Comment Registration Coming to the Vanguard

By David GreenwaldOctober 23, 200969 comments

Vanguard_BannerBeginning on Monday for the first time in our over three years in existence, the Vanguard will engage in a pilot project where registration will be required.  At this time, I encourage anyone who wishes to post beginning on Monday to register a name–either your real name or a moniker.  There will be a limit of one moniker per email address.  However, if there is an abuse of the policy and a single individual is found to have registered under multiple email addresses, their rights to post on this forum will be terminated.

While we have always encouraged lively debate, it is our belief that the tone has become too nasty.  People are able to right now post under multiple psuedonyms trying at times to make it appear that there are more people in agreement on their view.  A very small percentage of the readership of the Vanguard actually participates in the discussions.  Part of that may be the tone.  The hope here is that by establishing consistent names, even if they are assumed names, we will develop a community and there will become familiarity with each poster.

 

To register go to the top of the screen where it says “Login/ Register” or click here.

We will evaluate the impact of this policy on the number of posts, our overall traffic, and the tone of discussion.  After that evaluation, we will decide whether this will be a permanent change.

If you have questions or concerns please contact me through the website feature or at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org .

Thanks for your readership and your cooperation with these changes.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Open Government

69 comments

  1. I am sorry you had to do this too. It was a tough decision for me because I knew it would cut down comments but some people abused the anonymous nature of comments to make inappropriate, unfair, and untrue statements.

    Matt Rexroad
    662-5184

  2. If you’re going to go this far with registration, then two things:

    First, after I registered for this site, I often have to reload then page and then repaste my comment, because otherwise it oddly says that the name is already registered. This will very likely skew your experiment if it isn’t fixed.

    Second, I hope that you avoid Matt Rexroad’s intrusive questions in which he asks for a street address and a phone number. That is taking things too far.

  3. Great! Now do we finally to get learn the true identity of “No Friend of Covell Village” “Typhoid Mary” and “The Druid”, or will those people stop blogging?

  5. This is how most of the national blogs work. It is like wearing the same costume and mask to an endless supply of conflicts. You get to feel a little bit like Batman.

  7. Greg K: We’re not going to require anything more than a log in and email. We’ll see how it works and then make adjustments.

    One of the things we are going to be doing in January is having a discussion board as well, we’ll see how that goes.

  10. “I’m confused. Do you have to register now, or is it optional? If I have to register, I will no longer comment.”

    That’s too bad. When you use your own name, your comments are more respectful and your points are better thought out and informative, and over time you get a justly deserved positive reputation. It will be everyone’s loss, yours included.

  14. [i]Greg K: We’re not going to require anything more than a log in and email. We’ll see how it works and then make adjustments.[/i]

    That’s cool, but it is equally important to fix the bug that makes me reload the page. I don’t know if it is somehow a problem with my registration or everyone’s registration, but in any case it is there.

  15. Let me add that the bug has something to do with taking too long to write the comment. The software has something like a 5-minute expiration so that it decides that I have a stale identity cookie. If I write the comment quickly, it works okay.

  16. Good move. I’ve pretty much quite reading or posting due to the endless stream of negativity (which, I have to admit, I have occasionally contributed to.) Debate can be vigorous and at times, even angry, but name calling does nothing to lead to that illusive fantasy, “truth.”

  17. Is it possible to make the software publish the IP address of the person who posts?

    It seems to me that solves most of the problem of abusive speech. “Ah, all of these attacks are coming from this same IP adress.” If you, David, as the owner of the site, wanted to block comments from that IPA, you could do so. (A friend of mine who owns BaseballPrimer does this, very infrequently. But he will normally suspend privileges for 30 days, not permanently.)

  19. Greg K: I sent a note to the administrator and asked him to lengthen the period before log out.

    Rich: It is possible, we pondered it. We decided against it for now. One reason is that IP addresses are not necessarily unique to individual users. I do have the ability to block IP addresses, I don’t think i’ve used it though.

  20. [i]Is it possible to make the software publish the IP address of the person who posts?[/i]

    I think that is also too intrusive. My real identity is more to the point than my IP addresses. However, you could have an either-or as Wikipedia does: Either you register, or your IP address is your screen name. That way people don’t even have to register.

  21. [i]Greg K: I sent a note to the administrator and asked him to lengthen the period before log out.[/i]

    But it isn’t a log out, it’s a stale cookie for the page. If I do a hard reload of the page (i.e., a shift reload), without logging out or logging in, then I can post the comment.

  23. [quote]you could have an either-or as Wikipedia does: Either you register, or your IP address is your screen name. That way people don’t even have to register. [/quote]That seems like a good idea. And it would (perhaps) not have the effect of discouraging people from posting, particularly those who rarely post and thus don’t feel a need to register.

