The same old problem
Anonymous comments are a pain in the arse! As regular readers are aware the BurdReport has been in the habit of moderating, and allowing, anonymous comments. This practice has been a source of amusement, annoyance and frustration for some people including the publisher. The BR's policy about anonymous comments is simple - if it is not abusive toward another identifiable poster, if is not too profane, and the profanity policy has been stretched lately, or if the comment is just way out of line - it is moderated but rejected.
Interestingly enough the other day the BR was phoned by another local blogger who asked if we knew a particular anonymous poster. The BR responded with the answer that if the post is not profanely objectionable or too personal it will get posted just to show how silly some people are.
However a question has been posed about the policy of anonymous posts - should the BR ban them? Well readers, we have had this discussion before - should we ban them? If we don't what sort of policy should be implemented. Let's make this a participatory discussion [redundant?-ed]. You tell us what the rules should be, we will post them and reject those comments that fail to match the policy. Unfortunately the programme does not allow an email back to the offender so for the time being only by not being posted will the miscreants find out how their comments do not match posting policy.
10 comments:
I am curious as to what is the difference between using an alias and simply choosing the Anonymous option though? Is it a matter of identifying ourselves or differentiating the posts?
is it technically possible to disable the 'Anonomous' radio button in the "Choose an Identity" section?
Anonymous posts are confusing. If we have more than one poster using "anonymous" on a given topic it is hard to know if they are different people, or just one person who is schizophrenic ( i.e. uncontrolled multiple personalities).
It also seems that people posting using the moniker "anonymous" feel no particular reason to be logical, but they do feel they have the license to be rude and profane about other posters. I find this type of anonymous posting objectionable. If a person who identifies themself wants to be illogical, profane or rude that it their option. Subject to the laws of slander they can express their opinions and be other readers will make their own judgments about the poster.
Technically using a "name" that it is not one’s own is still anonymous, but generally such users stick to a consistent personality. Sometimes they make very intelligent comments, and I would often be pleased to know who they are.
A person I respect told me they only post under their own name. They feel that if they are not willing to put their own name onto a post, then the post probably should not be made. I agree with this credo, but I am not expecting the Burd Report to adopt it. However, I do believe that banning posters who hide behind "anonymous" would improve the Burd Report.
I read and congratulate the Burd Report, but seldom post. Not being privy to the contents of the BR inbox puts me at a disadvantage; quite simply, how can I know the extremes of the " anonymous " postings you endure? But,the indignation to anonymity shown by some of the regular and named posters strikes me as a bit much. This, as much as anything, probably keeps some cowering in the bushes.The Report generally does it's good and valuable service in presenting unvarnished, incisive commentary, and in posting a fair range of feedback. You cut when you absolutely must, so I say, just keep doing what you do well. And, what is in a name, after all ? Not civility, necessarily.
with regularity, posts from the various anonymouses are interspersed, making it extremely difficult to follow any contiguous series of comments on an issue. That leaves the readers to try and sort out the various themes being put forward. It would be helpful to string those various arguments or comments together using any 'consistent' form of accreditation simply to make sense of those themes. Using aliases does not prevent one poster from using several of them in the course of a discussion, nevertheless I'm for some sort of consistency.
I agree with Frank as a regular Anon poster I can site countless examples of attack posts, profane posts etc by the alias and named posters. It is clear if the Burd Report wants access to certain information then without the Annon. posting ability certain people just won't be able to post. I think that is more damaging to the strength of the debate on the Burd Report then banning Annon. posters. Let the attacks begin...
The posts by "friendly fire guy" and "straight shooter" on other topics in the Burd Report make me feel that this blog is getting into bad company.
"Friendly fire" otherwise known as shooting and killing your own side, and "straight shooter" which implies the same amount of killing indicate that people have unresolved aggressive tendencies. Also their indiscriminate and inaccurate attacks on other posters tend to show that to them aggression is more important than sensible discourse. Of course many people may think that aggressive random attack is quite normal behaviour.
It makes me think that instead of just abandoning "Anonymous" posters perhaps the Burd Report needs to go the same way that many MSM websites have already gone, which is to get people to register with the site under their own name and url before allowing them to make postings on blogs.
The Burd Report is a valuable Cobourg resource and I would not want to see it taken over and ruined by yahoos and wild life.
If other regulars agree I would like them to say so. Remember all that is needed for evil to take over is for good men and women to do nothing.
After thinking about this for a couple of days now, here are my conclusions.
While I do resent the anonymous posts, I'm not sure banning them would make this a better blog.
I firmly believe that the requirement to sign one's name results in more rational, less insulting posts, thus a better discussion. Accountability makes a difference.
While I would like to demand real names be used, I can also appreciate that for some, a pseudonym is needed for work related reasons. So, reluctantly, I think we need to allow these, properly named, google accounted into legitimacy. Like the Merk says, any 10 year old can figure it out.
But plain old Anonymouses have to go. No accountability, no responsibility. They are like kids engaging in drive-by verbal vandalism and they only detract from the real discussions most of us want to have.
No court would allow an anonymous statement to be entered into evidence, because it has zero credibility. Likewise with anonymous posts. They are just so much garbage: unproven, untested allegations that have no weight. Nothing but an opportunity to slander others when they can't identify you or fight back.
That's gotta stop, for the good of this very good blog.
I agree with Deb. The blog is getting a one-way opinion. The Town is a one-way street. At least someone sees it. If people on the blog are not mature enough to open their mind to other opinions, close the blog. Cobourg won't change anyway.
wow! ... that's a headspinner!
what is it you're really saying?
Post a Comment