative transport project is proposed or aspired to, but what is not posted is that funding other than from the user groups is expected to pay for it, possibly through additional taxes or fees on non-users – or not posted is the fact the proposed project will negatively impact the transport infrastructure already in place. If I disagree with the post and feel my way of thinking is being taken advantage of, my response to such postings is to raise the issues of funding and impacts on existing transport infrastructure. Often times that appears to be repetitive, however, so is the original post when it assumes funding coming from other than user sources, or when the impacts on existing transport infrastructure can just be side stepped.
The reason I bring this up is because restricting the repetitiveness on one side of an issue and not on the other side (posted or assumed) amounts to censorship. Just like with the current Metro and City of Portland citizen advisory process where there is a litmus test to become a participating member, the transparency and openness of the discussions will become clouded and cease to exist.
What if the automobile turns out to be more sustainable and healthy than mass transit? (For instance, we recently discovered that buses are quite unhealthy to the air & Trimet, after all these years is now cleaning up part of its act) Are to ignore that which is better, if it turns out to be the automobile (in some form)?
Jim, you’re welcome to go start the PortlandAutomobile blog. It’s a free country.
Perhaps we are reading this differently, but it appears to say that if someone uses high quality evidence to show that transit is not the best choice, that may be restricted? And if a high quality posting gets 10 objections, would answering each of those 10 would count a too much ‘quantity’?
High-quality is in the eye of the beholder (or the web site owner in this case). Yes, your detailed deconstruction of other people’s responses may indeed be limited.
I will tell you however that you’ll get your content rejected faster by questioning the motives of other participants.
The reason I bring this up is because restricting the repetitiveness on one side of an issue and not on the other side (posted or assumed) amounts to censorship.
Terry, I think you’re mistaking this blog for a government-sponsored meeting.
It’s not! It’s a forum paid for with private contributions, it’s open about its purpose, and if you’re not comfortable with that, you don’t have to play.
Rule #4 is specifically aimed at your constant insistence that bicycle and pedestrian system users ‘pay their share’ of system costs. Asserting that opinion once, twice, three times is fine. Appending it to virtually every post does not advance the conversation a bit and has become an annoyance to people who want to have a constructive discussion.
JK: What if the automobile turns out to be more sustainable and healthy than mass transit?…
Chris:Jim, you’re welcome to go start the PortlandAutomobile blog. It’s a free country.
Forgive me, but did you just say that this blog doesn’t care what is best for society?
Thanks
JK
On the contrary, what you heard is that the proprietors of this blog find your criticism of our opinion of what’s best for society unpersuasive.
And I reaffirmed your right to express your opinion elsewhere.
Thanks Chris for taking this issue by the horns. Even reading the above exchanges has not been pleasant. Its time some took their marbles and started their own game.
Chris, you said: “Terry, I think you’re mistaking this blog for a government-sponsored meeting. It’s not! It’s a forum paid for with private contributions, it’s open about its purpose, and if you’re not comfortable with that, you don’t have to play.”
Chris, in addition to being the webmaster of this blog, you are also an appointed member on several government sponsored citizen advisory committees including some at Metro and The City of Portland all for the purpose of representing “all” taxpayers. In this dual capacity, and since one function overlaps the other function, there should be an openness to accept all discussion on all sides not specifically targeted at individuals. In some cases the concept may be repetitive, but as related to a new subject matter or proposed project, it is not. In such a dual role capacity, anything less than providing an open forum that allows all sides to air their opinions, disagreeable or not, can be perceived as bias. If the choice is made to stifle the dissenting opinions and this blog becomes a one sided view of only hearing what you want to hear, it can also be viewed as an extension of representation partiality in the public process.
Therefore, from my prospective, if this blog does not remain as an open forum to all players, a potential conflict of interest exists, and the blog either should be turned over to somebody else to censor whom is not officially appointed as a citizen representative, or you should resign your representative positions on the various transport public process committees that you serve on.
Terry, you’re missing the point. You are welcome to say that bikes and pedestrians should pay for their infrastructure.
You’ve said it, I’ve heard it. So has everyone else.
Is the 312th reiteration that’s going to get deleted.
The rules don’t prevent the expression of contrary opinions (“you’re welcome to disagree”). They cut off people who try to shout down or abuse other people.
Terry –
What you appear to be arguing is that if someone fills a role in public life that therefore they must open all of their private publishing and discussion endeavors to the general public?
