community norms – Brown Pundits

Comments, Censorship, and the Cultivation of Voice

Over the past 45 days, I’ve had far less time for BP than I’d have liked. But now that I’m back in the US, I finally have space to refocus on what matters most for BP: stewarding it as a platform for intelligent, plural, and principled discourse.

Updated Commentator Guidelines

We’re evolving how we manage our comment threads. Here’s the updated approach:

1. Authors moderate their own threads.

Each Author is free to shape the conversation under their posts. If you post it, you own the thread. Also to the commentariat, if you put a picture and capitalise your handle, it makes you more “human” and memorable (without having to trade in your anonymity, thank you Indosaurus).

2. Do not delete comments; void them.

Deletion removes our memory. If a comment crosses the line, Authors may void it (ideally only the offending items but I can understand the temptation to void it all), but we preserve it as part of the archive. Cultivating a robust commentariat is a core BP value.

3. Authors may never moderate another Author’s comment.

If an Author has a concern with another Author’s comment, they should reach out to me directly. I will arbitrate. No unilateral actions between Authors.

4. Want to avoid moderation? Become an Author.

If you’re serious about your voice, join us. Monthly posting is enough. I ask only for basic human decency; plural views are welcome, and I’m always happy to edit drafts to preserve your tone and intent.

5. Respect BP for what it is.

Brown Pundits isn’t just a site. It’s a conversation space. And like any serious space, it requires some light rules; not to control, but to protect. Let’s build something lasting where people from all sides of the divide can meaningfully engage with one another.

Request for Calm and Civility

Dear Punditeers,

A gentle reminder to take a breath and step back. Kabir is entitled to his views—there’s no obligation to counter every provocation point-by-point.

What’s troubling isn’t disagreement—it’s the sheer volume of rage replies. This doesn’t reflect the standard we aspire to. It’s neither civil nor intellectual. The only reason I’m stepping in is because, while I generally prefer light-touch moderation, the tone of these threads now reflects poorly on the broader community. It lowers the quality of both the commentariat and the platform.

We’ve seen this play out before—Sepia Mutiny is a cautionary tale. Let’s not replicate it.

So please: engage with ideas, not just identities. Let’s not derail into yet another endless Indo-Pak back-and-forth. We’re capable of better.

Warmly,

X.T.M

✉️ [Addendum]

On Nivedita’s query, I’ve finally re-created the Brown Pundits email account. It’s hosted on Gmail, but I’ve deliberately avoided posting the full address here to prevent spam harvesters. If you’d like to get in touch privately or share something offline, feel free to reach out via:

📧 brownpundits19 [@g]

Flame Thread Protocols: Honey Kabir

A Note from the Editor

Flame thread warning: Honey vs. Kabir.

Last night’s open thread surged past 50 comments—most of it orbiting the now-familiar friction between the two.

Let me be clear: I’m inclined toward Kabir. He’s often overwrought, sometimes hyperbolic, but he’s a known quantity. He’s been part of this space for nearly a decade. He is a “real person.” We know how he argues, where he lands, and the limits of his provocations.

Honey is harder to read. Multiple handles. No clear background. No track record. And a rhetorical posture that feels less like engagement, more like carpet bombing—especially when it comes to Pakistan. There’s a difference between critique and hatred, and it’s usually in the tone. “Pakistanis under-endowed”—LOL, happy to disprove that.

Moderation is evolving. I no longer think of it as refereeing an online debate. I think of it like hosting a discussion in my living room. That means: Continue reading Flame Thread Protocols: Honey Kabir