News-Record.com

I sent you an email recently about one poster's profanity in a Letters To The Editor thread, including use of the "F' word, taking the Lord's name in vain by using the "G" word, and calling another poster the "B" word.
I didn't get a reply from you, and the offensive words are still up in the Letters To The Editor column.
Just how far does a poster have to go to be offensive?

Unfortunately, and you know I'm a huge supporter of the First Amendment and open dialogue, there is no way to solve the troll problem without moderating the comments and yes, banning the repeat offenders - or at least suspended their privileges for a specified length of time.

Many sites have started a system where the commenters are reviewed by a moderator before their posts appear. The main concern of course is the time and personnel it takes to adminster the board.

John, I appreciate you and Allen bringing discussion about this into the open. I doubt there'll be any consensus in the near term, but maybe the dialog itself will tighten up the quality of the posts.

John Appel,

The editors have chosen the high road in dealing with this problem. They are more concerned with the context in which something is written. Your "hall monitor" approach is an argument from intimidation. "Those are BAD WORDS are they not?" Maybe so, but why is it up to them to be the discernment you are so obviously lacking? You should take your "offended concerned citizen" stance and volunteer at a shelter or sell all you have to feed the poor. Until that time, have fun parading your inept, hypocritical morality.

Steve, my message was directed to Mr. Robinson, not you.
Are you an employee of the N&R authorized to speak for Mr. Robinson?

I'm in a Parkay tub under his desk.

Seeing's as you followed up on a point I made a while ago (one that you probably already realized), I thought I'd throw in 2 coins. What about a nice warning (private) to trolls, offensive posters and the like? A quiet one. As a former teacher, I believe kids always rose to the occasion; if you raise the bar, they reach to meet it. Perhaps turning one troll into a useful contributor will blaze a trail to literary worthiness.

Then again, maybe not. And who's going to make that call? So no, I don't have the details, but maybe a little personal, "Please act right" might do the trick.

Thanks for taking my concerns seriously. Best of luck with this; it's too good a blog to let it fade into troll-dom.

My suggestion - a "flag this comment" button with after-the-fact moderation - if the comment's not acceptable, you can Disemvowel, Scramblize or Dialectize it. (or do what PZ Myers does - "My current solution is whiteout. I set their comment text to white, on a white background. It's still there, but you have to select it to see it.")

Trolling is a social-dominance thing - they do it because it makes them feel cool. So if you give their comment the look it deserves (while still enabling the motivated reader to discern what was said), the troll looks ridiculous and the discussion moves on.

Sue, you're suggestion may help, but I find that the email addresses that are used by many (not just the trolls) are made-up. I've tried to contact a couple of posters directly only to have the emails come back as undeliverable.

John Robinson, if one registered in some kind of registration process, what would stop them from still entering bogus email addresses into the fields?

John Appel, I don't recall your e-mail. Sorry bout that. Send me one again identifing or linking the offending letter and we'll take care of it. And no, Steve doesn't speak for me.

Libby, I'm resisting going to a site in which we have to review each comment before it's posted. We don't have the staff to maintain it, and, honestly, we hope the commenters will hit the standard Sue refers to.

Sue, we have contacted a few of the commenters and spoken to them privately. Mixed results. And Dough is correct; many of the e-mail addresses are bogus.

I like Anna's solution. I also am leaning toward arguing for the use of legitimate e-mail addresses.

Trolls are indeed different from the rest of the world, akin to the guys we truckers used to call Radio Rambos-- guys who usually used very high powered CB radios from base stations in their homes that could overcome the signal strength of almost any moblie unit. These guys would sit in their homes talking day and night, hogging the airwaves, talking on multiple channels at the same time, and threatening anyone who might complain about their bad manners, but alas while they talked tough in 28 years on the road I never saw one of them back up their tough talk.

Occasionally someone with some Ham Radio experience would figure out how to trianglate their signals and figure out where they were talking from. Then the address would be announced over the airwaves for all within radio range to hear which always solved the problem for that particular Radio Rambo.

Just something for tech guys everywhere to chew on.

I can't think of any reason not to require legitimate email addresses, and wonder why you've not done it up to this point. It's considerably less restrictive than the verification process a Letter to the Editor goes through; one could still comment anonymously. It hardly seems excessively punitive for a discussion forum that the N&R is hosting and is being held responsible for (see John Appel).

When a reader submits a comment, an automatic verification could be immediately sent to their email address, requiring further action on their part (a click-through) for the comment to be posted.

This extra step would discourage riff-raff over time. Right now, commenting is too easy - and more fun than looking for a job or disciplining the kids.

Thanks, Mr. Robinson, I resent my email to you.

Congratulations on your being selected as one of the “10 That Do It Right.” I saw your photo in The Japan Times yesterday (July 2) again, in which you and your two reporting stuff behind with a framed board on which your smiling face and the letters NEWS-RECORD.COM are printed. The article’s headline: Treating the Net like a circus tiger. And the article is about the experiment of L.A. Times inviting readers to its editorial conference. The caption of your photo is: Members of News & Record of Greensboro, N.C. find a way to join the Internet by contributing to the newspaper’s blog.
From your reader S. I. in Japan

John, You can call him John, he puts on his pants the same way you do.

S.I. thanks for visiting. That's a pretty goofy photo of me, I thought.

Steve, that's more information than I need.

Several months ago we were having basically the same discussion. I stated then I think folks should use real names and real emails. At that time the majority of the posters thought anonymity would invite a more honest and open communication.

I see the opposite happening. Some of the people who use monikers are the most insulting and disrespectful of the bunch. They may not use any profanity at all but are nonetheless mean-spirited and disrespectful. It's like anonymity gives them a shooting license.

I think if people don't have the gumption to accept responsibility for what they post, they shouldn't post. IMO they should take up some other form of entertainment.

While the N&R is your paper, so to speak, I think it is a grave mistake to censor individual adults. We all participate in this forum voluntarily. If someone is highly incensed by what someone else posts, they should confront that individual in the thread in which the "insult" occurred. If the offender does not respond in a manner the confronter thinks appropriate, then the confronter should refuse to participate in any futher discussion with the offender. To continue is unwise, IMHO. It only invites escalation of the disagreement, not deescalation. It is just plain counterproductive to any resolution for one or both parties to yammer on and on.

In the situation Mr. Appel is referring to the party who became offended continued to incessantly badger the one accused of offending long after he made his displeasure known. Mr. Offended insisted on an apology, in fact demanded one, then berated, belittled and insulted Mr. Offender. While I am not defending the remark made about the offended's mother, I understand the frustration that provoked such a response.

That is only the beginning of the hypocrisy, but thank you. Yvonne is God.

JR,

I believe you meant to leave out "than".

Great discussion. Sorry I arrived so late.

Yvonne, I agree with most of what you say except I do think anonymity is vital. First, many folks who post here do it from work. The wrong person seeing the name up there could lead to trouble regardless of whether or not the posting was done on break/lunch etc.

Unfortunately, being honest and telling the 'truth' can get you into trouble. Trust me, I've cost myself thousands of dollars because of my persistent problem of being too 'honest' for my own good. If I knew every statement I made was going to come back to me, I'd be terrified to say anything. What happens if my gay boss finds out that I disagree with his lifestyle choice? What about when my mother-in-law finds out that she doesn't have the best apple pie in town?

Many of us have something to lose by using our real names.

I do, however, like the idea of email verification. Anyone with internet access can get a free email address and it can be anonymous.

I'm totally against subjective censorship.

I'm done.

Well said," truth".