I’m concerned.
In the last few weeks, it seems to me that the tone of comments has gotten a lot angrier, and conversation is more often turning to personalities and motivations than to policy.
This may be in part because I’m spending less time actively moderating the conversation (I’m pretty busy with a political campaign right now). Or maybe it’s a directional shift.
Either way, I’m not delighted about it.
What do readers think? Has something changed? Is it a problem? What can/should we do about it?
36 responses to “The State of the Conversation”
Chris, I’m so glad you said something. I moved here three years ago to study Urban Planning in the city I had heard and read so much about. I may not comment often, but I am an avid reader of this and a few other related blogs. I used to look forward to the educated debate on both sides of any issue. It now seems a bunch of mudslinging and occaisional slander. The comments now remind me of those I find on localnewsdaily.com. That site has a certain following it seems. I’m wondering if that crowd was turned on to this site when it was featured in your “Citizen Smith” article. What should be done? I’m not sure. Perhaps, since you are busy, we could take it upon ourselves to flag in-appropriate remarks for your review.
There are a couple of readers who have privileges to do moderation. I would be happy to consider expanding this to others who have the motivation to keep the conversation productive while still keeping it open.
Seems some of this is just in the nature of blogs, so I ignore the comments that are the same old tired attacks on Portland’s effort to build a comprehensive transportation system.
That said, I get tired of a handfull of people repeating themselves like a broken record, and I am sure that turns off some who would otherwise join in. I guess its back to kindergarden…take your turn, listen to others, don’t shout, and if push comes to shove, take your marbles and go home. So much for adult dialogue.
I’m getting burnt out on recent conversations on this blog. It seems that every topic, no matter what the original subject, typically morphs into an argument about how cyclists should pay “their fair share” and how “small cars cost less than transit.” From there, it becomes a p***ing contest to “name your conflicts of interest”, state your “real name,” etc.
Viewpoints such as these aren’t constructive in the least. I don’t find in these comments any attempt to create a better city; instead they are intended to tear down the efforts of others.
If the idea of having freeways, 6-lane arterials and more traffic criss-cross our region appealed to Portlanders, I rather think that we would have figured out the political and financial means necessary to do that by now, 30 years and counting since the Mt. Hood Frwy. was killed. If the region is getting “railroaded,” are we really so sheep-like as to just allow TriMet, Metro, PDOT, et al to build a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that no one wants? No, of course not. But there are those who would insult the intelligence of the region’s residents in their every post nonetheless.
People here want a balanced transportation system and few who think otherwise are welcome to their viewpoints, but they need to realize that they’re in the minority in Portland and particularly on this blog. Free speech doesn’t apply here. If there was something worthwhile in these opposing views, to say nothing of having a civilized tone, I’d be more inclined to consider them. But, as they are, it’s simply one more reason to not read the blog. Which is, of course, the whole point of the trolls’. I say it’s time to start banning those whose entire purpose is to create chaos rather than spark intelligent discussion.
When we did our reader survey, the consensus around the contrarians was that they had a right to speak and they helped us keep our arguments sharp.
Has that changed due to volume and/or tone, or…?
I don’t think the problem is the “trolls”. Just don’t read them. I think people need to accept that others have different opinions.
I agree with Lenny that some of this is part of the medium. But there is a, sometimes fine, line between criticizing someone’s ideas and attacking them personally.
I don’t know if more moderation will solve the problem. Someone would have to point to specific posts they think should be moderated. But a lot of it is a snipey tone, rather than a blatant assault on someone’s character.
Perhaps a “out of line” topic where people can post links to posts they think stepped over the line. It could create a form of self-policing.
Just don’t read them. I think people need to accept that others have different opinions.
Easier said than done. I’ve been proud that this is a forum where we have less of that ‘noise’ that we have to ignore, and the rules we set up were supposed to help avoid that.
Do we need new rules? Better enforcement of the existing rules?
I’m already exercising the “just don’t read it” philosophy, which is part of why I have not jumped on things that are violations of our rules, perhaps contributing to the degradation in the conversation…
the consensus around the contrarians was that they had a right to speak and they helped us keep our arguments sharp.
There’s a difference between a “contrarian” and a “flak”. I do read many of the posts, though I rarely comment here because I have nowhere near the education or background to contribute factually to the (mostly) informed discussion that your blog engenders. As a reader, it’s frustrating to see this space repeatedly hijacked by people essentially seeking — and getting — free advertising for their paid lobbying efforts and crank “research” results. While I admire the valiant efforts of those who do so, constantly rebutting this type of nonsense ends up controlling a disproportionate piece of the conversation while propping up a specific dialectic.
