Patently-O Comment Policy:
Over the past few years, Patently-O readers have posted over 200,000 comments to the site. Many of these comments have been excellent, thought provoking additions to the discussion of the patent law issues. As an example of this, a number of comments from the blog have been cited in articles (or to me informally) as the inspiration for further proactive work. My hope is that the comments can help to build a community, share ideas between diverse groups, and negotiate toward workable solutions to the real issues facing the patent system today.
At the same time, the comments have often strayed away from proactive discussion of law, policy, and practice — moving instead into the less productive rhetoric of meta-bickering and inside-shorthand only accessible the handful of individuals who constantly monitor the site. I have never watched any party win these arguments and the eventual result is offense to the participants and Patently-O. This situation has discouraged many from reading the comments and has discouraged even more from participating in the discussion by writing their own comments. And, it has put me in the unenviable position of de facto comment editor and nanny. The anonymity factor of internet communications has, in my view, encouraged frank discussions but has also allowed for bad behavior.
With all this in mind, I want to ask Patently-O readers to help in moving forward with a better community of comments. Thoughtful, respectful comments are welcomed and encouraged on Patently-O, but we’re also not going to tolerate repeated disruptive behavior.
For commentors, here are a few ideas to work toward:
- As you post, think about the tone of your comments. Be polite and avoid all name-calling (both implicit and explicit).
- Think about writing longer more substantive comments rather than one-liner criticisms and, when you disagree, do not be rude but instead provide constructive and helpful feedback.
- Recognize that the weight of patent law is not sitting on your shoulders. [See http://xkcd.com/386/] There is no need to challenge every comment with which you disagree — especially when the challenge is snarky or itself lacks positive substance. Rather, gather that time to prepare a post that truly explains your position or question.
- Recognize very few (if any) readers read all of the comments and most of us (including myself) do not understand shorthand references to arguments found on other threads or obscure cases.
- Re-read your comment before you hit submit–think before you send! And, although you may be writing anonymously, post written work that you would be willing to attach to your professional name.
- Do not launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession.
- Stay on topic (of patent law, policy, and practice) and avoid meta-bickering
- When you can, provide positive statements (what is correct about another post/comment or correct about the way to think about an issue) rather than only criticisms. That gives us something to build from rather than only tearing-down. To be clear, I want to encourage debate and sometimes the best outcome is to be able to define the points on which we agree/disagree.
I stopped reading the comments on this blog many moons ago, precisely because of all the name calling and general low quality of the vast majority of the comments. We all know who they are, just axe them Dennis. Your blog does not need someone incessantly commenting to each and every post you or an invitee makes. I come hear to learn something, and outside of your posts Dennis, the comments mostly waste my time. I looked at these comments because of the topic, only to find the same old stuff.
Cheers
I also stopped reading most of the comments, because many are not interesting or particularly well thought out, and the discussion is often dominated by the same folks. It takes too long to find the interesting ones.
Perhaps Dennis can add a thumbs-up/thumbs-down feature to allow community voting regarding the usefulness of each comment. There then could be an option to sort the comments by vote ranking. (This sorting option would probably need to disable threads.) If this is abused, perhaps Dennis could require registration for the right to vote, to ensure one vote per reader.
Thanks Mark.
Well done and thank you. I stopped reading the comments long ago on all but the most curious of posts because I got sick of reading the pointless fighting and degrading. I hope everyone will aspire to raise the level of discourse. My thought was always, if you wouldn’t raise your hand in law school and say it, don’t leave it as a comment.
Somehow I don’t think asking people to “play nicely” will be very effective. At the same time moderating all comments would be very time consuming…probably just have to live with it and just delete / restrict people who are way out of line.
Require user profiles that disclose a person’s identity.
I can understand how some people would be reluctant to sign their name to positions on issues that might conflict with those of their firm’s clients, their employer, agency, etc.
There’s no reasoning with some people, Dennis. If a comment is way out-of-bounds, maybe give one warning. Next time they’re blocked.
Anon2: I do think it is important, however, that even the *appearance* of preferential treatment of commenters based on substantive views … would be a bad thing for [Dennis] and the site.
Tell everyone what constitutes a “substantive view”. Also, who decides when it “appears” that Dennis is giving preferential treatment to a commenter or commenters who shares (or “appears” to share) his “substantive view”? I can take a guess at the answer but I want to give you credit for it.