  25. I have no problem with the policy, but find the timing very curious. Why not wait until after the Measure P vote?

    There is no question that the new policy will scare away some of the NOP opposition, and thereby serve to help squelch the debate. Accordingly, by electing to implement this in the final run-up to the election, it raises the obvious question of intent.

    The two things I will be watching for are: (1) another round of Parlin/Ritter-sponsored astroturfing, and (2) additional efforts by the Vanguard to manufacture support for the Parlin subdivision.

    If this is what we have to look forward to in the next couple of weeks, then the motivation for the curious timing will be fairly transparent. I hope this is not the case.

  26. Waiting for Godot in Davis:

    Estragon: I think I’ll take off my shoes.

    Vladimir: I have no problem with that in principle, but the timing is highly suspicious. It might stifle the debate, because it will scare away those who cannot bear the sight of your feet. Why not wait until after the Measure P vote?

  29. Barbara: If you’ve already registered, you do not need to re-register.

    Curious: Because the end of the Measure P campaign is not the end of this site or politics in Davis. If anything, next year figures to be even more contentious with a council election, tax renewal, measure j renewal, and possibly another measure j vote in covell. Different than this one. I was actually going to make the change after the campaign, but I’d like to see the impact before the end to get a better sense of what things will look like. So far, I think this is a rather small change, still anonymity, but registration will place parameters on it.

  30. I suspect that this new policy will provoke another round of “outings” … both real and imagined … once things heat up again. I’m also pretty sure it will encourage even more grandstanding. Personally, I find these two phenomena much more annoying than the aggressive discourse.

    Speaking of aggressive discourse, IMO trying to reign it in will only serve to help the pro-Covell forces.

  32. No three letter monikers. Guess I won’t be posting under this any more. Also, (FYI) no terms posted on registration, in spite asking for agreement to terms.

  34. On the IP address discussion…

    Many people will periodically get assigned a new IP address from their Internet Service Provider through something called DHCP. Also, many folks blog from differnet location (home, or government job location) so blocking by IPA is not a perfect solution.

    Today you can “View Source” from your Internet browser and see the IP address assoicated with a particular moniker… but it can change.

  36. [i]Many people will periodically get assigned a new IP address from their Internet Service Provider through something called DHCP.[/i]

    If it’s Comcast, it doesn’t change nearly quickly enough to make clone postings. Moreover, none of this is meant to be tight security and outright blocking IP addresses is not the main point. The main point is to make stable-name postings more convenient than disposable-name postings.

  37. If it’s Comcast, it doesn’t change nearly quickly enough to make clone postings.

    Actually, with Comcast, if you unplug your modem for 15 minutes, when you plug back in you have a good chance of being assigned a new IP address by DHCP.

    However, I get your point… IP addresses generally do not change that frequently and the goal is to provide comparable disincentives to prevent using from using multiple monikers. This really should not be too big of a deal for those that want to post anonymously. The only difference being that users will have to use a valid email address to associate with their moniker (David, is this correct?) However, just sign up for a free Gmail account with a cryptic name and there is no way your real identity can ever be discovered.

    David… one consideration… if you require more than a valid email address (e.g., name, address, phone, rank and serial number), then, because you are often in the fray for bashing the snarky or mean-spirited anonymous posts, you will have the advantage as the administrator for looking up this information and ???. Therefore, I hope you are only going to require the email address. Otherwise, I would expect the less eloquent users to bail especially when they are debating something you strongly disagree with and/or their tone is offensive to you.

  38. The only practical and robust way to “enforce” stable monikers is to require a valid credit card number … and even that won’t completely stop paid astroturfers.

    And do you really want “The Vanguard” collecting data on the people that post on the blog? Is that what the “progressive” movement has become in Davis?

    First the local chapter of the Sierra Club is politically manipulated, and now the specter of Big Brother raises its ugly head.

  40. I’ll never comment again on this board. Just not worth it to read the same yahoos over and over. And Rexroad stopped allowing comments because people challenged him too much on his Republican history.

    Buh-Bye.

  41. I’ll just say I’m hoping this pretty minor level of intrusion will produce the desired results. I’m certainly not interested in finding out who is posting on here. However, I do hope that the rules changes will start to improve the tenor, a lot of people do not like posting comments on here because of the tone. So if it means a few miscreants like “just great” don’t post, I can live with it. But we’ll see what happens with traffic, tone, and comments before anything becomes permanent.

