Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Sugar wrote: But a blogger shouldn't have to put up with threats, disrespect, profane or otherwise inappropriate posts to their blogs. Of course not. That certainly is not the same as commenting on a blog. Why can't a bloggers views be challenged if they are putting it out for all to read? What purpose does it serve? None, if it can't be challenged. Then only the post the blogger agrees with will be left. Again, very boring. We are back to--the mutual admiration society. And re: the prior post, you only agreed with some folks. I wasn't really writing about you. When someone blogs that Barack Obama is a Muslim, shouldn't people be able to point out that is a lie? (It has been done.) Should the blogger delete the post because they would like others to believe that he is, because it is a negative? OR, should someone be able to blog that John McCain was a failure as a Naval Officer because he was shot down. (I have heard that too). Shouldn't someone be able to say that's a lot of hog wash? I was just wondering. See the Blog---
Fight the Smears!
Ragman - you misunderstand my (I cannot speak for any other bloggers, though) motivation here. I simply believe that a blogger should be able to control the content of THEIR blog. I have personally NEVER wanted (nor have I done so) to delete a response on my blog, nor block anyone from posting to my blog. I believe that most bloggers keep things civil, as do most posters to blogs. But a blogger shouldn't have to put up with threats, disrespect, profane or otherwise inappropriate posts to their blogs. Same principle as the "spam" or "bulk" category in a person's email account. I simply believe that a blogger should be given that ability to control THEIR blog via the VicAd.
Sounds like many people only want people to comment---if they agree. Sounds awfully boring. "You are great!!" "Your right, no your right, no!!,I said your are right." "Are you sure you aren't left?" "Did I tell you how great you are?"Are blogs for only one point of view? Even when the blogger makes false statements? Just wondering? If a political statement is being made, should it be countered? If someone is announcing a pot luck dinner at The Church of the Four Headed Goat; then there is really no need to comment. (I think that is where satan attends) BUT..... if there is a meeting of the Torries this weekend, and the blog also states--you know only Torries believe in character, because they are conservative and are ordained with family values. I am gonna have to post a comment on that. Even if some folks don't like it. Because we all know that the Torries @#$%. Can you say that?Go ahead, block my say.
Ditto, MMKO and Toni Anne concerning the ability to block certain posters from your personal blog. Hope this can be done, Chris!
Here I go...It is a free country - but the Victoria Advocate online has the authority to monitor the forums/blogs however they want. Freedom of speech comes into play when you leave and go find somewhere else to blog. If you don't like the moderation at the forums/blogs - deal with it - or go somewhere else. Also - I second MMKO. I would LOVE a feature that enables me to moderate my own blog as I wish, without having to watch it like a hawk every second of the day. My blog is my personal area to moderate as I choose (within reason and keeping with the basic VicAd policies and guidelines of blogs and comments). I think the feature that I would most use is a "block user" feature. I think that ALL of us would like that...
I understand and sympathize with your point of view. I also would like to develop a system that gives even more control to users about what they see and don't see on the site and who they do and don't interact with here. We'll keep working on that.
Thanks for the feedback. Pilot and many others will appreciate the point you're making. Others, particularly those with special-needs children, might wince at the way you said it and report it as a violation.
Your comment is a good example of the fuzziness that enters the equation when you moderate comments online.
I've lost track of every specific post that was a problem, but we deleted the violations regardless of which candidate the person favored. Actually, I think it's being generous to say these people supported a particular candidate because I don't think they did the people campaigning any favors with their comments.
So-called "dirty little secrets" about a candidate's family members, for example, don't strike us as relevant to the campaign. If you want to vote based on what you think you know about someone's family, that's up to you. But we don't see it as worth our time or in our reader's best interests to report the behavior of a candidate's relatives. We would need compelling evidence that information would directly affect the candidate's ability to serve as an elected official. We never saw that here in any way.
One fact that was reported during the campaign is that Dr. Jaynes' wife and son-in-law work for the district. We examined how that would affect his ability to vote on the school budget. That was a reasonable question. What was unreasonable was all of the sniping about D.J. Jaynes' work on the drill team. Perhaps there's a story to be done about the drill team, but many comments were over the top as it related to this campaign.
Speaking as someone who has entered into his own fair share of inane internet arguments, I refer to this quote:
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still retarded."