Sure, to some extent everyone has an agenda and will seek to promote their vision based to some degree on largely subjective personal values and preferences. That’s qualitatively different from someone being purposefully disingenuous, over and over again.
Chris –
“Easier said than done. I’ve been proud that this is a forum where we have less of that ‘noise’ that we have to ignore, and the rules we set up were supposed to help avoid that.”
I don’t disagree entirely. I think Clay is correct that it “ends up controlling a disproportionate piece of the conversation while propping up a specific dialectic.”
But I would suggest some of the problem is that people don’t ignore it enough. Maybe you need “please don’t feed the troll” signs.
I too would like to see less troll rebuttal and more genuine conversation on how to make a progressive, multimodal transportation system. I hate to say it but I don’t visit much anymore because I don’t want to spend all my time sifting through the trollspeak.
I commented every now and then when the blog was younger because it felt like a more welcoming place for conversation. These days, it more often than not feels like the conversation has been hijacked, and the direction thus controlled, by the same few ideologues with an auto-centric agenda. I don’t pretend to have any answers: I’ll just let Clay’s well-written comment speak for my perspective, and thank those of you who take the time to put together all the thoughtful rebuttals.
My problem is not that the same few people keep forcing their (admittedly pro-auto) opinions, it’s the voraciousness of the rebuttals. Both the pro and anti-auto opinions keep getting repeated ad-nauseum (which the posters sometimes recognize in their posts) and the discussion of the original topic gets totally lost. It takes two sides to get into a heated debate, those that heatedly refute a troll’s argument are in my opinion contributing to the problem.
As for what Chris should do about it, I’m not sure there’s an easy answer. I think some of the noise can be removed by more strictly enforcing the prohibition against personal comments; I’ve seen some arguments get personal recently that might not have gotten so heated if they’d been cut off right off the bat. I do think that the “auto-centric” folks deserve to have their voice heard, this forum loses a lot of its value if it becomes an echo chamber.
Keep up the good work Chris, best of luck to you.
I find it quite strange that our good friends Terry Parker, Jim Karlock, and others don’t clutter this post with their repetitive and wrong-headed trolling. Go for it, Jim and Terry. Turn this post into your broken record pitch again. PLEASE.
Oops… just re-read what I wrote and realized it came out very wrong. What I was trying to get at — and wound up doing a terrible job — was that the people who I at least think of as “trollers” never jump in to find solutions to problems like this. They just sit in the stands and throw bombs — that’s why I think of them as trolls.
Slick:
What you did there is what I was referring to. I know that people here don’t like jk and Terry Parker, but the huge overreaction to their posts is in my opinion a part of the problem. It turned a relatively civil dialog into personal attacks (by calling them trolls and impugning their motivations) without making any sort of positive contribution.
I don’t intend to defend either of them, or to attack you, I just wanted to point out that when I said that “it takes two sides” this was the type of commentary I was referring to.
you’re right.
You know, I agree that there is value in having a diversity of voices here, including, believe it or not, the auto-centric. However, I specifically think that the manner and tone in which several of the anti-transit participants engage the dialogue tends to be unproductive and inflammatory. I do think their motivations are impugnable: indeed, jk has practically made a career out of suggesting that those who disagree with him are somehow employed by various mass transit planning agencies. Recently he seems to have let that schtick go as the tables have been turned on him. I agree with the gist of what you are saying, Doug, but I think you are being a tad bit relativistic in spreading the blame.
“I find it quite strange that our good friends Terry Parker, Jim Karlock, and others don’t clutter this post with their repetitive and wrong-headed trolling. Go for it, Jim and Terry.”
Since I was specifically targeted by this comment, I suggest it is the “trolls” (trolling for dollars) that are always pressing to increase taxes on the other guy, rather than themselves, to subsidize and/or fund their personal transportation choice. How many times have there been posts pushing for increased motorist paid taxes and fees (including the increasing gas tax and/or parking fees) to fund bicycle infrastructure or subsidize a transit mode? There are probably more posts of this nature than opposing view responses by Jim and myself. How many times have we heard over and over again about Swan Island and Mississippi Avenue along with the constant negative attacks on the news organizations, the cost of congestion reports and motorist infrastructure in general?
What has become very apparent is that some who post here that want all the conversation to be totally one-sided and retaliate to any comment the dissenters of the anti-auto sentiment make by name calling. or by applying labels such as “wrong headed” or calling a newspaper a “rag.” if there is good reliable information brought forward such as a published opinion by an expert or professional in their field, or a published report such as the Cost of Congestion, those same people who disagree with the data will attempt to find fault with the information in one way or another, and/or discredit the author(s) by challenging their credentials or title. It is like these people have no real factual basis for their challenge, so they retort to belittling arguments instead.
