Advertisement

jonas_opines

Follow

Comment history

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Rings a bell, haha. Can't remember the minor details.

October 9, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

And again, if the goal was to clean up the comments (which I doubt) it could easily be fixed with two steps.

Opt-in to see comments -- requiring an account (even a verified one, if necessary)

Ignore List -- Given that 10% of the users generate 90% of the worst comments, all it takes is putting a few people on ignore, and lo, you don't see the bad comments anymore.

October 9, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Frankie asks: "I do not understand why anyone cannot give their true opinion about anything to anybody without fear. What is the worst that can happen if you do?"

I have a consistent, unique user name that can be traced very easily to my real name. A few years back, one of our oft-banned users, during a politically-related argument, went into my myspace profile and hot-linked a picture of me and my wife with derogatory remarks about her appearance. That marks the only time I've ever reported a post, at my wife's impetus. Her feelings were incredibly hurt. A day later, under a different username (having been banned) he challenged me to a fight. After that, several times (despite my vocal promise to ignore him from that point on) he would link something from either Myspace or Facebook in an attempt to intimidate me or humiliate me in some way.

The best part, his wife and my wife worked together, frequently in direct contact with each other. I'm sure this whole thing really helped their professional relationship.

There are psychopaths out there. And there are people, some who have the power of employment or other form of control over other people, who are so crazy about the righteousness of their opinions that they will truly attempt to punish people for having a different opinion.

October 9, 2013 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

My favorite shall always be the Ubermime Saga.

October 9, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Fools, the Forum has not yet evolved INTO IT'S ULTIMATE FORM!!!1!

October 9, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

ESPN's forum comments have not markedly improved since the adoption of the Facebook policy. All that happened, at least on KU-related stories and the Duke/UNC /UK ones I've read occasionally, is that what was once a 5000plus commented article dropped to maybe 50, but the rivalry, name-calling, and incivility continued. There might have been a drop for a few weeks, as the old trolls fell away, but eventually the new ones replaced them.

On the other hand, the pure spam ones, MU fans posting hundreds of smileys type posts, did disappear.

I suppose that I may link my accounts, even using my own Facebook account. I live half a county away from good 'ol Lawrence now, decreasing both my involvement and any fear of real-life consequences I may face from posting. But then, all it's every taken is a google search of my screen name to find my real name, and I've already had multiple people attempt to bring up personal events and people in my life in an attempt to humiliate or intimidate me. Sadly, so many of the best voices have been falling away as it is, and coupled with the fact that my posts are frequently removed for no clear violation, it's been hard to muster any enthusiasm about the site for the last year.

We've had the lesson here already, as well. We all know a number of the repeatedly banned posters have, at one time or another, used their real names, and it did not effect the quality of their contributions.

It would manage the forums far more easily and more effectively to have, all this time, simply established Ignore functions, opt-ins on reading comments, and peer-downvoting, enabling each individual reader and user to determine their own engagement. I suppose that is too empowered, however, and would not satisfy the most meddlesome.

Whatever happens, it likely does mark the end of one era, but that era has been dying for most of 2013, it seems, and this is just the final eulogy for it. I suppose it simply remains to be seen whether a new batch of posters take up the roles, and how long it takes for that to happen.

Ah well, the only constant is change.

Cheers, for those who will no longer be here. I learned a great deal from a great many of you, of all walks and talks in life.

Brian Mellor
(jonas opines)

October 9, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

I'm certainly not a conservative under anything but the most . . . "liberal" standards, lol, but I have a lot of posts vanish these days, for no clear TOS violation.

October 9, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

SG Kelly Oubre commits to Kansas basketball

Best hair

October 8, 2013 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature endorses medical marijuana

"In my view - any types of illegal drugs for medical use - is a lame excuse for using them."

That's why they're trying to make this a Legal drug for this use. Then that wouldn't be an issue, would it? Haha.

Anyway, I note that in a previous thread, according to your profile, you believe that users of drugs are mentally ill and deserve to be killed. Which means either trolling, or worse if you're serious.

October 4, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What is your biggest question about Obamacare?

Because they were told to.

September 30, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous