News-Record.com

Neato. Wonder the emails are validated. If not, there's nothing stopping the 1234@5689.com lol.

Not only are they validated, but if you try to post with a fake addy, we shoot 10,000 volts at you through your keyboard.

(Note to my mom: No, we can't really do that. Though it would be nice.)

Participation will fall off significantly.

10,000 volts? AWESOME. I could get addicted to this shock treatment stuff.. You know that you have to pay for this at some really fancy spas?

Lex, your mom uses a fake addy a lot? *laugh*

The problem with requiring valid email addresses is that if you get enough traffic, the bots will start harvesting addresses and you get spammed to death. I was away for a week and have over 500 right now myself. Many of the bigger blogs actually advise you to use fake addresses for just that reason.

I do agree that commenters should use their real names though. While there's valid reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous, I did so myself for several months when I started Last One Speaks, there's no reason you shouldn't stand behind your comments on other blogger's work.

Kinda pointless.

You can't harvest what you don't see. I didn't say print it on the site. I said to validate the address. *laugh* Basically, instead of printing it.. just print the name.

This still would be a lot easier if TypeKey was turned on. Then no addresses are shown and the database isn't even held here.

George. I told you to quit posting here. The nice secret service man told me and interupted my Tivo of "Desperate Housewives". You know better than to interrupt my shows!

lol.

I wear a veil for a reason. Will you want measurements and sexual orientation too?

This was a test to:
1) see how quickly you could see through it
2) see who would have the cleverest name
3) drive up my comments.

While this act may seem fruitless, we consider being accountable for your words important. We're continuing to look at ways to marry accountability with a free and open discussion. Ben has offered some good suggestions. New software will help as well. This is simply a first step.

Thank you for keeping comments civil and on track.

Might be good to clarify two things -

"A name" need not be "your legal name"
(if I'm understanding you correctly - am I?)

Those concerned about email spam consequences can get a yahoo address which is free and does a mighty fine job of separating the spam from the real (although it is a bit judgmental, it thinks that emails from the publisher and readership editor of the local (Calif.) paper are spam.)

How about adding a "disclosure" checkbox and field to the Comment form? It would help to know who's being paid...

(I'm interested in all this because the local Calif paper is following in your footsteps, albeit some paces back.)

Yup.. a name is a name.. not necessarily your legal name. Or else Mr.Sun would have helluva time with commenting here. *laugh*

All of those thoughts are right on track.. at least with what I think.

John? do you agree?

I'm not going to weigh in on the issue that started this all because I see both sides: The N&R has a higher standard than papers that allow anonymous letters and should be interested in preserving that standard where possible. On the other hand, anonimity has long been accepted on the 'net and credibility is here is established in different ways. But, like I said, I'm not going to weigh in.

Greensboro101 collects a contributor name, but that can be anything. If someone wants to put their name on a post and provide some assurance of her identity, she may also provide an email address and have it validated. It's a way of saying, this is really me. Whether or not the additional credibility that that may or may not add is of value should be, in my opinion, up to the poster.

-- Georg... eh. Roch

JUST IN!!!!

John Blust is going to amend his bill to include local municipalities!

This bill needs support to be passed!

If we the citizens are not happy with our elected officials (including school board)this bill WILL GIVE US RECOURSE if passed.

This means the citizens of North Carolina need to get on the horn and start writing.

Let your representatives know we want this on the ballot in 2006!

Hiya Ha...Hiya Ho...Hiya Ha Ha!

Ding, fries are done!
Ding, fries are done!
Ding, fries are done!

I still feel like a blogging newborn, so forgive me if this is not the proper way to cross post from another blog. But I thought I'd add the comments we've gotten over at the Chalkboard to maybe further the conversation here.

Of course, I have directed readers there to also seek out this site for more information. (That's good blogging etiquette, right?) :)

So, here are the first three comments we've received:

"Don't worry all you teachers out there and Chewie and Mr. Sun and Billy the Blogging Poet,this blog will soon move to the archives.
Your teacher jobs are safe."
Posted by: Barbara Ann at May 4, 2005 05:29 PM

"Are you singling out this site to prohibit anonymity, only? I've witnessed much worse dialogue on the Letter to the Editor blog. So, are you going to change the rules for that and your other blogs? If not, why do you want to stiffle posts on this blog? Sounds like you want to stop discourse on this subjectbecause you don't like the truth being told, and this happens to be your most popular blog. Well, I'll comply and cease posting to your blogs."
Posted by: Teddy Ballgame at May 4, 2005 07:43 PM

"Teddy, of course that makes sense. You know who reads this.
It is sad, isn't it that a newspaper would try to stifle freedom of speech. I guess the truth hurts too much."
Posted by: Barbara Ann at May 4, 2005 08:58 PM

I've heard from enough people with enough points of view to know that nothing we did on this, including doing nothing, was going to make everybody happy. Having had to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on anonymous feces-flinging in the comments on my own blog, I am perhaps a tad too inclined toward the notion that pure anonymity is not a Good Thing, even as I know from my work what good reasons people sometimes have for needing to stay anonymous/pseudonymous.

