As a regular internet forum poster, I have seen abrasive posters get warned and eventually banned. But usually within a week (sometimes within the hour if the poster is liquored up)...they're back posting with a 'sock puppet'.

Most folks who lack social manners only see a 'ban' as a challenge to find a different way to continue the abuse. Sometimes a forum will impose an IP ban. That works till the IP address rotates and Wa La!, here is Mr. Abuser again under a new name. I applaud your desire to provide a congenial atmosphere, but I've rarely seen a ban do more than fuel the fires of ire.

Hey - have you looked at the comments regarding the bank robbery and the blatant racism being voiced? You recently banned voices and edited comments regarding possible corruption in the Tyrone government, comments just like the ones people write all the time on this site about Bush; yet you allow this racism to be freely discussed with no thought of editing some of these very aggressive racist comments?

If a private newspaper edits or censors, that is, violates a citizen's right to free speech based on the government's desire to "quiet" the commentary, then said newspaper can be found liable for the free speech violation!! If you are going to edit - please be fair across the boards and don't edit legitimate commentary about the interworkings of our government, like you did with the recent Tyrone discussion. We are guaranteed the right to speak freely about the government and anyone who represents us in the government. They are called PUBLIC FIGURES (go figure)......the only defense is truth and Tyrone cannot tell the truth to save it's life!!

Let the system police itself.

Discreetly contact some of the regulars and ask them if they would be willing to act as "monitors" of the blog.

The banning authority, I believe, should lie with you and your staff, as you are the owner.

There a few on here that could act as "deleters of wrong wording". Keeping the peace as it were.

You could add/delete the admin. authority to a user as you see fit.

Most often it's a particular word usage that offends users. A monitor could "edit" such phrases much faster than you or you staff as we seem to spend more time logged on than you or your staff does.

Additionally I would implement a system that looks for offensive words and replaces/deletes them with an appropriate warning, simple program/table to update.

Thanks for sharing with us.

As long a the bloggers do not attack and call people names, or use profanity, they should be able to say what they want to say. I like the idea of voting people out. Keeps our editor off the hot seat, good move Cal. Maybe you should make a rule that if you can't print it in the Citizen, then it should not be printed on the blog. I am not happy with what I've read in the blog over the past two weeks. But, I will continue to check in so that I will know the rude bloggers are busy blogging and not out on the streets. Scary!

I'm not sure "voting people off the island" Survivor-style is such a good idea at all.

I mean what if you had 100 people who really wanted those expensive soccer fields that are up for a vote and they kept voting off anyone who disagreed with their position? It could be the opposite of free speech.

Yeah some of the guys have gotten pretty raunchy, but most everyone else minds their manners. Cal Beverly could nip the raunchy ones.

Vote Republican

Mr. Beverly,

As many have done before me, I do thank you for providing this forum. When this forum was first started, it was indeed a place to share ideas, insight, opinions, and laughs.

But over the past several months, it has turned into a free for all where the few have pushed away those that truly came here for what seemed to be the spirit of this forum.

I for one have visited far less, I browse the story and stay away from the responses because so many are full of hatred, lies, bigotry, and sick humor.

However, I would hate to see a person voted out solely by popularity. Unless your new system can guarantee that one person gets one vote, and you can't, someone can just spam the person and get them banned.

I would like to see a little more moderation of the forum, so that when a blogger goes off in the wrong direction, that it can be quickly corrected or the offender then removed.

My 11 year old daughter likes to read the news. As most kids today, she prefers to use the Internet for her reading and gathering of information.

This site has to remain off limits to her due to the disgusting information that some are allowed to post, and I hold you as the Editor responsible for that. So, I ask you respectfully to enforce normal socially acceptable standards so that our children that are interested in our local issues can return to this site to get insight from adults. Well at least from those that act like adults.

Thanks,

Dana Kinser

As a blogger who received a harsh reception by the many cats who appear on this site, I remember being threatened with exile by calls to a certain Cal that I found out later it was the editor and censor of this blogsite. I say you keep the dubious honor to censor and even "deport" those that may cross a line by using profanity or plain hate language, otherwise I believe thi should remain, or at least aim, to be an open forum for the smart and no-so-smart ones (like me) who just want to have fun and vent ideas with others.
In other words, you keep the ugly job of censor.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Cal,

As a long time reader and rare, but occasional poster, I would not like to see the users be able to have a continual vote to be able to ban people. A user could make a legitimate point that does not sit well with the majority and in a brief period of time, get a substantial amount of votes.

Your explination said that over time, the vote could finally hit that point. Well if a user makes unpopular comments several times, and tries to legitimately argue the point, it could cost them.

When I first started, you threatened to ban someone for admitting they had multiple votes on a mayoral poll. I would hope that your software upgrades can solve items like that.

