In the future, I will implement the following policy regarding comments to my posts: (1) Civil disagreement is welcome and encouraged; (2) I will delete comments that include personal attacks or insults aimed at anyone, although I will be more flexible when they are directed at me; (3) I will delete successive and repetitive comments that simply restate earlier complaints; and (4) I will not engage or debate with anonymous commenters, but I may respond when pseudonyms are used with valid email addresses.
Comments Policy
Posted by
7
7
This policy is fine, as stated. However, one wonders how it will be implemented.
For example, the author of this policy has repeatedly and quite vehemently addressed what he perceives to be untruths in the work of a young scholar. In the opinion of this reader, he has basically, in so many words, called her a liar – over and over and over – often using the same examples in her work – over and over and over.
Have these been "personal attacks"? Has he posted "successive and repetitive comments that simply restate earlier complaints"?
You see, my principal objection to many (but not all) of this author's posts has been that he accuses others selectively and ignores the same faults when evidenced in himself or in his "team."
As for anonymity, the policy doesn't make much sense. Once, this author inadvertently posted an email that he had sent "on the side" to one of the commenters on this site. That email, as this commenter recalls it, egged on a commenter attacking this one.
Using email as a back channel to influence or guide comment threads is probably not unethical, but it seems to this reader a bit unseemly. There is no reason in the world not to engage with anonymous reason. The authors of the Constitution did this, and with great good effect.
Perfectly reasonable policy. Requiring a valid email for the pseudonyms is, I suspect, less about colluding with commentators than about communicating with a consistent interlocutor. I have been using this pseudonym for quite a while now, with the same email, and never once been asked by anyone to help steer a thread in any particular direction.
Good! I *so* wish that Al & the powers that be would ban all anonymous comments, for they add nothing of value to scholarly conversation.
Seems fine. I agree with anon that anonymous comments add value to the extent they are on topic. as stated, the founders used pseudonyms to make sharp points without fear of retribution. someone with tenure might not understand that. Further, to the extent the scholarly conversation is shielded from criticism by those without tenure, it adds a few floors to the ivory tower, and concentrates group-think.
In theory, anonymous comments could add value. In practice, in my experience that is rarely the case.
Frye
Blanket judgments are antithetical to intellectual honesty.
As a reader of this blog, I can't agree that anon comments "rarely" add "value" but, obviously, many would agree.
And, that's the point. Many would prefer agreement, and only agreement, with the "group think" that pervades legal academia. That group think led to the horrific problems that have been experienced of late, including a devastating decline in enrollments, that can't be attributed solely to the economy.
The legal academy may not like anonymous comments, but it needs anonymous comments. Those who speak up in academic circles are punished. Plain fact.
Are ALL anonymous comments of "value"? Of course not. Just as many signed comments don't add value, are off point, or just angry and offensive.
It is that one comment that someone finds "offensive" that leads to the desire for anonymity. The smear machine will go into full retribution mode in that event. This is demonstrable and obvious. SO, there is that.
It seems that each contributor to TFL has his or her own comments policy. How do we loyal readers keep track of them all?