MM I believe you are referring to this post:
So that it is not taken out of context (which no one would want) I repeat it here:
……
Denis, like all of us you have your positions on patents, politics, and other substantive issues discussed here. I am sure each of us here both agree with much of what you think and disagree with much of what you think, as we agree and disagree amongst ourselves.
I cannot say that I have noticed any differential treatment of commenters based on how much or how little your positions on those substantive issues align.
I do think it is important, however, that even the *appearance* of preferential treatment of commenters based on substantive views rather than on objective assessment of “substance independent” *bad* behavior, would be a bad thing for you and the site. I believe you already strive to keep that image of fairness and objectivity and I encourage you to stay the course, especially when you agree or disagree with the views of those you are tasked with judging fairly.
……..
“Substantive view” is meant to refer to the “substance” of a view, the content of the ideas to be contrasted from (a portion you have removed in your quotation, presumably by accident) substance independent bad behavior.
Avoidance of even the “Appearance” of bias or unfairness is a well known principle of conduct of adjudication/adjudicators, anyone involved with law (like Denis) would understand what is meant by *appearance* of preferential treatment.
Any (other?) reader who reads the original post in its entirety surely will understand its meaning in full.
The goal is not only to be fair but to “appear” fair, independent of alignment of views.
Do you disagree with this goal?
For clarity, I am of course referring to objective and “fair treatment” in the context of corrective action/response for *bad* behavior.
Obviously, during a substantive discussion Dennis can and should give “preference” to ideas he agrees with.
I missed your clarification while I typed up my response below (12:44). Just fyi.
Thank you. I’ve made my concluding remarks below.
PS MM I do not doubt there will be disagreement on this forum but I sincerely enjoy the civility. Where ever you are have a good weekend!
You too.
Mine is starting now. 😉
The goal is not only to be fair but to “appear” fair, independent of alignment of views. Do you disagree with this goal?
I don’t disagree with the goal in the abstract sense but it strikes me as a very strange goal for one’s personal blog. Have you raised this issue at other blogs dealing with a patent law, or is it just a concern that you have for this blog? Do you avoid participating on patent blogs that “appear” to give preferential treatment to commenters who share the “substantive views” of the blog owner because “that’s a bad thing”? Serious question. I’d love to hear your answer and whether you’d recommend that other commenters here avoid those kind of patent blogs.
It would seem to go without saying but Dennis, in the role of a guy with a blog, is not an “adjudicator” whose salary is paid for people who expect him to avoid the appearance of “bias” in exchange for that salary. Seems to me running a blog is almost the furthest thing from that.
I’ll also add that my personal experience after many years of discussing patent law here and elsewhere is that, in the minds of some, it’s impossible to avoid the “appearance” of “bias” because the failure to stick to an approved script will be construed as evidence of “bias.” Let everyone know if you are unaware of that mindset or if that strikes you as surprising.
I responded to your posts because they were about a post I made. I did not want to go on at length but felt I had to respond.
I think with my clarification (thank you for noting it) it is apparent all I urged was fairness in dealing with bad behavior, and raised the need to “appear” fair as well.
I understand your misunderstanding was caused by my lack of clarity. I take your pointed questions as causally stemming from the wording of my posts, and given that the misunderstanding is likely now cleared up I will politely ignore them.
AAA JJ You won’t find a single post of mine where I used the term “impeach.” Yet you continually bring it up. …. [P]lease do cite/quote even one post of mine where I called for impeaching judges. In other words, produce some evidence. Or STFU.
Here you go:
link to patentlyo.com
January 31, 2014 at 2:38 pm
AAA JJ: Judges who insist on referring to the exclusionary right that a patent provides as “monopolies” need to be removed from the bench. Pronto.
Many weeks later you claimed that this statement was a “joke.” Perhaps you had in mind a different method for “removing judges” that’s even funnier than impeachment. If so, let everone know what it is so we can share in the laughs.
Also I’d love to hear from anyone who thinks I treated AAA JJ rudely or unfairly with this comment, and why.
That’s your evidence that I “called for a movement to impeach judges”? That’s pretty weak sh!t. Even for an a$$hole like you.
Actually the comments on that topic contain dozens of posts by you that are exactly the type of behavior I described to Dennis. Feel free to review them and explain to all of us how your comments are some paragon of civility and professionalism.
the comments on that topic contain dozens of posts by you that are exactly the type of behavior I described to Dennis.
Again: Dennis and I have discussed your concerns.