I won't speak for JR, but I would bet that if we find that this policy doesn't work the way we expect, we'll consider changing it. And feedback, on this subject or any other, is always welcome, of course.

Also, Ben: I asked her, but she says she doesn't have to tell me that unless I get a court order.

*laugh* Well that settles it. All the "blank" postings the last couple days MUST have been Lex's mom!!!!!

(Or it could have been Lex. After all, children imitate their parents do they not? *laugh*)

Lex is exactly right, of course. What we're striving for is civil discourse on issues of interest to the community. Obviously, right now, people can write under false names and e-mail addresses. While I don't personally object to that -- particularly if they have something insightful to say -- I know that anonymity occasionally encourages abusive and irresponsible comments, too. This new "policy" is our hope that trolls might pause for a moment before throwing a conversation off track.

And, Lex is also correct in saying that if it doesn't work, we'll do something else.

As always, best of luck. Forums are always a pain to make sure that trolls don't show up. If you ever need me to help, you know where to find me... or go bother Herb, since he can IM me. *laugh*

Trolls are the price you pay for open comments. I think the only solution is to screen the comments and block the trolls if they get out of hand.

Being a technodope I don't know exactly how it works but I believe you can determine identity through the IP address even when they use multiple email accounts and in the worst cases you really have no choice but to ban the offender. As Ben points out, there is software that makes this possible.

In any event I'm impressed with the way this "experiment" is evolving. Good work.

I would never use a valid email address, I get about 100 spams a day in my real Yahoo! mailbox as it is.
And I sure wouldn't want some extremist who disagreed with me mail-bombing me because I posted a real address.
May I suggest a monthly get-together of blog posters where all participants don helmets and have at each other with nerf-bats?

I'm with BurgerFlipper on this one.

Requiring an email address is just a hassle. I just make up a fake one anyway.

But if your goal is to get people to stop using these blogs, go ahead and require real names and valid email addresses. Most people who have ever been threatened because of their views or slammed with spam will stay away.

From my experience, most of the people I've come into contact with stay within the confines of decency.

burgerflipper & big tuna,

I couldn't have said it better myself. No one wants 100 spams or some nut who disagrees with them E-mailing them.

There is no quicker way to kill a blog site.

Being out of town keeps me from reading this every 30 minutes, but this was one good and funny read. I'm going to change my nick and not tell anyone. Then I'm going to be downright New Yawkish in my comments. And I'll insult someone for once.

"Lex is also correct in saying that if it doesn't work, we'll do something else."

So you get a comments section with no Chewie and no Mr. Sun.
Does it still work? Most likely yes.
Does it work for Chewie and Mr. Sun? no.

OK, I'm dense, it's late [more excuses here], maybe I'm missing where this was already spelled out, but have we thought outside the box here? (and can I apply for honorary Greensboro membership so I can say we?)

John, you say "What we're striving for is civil discourse on issues of interest to the community."

Question: if the commenters' real identities are known to you, but not to the other commenters or readers, will that dissuade them from trollery?

Because if it will, and if (might be a big if) you and Lex aren't mail-bombers yourselves, then this approach could meet the needs of the "no arson please" commenters and the "no trolls please" commenting community.

Works for me.

Billy, what have you done with the subject of your sentence? Do you remember where you might have left it?

maybe it ran off with my keys.

BTW to clarify the mail-bombing aspersions cast upon certain characters above - I think of mailbombing as being quite loud and meaning you have to go buy a new mailbox.

I think people are missing the point. Requiring a name and valid e-mail does two things.

1) No more "blank name" posters. That's just annoying to be frank. No one said you have to use a real name, so pseudonyms would still work in this case.

2) Validation of e-mails. If there was e-mail validation, there's nothing that says N&R has to "POST" the email. For the current system they're using, it's removing one single item from the template. Thus, throwing out any legitimacy in the whole "harvesting/spam" issue. I suppose N&R could spam, but then again, why. Kind of pointless. Not to mention who doesn't use a spam driven e-mail account anyways. I have multiple ones for those specific purposes. If you're too lazy to sign up for a hotmail account, that's not my fault. ^_^

As a poster who has used my real name and my real email address since I started posting I can attest to the fact it did increase my spam (although I didn't know this was the reason until now). But it does not present a problem for me. My ISP provides a spam and virus filter so all is contained in a twice weekly email. Therefore I can delete all the garbage by a click of the mouse. A minor inconvenience.

I firmly believe if you are going to offer an opinion you should have to take responsibility for it. I know there are a few individual who hide behind anonymity so they can exclude themselves from that responsibility but I think most of us are accountable.

I also think the staff at the N&R should set an example by eliminating comments by Chewie and all the rest hiding in the shadows. Just my opinion.

Yvonne:

Just signing you name doesn't make your comments any more interesting. I would rather have only Chewies with their quality of thought than a bunch of Yvonne who are clueless. But hey, just my opinion.

Nutjob neighbor, Coward. Just my opinion.

You're proving me right Yvonne. And keep your dog on your side of the fence!