Comments: I Intensely Dislike Banning Commenters, But...
Philip,
Only 7 bans in three years when the subject is treating Mental Illness! Wow! This is certainly a record to be proud of.
It probably is a good idea to have some guidelines for comments considering what a volatile subject this Website covers.
During these years that you have run this Website I would say that you have done an excellent job of maintaining your cool. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Rosie C. at June 25, 2008 08:06 PM
Good for you, Philip. I think we need a little discipline around here!
Posted by Sara at June 25, 2008 08:36 PM
Your reluctance to enjoy power is something I applaud, and it reminded me of a quote I use for E-mail signatures, from Percy Bysshe Shelley:
"Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate’er it touches; and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and of the human frame
A mechanized automaton."
I'm glad you take the time necessary to allow lively discussion of what are often sensitive issues, yet keep abuse curtailed - and do it all without going on a power trip.
Posted by Fallingleaf at June 26, 2008 12:30 AM
Your comment policy is way more moderate and mature for my taste and nothing like what goes in the political snarkosphere where trolls are welcomed as amusing tools used by the regulars for sharpening their discourse, and I believe strongly in the value of that, while respecting the blogger's right to run their house however they see fit.
At Writhe Safely people get banned for boring me, humorlessness, dogmatism and arguing from a position of insufficient academic heft. In other words, total disrespect for the readers they subject to their insulting waste of time. I often wonder how you can handle what goes on in the comments here, and how you manage to read every one before publishing without installing a vomitorium in your apartment. But I understand feeling completely bummed about and feel stupid every time I let some ass beret get to me. It happens, and that's what they want, you know.
Posted by flawedplan at June 26, 2008 01:48 AM
Thanks for giving us the great writing which makes us think;therefore comment!
I also believe that you have integrity and of course are genuinely kind, so it's obvious you would be bummed, because you sincerely care about people.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by Stephany at June 26, 2008 05:50 AM
Agreed, the blogosphere is an environment where people feel freer to say the things they wouldn't in most social norms. Unfortunately, there are some angry folks out there. Maybe video comments are the way to go ;). It's easy to shout insults from your comment field - not as easy when a face is attached.
You can get heated and passionate, you just have to know where the line is. As far as I'm concerned, once a commenter gets personal in the blog world, he's out, period. Nothing to feel bad about there.
Posted by Gabe at June 26, 2008 09:11 AM
Awww, man! Considering my goat-ish level of crankiness over the past few years, I've come to ADORE trolls because I can dismiss them ... wait for it ... GRUFFLY.
*bows*
Posted by Puckett at June 26, 2008 10:35 AM
you know Puckett, that is damn funny.
Posted by Stephany at June 26, 2008 03:59 PM
FS, I've talked to you outside this site about setting limits, so I will share with the rest of frequent flyers my opinion, for what it is worth.
A blog site has legitimacy and respect if people are responsible and respectful to both the author and its participants. You can disagree and note different points of view and be heard. It is process as much as content. So, if you think I am wrong, that's cool. Vaildate it as best able, and I might not fully agree but see the point. Be a jerk, and that's how you come across. Be vicious, and risk being tuned out.
After all, you catch more with honey, not vinegar.
Posted by therapyfirst at June 26, 2008 07:14 PM
FP,
I did enjoy your post on the deleted NAMI commenter on the very day I decided to ban only my second since I began. I'd say you got the best on that one.
Posted by Dr X at June 26, 2008 09:15 PM
TF, you're patronizing. It sickens me that Philip feels the need to change his blog to suit your subjective need to control and declare what is legitimate. I fear that with the milquetoasting of the comments, another valuable blog has lost its edge. Sorry Philip, hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Sally at June 27, 2008 03:13 AM
I agree that we have to think twice before commenting.
It's a good measure.
It's not a question of number of comments. It's a questions of the quality of the discussion.
Posted by Ana at June 27, 2008 09:15 AM
Sally, I do not recall Philip in any place on this blog stating he is accomodating TF have you?
There are many more over the top comments than yours, so why is this such a threat to you? you haven't been banned, which should mean something right?
Stop being so defensive, is my suggestion.
I say this as one long term commenter to another, just chill....
Posted by Stephany at June 27, 2008 11:53 AM
Philip,
Here's a timely example of the power and necessity of open discussion.
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/07/conflicts-of-interest-at-stanford.html
The key point, imo, is when the journal Biological Psychiatry decided not to print the exchange between Schatzberg and Carroll/Rubin, forcing them to go public via a poster session. Journals are political bodies that all too often protect their own.