You can rest assured that when you suggest that the many judges who use the term “monopoly” in the context of a discussion of patent rights should be impeached, I won’t call you names.
But I’ll ask you if you are serious. How you respond to that question and where the discussion goes afterwards is up to you, just as it was in this instance.
It’s really all up to you now.
MM: Yes I think you are treating him unfairly. You are harassing him about one comment. If he choses to drop it without further comment he should be allowed to. Stop harassing him and making us all read your harassing posts.
That is probably your biggest characteristic is that you just post over and over and over again stating essentially the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
Give it a rest. New rules. Stop harassing people.
Thanks NWPA!
Lets get back to figuring out how to draft patents that fit within the new eligibility rules but that still offer value.
I think you are treating him unfairly. You are harassing him about one comment.
*sigh*
AAA JJ was not “harassed” by me in this thread.
AAA JJ made a comment impugning my character. I responded to that attack in a perfectly civil manner by explaining how things were going to be from now on. In response I was accused of being a liar. I responded civilly to that accusation. I was then called an “a hole”.
This is my last comment on this subject: I spoke with Dennis about the dynamics here. He’s aware of the situation.
You and I and everyone else are going to continue to disagree about stuff. For the community’s sake, before you make a comment about impeaching judges or putting people in jail or who is more or less like a “criminal” a “raper” or a “killer” or a “commie” or a “like the Gestapo” or who is “being paid to post here” or “you must be an Examiner,” just think long and hard before you hit the post key.
Think about what Dennis wrote upthread.
I’ve made a lot of comments in the past few days. I’m pretty sure if you read them you’ll see that I “got the message”.
Also, I’m not going away unless Dennis bans me. And my opinions aren’t going to change unless I’m convinced that I’m wrong by reasoned argument.
Have a great weekend!
Did you honestly, sincerely, actually truly believe that my post was “a call for a movement to impeach judges”? Because if you did then you’re an even bigger dipsh!t than I thought. Which is pretty remarkable considering what a t00l you are as evidenced by the posts you made in that topic you linked to. Your posts there were a true low point in the tone of comments on this site. Even for you.
I couldn’t care less that Dennis and you discussed my “concerns.” It’s clear to me, and to every other poster on this site, that he gave you free reign to post disgusting and degrading comments about other posters on this site and others (e.g. Ray Niro, Gene Quinn, etc.). Why Dennis put up with those posts from you I’ll never know or understand. At this point I really don’t care why he did it, or why he’s had a change of mind. I’ll take him at his word that he’s looking to elevate the tone of the debate here.
As Dennis is providing a certain amount of latitude on this topic, I’ll make this my last post on this topic. And I’ll abide by whatever conditions Dennis requires for the other topics. As for it all really being up to me now, that’s pretty funny coming from you. We’ll all get to see how this little “reformed” act of yours actually lasts. My guess is: not too long.
We’ll all get to see how this little “reformed” act of yours actually lasts. My guess is: not too long.
Too bad we can’t bet on that. 😉
Have a great weekend.
Disable threaded comments. Threaded comments just encourage engagement between commentors. The engagement between commentors frequently results in recursive repetition of the commentors’ respective historical positions.
Instead of engagement between commentors, the goal should be engagement between the post author and a commentor.
Does anyone see the irony of Dan’s original post asking for learned discussion rather than snarky name calling and the below posts falling directly into calling out the ‘bad’ posters?
I caught on. No one is a perfect poster, and everyone one of us should think before we post. “Time to self-reflect,” says Dan, and then people just say, “yeah, why doesn’t X do some self-reflecting?”
But, focusing on the positive, some people are posting on here for the first time, which is great. I’m always an optimistic, so maybe we’ll straighten out.
I think, though, people should do something that was not mentioned above… when snark is directed at you, do not respond to it. Starve the beast, so to speak.
I think that everyone should watch this video (language warning). Chris Hardwick on Bill Maher’s show.
link to youtube.com
I think it is also naïve not to recognize that there are paid bloggers everywhere on the Internet. I have linked to articles about this written by the top newspapers in the country, e.g. NYTIMES and Washington Post.
I think it is naïve to think that some of the people on here are not paid to blog.
NWPA – I have never seen any evidence that any of the the posters are being paid directly to post comments. That said, most of the patent law professionals who post on this board have a strong vested interested in various aspects of the patent system.
I would ask you to refrain from accusing individuals from being paid bloggers unless you are able to present actual evidence of such.
