Contemplating a new rule

What if I said that you can’t comment on FC if you run your own political blog.

Now, it’s something that just crossed my mind, but I’m thinking there might be some merit to the idea.

Fairly Conservative does a great deal of traffic because of my SEO work. It also gets some really decent debate on the issues. What’s getting my goat right now are bloggers landing here to post links to their stuff or comments that are less than cordial.

In other words, I’m really fed up with a couple of you.

Now I know that if I put this in place a few of you will have to find somewhere else to play, but the way I see it, you already have a megaphone.

I’d very much like to hear what else is going on out there, and sometimes (purposefully?) that gets drowned out.

Just thinking. If you have a preference one way or another, let it be known now.


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    Unless it creates operational issues for you, I like having links to those dropping by. I use the links to take a snapshot of where that person is coming from and which way the wind is blowing. This is especially true of new visitors.

    I understand this can be abused. If that happens deal with the offender as you see fit. As a rule the more sunshine on anything the healthier it is for everyone.

  2. Liberal one says:

    “a great deal of traffic because of my seo work”

    Speaking of seo, seo book has your traffic volume last month as 2,104. I definitely wouldn’t consider that “great”.

    My advice is to allow as many people to visit your site as possible. You need it.

  3. Liberal one – I’m not worried. Those traffic counts aren’t terribly accurate anyway.

    BTW, that sounds exactly like something Aaron Rodriguez would say. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  4. That’s a really good point, Randy. It does let you trace an opinion better.

  5. Don’t be used. And then abused. Or reverse that.

  6. The only thing is – how will this be enforced?

  7. Good question. Perhaps it will work as a gentleman’s agreement. (But then maybe not, as sometimes they aren’t exactly gentlemen.)

  8. So what you’re saying is that the entire rest of the Internets is taking traffic from you…

  9. Right John! That’s exactly right. Gosh, I’m so glad someone understands. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  10. I see what you mean, Cindy.

  11. It’s probably a crummy idea, but it was good to talk it through.

    Two things really get me though: 1) We’re supposed to be on the same side, and 2) they think it’s the best way to put forward their favorite candidate.

    Maybe it’s just Walker fans in general. It’s not like one can actual discuss the man’s weaknesses and live.

  12. I like the links. Then again, though not link based, I liked the way you cut off Santa’s Elf.

  13. He did take his ball and go home, didn’t he? It’s too bad, though. He’s very clever and really a good guy, just distinctly opinionated about some things.

  14. He’s busy building toys–he’ll be back, just like Saint Nicholas. I hope.

  15. Being new to this, I would say the more there is, the more ideas in play and the more you can see how many fools there are out there who think they have a clue.

  16. Cindy, banning all of us simply because Fred’s a jackass isn’t fair. Considering you’re fairly conservative, I’m sure you can agree that removing one bad apple is preferable to banning all of us.

  17. Jonas Wilkerson says:

    I think I agree with Zach. I think we just need to ignore Fred.

  18. Ok. It was just a bit of a thought experiment. I’ll go clean a closet now. ๐Ÿ™‚

  19. Yeah, I know I’m guilty of posting a link once in awhile here — my last post was a link to a blog I had just written. But it was also relevant to the discussion. And rather than post an enormous reply to your post, I thought it was more prudent to simply link to my blog. Sorta a “killing two birds” type of thing. But if you simply wanted to enforce a “no link” rule, I could understand that as well. Instituting a “no bloggers” rule, I would think, would diminish thoughtful replies on your site.

  20. I know Chris. I know.

    Don’t worry about the links. It’s fine. I’ll just pick and choose what gets to go through for a while and it should even out over time.

  21. I’m a firm believer in the ethic of reciprocity.

    “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”

  22. True. Part of my original thinking is that I don’t head out to the Cheddarsphere much. If you want to hear my babble, you pretty much have to show up here.

  23. Hey smarty pants:

    1) Fred never capitalizes his name.
    2) Fred’s really an ok guy, even though we disagree sometimes. We’ve been emailing each other to come to terms with this idealogical difference.
    3) No one, and I mean no one, is as anonymous as you might think. I’m going to check it out to see if your threat of violence is actionable.

    In the meantime, go stand in traffic. We desperately need one less of the likes of you in the world.

  24. Thanks Cindy.

  25. “Maybe itโ€™s just Walker fans in general. Itโ€™s not like one can actual discuss the manโ€™s weaknesses and live.”

    You don’t know how true those words are.

  26. Randy, thanks for the link correction. Itty bitty screens do not make life easy for a blogger on the road.

    Now that I have a keyboard I’ll explain my point. It’s not really the garage, it’s that there’s a very thick file of goodies that lie in wait against the candidate. Sure, this might be diffused a bit since the knowledge of the plan is fringe page, but I would imaging there’s more.

    The other comment I’ll add (oh, besides Aaron, grow up) is that among the political class – those working to influence this election – there’s a great deal of sloppiness.ย 

    Loose lips sink ships. And elections.

    Current time: 7:47 a.m.
    Current location: Schipol AMS

    It’s a few hours before my connection, so I could be around for a while.

    And, before anyone gets all creepy, Son #2 moved in this afternoon. He’s supervising the new driveway that’s planned for the upcoming week.

    (Oh, the thrill of managing the estate.)