What you have here in Furious Seasons is remarkable. This is largely due to the fact you don't silence strident voices just abusive ones. There's plenty of places for the voices on control and suburban niceties. This is one haven that need not change to appease the hegemony of psychiatric apologetics. The APA and NAMI are doing that just fine.
Posted by Paul at June 27, 2008 12:37 PM
I sure hope Sally is wrong too. I have to say I have her same concerns regarding the commenting. What draws me to this site has been the comments and over the last month I have felt as though people have been asked to modify what they write so the professionals aren't run off. This scares me as it threatens this site. I wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had TF not disclosed he was a Psychiatrist. Paul is correct when he states "The APA and NAMI are doing just fine". I laughed out loud when I read a comment about Sally being defensive. Sally's comments have not changed one iota. Some people just don't believe she should be challenging a Psychiatrist. If you take Sally's position or TF's postion away or try to modify the postions, how is either one challenged? This blog will lose it's appeal to me if you modify someone's position. This site has grown the way it is. There will never be agreement when it comes to Psychiatric issues. The critical psychiatric voice has always been quieted, please don't start doing that here.
Posted by jane at June 27, 2008 03:16 PM
I'm a mental health professional.
Does this change how you read my comments now?
I'm not just a mother.
I'm seriously done with this shit.
Posted by Stephany at June 27, 2008 06:01 PM
Why am I not surprised that Sally raises the question that this blog author's request for responsible commenting is my doing. Well, to my knowledge, that is not true. Let me clue those of you interested in to the concept of projection: when someone accuses another of behaviors/actions that the accuser is actually doing. Not that I think Sally is behind this position by FS now, though. Before I finish this comment, I want to add a disclaimer that FS has no prior knowledge of this posting, so you may not even read this if he is uncomfortable printing it.
I believe Sally is quick to dismiss my comments because they hit too close to home for her, so her accusations and dismissals are to minimize readers from considering my comments. I have never said I am the gospel for my field, in fact, I am probably a heretic to most colleagues. I would hazard to guess it is hard for some readers to hear someone say things that are gray, because some live in a black and white world. Well, mine is gray, and that is how I approach my patients. I have come to see and get feedback that more patients than not appreciate my style and decision making because I treat individuals, not a disease. I write here to reinforce there are good intentions out there; I guess your experiences as a patient are the final decider to what is right or wrong for you.
Yet, because I identified myself as a psychiatrist, I am guilty of the sins of my predecessors in the eyes of some of these commentators to this site. Well, I am offended by overgeneralizations, as should anyone who has been in that position, so when you read someone's hostile attacks on well meaning comments, I suggest you pause, reread the prior postings to get the facts and comments as written, and be the judge by seeing all the information.
I think FS's choices are responsible because he wants to put out important information to be critical, but reliable, regarding the continuous poor judgments being exercised in my field. So, for all you bashers that believe all of psychiatry is evil and wrong, your extremism and rigidity will be rejected by me at least. For the last time, chill out and realize some providers are responsible and caring, and at least for me, I participate to reflect I am interested in non-providers' opinions and ideas how to get my field back on track.
Sally, I am not a bad man. If you write onwards of my intent to be a bad man, I will never make any effort to read your writings ever again. So, with this in mind, if you want to dialogue with me, be fair and reasonable, or be prepared when I scroll down to read the name of the commentor I will not know what you have said if you continue as is.
I hope this gets posted, but if not, thank you to FS for reading this at least.
Posted by therapyfirst at June 27, 2008 07:59 PM
therapy first,
thank you for the work that you do, it is obvious that you want to help your patients, I wish my pdoc was more open minded.
bizi
Posted by bizi at June 28, 2008 12:25 AM
TF, Stop insulting me. Stop diagnosing me. It's not only irresponsible, it's illegal, it's malpractice. You don't know me. You have a perception of me from my writings but surely to say that what you write hit's to close to home for me is irresponsible. It's clear you've not really considered my writings to this point so it will probably result in less of these abusive posts if you don't read them.
Posted by Sally at June 28, 2008 04:58 AM
Sally,
Fine with me if you do not address me, and I will not address you.
Posted by therapyfirst at June 28, 2008 01:51 PM
I would love to see WS back commenting on my site, I find that I don't hold on to things that happened a long time ago so much.
