Three reasons for this:
1. Some individuals can't make an argument without comparing their opponents to self-stimulation devices,
2. People that challenged need to be identified so we can help them with their problem,
3. Only English Lit professors should have to type "anon" as much as I do.
The solution (for now) is OpenID posting. How do you get an OpenID? Well, you probably already have one. (Yahoo, Google, AOL, MySpace, Flickr, etc. all provide you with an OpenID). Here's a link to a page that lets you know how to use your long-lost MySpace login and password as your OpenID.
Rivers, not Reservoirs
7 hours ago
Posts
15 comments:
Once again the liberals attempt to shut down free speech. As Ms. Lisa Binder would put it, this has a "chilling effect" on communications and is yet one more method used by so-called progressives to engage in thought control and censor the internet. Colorful expression and thought is the beauty of the internet as the cyberwaves have created a burst of creativity unseen in our history. Unfortunately the liberals seek to swim against this tide and engage in blacklisting and censorhip, the same kind used by McCarthy in the 50's, the Clarion-Ledger in the 60's, and even the same sentiments that led to the Salem Witch trials.
Kingfish - I know you typed that with tongue planted firmly in cheek, but I had to say this: Tell that to Alan Lange.
So, they can still be a**es, but they have to show the faces that go with the dropped pants. I like it. ;-)
From Alan at YallPolitics:
All kidding aside, congrats. It's the right move. The CL needs to do that big time.
I did away with purely anonymous a long time ago and still regulate content pretty heavily. The value of anonymous content has to be real, and it was during the breaking of the Scruggs scandal, but it is usually too much sugar for a nickel.
Your website will be better for the move.
Alan Lange self-flatters himself. He makes Donna Ladd look tame. Lange doesn't regulate he outright censors. Donna may browbeat but she'll allow well written reasonable commentary to continue even if she disagrees with it. Lange flat out won't allow content that reflects unfavorably on his own actions and that of his herd of sacred GOP cows. But hey, its his personal ego altar so he makes the rules.
I understand what you had to do Matt. I don't know why it is that whenever there is an online discussion about downtown Jackson some one, or some group, come out of the weeds to post that ugly stuff like what happened last night. It appears that they don't want any effort down there to be questioned or scrutinized. In the long run unless they fully embrace transparency that approach will hurt them more than help.
The good news is that Harvey Johnson is back. All projects will be properly vetted now!
That is simply not true. Ladd bans posters she disagrees with, changes opposing comments, and suddenly changes stories or comments when she gets caught.Such a list is a long one. Alan allows alot more free speech on his site than does the JFP and its not even close. The two most restrictive sites in town are the JFP and State Street Posts. SSP requires comment moderation for all comments. The JFP won't even let you register with a gmail or yahoo account unless they can independently verify who you are. I just think its amusing how the most restrictivei sites in this area are the two liberal ones. Me and Othor Cain disagree on almost everything but I'll give him credit: he allows almost anything and Y'all and Ipse are pretty open minded as well.
As Matt will attest, there is no money to be made in this. I absolutely and proudly "censor" as many knuckleheads as I can. It would shock you what some idiots write.
Speaking only for YP, this ain't no democracy. If you can do it better, go for it. I've helped a dozen sites get up and going and to a person, they all come back to me later and said that they thought it'd be easier.
There is false information posted about the Jackson Free Press user agreement. Most of our commenters have Yahoo or Gmail accounts, and we don't ask for anyone's real identity before allowing them to post (although we briefly considered it during a time when it got really ugly, probably during an election time when the knives come out).
Since we've instituted the policy of "guests" being moderated until they've shown they're not there to troll (or to try to get run off so they can go to other blogs and whine about it incessantly), we've barely had a problem. Most trolls don't even bother to try there -- unless they're some of the one-issue people from elsewhere who try to tell us hicks off -- and what's left is intelligent discussions between people who know how to disagree without being disagreeable, or make stuff up. And it is so refreshing to see a no-anonymous policy here. You can't even follow conversations on sites that have long strings of "anonymous" comments, and usually they're not worth trying. It doesn't hurt anybody to have at least a consistent username and, of course, that's the trend in the news blogosphere.