  43. I’ve learned a lot about commenting from this blog. I would use my name but it just opens me and my family up to all kinds of ridicule for my outside the mainstream thoughts. What I have done is use a nom de plume until someone figures it out and outs me then I change. I have learned that you shouldn’t attack people but instead attack their ideas. Exceptions should be expected for public people.

    It does seem odd that since you have gone to the present format few posts have been deleted and yet you feel the need to change the rules. So be it, its your blog, but what if two people share a computer? I think you should go a different route, have nobody use their real name, then again, its not my blog.

    Anyway thank you for the oppportunity to voice my ideas, its been fun but if I can’t change my handle when I need to in order to retain my privacy for the protection of my family I am gone. I know many that I have challenged will be happy, yet, let me temper your glee because without me the debate will be narrower and more sanitized.

  44. I’ll just comment that without freedom to comment as in years past, the “People’s” part of the “Vanguard’s” title really is now confirmed disconnected, dead, in a word. From now on it’ll just be the same musical chairs voices chewing over the same ideas. Hey, I know, call it:
    “The Elitist Vanguard of Davis.”

  45. [i]The Elitist Vanguard of Davis.[/i]

    Just having to register makes you an elitist? Good grief, I must be a limousine liberal with an 80-foot limo.

  48. Great! This should discourage the person who gives eight different names while commenting on one story. It’s been so tiresome to sort through the nasty posts without knowing whether it’s the same old dude. About time!

  49. David Greenwald wrote – “However, I do hope that the rules changes will start to improve the tenor, a lot of people do not like posting comments on here because of the tone. So if it means a few miscreants like “just great” don’t post, I can live with it.”

    Perhaps you might set an example by apologizing to “just great” for calling him/her a “miscreant.” Your blatant hypocrisy continues to cast doubt on your motives.

  50. You guys crack me up sometimes, you’d think I was imposing censorship. 95% of major sites require registration, I’m not even forcing you to register under your real name.

  51. Mr. Greenwald, I was only pulling your leg but it’s nice to see you take the bait. Funny to see how liberals often turn to a conservative to back them up when they need it. Well that conservative is doing it so it must be okay so I can do it too.

  52. When using vituperative hyperbole Liberals get called Communists and Conservatives get called Fascists. I just call you David even though I did call you DPD as you wished until you were so outed that you gave it up yourself.

    Still you haven’t addressed my concern that we be able to change our handles when we get outed? Also what if people in a family share a computer and want to speak as individuals?

  53. Good upgrade, David. I have no idea why people are so concerned about either using their own name or having to post under a single moniker.

    Marxism? Measure P? Big brother? Give me a break. Anyone who opposes such a fair, one-name-only policy is either too cowardly to post his/her actual name or threatened by having their multiple posts under multiple monikers identified by readers as coming from the same person.

    I believe this will give all readers a more balanced view of just how many different individuals are commenting on a particular subject.

    Good job, David.

  54. Marxist: I take this move seriously, so I respond seriously.

    Druid: I outed myself if you recall when I allowed the Sacramento Bee report on the Vanguard in January of 2007. It was a good move and hopefully this will be one as well.

    I will certainly allow anyone who has been outed to change their handle. Right now I’m going to be looking at IP addresses, so I don’t think the family issue will be a problem.

    I’m not going to be looking for issues unless they become an issue.

  55. [i]Right now I’m going to be looking at IP addresses, so I don’t think the family issue will be a problem.[/i]

    You have to be a little careful here, because when you have a Comcast subscription, every computer in the house has the same external IP address. Within the local network (the LAN), the IP addresses are all different, but they get translated to a common address by Comcast’s firewall.

    Still, the situation is contrived. The software shouldn’t be set up to ban postings under different registrations from the same IP address, but rather to track usage by IP address as well as by registration. So let’s say that Alice McDougal and Bob McDougal post under different registrations but the same IP. So what? No mystery as to what is going on there. Even if it’s not obvious that they’re related or if they both use pseudonyms, all it takes is one e-mail to clear up any misunderstanding. We are not talking about a vast operation in which a 1% special case is still 10,000 users.

    Besides, “I need to protect my family” is a melodramatic argument in such a trivial situation. As if those of us who post under our real names don’t have families? We are also not talking about the Witness Protection Program; no discussion on this blog has provoked Al Qaeda.

  56. rick entrikin wrote: “Anyone who opposes such a fair, one-name-only policy is either too cowardly to post his/her actual name or threatened by having their multiple posts under multiple monikers identified by readers as coming from the same person.”

    Too cowardly? Who are you to label people cowards??? Many (most?) of us that post anonymously, do so because we also live in the real world; and don’t want nut jobs in Davis constantly up in our grills because we have a point of view that differs from theirs.

    How about you do your part to improve the tenor of the blog, and keep your ad hominems to yourself.

