BANNED:
flag8 – Sorry, the RIAA is not a law-making body.
somnambulist – PR flack for United/Star Alliance trying to spread disinformation and sow unrest in any United-related post. There’s below the line marketing, and then there’s below the belt. Don’t you have some posterboard to feed into a composter?
Heymoe – If you hate Consumerist so much, leave.
The Tourist – Always takes retailer’s side. Insults consumers. Get back to the floor, young man, there’s VCRs to be sold. Take those hands out of your packet. We’re instituting a new policy where if any other employee or manager catches you with your hands in your pocket, you have to drop a quarter in this jar. At the end of the week, we’ll draw straws to see which manager gets to keep the jar.
scoobydoo – Responds to a post on a neat, consumer-positive, company policy, by half-joking that it will disappear because now thousands of people will abuse it. If that’s true, why don’t we just turn off the blog. Let’s skin fish on Alaskan fishing boats because obviously what we’re doing here isn’t working.
joeylopez, wholzem, bestbuy-staff – Retail trolls. Digg’s detritus.
— BEN POPKEN
More From Consumerist
-
Humor Website Offers To Buy Giant Stuffed Carnival Banana For $2600
-
IKEA Pulls Meatballs From Stores In 14 European Stores Because Of Yup, Horsemeat
-
EA Makes Worst Company In America History, Wins Title For Second Year In A Row!
-
Beef Plant Accused Of Abusing Cows Supplied Meat For In-N-Out, U.S. School Lunch Program
-
Dear Customers: Stop Making My Call-Center Employees Cry
Even if you’ve been executed, you can “apply” for a new commenter account simply by choosing a username and password of your choice when posting your comment. If your comment is deemed worthy, you’ll have another comment account again.
@Baz – thanks for that link and quote from MicroPersuasion. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Contribute to the greater good, not the common mean.
(actually a bit nervous about posting this now, but… here goes)
I think RandomHookup has it pegged when he talks about it being part of the floor show. It’s done in public as part of the fun (check out some of the Gawker commenter executions he refers to).
I think the thing that’s not sitting well with a lot of people (as clearly evidenced above) is … this hasn’t been “that kind of blog”. In a response to David Pogue’s article on online etiquette going down the tubes (no, not the series of tubes), Gina Trepani of Lifehacker responded that she didn’t agree as follows:
It’s always been my perception that The Consumerist was more oriented towards helping people and making the world of consumption a better place than pure making fun of things and snark, so the commenter executions seem a bit harsh here (whereas they fit right in over at Gawker). To my knowledge, if Lifehacker does executions, it’s in private and solely because a user was detracting from the overall experience of the site.
But here… well… to me, the public hanging doesn’t fit with the ‘feel’ of the site. Sure we make fun of things here, but it isn’t the main point of the site – the main point is to improve the process of consuming, right wrongs, and have some fun along the way. The public executions (especially for offenses that just don’t seem to be that egregious) seem overly mean-spirited coming from The Consumerist.
Flag8 was banned because his/her posts contributed nothing to this site. Every comment was a one-liner attempt at being cute. He/she never contributed anything. While Ben may have said that he/she was banned for a misperception of the nature of the RIAA, I suspect the person was banned because he/she had nothing intelligent to contribute.
The rest of them all make sense. Bestbuy-staff was likely cut because the Consumerist might get into some trouble posting a company’s perspective (Best Buy’s) as reported by someone not allowed to speak on behalf of that company. You’re looking at possible defamation liability if you allow something like that.
Well, perhaps there could be liability, IF the person purported to speak for the company and not for themselves, but that’s grounds to remove the comment, not the commenter.
There’s whiff of show business around this last round that just wasn’t there before…it’s enough to make me reconsider my ‘relationship’ with this blog.
At some point a decision’s got to be made between ‘funny snarky sarcastic’ and serious consumerism…I don’t think the two can coexist without trouble. I also find it slightly obnoxious that the blog can take such a tone but wants commenters to walk such a tight line.
In any case, thaqt’s my two cents, not that anyone asked.
infinitysnake: Think about it from a lawsuit strategy perspective. Let’s say that Best Buy did start threatening a lawsuit — the Consumerist’s best defensive position is to say, “hey, we take all necessary steps to preclude someone from making unauthorized statements on behalf of a company.”
It’s a showing of good faith and a showing of responsible journalism.
As for what you perceive as a double standard — snarky comments made by Ben in the articles on this site are merely window dressing on otherwise valid and informative posts. That’s the distinction. If all you have is window dressing but no substance, then those types of comments are a waste of time.
Also, Ben’s “funny snark” comments are statements of opinion backed by facts to support those opinions. They are usually artful, poignant, entertaining and appropriate. Again, responsible reporting.
I haven’t posted in a while. When I say something, it will be meaningful. Didn’t want to get booted for non-use.
I’m not sure that somnambulist is a United PR flack. He/she may very well just be a frequent flyer (especially given his/her post regarding SeatGuru’s seatmap that says, “Man, is it sad that I have that seatmap memorized?”
I fly United a lot on business, and I could have provided the information/clarifications he or she did too just based on what I’ve learned flying them so much.
I also don’t see any disinformation about United’s policies, either. What he/she posted looks accurate to me…
Flag8 was banned because his/her posts contributed nothing to this site.
There were only two Consumerist posts though. Isn’t that kind of quick?
Are executions based on all of the Gawker comments? I thought they were only getting banned from Consumerist?
Getting banned here gets you banned at all Gawker sites.
Bluegrass: Also, Ben’s “funny snark” comments are statements of opinion backed by facts to support those opinions. They are usually artful, poignant, entertaining and appropriate. Again, responsible reporting.
Sure- but plenty of the comments have been informative and accurate, but still got killed for snark- or for simple disagreemenbt.
Formergr: I also don’t see any disinformation about United’s policies, either. What he/she posted looks accurate to me…
Same here…and given that all of us have jobs (I assume) and/or companies we may feel like defending. Anyone here might agree with the goals of this blog and still find reason to disagree with something posted or defend a policy- sometimes, the consumer is the ass**** and it has to be said.
I won’t comment on the particular cases, since judging those is definitely an editorial job. However, as a commenter, I’ll weigh in with this much:
- Not having clear, or at least clearer, rules about what gets you banned does make me/us nervous. One of the things that attracted me to this site is the snarky tone; however it’s hard to be snarky without possibly crossing lines, if you don’t know where the lines are.
- Re: the above, it would be nice if there were a policy of warning “bad commenters” once before booting them. Even with rules in place, some violations might simply be a misunderstanding that the commenter would be willing to correct, if given a fighting chance.
- The public executions are a bit wince-worthy, but as long as they’re handled with humor and some mercy, they don’t bother me. Giving a chance for other commenters to weigh in seems more positive than people simply disappearing in the night.
…And that’s my 2.5 cents worth of impure copper…
I found myself unable to post anything shortly after saying this: [consumerist.com]
My comment privileges were restored when I emailed Gawker Media and asked why I wasn’t able to post. My guess is someone looked at my comments and concluded that I was banned by an immature editor who took a bit of valid criticism personally. I would have found this a lot more amusing had I been publicly chastised for simply agreeing with two other commenters that an editor didn’t like..