Commenter Code of Conduct, and CotW!
Before I move on to the hotly anticipated Comment O’ the Week, I’d like to take a moment and address two important issues. First, please be thankful that it’s Friday the 13th of June and the world is still here. Yay!
Second, let’s talk about you, the reader-and-sometimes-commenter. You’re our bread and butter, and it makes my day every time I see a post spark a spirited discussion or at least a string of puns.
What I don’t like is when a spirited comment discussion turns into an angry mess. It doesn’t happen too often here, but often enough that I want to address it before it gets any worse. On any blog, there will be many more lurkers than commenters, and that’s A-OK. I just want to make sure that no one is reticent to jump in because he or she is afraid the atmosphere will be less than welcoming. With that in mind, here are a few things I’d like you all to keep in mind.
- We don’t all agree about everything. Not only will you the reader sometimes disagree with a Skepchick writer, but quite often we writers disagree amongst ourselves. I never wanted a bunch of writers who had the same outlook and experience as me — I wanted people who can think critically, and who make me think about things in a different way.
- We disagree in constructive ways. When a fellow writer posts something that makes me think, ‘WTF?’, I try to figure out how she got to that conclusion. I often find that the rationale behind her thinking is sounder than I first thought. A recent example is when Sam posted in support of the FLDS parents in Texas who had their children removed. At first I thought he was nuts, but when I examined the evidence and his thought process, I came to see that the point wasn’t as outrageous as I had thought. I didn’t get angry because he had a different outlook than me, even though it’s a hot-button issue. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Sam is my friend, which is why I’d like you to
- Think of us like your friends. Even though we sometimes disagree, I hope we make you laugh and think and occasionally party. I want you to think of your fellow commenters as friends, too — since you’re all on Skepchick, you probably all share a similar mode of thinking, a similar frustration about Oprah, and maybe a similar sense of humor. So get along and give each other the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you should still
- Tell us when we’re wrong. Giving us the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean letting us unknowingly get facts wrong or slip up on fallacious reasoning. We’re human, and that’s how we learn.
I think that about covers it. Mostly, I just want you guys to not be jerks, because I want everyone here to have fun. Except on the day that Kevin Trudeau registers to post, at which point I want you all to become the jerkiest jerks that ever, um, jerked. Okay, on to the Comment o’ the Week!
Our latest CotW comes to us courtesy of Slaytanic, who, apropos to his/her super-scary username, posted this in response to my post about the nuclear baby who did not (it turns out) eat our souls today:
Slaytanic // Jun 10, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Well, if the world has to end the 12th (and apparently it will), hopefully the proto-Chucky will at least share his Evil Giant Doobie. Thereâ€™s nothing that brings a more calming effect pre-apocalypse than Satanâ€™s Mega Bomber â€˜Jâ€™ lit with the purifying fire of sinful explosia.
What I want to know isâ€¦ whatâ€™s in his bottle? Is it vodka, or is it the tears of the righteous?
The sinâ€¦ it burns us!
I’m pretty sure it was that “tears of the righteous” gag that really did it for me. Runner-up is Expatria, who broke some kind of record when he posted at least 49 satirical responses to that thread.
So congrats to Slaytanic! You win a hit of nuclear baby’s bong, plus another year free of worldwide nuclear apocalypse.