Things your software can not catch are personal attacks that, as you say, cross a line of decensy. For that, you will always need a monitor. Several people over the last couple of years have claimed to work for you and be your monitors. If this is true, let your established rules do the work.

Do not get rid of all the multiple name speculations (which if true, appearantly two or three people could vote off everyone else if they truly wanted) and the petty arguments between people who think the world is changed by typing into a blog. This is entertainment. Thus the adds all around my screen currently. I enjoy it. It is better than TV! Upgrade your software, use your monitors, but do not allow the "Lord of the Flies" to pick everyone off.

Why do you care about what people say? Free Speech - remember that? Why is this any different? Stupidity is everywhere - even here and you cannot cure that - instead all you can do is censor it.

Try and focus upon the reason for a public forum - specifically to let people air their own views (no matter how stupid).

Let the marketplace decide whether or not they want to read some fool's drivel - not you and not the other bloggers. Banning someone only means they will come back under cover and have a new name.

My vote is no censorship and no banning. This is still America, isn't it?

So, do you like my new picture? meow

I think you need to retain your right to ban people. As we have seen blogging turns people into bullies with the mental capacity of 2yr. olds.

The blog in question had 3 or 4 people who were having blogging temper tantrums. That blog went on for 3 long pages. In the future when the subject is too emotional or trivial with personal attacks, maybe you could step in, say enough is enough, move on to a different topic. Also if a blog is started, and people have a hard time figuring out what the point is (dollar) maybe you could gently request a claification or a new topic.
Very few bloggers have been able to change somone elses opion on any topic. Personal attacks don't seem to be the answer.

Thanks for providing a way for people to vent and rave about what is happening in our community.

First of all, this is a great site. I read news stories on here that I don't see anywhere else.
I don't like to see anyone banned, but I believe Bas got away with too much before you finally decided to ban him.

My suggestion is to monitor the comments more, before they get out of hand and in the gutter.

If you allow the bloggers to ban people, it will become petty and a popularity contest.

My humble opinion.

Tug

Cal, you have shown remarkable restraint in moderating this site.

Free speech, like all freedoms, is difficult to monitor when it is being abused.

The user known as 'Basmati' has two other monikers and will return.

I previously stated that I was going to leave the site, and I meant it; however, due to the change in circumstances, the coming upgrades, and the recent elimination of the unfettered guttural discourse, I will remain.

I have no problem with the point of view of anyone here and do not support banning by popular vote.

I know the responsibility of monitoring a free speech form is a burden, but you are up to the task Mr. Beverly.

By my count you have banned a conservative (too quick on the trigger on that one) and a liberal (too late on the trigger with that one) in my conservative opinion, so you are probably objective and balanced.

Perhaps we can now move beyond fecal references and accusations of character assassination/cheap shots and absorb the content of the blog, reflect on it and respond accordingly.

Thank you for your form. Thank you for you objectivity and thank you for making a move that needed to be made.

{{{{Okay Git, I'm here, you need to stay too.}}}}

If WWII had been covered by the Modern Media: Great Video

with the others that you and your staff seem to handle the warnings and bannings very well, operating with a level mind and even hand. A very few times, I might have thought you'd move sooner on someone. . .This is exactly the reason bloggers voting may not be the best idea, as someone might be banned just because I was having a bad day or just didn't like what they said.

As I commented yesterday, this site has provided me with news, the man-on-the-street point of view, humor, and things that have made me stop and re-think some issues. It would be a shame to see this site and several regular bloggers disappear because of a few bad apples.

I fully agree with those who suggest we ignore certain folks, but obviously that doesn't always work. If the person is a little off center to begin with, they will continue to rant and rave no matter what.

Thanks for the good job y'all do, and I hope to see most of us stay and continue to discuss issues.

No To Us Voting Folks Off

You guys continue doing that. You've done a great job of balancing speech from both sides of the aisle. Well done!!!!

A couple of thoughts......

How about selecting a few of us as "low level mods" that "only" blank out offensive words. Or perhaps your new program automatically bans certain wording or phrases.

How about us being able to rate posts or posters? Perhaps having a publicly viewable rating system that tabulates might be interesting.

Categories might be:

Funny - Offensive - Worthless - Thought Provoking - Credible - Etc.

The terminology could be improved but the ratings or classifying of the post could be valuable in setting the tone of the forum. You would hope that if everyone were objectionable to someone's tones or language that this type of peer pressure would help to "keep the cats herded into the box". This in it's self would help set the tone of the blogs and quantify the value of the poster.

Just a thought.

A note to Bas. I look forward to seeing you again with your new "Stage Name". I'd like to be the first to welcome you back when you reappear. Imagine.... a new Bas without the hate and viciousness. Peace

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Free Speech is a constitutionally protected right, but this ain't Free Speech.
This is a free commercially and privately owned webblog that allows others to post their thoughts on it as they see fit. NO ONE has any protected Rights with regard to their SPEECH on this blog.