It's also amusing to me to hear about all these people we've kicked off the site over the years; there have been some, but only a handful. Most of the thousands of people registered are respectful when they post. People who get challenged there and don't like it, though, will often pretend they were banned, so they can be outraged about it, which always makes me laugh.
Great blog here, BTW. I don't get here often, but when I do, I usually learn something. Reminds me of NMissCommenter: smart, witty, timely. Keep up the good work, Jim and Matt.
- Donna Ladd
Once again you are lying Donna. this is from your OWN site:
Welcome New Members, and a Rules Reminder
We're getting a flood of new members. I've activated a new batch just now, so hop on and post if you've been waiting for activation. Remember, all, that we have tightened up our entry policies a bit and are shying away from unknown Yahoo and Hotmail accounts due to past abuse. If you want to sign up under one of those accounts, you will need to get in touch with us directlly and verify your identity first. Also, I remind all new members to read through the blog rules before you post and interact with others. It is important to remember that we are a privately owned Web site, and you must abide by the rules, or your account will be suspended. And if you are suspended and then come back under a different e-mail address, we will suspend that account and delete all posts under it, regardless of what they are, per our rules.
The key is decorum, respect for other users and self-regulation. Follow the rules and enjoy this forum that we are offering for your conversational pleasure. ;-)
posted by ladd on 11/13/07 at 11:25 AM.
Nice try but once again you are caught red-handed. Try factchecking next time. Its.not.that.hard.
I would apprecite if posters here do not accuse me of "lying" when I have no reason to lie and am explaining how the JFP site works, which anyone with a Gmail or Yahoo account who posts there already knows. I have no need to "factcheck" a policy that I helped set and enforce. Ironically, these are the kinds of attacks, from just a handful of people, that caused us to have to regulate the site in the first place, so the point is well made.
Again: I said in my above post that we briefly considered limiting those services during a particularly bad time with trolls. But it was was too time-consuming, and we changed our minds. Instead, our Web team came up with a way, on the newly designed site, to make new users "guests" until they have shown themselves to be respectful of others and, for instance, not to go around accusing people of lying for no apparent reason. Now, we just check pending comments once or twice a day, and don't have to be watching the site constantly. It's great for our efficiency.
Simple logic says that something tried out in 2007 might not be true in 2009, and the facts should be checked before accusations and personal attacks are made based on dated information. That's a best practice in the journalism world, anyway, and an easy one to follow.
I only post this to correct the bad information posted above. I have no interest in petty tit-for-tats, and I don't plan to post again. Our properties keep me too busy as it is.
Again, good site, Matt and Jim. Good luck with it.
- Donna Ladd
Lady, I caught you lying. I posted your own policy and comment for everyone to see after you patently stated the opposit was true.
The difference is I backed up what I said with your own website and comments penned by you and you don't cite anything in support of your false claim then whine for someone else to bail you out because you can't handle getting caught.
Anyone can compare what I posted to what you wrote on this thread and judge who is lying and its pretty obvious its not me.
Alright you two lovebirds, knock it off.
I thought the judge shut you up.
You know, I kicked around several potential comments about Miss Ladd's site and her selective enforcement of her ever-changing (but always hyper-active, if you smack her down) banning practices, but it really all comes down to this: that site, which amounts to the usual very small band of syncophants patting each other on the back incessantly, is so uninteresting as to not be worth this argument.
What was the descriptive phrase? Ah, yes. the "sanctimonious echo chamber." Why didn't I think of that? It's perfect. I haven't visited that site in years. Too bad, I recall that several years ago (with Kingfish, Tom Head and a few others) there actually were a couple of lively debates there on several occasions.
Buck, I prefer "sanctimonious circle jerk".
Post a Comment