    BTW Bill Ritter, Pam Nieberg, and other “progressives” that have not yet been “outed” are some of the most flagrant abusers of this system. Are you calling them cowards as well? Is Greenwald a coward because he posted extensively under DPD?

  57. [quote]Many (most?) of us that post anonymously, do so because we also live in the real world; and don’t want nut jobs in Davis constantly up in our grills because we have a point of view that differs from theirs.[/quote] I’m sure some people have that as their reason for posting anonymously. However, it seems like some are just hiding behind a fake name to make harsh, even personal attacks against other people in ways they would never do if everyone knew who they were. It’s not a fear of reprisal at work. It’s a fear that your friends will know you are such an ***hole. But when you put your real name to a post, most people, most of the time, are at least somewhat gentler with their criticisms of other individuals. In other words, they have to take ownership of their words.

    With David’s new system, you can continue to call yourself “Curious.” But you can’t be “Curious” on one post, “Marxist” one the next, “Druid” on the third and “For the Record” or “Anonymous” on the fifth. You will just be “Curious,” and free to say whatever you like without worrying about someone getting up in their grill. Yet if you want to be a credible person who owns his words, I recommend you take the chance and use your real name all the time. You might find it is not so tough.

  59. “Okay if protecting my family is to melodramatic for a tenured professor how about my wife would kill me if I posted by name.”

    Better go with a pseudonym.

  60. “Just having to register makes you an elitist? Good grief, I must be a limousine liberal with an 80-foot limo.”

    No, it doesn’t make me an elitist. But you, by your admission, on, at least an unconscious level, are.
    In order to imagine tracking commenters, one must have, on some level, an elitist consciousness. Otherwise, the comment section would remain open to all the people of Davis, not just elitists. Because, I guarantee, there’s going to be a lot less commenting going on on this site, now that Greenwald has decided to exercise control and “out” any one who doesn’t follow his “party line” or use multiple computers…People don’t want to go to that much trouble to comment on the same old ideas recycled around and around anyways. Perhaps Greenwald will have to increase the number of “tabloid” type scandal articles to keep his readership up. Like flogging the Dem Dames tempest in a teapot in the name of “decency” ad nauseum.
    And there’s my last two cents.

  61. “now that Greenwald has decided to exercise control and “out” any one who doesn’t follow his “party line” or use multiple computers”

    That’s not my intention, I don’t know where you got that from.

  63. Rich: Let’s deconstruct your reply to my post.

    First you start with a skeptical acknowledgement (I’m sure “some” people …) of my stated reason for posting anonymously. Next you offer up your own alternative (and quite pejorative) explanation (**holes that are afraid to take ownership of their words). Then you label me as this type of non-credible individual by challenging me to post under my own name and take ownership of my words. Finally, you end the little lecture with a patronizing quip.

    Rather than illuminating the discussion, you have merely illustrated that some people don’t need to post anonymously to behave like an **hole.

  64. Thank you, David. I am looking forward to reading more well reasoned comments instead of ad hominem attacks and what often appear to be multiple nasty comments from the same person(s) under different monikers.

  65. Curious, I wrote: [i]”However, it seems like some are just hiding behind a fake name to make harsh, even personal attacks against other people in ways they would never do if everyone knew who they were.”[/i]

    And you responded anonymously by calling me an assh*le: [i]”Rather than illuminating the discussion, you have merely illustrated that some people don’t need to post anonymously to behave like an **hole.”[/i]

    I think your response proves my point.

  67. Rich, I wrote: “First you start with a skeptical acknowledgement (I’m sure “some” people …) of my stated reason for posting anonymously. Next you offer up your own alternative (and quite pejorative) explanation (**holes that are afraid to take ownership of their words). Then you label me as this type of non-credible individual by challenging me to post under my own name and take ownership of my words. Finally, you end the little lecture with a patronizing quip.”

    And you responded with another trite little quip that disregards the fact that you called me an **hole first.

    Because you chose not to use a pseudonym does not make you or your views superior to those of us that do. And because someone is anonymous, it does not give you license to take shots at their character.

    I wonder if you would have the courage to do it face-to-face if you knew who you were addressing. It’s easier to be the bully when you can fantasize that the individuals you are attacking don’t have standing in the community.

    So if you want to have a little flame war … I’m game. But, if so, please don’t whine about the fact that I’m anonymous.

  69. Registration is now required to post comments. Please report any technical issues to webmaster@davisvanguard.org. We have noted these issues and will be fixing them shortly:

    – redirection back to article upon login
    – cookie expiration if it takes too long to write a comment

    Thanks!

    -Webmaster

Leave a Comment