You may have noticed Price Tags was offline for a few hours this past Tuesday night as we ‘migrated’ the website from WordPress.com to a third-party service provider; this will provide us much greater administrative, technical and creative control going forward.
Thanks for your patience as we worked out the kinks throughout the week — we will continue to introduce improvements the Price Tags look, feel and experience as we move into summer.
We also updated our Comments Policy — whether you’re a casual reader or die-hard follower, we value your comments, and hope you’ll continue to feel moved enough by the ideas found here to share your thoughts and feedback.
Please read and abide by these basic guidelines to help us maintain a welcoming and inclusive experience.
Send us your feedback, on any topic, anytime.
With appreciation,
The Price Tags Team
Thanks for creating a place for feedback as I have often wished there was such a communication channel.
I stopped both reading and commenting on Price Tags a long, long time ago because a policy of this nature was either not in place or not enforced. The abuse I faced for voicing unpopular opinions was problematic not only because the abuse was tacitly supported by site administration, but also because it came in at least one instance from a site insider/contributor.
As such, I had no confidence in site administration to be a fair moderator. That lack of confidence was aggravated by the very nature of the posts themselves, which often expressed integral contempt for, and actively put down, people like me and people who think like me.
The other problem I had was that I post my opinions under my real name, while the abuse and ridicule that came back at me was posted from behind pseudonyms. The fact that this is a city planning site made me suspect that some of those who attacked me online might, by day, actually be city employees. That created a level of real-life discomfort with city personnel that, as a citizen, I simply cannot allow to persist, and as such, my disengagement from your site is likely permanent.
Understanding my experience may illustrate why a new policy may not change old behaviours if it doesn’t address the root problems – insofar as commenters take their cues from the site.
You make many good points Karin. Particularly the ” tacitly supported” comment.
The weirdest piece of censorship I experienced here was when I wrote that there was no provable causal relationship between owning a dog and longevity – this was in the words of the very people who conducted this study. I pointed out that a similar claim could be made about Tesla owners. This was deleted. Who could that possibly offend?
Last summer, I cycled to an outdoor pool every day but one. Had I owned a dog, that number would have been zero. You can’t tie them up outside; you can’t leave them in your vehicle. By not swimming every day, I’d be in worse physical condition, and would probably have a shorter life. Ergo, it could be argued that not owning a dog increases longevity. I’d be poorer too. Dogs cost big.
Again, that was weird – and offensive – censorship.
I’m speculating here but could it have been not the topic you wrote about but how you wrote about it?
(Not defending them here. I think it would be great to know more specifically what one did wrong. Then you’d get a chance to post it again differently.)