The trouble with the Like/Dislike option is that it encourages posters to think as they are reading a comment, “Do I like this?” instead of “What is this trying to say?” or “What’s in this for me?” or, best of all, “What’s going on here in general? How did this come up, for what reason? What’s in this for the discussion?”

As it is now one becomes polarized, whereas in an ideal discussion one should rise above both personalities and viewpoints. That’s an ideal, of course, but this is a site I would hope could model an ideal, and be an example of poetry discourse in this country at its best.

As to the nitty-gritty of it, and speaking more honestly than I probably should, I know that the present system brings out the very worst in me personally, and I suspect the same thing happens to others–you can see it very clearly in the absurd swings in the voting. Also, I can hear the howls of protests everywhere, “Why did that comment get trashed?” “Why red for that?” Well, sometimes what you wrote got trashed because I trashed it myself, that’s why. Indeed, I get all heated up by those Reds and/or those Greens and I think, this simply isn’t fair! — and start spraying my scent around indiscriminately which, needless to say, is going to be mostly Red when I’m feeling like that. I mean, I’ve cast so many votes in the last week I’m not proud of, and I hate to see our beautiful discussions so defiled!

I’d love to see lots of green votes for what I’m saying so we could all admit that this is, Yes, what we’re doing and No, not what we want.

Christopher

Shit, I still have to plan my own damned funeral. I had to bury the old dog today.

Thank God for poetry blogs or I’d never have any fun.

Terreson

margo

I did indeed suggest that you were one and the same as “Thomas Brady,” a pseudonym to begin with, because your unfailing sycophantic praise of him has a truly narcissistic tone. It’s very hard to imagine anyone being taken in by his act who isn’t on the take.

You say you aren’t him. I accept that. Let’s move on.

I don’t know if you are using multiple personas here or not. I never said that you were Thomas Brady, however, because I don’t believe you are.

With all the filters, communities, forums, and moderated comment sections, you never need hear an opposing viewpoint ever again. Web site forums that used to be interesting and lively can quickly turn knee-jerk and unified, with those possessing quirky senses of humor or an interesting take on things shamed into never commenting again. [...]

The bully who will relentlessly attack the target of his rage from the safety of a blog is often the same person railing against the lack of human decency today.

– Jessa Crispin

http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article07080901.aspx

I don’t get it, on the web, text on poetry generating so much bad blood.

If the texts of Brady and Woodman had no validity, they would be ignored and no one would care. It is precisely because they are saying treuths which others find uncomfortable, they generate so much anger from others. At least, that is just my personal, individual opinion.

Brady might be a one trick critic, but his argument is well put and he reads very well, clearly very widley read, whilst his detractors, by the force of their ire, it is clear have lost all sense of reason when he is about.

They cannot counter him, so start moaning he is *dominating* threads. It is not Brady who dominates, but the force of his intellect.

One idea may be to hide comments that are over a specific length, and that way the reader would now that that comment was a voluble one.

thank you very much for reading.

It was hard to reply to Rachel’s attack without following it back to John Oliver Simon’s before it, because she used his exact words–polysyllables, but so few of them. He had written:

“Just prior to the introduction of red and green thumbs, every thread on Harriet was wrenched into a back and forth on Thomas Brady’s hobbyhorse. Confront him, overwhelmingly refute him, as I and others did, or ignore him, the result was the same: the discussion was hostage to the lowest common denominator.

This vulnerability to the loudest bore is an artifact of cyberspace in the absence of a hands-on moderator, or as now, a community mechanism for up and down. Community verdict on Brady’s blather was overwhelmingly down. He has apparently either recognized that he was unwelcome and withdrawn or been banished for bad ratio. I hope the door didn’t hit his butt too hard on the way out.

I replied in some detail, but unfortunately I got John Oliver Simon’s name wrong and although I’ve apologized after every instance (4 of them in all, and I’m still sorry) he has never spoken to me again.

Perhaps the on-going snub is also because of the content of my reply above where I defended the person whose name shall no longer be mentioned. Of course it was partly your fault, John Oliver Simon, because in-spite of our total differences you insisted upon calling me him. And you of all people should know the difference, and certainly not stoop to that level.

I wonder if, in exchange for this undertaking from me, the 4 posters involved in this immediate discussion, JOS, R, T, & MB, could also give an undertaking not to suggest I’m the unmentionable either. It doesn’t really matter, but it might help lift the clouds if you do.

Arthur Durkee has been fair on this–he knows who I am, and that I’m just me. Indeed, he also knows that if you combine me with someone else you dislike you just create another binary, and that means more dualism and strain.

So, if one really wants to generate discussion and dialogue, here or anywhere else, the like/dislike binary paradigm seems a very backward way to go about it. Such simple binary opinion-registering isn’t likely to deepen discussions, only to polarize them. Hence, I deem it useless, and more likely to generate new divisions rather than heal old ones.

Christopher