Furthermore, it is no less tiring to me (and probably Jim) to continually read the hammering anti-auto methodology posts about increasing motorist paid taxes and fees to subsidize alterative modes of transport, how highway infrastructure should be reduced, how some form of roadway rationing should be applied, how to socially engineer people out of their cars, etc. If such attack posts were not continually being made, there would be far less opposing (and tiring to some) posts from myself and others advocating alternative modes of transport pay their own way, motor vehicle infrastructure and capacity needs to be increased rather than reduced or rationed, etc.
Furthermore, it is no less tiring to me (and probably Jim) to continually read the hammering anti-auto methodology posts…
Terry, honestly, I have to ask, so why do you?
This blog is not shy about the fact that it has a point of view. What are you trying to accomplish by repeating exactly the same argument over and over and over to an audience that you have to know is mostly tuning you out?
Okay, I’m an infrequent commenter. I love the site, but I hate chiming in sometimes because anyone who likes to be able to live where they like, and work at a place they like is called a troll if it requires driving.
Those of us with an interest in being able to continue operating a business in Portland get called auto-centric. While I believe we have to add road capacity to allow for economic growth, I also feel it’s a smart idea to expand our transit network’s reach in order to make for a livable region.
New roads and mass transit are not exclusive options. Many areas build new freeway capacity while expanding light rail. San Diego is a great example of both. While adding freeway (HOT) lanes, they’re adding BRT. Not only does this pay for the maintenance and construction bonds, but it also improves the LOS of mass transit.
They also improved the equivalent of I-84 (I-8 there) with both light rail and freeway lanes. The combination moves traffic much more smoothly. It reminds me of US-26 up here, although that still feels like an incomplete attempt.
While I sometimes will post a dissenting point of view, I hope that others who are tempted to reply at least remember that I agree in large part with their views. At the same time, we may disagree on some issues. That’s fine with me, it’s what a discussion is. Just keep it friendly.
It really does feel though that some people hate those of us that want a fair share of money and effort spent on serving those of us that can’t reasonably use mass transit. It’s not that cheap or easy to move when your job does.
Dave, your perspective is welcome and encouraged, and is not the portion of the conversation that I am in any way concerned about :-)
Well, I’m not pro-auto because I don’t drive. Therefore, alternative transportion is my MAIN transportation. As a heavy Trimet user, my preferred mode is bus and BRT.
My only gripe(?) about this board is not the pro-auto people, it’s the adamently pro-rail bias of the majority of posters. Let’s face it; this blog is crawling with railfans. To me, they seem intent on getting their preferred modality built and operated (known as “putting your hobby in the street), no matter what. I don’t construe my postings as being “personal” attacks on railfans, however.
Anyway, that’s the way I perceive things.
why don’t we come up with a list of inflammatory or loaded terms that are not necessarily personal in nature, but greatly contribute to the nonproductive, argumentative, accusatory tone of the threads lately. then we can all know to avoid those terms if we want to avoid the negative tone, and know that someone who uses those terms is deliberately trying to debase the conversation.
to get things started, i nominate the terms:
“social engineering”
“bicycle registration fee”
let’s analyze 2 jk posts from the notes on the streetcar thread:
April 6, 2007 01:32 PM
jim karlock Says:
Chris Smith Says: Bob T., I don’t accept your characterization of the Yellow Line funding,
JK: Good point.
$30 million of the local funds came out of stealing Interestate Ave. area road improvement funds – Katz formed an urban renewal district to get her mitts on the $30 million road improvement component.
Thanks
JK
this post contains a valid argument (not sure about the data), it is just that the tone is not conducive to discussion.
April 6, 2007 01:34 PM
jim karlock Says:
Erik Halstead As far as “development potential”…well…what ever happened to that massive “transit-oriented employment center” that was supposed to take place at CascadeStation? Where IKEA and a strip mall are now being built?
JK: The will of the people won.
That people don’t want massive “transit-oriented employment center” was pretty well shown by the fact that no one could figure out how to make it work.
People do want strip malls and big boxes because they serve the people’s needs, instead of planner’s wet dreams.
Thanks
JK
this post makes a point that may or may not be worth arguing (what do people really want?), but then goes on to reduce the discussion to attacking planners, and discussing their nocturnal emissions, which obviously takes the discussion nowhere but down.