Fair enough, although I would contend that spending greater than 3 hours a day blogging on this site is at least circumstantial evidence particularly when they blog on other sites as well. But, apparently you have higher evidentiary standards.
I don’t understand how the “paid blogger” thing comes up from the video…
I got an email in my inbox from Dennis today. I went on here and discovered that this email was the same as what Dennis posted above. Let me share with you another email I received from Dennis some time ago.
“Thanks to all of you for your comments on Patently-O. I’ve been getting some complaints from readers who are very interested in the topic of the day, but who are not interested reading through the the personal attacks against various posters. I’m writing to get your help in refocusing the debates on Patently-O. Let me know if you have some thoughts on how to do this.”
Dennis and I then exchanged a couple of emails in which I made some suggestions — some of which are identical to the ones I have read below. One of my comments was “Unfortunately, I think the only solutions are technology-based solutions. On every board I’ve ever frequented, there are people who like to stir up trouble. Asking them nicely to stop antagonizing people never works. The only things that work that make the boards livable is a very active moderator that deletes posts and/or sanctions bad users or the ability of posters to ignore certain users/threads.”
My last comments to Dennis were: “I hate to say it, but I think you are out of luck. I understand that you are limited by the technology provided by your host. As such, if you cannot implement a technology-based solution, there isn’t much you can do.”
The kicker is that these emails were exchanged not quite 8 years ago. In the mean time, what was bad then has gotten much worse. I’ve never seen a blog directed to professionals with such mean-spirited comments directed to both individual posters and the profession as a whole — not even close. I dare say that the none of the “power posters” here have lived up to the ideal associated with being a “professional.”
Hopefully you’ll enjoy the changes.
“Hopefully you’ll enjoy the changes.”
I reserve judgment. It is difficult to change one’s nature.
Thanks. It works if we all do our bit.
pds, interesting that Dennis had this problem 8 years ago.
I also agree, more than agree, that we need to be able to filter out some posters regardless of the moniker they take.
“interesting that Dennis had this problem 8 years ago”
You may also find it interesting that the poster in the middle of it all 8 years ago is the same poster who is in the middle of it all today. He also happens to be the reigning volume poster for 8 years running.
link to patentlyo.com
Oh … in case you were wonder about the identity of the person I referenced above, let me quote one of the commentators from the link I reproduced below:
“I second the suggestion for a separate Malcolm Mooney thread. His/her comments are increasingly obfuscatory, childish, and argumentative. The valuable content contributed by Mooney is in my opinion vastly outweighed by the burden placed on the reader to both divine that content, and to navigate around the personally-directed comments made by, and responding to, Mooney.”
By Peter Papp, June 4, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I see, pds.
Well I personally like MM’s posts and look forward to them, and he has always been polite to me. But he does seem to draw a lot of fire and he fires back. I think that must be because he has been saying things that are highly controversial.
But I think these things need to be said. He has hammered on software and business method patents for as long as I have been here. He hammers on trolls. When once he was alone, in a sea of hostility, the world has changed largely to agree with him. It might be in some measure to his complaints.
But I have listened to him and my views have changed. MM is the most valuable poster on this blog, by far.
Malcolm will always draw fire. But we need him.
Ned:
Like many before you and many after you, you are incapable of separating the message from the messenger. You endorse Malcolm Mooney’s message, and that colors your opinion of the messenger. Because you and he support the same thing, you are willing to condone anything he writes — no matter how unprofessional. That makes you nearly as bad as him.
Dennis did not ask us to stop expressing our opinions. However, he did ask us to be civil. If you are incapable of acknowledging that Malcolm Mooney has been uncivil on this blog for 8 years running, then we having nothing more to talk about.
Nobody is asking yourself or Malcolm Mooney to stop expressing your opinions/advocating your positions. What is being asked is that the personal attacks stop.
As I told Dennis nearly 8 years ago, and I’ll repeat today — absent some technological solution or active involvement by Dennis (or one of his proxies) in this blog, I don’t see anything changing. We’ve had 8 years of terribly unprofessional behavior on this blog — by the one poster that has always dominated the conversation — does anybody truly believe that things are going to change?
terribly unprofessional behavior
I’m not terribly impressed by your behavior, either. Never was. I doubt that I ever will be.
I will continue to point out where your assumptions are incorrect (if I believe that they are) and when your arguments are weak or nonsensical (if I believe that they are), along with articulate and coherent explanations in support of those beliefs.