Quite frankly, the appropriate venue to offer dissent on the issues where Chris has any public power is to attend the public meetings.
I’ve now attended (as a member) two Portland Streetcar CAC meetings. As I recall, at the first meeting only one member of the public gave testimony (regarding the Archdiocese’s concerns about the couplet and the proposed Burnside streetcar), and at the second meeting precisely zero members of the public gave testimony.
I’ve been to a great many public meetings and (with a few notable exceptions) the percentage of dissenters showing up to speak directly with decision-makers is paltry compared to their appearance and quantity of output on local blogs.
Now I know that in your particular case you’ve attended some meetings and also submitted written testimony, such as regarding the transit mall.
The real public forums are open. Chris is trying to establish rules of conduct for a private non-profit blog. There is no conflict of interest.
– Bob R.
I think everyone is sick of the “shoot the messenger” approach. We all have agendas, biases, and preferences. So what? Either the arguments are logical and sensible, or they’re not.
Terry,
You wrote that as a member of a citzen’s advisory board Chris is there “for the purpose of representing “all” taxpayers.”
Actually, our elected representatives are there to represent voters (and by extension, citizens). I’m not sure that anyone could (or should) represent “all” taxpayers. The role of citizen members is to provide additional voices and perspectives to the process. You have the opportunity (and right) to add your own voice via testimony, at the ballot box or the power of persuasion. You do not have the right to add your voice just by shouting louder.
Frankly, I think that you owe Chris an apology. He does a ton of work, unpaid, on his own time. As has already been mentioned you are welcome to start your own blog or run for election.
Chris,
I love the blog, it’s the easiest way I’ve found to follow Portland’s policies for growth. It’s timely and informative, and though we sometimes disagree, I love reading.
I post when I feel that people aren’t seeing the other side of the coin. Sometimes though the dissenting opinions may seem repetitive, those posting them are not an uncommon voice in the area.
It’s nice to see the responses that people have, and often it does further a discussion. Jim did make an interesting point, that being that it’s possible for SOV’s to be more Earth-friendly.
I personally drive an LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) that gets 35-40 mpg every tank. It’s not great, but it’s definitely better than many. I bought it several years ago, and hopefully by the time I need to replace it there will be a 100 mpg vehicle available that I can get.
I love the idea of mass transit serving everyone equally, but there’s also the value in improving our roads where acceptable to the communities involved isn’t a bad thing. If transit between Tualatin and Vancouver was better I wouldn’t have to drive. I don’t really want to move, so I’d rather see the drive or transit have a reasonable average speed.
A rather simple fix that could improve traffic near the Fremont Bridge would be to link the Alberta and Going St southbound ramps together, eliminating a bottleneck for traffic going to I-405.
I-5 along the waterfront could be rebuilt to add more auxiliary lanes, and reduce bottlenecks. I-405, Naito/Harbor, and I-5 at the Marquam Bridge could be modified without taking property to make things much smoother.
Sometimes a dissenting opinion is not about eliminating all congestion, or having door to door transit, it’s about making improvements that smooth things out the best.
Dave, absolutely, dissenting voices are important and welcome!
This post from David Pogue of the New York Times may be useful:
1. From the Desk of David Pogue: Is It Time for An Online
Code of Conduct?
==========================================================
When I was just out of college in the late 1980’s, I made a
lot of computer house calls in New York (all right, apartment
calls). During those years, I learned an awful lot about
people and the dichotomy between their public and private
personalities.
One client in particular has never left my mind. She was a
wealthy woman with an astonishingly huge apartment — and an
astonishingly sour personality.
Whenever menials like me were around, she played a game whose
name, I now realize, was “You’re Wrong.”
It began the moment she answered the doorbell. “Well, don’t
just stand there like a mannequin. I’m not paying you $25 an
hour to just stand there. Go inside.”
So, mumbling apologies, I entered the apartment and set down
my bag next to the computer desk.
“Not there, not there!” she shrieked. “You’ll get dirt on the
carpet! Put it out there in the pantry. Have some respect for
people’s things!”
If I then reached to turn on the computer, it was, “Don’t do
it yourself! How do you expect me to learn if you do
everything for me? Don’t treat me like I’m some kind of
idiot!”
But if, on the next visit, I invited her to turn on the
machine herself, she shot back, “How should I know how to
turn it on? If I knew how to use the computer already, I
wouldn’t be paying you $25 an hour, now would I?”
