nice SP quote.

just had to say that...

-CW

There's a technical way I could ban him and still keep his comments (I think... it's been awhile...)

just wanted to toss that out there.

thanks to everyone for responding! I am taking it all under advisement... haven't made up my mind yet, but it's all food for thought.

-CW

It would seem that there are alternatives to deleting Michale's account that would retain his posts, though I wouldn't mind some judicious pruning of some of the most toxic waste. Chris, or his database person, could easily change Michale's password and email. Done. The "Forgot password?" option sends a link to one's email, so that door needs to be closed.

There are probably other simple ways to achieve this, but the suggestion above would take only a minute or two.

Moderation is a pain in the ass. It's either a ton of work for Chris or with community moderation it becomes a tyranny of the moderator(s) as many subreddits prove. The exception is the slashdot model which worked really well but required a fairly large user base to really function as intended.

I think a subtler approach would work: either limit the word count per post or use a system I have seen in quite a few forums, where the first sentence or two shows and if you want to read more you can expand the post. Bonus points for threaded replies. That way the discussion/argument stays contained. This is common enough that there is likely a plethora of plugins for wordpress or whatever system the blog is moved to. Add to this the banning of certain words, which I think Chris has said he already does and Michale would be acceptably contained for the most part. His ideas and political stand are not the problem or at least shouldn't be but the insults and the ridiculous length of his posts definitely are...

CW can be completely arbitrary about who gets to comment as far as I'm concerned. It's just way past time to be done with a boring, repetitive, malignant troll whose explicit motivation is to drive off other interesting commenters. I can think of several who gave up because of Felcher.

It is mildly amusing to see how many of us would like to see an outright ban of one commenter here while ignoring the fact that there are many others who also do not follow the rules set out in your Comment Policy.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of this community behaves when another one of us is red card banned if that is your decision. Which does indeed seem to be the majority view if not the consensus you wish for.

Late entry here. I waffled on this a bit, because I've been reasonably happy since I gained access to the blocking utility. It's still annoying to see how much of the comments section Michale monopolizes, but I felt I could live with that.

Why, though, should any blog need a blocking utility, but particularly for one person? I admit I've never understood his "charm," but it's been at least a very long time since he's made a positive contribution to the discourse here.

He's got his own agenda and this has been a fruitful place to get the attention and anger he craves. Typical bully; he likes to inflame and then bask in the attention. Negative attention is better than none, apparently. A goodly number of us, including you, consider this toxic. Do we need toxic?

I'm voting for you to exercise your second ban. He's more than earned it.

I think you should give Michale his walking papers. I was leaning toward suggesting that you give him one last chance to heed your warnings and change his posting practices on here, but then I realized that it would be pointless to do so. Michale is NOT going to change! He’s a Trump-chump! And just like his hero, he’s not gonna accept any responsibility for any of his bad behavior. It is never HIS fault! I wish he could tone it down, but he won’t. That is HIS choice!

https://youtu.be/bFSFs436oP0?si=yAwuswBH0INmyHzJ

So what do I do?

I will answer your question with a question. Annoying, I fully realize; apologies in advance:

You've posted the board rules now multiple times and for multiple years and explained the consequences for ignoring them. Where would he be if you'd enforced your rules?

Whatever you decide, remember this: It was his decision whether or not he'd follow your rules, and now it's your decision to decide whether or not you'll follow them. :)

I read someone’s Substack post that Ever since Trump, America is less friendly.

Michale has repeatedly shown that the poor bastard cannot help himself.

If you, Chris, feel a final chance is warranted, it's your column and your decision, or if you opt for suspension. But I'd just as soon never see M's blethering or some of the responses to him again.

Weigantia! Would you rather CW spend time on making content or monitoring our troll? I say fuck the troll.

I like my own idea best - big surprise, right?

anyhow, I think it's a reasonable compromise for the time being, to enforce the yellow card as issued, and in a week when the suspension ends, if the behavior occurs again even once, go straight to permanent pre-moderation of only those posts you approve. and as Liz has pointed out, perhaps be stricter with the rest of us too. at this point, no more warning or discussion ought to be necessary.

JL

How Felcher behaved 20 years ago is not relevant.

I don't read any of it, but once again, I don't understand why you would want to allow more lies and hate speech on your site than there is of your own writing. Let it create its own site to post its AI puke. That's what we all told DH.

Thanks for those links - will check out Crack the Sky in more depth as soon as I find the time.

(Lawrence) Gowan is a great Canadian singer/songwriter/keyboardist and entertainer extraordinaire. Check out his Strange Animal and Moonlight Desires but do so BEFORE watching Wolfcop and Another Wolfcop as those songs will never be the same again. Heh. Don't even ask.

Moonlight Desires

(You're A) Strange Animal

Now, he is also a member of Styx since 1999 when he replaced Dennis Deyoung. Styx hasn't been the same since!

I think we should give everyone one more chance to improve the way we interact with each other.

Yes, Michale may be the worst offender here but he is certainly NOT the only one who does not abide by the rules you have set out in the Comment Policy.

So, let us all start fresh and see if we can't make this these the greatest comments sections ever that will attract rather than repel new members.

I suggest reprinting in its entirety your comment policy guidelines, with a few additions to make things crystal clear for Michale, who has asked for clarity on a few key points. You could do so in place of one of your columns and turn the comments off so that we can all focus on the house rules without distraction.