How you choose react to having your assumptions and your arguments challenged is your problem and, I suppose, Dennis’ problem if your choices in that regard are poor.
I spoke to Dennis about this issue specifically, by the way, and I’m happy to speak to him about it again, anytime.
By Dennis Crouch, June 4, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Top Twenty-Five Patently-O Comment Posters:
Count “Name”
624 Malcolm Mooney
186 MaxDrei
183 Joe Smith
161 stepback
148 Michael L. Slonecker
135 SF
135 CaveMan
121 anonymous
106 me
102 pds
88 anon
74 Lionel Hutz
70 small guy
69 metoo
66 Fredric Goldstein
65 Mark Perdue
65 Alun Palmer
62 Tom Kulaga
62 softwarevisualization
61 Alan McDonald
59 Gideon
54 johng
52 Tom
50 small inventor
45 Paul Cole
As of June 1, there have been 1701 separte [sic] names used and 7000+ comments. The top-25 names represent 41% of all comments.
I think it is disingenuous not to notice the following. Every post that could be considered pro-information processing is blasted with responses from a group of about 5 people (and 1 most of all) and that they often then make new posts around the “pro” information processing post. It makes it impossible for any pro-information processing post not to be drown out by the noise.
This is something that can objectively be seen and measured. And it is hard to believe there is not intent.
It makes it impossible for any pro-information processing post not to be drown out by the noise.
You are assuming that the “pro-information processing post” is not mere “noise” itself.
I can write a “pro-information processing post” that deserves to be “blasted.” So can you.
But I’m not going to do that.
Can I make a suggestion. No thread jacking please.
So does this mean that the next time somebody, e.g. poster or judge who wrote a decision under discussion, tells us all that something is “so notoriously old and well known that nobody ever even bothered to write it down!!!!!” and I ask for some evidence of that I don’t have to read a bunch of posts about how I’m a softie-woftie loving, bottom feeding, txx bxgging, patent fluffing grifter? If so, great. But I’ll believe it when I see it.
+1
No, because, without insulting him (really), Dennis seems enamored with MM. MM has done so many things (abuse, language, etc.) that would get him banned for life at every other forum in the world, but Dennis is ultimately fine with it.
I somehow wish I get get across to Dennis MM is not all that great. He’s not all that smart, not all that clever, there isn’t enough to him that makes him worthy of so much deference and desperation to keep him commenting on P-O.
I mean, even see the comment below at 10.1.1.1. Does MM really need anyone to go back and find all his posts that are insulting, abusive, and include terrible language, etc. etc.?
That’s okay, MM, we really believe that many of your posts are one’s to which you’d “be willing to attach your professional name to”.
Unfortunately: even see the comment below at 10.1.1.1.
What about it?
amen.
Overall I agree with the overall effort. I myself am on occasion abusive or not as helpful as I could be to well-meaning posters. I will endeavor to be more helpful as time goes by. And certainly to avoid the meta.
That said, I’m still a rather large advocate for a pretty wide berth being given people when it comes to these topics we get into. When the majority of people are discussing these matters on here they’re not discussing some pie in the sky abstract concept of patent law, they’re discussing work. Their work. And inevitably there is going to be very strong feelings about that.
I was thinking the same thing. We argue about these matters loudly because many of us have shed blood, sweat, and tears in this practice area for many years. Seeing work product you produced years ago figuratively burst into flames years after the fact is frustrating. Seeing other people glib or gleeful about it just adds insult to injury.
It’s good to take a step back and realize that people are behind the comments. Actual people. We should all act as if other posters were sitting across the table from us rather than some disembodied blurb of text on a screen…
I hear what you’re saying, Bluto.
A few quick thoughts: the “disembodied blurb” is a beautiful equalizer because, especially with the addition of anonymity, it encourages people to focus on the content rather than on the credentials or lack of credentials or some other feature of the commenter. Second, it minimizes the squelching of dialogue due to unrelated social considerations (“gee, if I say this to his/her face, will I get invited to his bar b q?”) as well as the some of the weird content-free social games that people feel obliged to play when they wish to communicate “in person”. That’s the magic of these virtual forums and it’s one of the reasons that so much of new technology (“it’s exactly as if you are there!”) fails to replace the old technology.