No matter what you said, on any subject, no matter how
neutral, Mrs. Cronkwitz could find fault with it. (Yes, this
was the same woman who berated me for suggesting that her
daisy-wheel printer couldn’t print graphics.)
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/07pogue-email
Her simple rule was: “If you can’t say something negative, don’t
say it at all.”
I think about Mrs. Cronkwitz’s game every time I read the
comments on any online forum that accepts anonymous postings,
like Digg.com or YouTube. It’s all a big contest to see who
can spit with the most venom on any product, any idea, any
topic.
Just once, I’d love to see how many products, ideas and
topics these people come up with themselves. (Actually, I
already know: None, because most of ’em are still in high
school.)
All of which brings me to the Kathy Sierra story, which The
Times recently covered here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blog.html?ex=1177646400&en=8ee9588da95b1dbf&ei=5070
In short, a computer-book author named Kathy Sierra wrote, on
her blog, about whether it’s OK to delete nasty comments left
by your readers. Anonymous commenters descended on her with
vicious, violent and even sexual comments and threats,
complete with vulgar Photoshopped images of Ms. Sierra.
Anyway, Tim O’Reilly, the publisher of her computer books
(and mine, by the way), responded with a proposal on his own
blog: a voluntary, seven-step blogger code of conduct. You
can read the full draft here.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html
There’s room for argument over some of his points — true to
form, most bloggers’ first reaction was to criticize it —
but one point, I think, is unassailable:
“3. Consider eliminating anonymous comments.”
That’s it, baby. People don’t go to psychotic extremes when
their names or e-mail addresses are visible.
Just look at the reviews for books and products on
Amazon.com. They prove that it’s perfectly possible to
express dislike of something without spewing hatred. And if
you’ve signed your name, you’re a *heck* of a lot less likely
to do that.
For the record, my assistant and I moderate the comments on
my own blog. Criticism, snarkiness and anti-Pogue comments
are all permitted. The only things we delete are off-topic
political diatribes, vulgar language, and spam. Yes, spam;
you have no idea how many spammers seem to think that a tech
blog is the place to find customers for Cialis and Viagra.
(OK, Amazon deletes vulgar and abusive comments, too. But
I’ll bet that it amounts to only a small percentage of
submissions, just as we delete only about 1 in 1,000 Pogue’s
Posts comments for offensiveness.)
The quality of the discussion at nytimes.com/pogue is very,
very high, as a number of readers have noted with delight. I
think the biggest reason is that on this blog, readers don’t
feel anonymous. Your comment is posted under a nickname, but
you’re nonetheless aware that we know who you are; after all,
you’ve signed up for free nytimes.com registration. Plenty of
Pogue’s Post readers even use their real names as their
nicknames.
And why not? If you’re proud of your thoughts, why would you
be afraid to be associated with them?
Yes, I know, there are exceptions; certain blog topics have
good reasons for offering anonymity (spouse-abuse forums, HIV
sites and so on). I’m not suggesting that *all* blogs
eliminate anonymity.
Nor am I suggesting censorship. As Tim O’Reilly put it: “I’m
not suggesting that every blog will want to delete such
comments, but I am suggesting that blogs that do want to keep
the level of dialog at a higher level not be censured for
doing so.
“There are many real-world analogies. Shock radio hosts
encourage abusive callers; a mainstream talk radio show like
NPR’s Talk of the Nation wouldn’t hesitate to cut someone off
who started spewing hatred and abuse. Frat parties might
encourage drunken lewdness, but a party at a tech conference
would not. Setting standards for acceptable behavior in a
forum you control is conducive to free speech, not damaging
to it.”
I’m just observing that the blogs with the best and most
intelligent discussion are the ones where postings aren’t
anonymous — and vice versa. Over and over again, the sites
that permit anonymous pot shots are the ones that seem
populated solely by Mrs. Cronkwitz and her clones.
* * *
Is it just me, or does the conversation quality of the site seem to degenerate into a slugfest of words faster and faster every time?
Instead of talking about urban centers, we have a socio-political debate on ballot measures, farming, perceived ‘social engineering,’ and second guessing the previous persons’ post.
Instead of talking about streetcars, we have another socio-political debate over private vs. public transit systems, with people mocking others and bringing religion into their comments.
Although I only read the site and comment, can’t we all simply agree that we disagree, and exchange e-mail addresses or something so this stuff can go outside?!
Jason, no, it’s not just you. I’m tied up at a conference all week or I’d be jumping in to say ‘get back on topic!’ pretty frequently.