However, even though this board has no free speech protections, the mere thought of censuring others can have a very "chilling effect" upon the blogs themselves. On the opposite side of the coin, non-moderated webblogs also create a "chilliing effect" by making many not want to participate.

Moderating the discussion is not the same as censuring. I run a website for 600 very opinionated attorneys and I have on many occasions stymied the discussions that was occurring because they were off the allowed topics. Of course, my site was and is designed for a specific reason and I don't allow non-topic discussions. The membership usually applauds me when I do stop certain persons who have violated the rules, because they know the quality of discussions will be lowered if someone doesn't moderate.

So I'm not "for" any censorship, but I am "for" moderating the discussions. I believe that open moderation of those that are on this board and who cross the line of reasonable debate and discussion should be openly called out on the carpet for it. I believe that openly stating that I or others have violated certain rules, and to please stop, is appropriate enough. If we fail to stop, after being warned, then a brief suspension is warranted and finally banning if that doesn't work. The standards should be established as an objective, not subjective standard. Currently you moderate for offensive language, an objective standard, now find a way to moderate for offensive and juvenile discussions. Open warnings for such behavior prior to suspension, prior to expulsion.

But enforcement is the issue. I have grown very weary of the level of discussion on this board. I find I do not participate as much because frankly, its become extremely juvenile, from many mostly from the left, but many I've read from the right as well. So even with some qualifying moderation, I sincerely doubt the level of discussion will increase dramatically. Perhaps it never was that "high falutin" in the past but that's my humble opinion.

Perhaps the answer is in the problem. Right now this website is not a discussion board at all. Its nothing more than public graffiti. Whoever spray paints the largest letters on the walls gets attention. So we have allot of those that are constantly spray painting their opinions on every blog, spray painting over interesting comments and topics with their silly retorts. Maybe the answer is to have 2 sections for discussion.

One section would be a no holds barred blogging, such as we have now, and the other a more orderly bulletin board such as is used at FayetteSpeaks. Topics and news stories are "anchored" by approved moderators and by the news stories, and threaded discussions can be easily seen once the topic is highlighted, rather than in the constant trolling and threading subject tags we see moving down the right side of your webpage.

I think if you gave us the visitors the choice, you would find the bloggers section would slowly die out and we would almost all gravitate to a more orderly and interesting moderated bulletin board.

That of course is one man's humble opinion/graffitti..

My hat’s off to Denise for maintaining her dignity and composure in the face of basmati’s foul, senseless, and absolutely juvenile taunts. The pictures he was linking in the posts to Denise were obscene and one of us should have brought it to Cal’s attention long before Git Real did.

As far as voting someone off goes, I like the idea. There is no one else that I would vote off right now, though there are plenty with whom I disagree. I think that almost everyone here would be the same way.

But it would be difficult if not impossible to manage. Would the votes be cumulative over time as you seem to suggest, Cal (“When the vote reached a predetermined "tip" point…”), and what would the ‘tipping’ point be? If it was done using a percentage of registered users the tipping point would most likely never be reached - a lot of those who register rarely or never post. What would keep people from registering under several different names to vote someone they didn’t like off?

An alternative would be a vote to recommend someone be banned with the final determination coming from The Citizen staff. That would put abusive posters on notice, bring them to the attention of the staff, and alleviate the concerns that have been brought up over the ‘popular vote’ model.

Maximus

Ps
Good riddance, basmati. It will be interesting to see with what name you come back.

That's my feelings on the subject.

I agree with the others that have already posted--that the ability to vote other bloggers off the site would be a power that would likely get abused. I personally would like some way of regulating the childish name calling and insults that some bloggers indulge in, but I don't know how to do that without it becoming censorship. (Ideas, anybody?)

Cal, I liked Basmati and usually sided with him on the various issues, but the tone of that thread had definitely gone way too far. I don't think anybody believes that you hooked him for his political beliefs. I just wish there was a way to discourage that sort of inappropriate posting before it gets to the point of banning somebody.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Let everyone speak. Unless the poster is being abusive, or lewd, they have the right to say what they wish. We should welcome all views from all perspectives. I think that the staff at the paper should have the final say on whether someone is banned. That would alleviate the popularity problem. Let them have their say.

Tell us Cal, how many posters have you actually banned from this site since it has been started?

them walk away, but love watchin' 'em leave. I'm glad steps have been taken, but I also disagree with "banned by popular vote". As is suggested, this would become a popularity contest and "let's see who we can vote-off today just for shiggles".
On a lighter note; I came across a really neat website yesterday.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
I found it very interesting and helpful. Take a look.