In addition, without belaboring the point or getting too philosophical, the practice of law is one of those many human endeavors where, at the end of a long withering process, coming up with a goose egg and watching your victorious opponent high-fiving his/her team is unavoidable. Unless you’re a masochist (a perfectly valid way of life), you have to get by on the little victories (or the occasional big one) and your enjoyment of the process because defeat of some sort or another is always just around the corner.
especially with the addition of anonymity, it encourages people to focus on the content rather than on the credentials or lack of credentials or some other feature of the commenter
True enough, I guess, if it weren’t for the fact that so much of the discussion on the interwebs (and yes, I’m looking at you Malcom, Ned, 6, and the Anons) is snark-filled, distraction-prone rants that serve more to stroke your the commenter’s own ego without advancing any substantive discussion of anything.
Astounded, huh? Can you imagine what it is like to try to discuss issues when you are constantly being assaulted by the likes of anon?
Stop blaming MM, me or 6. The source of all the problems here lay mainly in one poster.
Of the posts I’ve made making comments that are serious in nature and seeking to work these the issues, the snark started with Ned and MM. My experience.
IsaacsTM, ?
I have been having good conversations with you for the last few days. Can you link to something I said that you would call snarky? I generally find it quite refreshing to discuss issues with people.
Frankly Ned I think IsaacsTM is exactly right about you. You have an agenda to push on here and you push it constantly. Your claims that anon never had a substantive discussion on here are ludicrous. And your support of MM is just ludicrous as well. Even when I have pointed out to you MM viciously attacking new comers who were civil, you ignore these attacks.
Frankly, the only reason I pay any attention to your posts or the other members of your group is that it is interesting to me how the propaganda of your anti-patent group has won out in some circles. And it is interesting for me to see how you ignoring reality wins out. Your legal analysis is by and large not worth anything.
Frankly, I think the people that taunt and blast this board with posts are alive and well, so I expect nothing to change.
Anon was closest to another poster on here years ago, Noise Above the Law who fought with MM constantly in pointing out his misrepresentations. Noise Above the Law finally said she was tired of it and decided it was a waste of time to blog on here due to the strong anti-patent crowd on this board. She stopped for that reason. Anon has said he was stopping for the same reason.
Night, substantive only to a point. I could never get anon to discuss the facts of a case, nor even quote a holding. Not once. I gave it my best effort though. I simply never could break through to him on anything because he simply refused to discuss cases thoroughly.
I began to doubt and still doubt whether anon was a lawyer.
“Noise Above the Law finally said she was tired of it and decided it was a waste of time to blog on here due to the strong anti-patent crowd on this board. She stopped for that reason.”
You do know that she had a baby right? And you do know that I was flirting with outting her the day she just so happened to “quit” right?
6>>>flirting with outting her the day she just so happened to “quit” right?
If there is one behavior that should stop is this accusing to know who people really are. 6, you have said I am someone for years that I am not. And it wrong to do so.
“If there is one behavior that should stop is this accusing to know who people really are. 6, you have said I am someone for years that I am not. And it wrong to do so.”
“Accusing to know”? You’re funny NWPA. Usually I simply present the evidence of the poster’s existence and let people draw the parallel themselves. Is that cool with you? Or should that also be off the table?
“I could never get anon to discuss the facts of a case”
Ned, you and I always asked too much of him in that arena. He doesn’t know how to discuss the facts of a case. He’s just a GUI designer pretending to be a lawyer.
Same here.
Thanks 6 – I still very much want this to be an open forum for debate. Looking forward to hearing more from you.
6, I did have a lot of fun reading your psychoanalysis of you know who. I think you may have been right. Some day, I will discuss your diagnosis with my daughter, the shrink.
Do let me know how that turns out Ned.
For people interested in these topics, the quality of intellectual argument on this site is like crack, and peoplez like to hit the pipe repeatedly.
I think there is a community here, dysfunctional as it may be, and the form of the architecture of the site is actually driving some of the maladaptive behavior.
Perhaps a better format would be forums built around topics like; 101, procedure, 285 cases, design patents, software patents, etc. Then the thousands of repeating comments at least are coherently related in time rather than the random pattern of Prof Crouch’s front page selections. In that system, when he tags posts, the comments flow to those forums.
I do think unfettered, wide open post it and its published comments are the best way to go overall. The crackheads need to be contained, but it works better for everyone else and provides way better discussion quality.
With a touch of self-reflection I see I have been spending a little too much time at the pipe myself…so I’ll be chillin on the comments here for awhile.