An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Moderating Moderation But Not Moderately
A post published earlier this afternoon in response to Rick Moran’s call for a bipartisan commission to investigate the Osama Bin Laden mission has been removed because The Moderate Voice has a policy that contributors may not rebut other contributors no matter how moderate (pun intended) that rebuttal may be.
In other words, had I written a post stating that a bipartisan commission to investigate the Osama bin Laden mission was not called for, Rick would not be permitted to respond to my post no matter how moderate (pun again intended) that rebuttal may.
I have saved one piece of my post: Have a great Mother’s Day weekend.
13 Responses to “Moderating Moderation But Not Moderately”
Your post was tasteful and as one who has debated Rick before I’m sure he would not have objected. If we can’t debate with each other what’s the point? If it had been a flame post that would be different but it certainly wasn’t. This policy should be re-evaluated.
Quite the equitable policy. I salute it’s wisdom.
Thanks all, and thank you especially Shaun for your gracious response. TMV has writers’ policies for several reasons, just like newspapers do. This one, for two reasons I’d mention here: to keep the focus on the literally millions of issues ‘out there’ that are of interest to our readers, and to keep a lively but solid peace between all of us who work hard to bring TMV to the readership without having to get sidetracked into potential squalls. Our rules for writers are few and follow newspaper standards. Two or more writers can contact each other privately to speak about what they agree or dont agree about. But still our readership, from the numbers we see daily on our articles here, are most interested in our writers writing not about another tmv writer, but/and about events, ideas, teachings, and insights. Thanks for understanding.
archangel/ dr.e
The slow decline of TMV into groupthink finally hits the OP’s.
Maybe now some sanity can be restored. This WAS a place to debate, even strongly, opposing viewpoints.
Now it seems we are all supposed to be milquetoasts.
Some have started their own sites with just that in mind, INdie; they tried to handle numerous writers, did it for free, used their own money from their day jobs to support it, and saw how it went. It didnt. Some tried as singles, like loved baldilocks. Because of the repetitive circular fests that passed for debates, the sites closed down eventually from burnout. People of heart and talent, can wear out in the iron filings that pass for debate on many sites. You may not, but I’d encourage you and all others who find this site is not their cup of tea, truly and sincerely, to start your own sites as you see fit.
And/or there are millions of places to debate with whatever rules or not, all over the internet. So, people have many many places to choose from, as it ought be.
For us, our hits tell the story. So we stand on the premises this site was inaugurated with. Even when some few repeatedly tear down rather than support the hard and daily work we all put into all that we do and offer here, nonetheless we wish all to be well and go well. If not here, then elsewhere, and in peace.
archangel/ dr.e
Dr E.
I must disagree with you on this one. Shaun did not attack Rick and I consider both of them friends and I have debated with both. He simply stated another opinion. Debate should be what this site is all about. The blogosphere is not a newspaper and if it tries to make like one it will fail like the Newspapers. Shaun’s post was a polite and reasoned response to Rick’s post. People come to TMV for moderate debate. An attack flame post should be censored but if a reasonable post like Shaun’s is censored it will be impossible for me to participate in the future.
I appreciate everyone’s work at this site. I also appreciate the willingness to try and facilitate a better discussion. Of course reasonable people can disagree about how to organize the parade. . . even so I’m glad someone other than me is organizing the parade.
Thanks again to every contributor and to those who keep us in line.
Appreciate your thoughts, and Shaun is not censored Ron. He was given several choices and took the one he himself chose. The matter is about tmv writers rules, that’s all.
Thanks,
archangel/ dr.e
Thanks for your kind comment Doug. Back at you.
archangel/ dr.e
Shaun:
I read the post before it was taken down and agree that it was sensible, restrained, and entirely reasonable.
I’d say it even caused me to re-evaluate my position in that your explanation for why the confusion reigned is something I had not examined carefully enough.
But I still think we need some sort of inquiry – perhaps not “investigation” – that would establish the facts in an ordered and credible manner. Judging by the react around the world, it might even be required at this point.
Just so you guys know… the world doesn’t care. I am surrounded by people from many many different nations. Most are happy he is gone and believe we were right in going in unilaterally… the rest are on FBI watch lists.
Gee, I would have thought the reason was simply because the rebuttal could have simply been posted as a reply to the OP. Why would one reply deserve its own status over all others?
Without getting involved in the back-and-forth here about whether TMV writers can disagree with other TMV writers by name in published posts, I just want to make a point that has not been mentioned here. It IS possible for a contributing writer to write and publish a post criticizing the stance another TMV writer is taking w/o mentioning the writer or even indirectly referring to the other writer.
If there is even one other non-TMV blogger or media pundit who is advocating the same action (in this case, calling for a bipartisan commission to investigate the killing of OBL), a TMV writer can write a post disagreeing with that IDEA, without making it in any way an issue of disagreeing with a specific person.
I have done this in the past, to avoid mentioning specific TMV writers who wrote a post I disagreed with. I did this not to comply with a specific rule necessarily (because in the past this rule was not so all-encompassing as to include any mention of disagreement with another TMV writer, no matter how respectful), but rather simply to avoid conflict or unpleasantness with a writer when I knew that writer and I frequently clashed with each other.
If Rick Moran is not the sole, single, only individual who is calling for such a bipartisan commission, then why does any post about the idea have to mention him or have to be about disagreeing with him publicly on TMV?
God knows I have disagreed strongly with Dr. CPE, and before her, with Pete Abel, regarding specific language in my posts, but on this particular point, I really think there is a solution that could satisfy both sides.
Kathy