Part of the issue is that comments often turn into arguments about how users of certain modes may not be paying their way. Sometime soon, I want to submit a post that that directly, and hopefully effectively, addresses that so we can send arguments there instead of having the debate take over comments.
For example, there’s “free” parking, the Big Pipe and oil defense.
it’s the adamently pro-rail bias of the majority of posters. Let’s face it; this blog is crawling with railfans. To me, they seem intent on getting their preferred modality built and operated (known as “putting your hobby in the street), no matter what. I don’t construe my postings as being “personal” attacks on railfans, however.
Said without the slightest trace of irony.
I think the CRC is one reason why the conversation has grown so heated here. We’ve been studying it (thanks to Chris’s contstant updates) and it falls right down the middle of the philosophical divide. I know I’ve gotten fairly worked up thinking about it. A fight is brewing there, for sure.
Another issue, I think, is that there really are broken records that we’d all like to stop hearing. If someone clings to a stupid argument after you’ve painstakingly explained why it’s just not tenable … you can’t really respect each other after that.
I propose we all relax with the Portland Transport Drinking Game! Just take one shot of whiskey/sip of latte/huff of biodiesel every time someone says “social engineering”, “taxpayer”, “vote with their cars”, “fair share” or “tram”. Soon we’ll all be laughing …
peter’s comments about JK’s posts articulates the exact reason I hardly post anything on this blog.
regardless of the individual opinons expressed on this blog, the flavor JK adds to his posts is unprofessional, demeaning, hurtful and completely unnecessary for making his point.
the flavor JK adds to his posts is unprofessional, demeaning, hurtful and completely unnecessary for making his point
The odd thing is Jim’s a relatively calm, nice guy, in person. But I totally agree that the “flavor” which is added by angry/agitated comments from people takes away from the utility of the discussion.
Aylene’s right on, you should be able to comment without feeling like an “opponent” (aka someone with a different point of view) is out to vanquish or demolish you. Some people don’t mind that sort of debate, others cringe at it. We need to be more civil with each other.
i didn’t mean to single out JK (someone could probably make a similar illustration with one of my posts), but i didn’t have a lot of time so search for other examples, and JK’s vitriol fueled posts are pretty much everywhere, so they were the easiest to find.
djk said:
“Said without the slightest trace of irony.”
You’re right, djk, I DID say that without a trace of irony. For instance:
–I don’t call railfans morons, stupid, or anything remotely like that.
–I don’t accuse them of smoking something.
–I don’t accuse them of lying.
In other words, my comments apply to the merits of their transit opinions and how their hobby unduly influences them, not to their character or personality.
Don’t you have friends some of whose opinions are different from yours?
For the most part I don’t comment any more because the tone has become rude and with many of the same people saying the same things over and over.
MHW
Nick:
“intent on getting their preferred modality built and operated (known as “putting your hobby in the street), no matter what”
When you write this, you are speculating about the motives AND the character of people who disagree with you, rather than addressing their arguments. You’re saying, in effect, “they do NOT take a clear-headed look at the costs and benefits of various public transit options and conclude that light rail or streetcar was the best way to go — they’re just hobbyists want more rail, and they’ll always come to that conclusion regardless of the objective merits of the project.”
Yes, that’s an attack on the person making the argument, not the quality of the argument itself. It’s about their character and personality.
djk, I was active in the Electric Railroaders Assn. for over 15 years, so I am familiar first-hand with the railfan attitude. A lot of them are hobbyists at heart, and will seek out positions of power and influence in the transit industry to push their modality preference. Instinctively, they favor rail, often regardless of the realities.
Therefore, I have to approach pro-rail posts the same way I approach posts from Karlock and Parker, for biases.
However, does this make us all characterlogically deficient?
Chris asked: “Terry, honestly, I have to ask, so why do you? This blog is not shy about the fact that it has a point of view. What are you trying to accomplish by repeating exactly the same argument over and over and over to an audience that you have to know is mostly tuning you out?”
Transportation issues are a key interest of mine. I defend what I believe including freedom of choice – and speak out against what I disagree with including collecting and spending tax dollars to instill social engineering.
One can also ask why people who oppose the Bush Administration and some of those policies continue to speak out and demonstrate always with the same message?
Chris,
I know that my recent posts have been pretty heated rebuttals addressing issues that are important to me and essential to the field I am in, although they were not issues that would be directly associated with transit or the original topic of the post. Unfortunately, my responses essentially just assisted in furthering the degredation of the quality of the thread and ultimately, I did not provide anything truly constructive.
I would like to apologize for that.