Considering everything, I think this would be the best course of action. If we can't control our urges to diverge from those rules, then you have not only the right but the duty to give us the bum's rush. :-)

on [13],

As I have written several times, I skip past Michale's posts automatically; I haven't read anything he wrote in many, many years now. But his overwhelming presence is toxic, and I find too many people feed his trolldom because he takes up so much space that they feel that his comments must somehow be responded to. And I do read those comments because the writers are intelligent people who I generally respect. I usually wish I hadn't. Frankly, there's precious little discussion of Chris Weigant's ideas and posts on this forum once Michale has spewn out 30 or 40 full-screen posts about ... well, I don't know what, because I don't read them, but they seem to send everyone over the edge.

That gets us to today. I admit I did not know that you remember and liked Michale at an earlier, pre-Trump, time. That certainly explains your hesitation to commit to the obvious course of action. Obvious? Yes: you wrote this yourself,

"I fully admit, I haven't been reading the comments for a while, mostly because he has made it so toxic to do so."

Huh? It's your blog, the comments are from people responding to your blog, and you find the atmosphere so toxic that you can't bear to read what your readers think of your daily writing?

Ban.

I like the lead keyboardist.

What popped up in my YT feed when I brought that up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO4t4MRWYSM

But what song I thought of was from a local band where I grew up. Nobody knows them outside of Baltimore (and West Virginia), but here you go, best song Crack The Sky ever did (there are live versions, search "Nuclear Apathy", but none I've seen are better than the studio version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PciUSpHJMcA

enjoy...

-CW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ceiyHuW-JQ

G'nite.

-CW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDH7oD_AQW8

:-)

-CW

So what should I do about Michale?

I know, I know...

Look, I remember when he was a fun-loving sort of guy who would argue cogently and make his points and disagree without being totally obnoxious and offensive and repetitive. He and I would admit when we realized we had been wrong about something, and we actually influenced each other's thinking. I really do remember that guy... fondly, even...

We became what I would call friends -- which is incredibly rare online, I should mention. Not to mention between two people with divergent politics...

But then at some point (post-Trump) he became afflicted with a disease I am (totally tongue-in-cheek) going to call "TDS" -- Trump Deification Syndrome. That is so self-descriptive I don't even feel the need to explain the term.

Once he fully entered the cult, he became an entirely different person, at least here in the comments.

We all know this. I am just reviewing it for the record.

So my question to everyone is what should I do now? The longtimers here (most of you) know that I have only ever banned one commenter, in an almost 20-year run. And he was, like, EXTRA-obnoxious. In many different ways. I banned him and didn't regret it for a minute, then or now.

Michale is now just as obnoxious, if the complaints I get and the reactions here and what I see are any indications. I fully admit, I haven't been reading the comments for a while, mostly because he has made it so toxic to do so.

So what do I do?

Ban him? Lay down rules that he will spend every minute trying to weasel out of? Or maybe just upgrade the site and include the option for every logged-in reader to block him?

I am kind of torn.

If he provided any sort of benefit to this site, I would feel differently, but he just doesn't seem to, anymore. At least, that's what I see.

So I am asking you all for your recommendations. I *cannot* police the site every hour to see if he's said something too offensive. I just don't have the energy and bandwidth, after watching the daily shitshow from Washington.

But I just wanted to hear if there is a group consensus on what to do.

If the decision is banishment, I will (of course) refund him any donations he made last December, because not to do so would feel wrong. But that's a truly minor point.

I miss the old Michale, but I doubt he's coming back any time soon. So what should I do about the one that exists now?

Think hard, because your opinions are going to mean a lot to me.

Let me know.

Major announcement to follow.

"Making showers great again"

line... that's what it referred to...

-CW

I read one commentary on this that said "I think they left out the word 'golden'"

Heh.

-CW

I debated using "scare quotes" around "tough guy" for the whole article, to reinforce every time I used it was ironic, but then decided it would be too distracting.

Read it again, and add the scare quotes. I don't think Trump's a "tough guy" at all... I think he's pretending to be one, and the rubes are lapping it up.

-CW

Aspiring to be the Elon Musk of grammar Nazis?

No longer will you be oppressed by slightly under pressured water. It's the important things...

Really? They do? When one sentence earlier you have them "begging him not to be so insane."

So now he's, I guess, "less insane" because he just now blinked and postponed/cancelled/forgot about his radical tariff rates, etc.

I don't see how "less insane" = "tough". It means insane, but less than before. It doesn't mean tough, it means weak, as in, "I have a weakness: I'm insane". Now, you might deal with such a person in the same way you deal with a genuinely tough person: by trying to find out what will make him go away or stop doing that or act normal or not destroy your country's economy on a whim.

But you don't do it because tough guys need to be bowed down to and given what they want - because you respect and fear their toughness. You do it because the insane guy is insane and nevertheless has a machine gun in a crowded room that you happen to be in, and you have to do what you have to do to survive.

No one thinks Trump is tough. No one.

Chris, thanks for the “that was sweet” feedback. It is objectively fortunate that I kind of fell into my unanticipated Weigantia Covid family. Unmentionable persons had bailed when (fucking thank) Joe Biden won.