What really gets me is completely off-topic comments that are all about the person commenting and then go on and on. I did recently ban someone who did that and would not stop when asked who has actually asked that her comments be removed and than got upset I didn't do it exactly as she expected but I can't read minds. I occasionally choose to post NAMI clone comments if they use their real name and aren't swearing at me but not if I'm having a bad day :). I think I would have banned far more than 7 people if I had as many commenters as you Philip is what I mean to be saying but I seem to have kidney brain right now so I will stop here.
Posted by Alison Hymes at June 28, 2008 03:43 PM
Sally-
We all have our opinions and for those of us that have some sort of mental illness it is tough, we live with stigma, shitty meds, pdocs who don't listen and write scripts like there is no tomorrow, etc. I understand your anger, I have been there. With that being said, chill out. Look up Malpractice or Philip, Stephany and I can all give you first hand accounts of what it truly is. If you don't like the comments, don't come to the site. I am sorry if you feel attacked in some way but you should really read your posts sometime. They do seem very angry. I am not saying that makes you mentally ill. Maybe you are just upset at the psych field. Understandable, trust me. But please take comments on an Internet blog for what they are.
Posted by Angie at June 29, 2008 04:43 AM
TF,
I'm not entering into any sort of agreement with you. I've been posting here since long before you. Don't read me if you don't want but don't expect to be censored by you. I try not to insult people and not to be lulled into crassness and ad hominem attacks by the the "anonymity" of the internet. If I fail to meet my own standards, I deserved to be called on it. You seem to have different standards. Nonetheless know that if I observe you or anyone else for that matter holding themselves out to be a medical professional and diagosing and/or "treating" on any blog, I will report you as that is illegal and you deserve to be prosecuted. Any DA in the nation could easily subpoena your ip address from Phillip hence you are responsible for what you write and any sense you may have of anonymity is false. Bear that in mind. By all means if you don't want to read my comments don't regardless of whether they address you or not.
Posted by Sally at June 29, 2008 04:51 AM
Philip, I start off with this disclaimer to you, but put it in the comment for you to know exactly where I am coming from: Hostile people need to know when to shut up or get it back in spades.
Sally: you are a lost soul, as your threats are unacceptable and it is you who is trying to run this commentary site. The fact that Angie above tried to note your comments are coming across as angry, by the way said in a very nice and diplomatic way, says to me you are beyond clueless. Frankly, and this is strictly my opinion alone, you should be banned, and I'm a bit surprised your last posting was allowed, but that is Philip's call and his alone. Freedom of speech is as much a privilege as a right, and that, in my opinion, is what is wrong with a lot on the internet: because someone can say it and it gets printed, it is allegedly valid because someone else can read it.
Well, to you and other writers at this site who express the antagonism that comes across to readers like me, if you want to use this valuable exposure of issues as your daily "bitch" sessions as to what is wrong with psychiatry and mental health in general, then continue as you do. If you want to make an impact on correcting true wrongs and transgressions in the profession of mental health care, you will not be heard or validated by people of interest and worth with the tone and content of your concerns as they are now. Responsible and invested people seek out fair and reasonable dialogue and problem solving; they are not willing to face the axes you want to grind. As I have said several times before, and now the last time here, I am sorry if you were mistreated, if a patient, by a provider or providers, but move on and be healthy and be respected as a valid observer/participant to the process by the way you present your issues. Saying everyone who is a psychiatrist basically sucks and should be locked away is garbage to me, so I guess people will read that now too.
Threats are unacceptable, in any format. That is directed to both Sally and Philip. I am not interested in retractions or apologies, just responsible dialogue hereon.
For what it is worth to Angie, thank you for your observation.
I really think this site has ongoing potential, as it mentioned at other blogs, but this hostility is going to drag it down if it goes unabated. I know if I was just tuning in as a provider, I'd be wary to weigh in reading these attacks on me.
Whatever!
Posted by therapyfirst at June 29, 2008 11:58 AM
actually, sally there isn't an authority in the country that could get any reader's ip address--including yours--out of me. unless a crime had been committed. i don't think a psychiatrist commenting on this site amounts to a crime. no more threats, please.
Posted by Philip Dawdy at June 29, 2008 12:24 PM
On a completely separate topic: I just had the BEST curry in ages. I'm still sweating.
Posted by Paul at June 29, 2008 03:52 PM
this thread is now closed. if you guys think i was responding to the concerns of a single commenter, then you are wrong. i'm trying to find some balance here, but it's proving tougher than i would've thought.
Posted by Philip Dawdy at June 29, 2008 04:05 PM