We apologise for overriding 0M-3’s excellent post, on Geography is Power, but we are pushing it up and allowing it to breathe.
We also second Kabir’s proposal for a book club, with Midnight’s Children as our inaugural read ahead of India and Pakistan’s Independence anniversaries in mid-August.
One. Online-safety reports go by email. From now, any online-safety violation must reach us by email. That is the investigative channel. If it does not land in the inbox, it is not in front of us, and for our purposes a violation we never see did not happen. Send it to us directly.
Two. What Brown Pundits is about: biodiversity and bio-density. Two aims. Density: a 20 comments per post. Diversity: five voices per thread, not a closed loop of a handful names. A hundred comments from a small circle is a monologue. A hundred from ten is an ecosystem, and the ecosystem is what we are here to keep alive.
A post unlikely to reach either metric may be held in abeyance or returned for reworking.
We have felt the losses. BB stepping back, and Indosaurus before that, cost us more than volume. They were bridges. BB in particular always found the connective tissue to sports and the economy that the rest of us missed. So read this as an open invitation home. We will be reaching out, and if either of you is reading, the room is still yours.
Great that you’re on board with “Midnight’s Children”.
There are exactly six weeks until Friday August 14. The book is just over 500 pages. So I propose that anyone intending to read along should aim to proceed at 100 pages a week. Of course, it doesn’t really matter as long as the book is completed by mid August.
On the “bio-density” issue: I personally don’t think that every post necessarily needs to reach 20 comments even after it has been given 48 hours. For example, “Pink Boots” has about 10 comments as of now. The posts which tend to draw the most comments are those which allow the two factions to engage with each other though honestly a lot of that engagement is rather “low-signal” back and forth. So, I don’t think purely judging by numbers is a good metric.
Just looking at empirical data, “Pakistan the successor state to Islamistan” has 230 comments and “Who did the Brits conquer India from” has 110. So my thesis that the posts that draw the most engagement are those about Pakistan or Hindu/Muslim issues stands proven.
Speaking of commenters who have gone missing, we haven’t heard from Fly Die, girmit or EK recently. Sbarrkum also seems to have disappeared. My own feeling is that some of these people are not really interested in the incessant India-Pakistan hostility.
That’s why volume is balanced by biodiversity; how many voices per thread.
You’re welcome to implement whatever policy you want. It’s your blog.
But even on “biodiversity”, I’m at a disadvantage since I have ceasefires with almost the entire “Saffroniate” and presumably that means they will not be commenting on my posts.
The main point is that we can see that people are interested mostly in India vs Pakistan back and forth. That pattern is very clear. If I’m not the Pakistani they can attack, they attack Q. It is what it is.
“Geography is Power” has only 5 comments after 3 days.
So numbers are not a good metric.
It is a very good post – also BP is suffering the shock of BB’s departure
I’m not saying it’s not a good post–though that is subjective.
I’m only saying that numbers are not a good metric. Even the “Saffroniate” didn’t really bother to comment on that post–for whatever reason.
Well yes we don’t know who you are and are not engaging with at the moment
I have ceasefires with BB, RNJ, NDG, OM and Archer. So almost the entire “Saffroniate”.
I know there is a “ceasefire” but I have a question for you: Are you ok with “Saffronites” commenting on your posts? I have serious issues with the way you continue to address some of us and hence have responded harshly at times. But you have put in a place a blanket ceasefire that you have defined to be absolutely zero comments, responses or even compliments of any sort even when your posts are good. Hence this question from me.
Thanks for your comment.
I have no issues with anyone commenting on my posts. After all, I’m not here to talk to myself.
I reserve the right to manage my posts as I see fit–a right that every author on BP has. I have very clear red lines. No anti-Pakistan discourse and no personal attacks on me. If you can make your points in a civilized manner within those constraints, you are welcome to comment.
The “Online Safety Precedent” was introduced after much thought. I have been given an actual threat of violence from someone on this forum. I am not here to be personally attacked.
“Ceasefires” can also be dropped with mutual consent if the principles of respectful dialogue are followed.
I agree that conversations across the “isle” must happen. That is obviously the raison d’etre of BP.
I in turn have a request for you: Please don’t be so condescending towards others in the commentariat. It vitiates all conversations. There are many here with stellar credentials but don’t wish to make a public declaration of it. They obviously do not take kindly to the sort of comments you make at times about “intellect” etc.
Other than this, if you are ok, I will take the liberty of responding to your posts and comments occasionally.
I have never attacked anyone’s intellect unless they have attacked me first.
Obviously a person who is attacked is going to defend themselves.
The whole point of the ceasefires is to cut down on these pointless “low signal” exchanges.
I don’t stand for bullying.
If you can refrain from nastiness directed at me, I have no problem with you responding to my posts.
Wow…what blatant liars some people are. If this how they behave over the internet, one can only imagine what they are like in real life.
You have to tread on eggshells around them because they are offended by the slightest of actions & words.
Calling someone a “blatant liar” or a “nasty person” is offensive.
I do not put up with disrespect.
Do not reply to me or refer to me and you should be fine.
It’s amazing how all the pseudonymous accounts think they can gang up on me. I’m a real person not an internet persona.
And was I ‘talking’ to you? I was not replying to anyone’s comments but was posting my own comment Re: BP Precedents.
My real name is Anika & my surname begins with H which BP is well aware of because they have my real email address. I’m AnikaH on YouTube as well (I don’t have Instagram, X or Facebook).
This ‘internet rando’ has been reading this blog since the very beginning, like she did Sepia Mutiny all those years ago.
We will intervene here since you are an established reader and more saliently a woman, of whom we have very few, so it’s important that BP be extra vigilant in ensuring the “Online Safety Precedent.”
Kabir, it was not apparent that Anika was, in fact, referring to you. We allowed the initially clarification, even if the tone was strident, but Anika_H is certainly allowed to express her opinions, especially when they are not specifically targeted to anyone in particular.
Calling someone a “blatant liar” when you are on record as having previously referred to that person as “nasty” and “manipulative” is disrespect. I will not tolerate disrespect from anyone–whether that person is a man or a woman.
If you want me to continue participating in this forum, then you must insure that no one is allowed to disrespect me. In fact, personal disrespect from anyone towards anyone else should not be allowed. There are seven or eight people in the “Saffroniate” and only one of me. So this becomes an extremely toxic environment otherwise.
Overall though the “ceasefires” seem to be working.
We are soft-launching the “Gender Precedent.”
Female commentators have much more latitude and can only be moderated by the Female Admin Team.
Furthermore ALL male commentators are expected to be chivalrous & courteous.
There is NO evidence of direct abuse in Anika_h’s latest post. It is simply inference.
She is on record as calling me “nasty” and “manipulative”.
I am justified to assume that the reference to “blatant liar” is also a reference to me.
I’m sorry but it is “gaslighting” (much as I hate that word) to assume that I’m too stupid to know what the context is here.
I’m not going to belabor this further. But I’m not putting up with disrespect under any circumstances.
Everyone should be courteous to others at all times. Gender is not an excuse.
If she apologizes for using the terms “nasty” and “manipulative”, I’m happy to put this entire matter to rest.
She has no need to apologise. We will not be instituting a ceasefire; please be aware going forward of how you refer to the Female Commentariat.
So it’s fine for you for someone to call me “nasty” and “manipulative”?
I’m not fine with that.
If that’s your position, I will simply delete all my posts and move on with my life
sorry we meant to say we will be instituting a ceasefire.
The fact that this had to instituted shows how bad discourse has already gotten that even women aren’t being spared the condescension.