"The memories of a man in his old age, are the deeds of a man in his prime.You shuffle in the gloom of the sick room,and talk to yourself as you die."
(R. Waters)

I would prefer that you as the "Master" throw the purge switch. I usually represent views that pertain to my moniker. Because of this, I'll receive posts such as girly this, something about spandex, me or my mother will run you off the road, pedophile, you get the picture. These are from bloggers that use the site frequently. As such, I seriously doubt I'll prevail in a popular vote as these same bloggers will have the ability to vote.

One other thing, many thanks for this forum and the opportunity to discuss issues. I thought I had grasp of popular issues only to find out that someone else has a better understanding. That’s the real beauty of this forum!!!

no to the banning, you do fine as the banner and there should always be an appeals process.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Best way I know to totally destroy the Citizen blog!
Even the thought of voting by the general public with no qualifications whatsoever in order to vote, is beyond any type of democratic reasoning.
Why don't you just give us samples of comments and blogs that will be allowed and we can choose from those as to what we can post?
First, I think all ignorant people will be voted off by the "smart" people, as the cave man at GEICO says.
Next would come those who, although not foul mouthed or personal, say things against politicians, especially those in power here, or about any particular religion, especially Christians.
Next would come the ones against drinking buddies, development, capitalism, the war, and Sonny Purdue.
but, but, but, Clinton! Those people would never abide a criticism of Newt or Giuliani.
The wrestling and NASCAR fans would vote as a block, of course, and would vote to fill the Amphitheater with caged, doped up gladiators.
I want banned immediately just for my title above (subject).
We will be known as the "Stepford" bloggers, being very, very careful not to get voted out of the mainstream.

Hello Mr. Beverly.

First let me say I enjoy coming on thecitizen.com and expressing my views!

This poster finally crossed the civilized line once too often, and he (or it) is gone.

Just for anybody wondering this was the post.

He (or it) happened to be of the liberal persuasion, so I'm prepared to take flak for censoring someone of a different political bent than I.
Intelligent discourse this user did not provide. Instead, this user gave many personal attacks, vulgar and disgusting pictures, libelous comments, and accusations of a fellow blogger participating in a crime. I for one hope we get more (reasonable!) liberals on the site. I love good debate!

With our coming move (sometime later this month) to a world-class server center with an "infinite pipe,"
Woo hoo!!! No more time outs and blank pages!

our software will be getting some needed upgrades as well
Good to hear since there are some limitations with Drupal. May I make some suggestions? (All of these are off the top of my head and I might think of more later.)

I for one would like to see the blogs and comments system become more user friendly. Specifically I think a forum-based system like phpBB 3 would be better for these reasons:

• BBCode -- makes formatting (links, bold, etc.) easier for users since it requires no technical knowledge
• Better, more powerful search system
• A way to search and find all of your posts (great for checking replies to your comments)
• Keep unread comments -- this way you can see all the new comments/blogs since your last visit. The current system is VERY annoying since you can only see a limited number of recent comments. If there is a lot of activity and you don't log in frequently, you can miss quite a few new comments/blogs.
• Word censors -- automatically block certain curse words.

That's right -- a group of aggrieved posters could "vote" to ban a particular poster. When the "vote" reached a predetermined "tip" point, the offending poster would be booted off the site -- no appeal and no recourse. And no intervention from anybody at The Citizen.
In a word: NO! Repeated: NO, NO, NO!

Long explanation: I'm a firm believer in free speech and as long as you don't break the site rules (disgusting pictures in every post, lying about other users, accusing somebody of a crime, profanity, etc.) you should be able to say whatever you want.

In my opinion, having an "auto ban" system would just lead to online wars: Say something I don't like and I will vote to ban you! Ban me? I'll vote to ban you right back! ad nauseum And yes, I think this is a very real possibility especially since there are users on both sides that have very strongly held moral and political beliefs. You should never be banned simply based on your viewpoint. It should only be based on infractions with site rules.

Case in point is dollaradayandfound. Many users here don't really like his comments so I think he would be a ripe target for the auto ban system. But should he be banned simply for his viewpoints? NO!!!

no appeal and no recourse. And no intervention from anybody at The Citizen.
That's what worries me. What if we all (hypothetically) ganged up on dollar and voted to ban him? I don't feel that's right especially if there's no redress of grievances so to speak. Sounds a bit too much like mob rule for my taste!

Again (sorry to sound like a shill for phpBB) this free, open source (read: easily changed for your custom needs) software can help with two features: post reporting and friends and foes list. Post reporting is what is sounds like: if there's a post/comment/blog that breaks the rules any user can report it (flag it) for a moderator/administrator to check and edit out/ban the user as needed. The friends and foes list allows an individual user to ignore another user. Don't like User X's comments? Just add him or her to your "foes" list and all posts by him or her will not be displayed! Again, in my opinion, that's a MUCH better solution than auto banning since it allows annoying users (but possibly not rule breakers) to be ignored yet they can still have their say -- the best of both worlds.

Thanks for "letting me have my say."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!