FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
In the meantime . . .
If you choose to dive in and read the lengthy comments posted on this site recently, remember that many are using fictitious names, that I do my best to remove offensive posts but can’t be comment-cop 24/7, and claims of “inside information” are just that . . . claims.
The dark side of the Internet, right here on the North Beach.
Apologies to those posting comments in an appropriate manner.
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 am and is filed under North Coast News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
15 Responses to “In the meantime . . .”
Topics
Too bad many of our boards and commissions don’t follow this rule and ask this information at the start of the meeting. Only when you want to put yourself in the public eye, such as speaking at a council meeting or government public meeting, do you have to then state your name and residency.
The reason the state has this RCW is so free speech, listening and media reporting is not hampered. Retaliations for held opinions of those not part of the majority or old boy group need to be avoided for a peaceful, open society.
Sometimes some very good ideas come from commentators who do not subscribe to the conventional wisdom. Sometimes it is just ranting from vindictive, mean people holding a grudge. It is difficult separating the wheat from the chaff. This is a disadvantage of free speech.The alternatives are far worse.
Reasonable rules for civility, against causing a ruckus or sabatoge is always legal and supported.
This should apply to Ocean Shores also and even to these comments here.
RCW 42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his attendance.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]
Any time you read a comment column on any website, you are bound to find one thing in common. People love to debate. It’s fun. Family members used to say my grandmother would argue that the sky was blue until you agreed with her, then she would switch sides to whatever you had said originally. Most of the comments found here on NCN are interesting, sometimes providing another way to look at a situation. The only thing annoying me in the last week or so, is the person/persons writing silliness, obviously using other peoples pseudonyms, and I figured he/she will tire of wasting our time eventually and go away. I absolutely would not hold Tom responsible for an idiot like that.
I have used my real name and some fun type aliases on this format, and I find some of the assumed names a lot of fun. I try never to iwrite anything that I could not sign my name to with pride. I view the whole issue rather like the “Dear Abby” column the user names are fun.!A friend and I spend quite a bit of time guessing the identity of the writers. As I have said countless times in print Lighten up Ocean Shores. If a letter is truly offensive or slanderous Tom does remove it. I’ll bet a lot of you folks that are so upset at the content sneek peeks at the National Inquirer when you are in the grocery line.”
Why should it only be city employees or local law enforcement that worry about their boss may not like? What about citizens that worry about city employees or local law enforcement that may not like what they post? I do recall various council members that were “targeted” because of their views. Even citizens have been “targeted”. Just leave the system alone. Authors have written books with assumed names. This is just another publication. The truth has filtered out of this forum because of the discussions. People on both sides of the issue are neither “cowards” or “do not have confidence in their opinions”.
What they have is fear of retribution. What makes this forum fail at times is the blind rabid attacks based only upon there desire to attack the other contributor without any basis in fact. That too is a reason to leave the current policy in place.
Tom does control the rabid attacks.
There are always two sides or more to all issues. Emotional responses that blindly support one side or the other without contributing any supporting facts is just that, emotional red meat responses.
As the little old lady used to say: “Where’s the beef?”
“Please tell us what a “paid” or “not free” email address is.”
I can tell what it isn’t. It isn’t “hotmail” and other such providers that make no attempt to vet their users.
free emails and proxies can hide who most people are these days online (and yes anonymous proxies exist – there is one forum I browse only via an anonymous proxy these days)
I am sure there are ways to verify who people really are but it shouldn’t be Tom’s time wasted in finding out who they are should it?
I think the forums I like best are those with the least policing – after all you have to take everything you read online with a big chunk of salt and check out the information yourself as best you can.
D. Dingler. Please tell us what a “paid” or “not free” email address is. I have been on the net ever since the 70’s and don’t think such a thing exists anymore. It may have initially been with AOL and MSN etc.,but those days are gone.
Perhaps it is time to go back to the sandbox idea Tom
I don’t wholly agree that real names should be required. (For instance, a local law enforcement officer or other city employee that may not feel comfortable with posting something his or her boss may not like.)
But I do think that there needs to be some way of controlling those posters that can’t seem to stick by the rules as Tom has listed them. The current forum is what I would call a “Troll Heaven” as there is no way to control it and therefore it has degenerated into a mess that’s not worth the time to participate in. (It may be entertaining, but it is becoming meaningless.)
I participate in a number of on-line forums and they all have ways of enforcing their rules. I don’t know if Tom has the time or inclination to manage this one, but one way is to require registration with a valid email address and UserID. (Only one per customer.) Then if someone can’t follow the rules of civility, they can be dealt with by restricting their access. Another thing that many on-line forums have done is to refuse registration from “free” email accounts. This is to keep the Trolls from just creating another ID and coming back under another name.
The actual email address would be tightly held by the moderator and would be used to control access to the board.
Fictitious names should not be allowed. Those who comment with an alias apparently do not have confidence in their opinions.
Comments and opinions submitted by those who refuse to be identified reduce the credibility of this publication to that of a rag at the check-out counter. Your personal credibility, Mr. Scanlon, is at risk and you will lose your readership if this continues.
Kerry: I agree with your criticism. A while ago, I was growing concerned about some of these issues, and put it to the readers to decide on whether to require “real” names, or continue allowing pseudonyms. The majority wanted “no changes.”
Unfortunately, a few people are abusing this, and clearly changes need to be made.
But, yes, the responsibility falls on me, for trusting that people would stay within reasonable guidelines, without stricter policies.
“Don’t blame the people, they were just playing follow the leader.”
I don’t know about some, but I outgrew “follow the leader” sometime in grade school.
Sorry Tom, but you are responsible for turning this into the joke it has become. How can you enforce any of this when you don’t require people to identify themselves. If you’re going to make a judgemental statement, show your face. Be willing to stand by what you are saying. If not, you come across as a coward. It makes it easier for other people to mock and mimick people. Don’t blame the people, they were just playing follow the leader.
Thank you Tom, as always, for your efforts.