As I write this, the Vanguard Editorial Board has discussed a formal policy on comments twice and is set to discuss it for a third time this Wednesday. Contrary to popular belief, this is a difficult process and one that we take very seriously.
The Vanguard ultimately wants to be a space of community dialogue where members of this community from a very diverse set of views can come together to participate in the discussion of local, regional and sometimes national issues. This is a unique space in this community – there is no other place where such a diverse group of people can get together.
Over the years this has been a contentious space, but in the last few years the Vanguard has been transformed. The community discussion, though no less spirited, has lost many of its most nasty elements. While we have improved the climate on this site immensely, we still believe there is work to do, and creating a formal set of guidelines will both help our readers to know where the lines are and help our moderator, who has volunteered his time for nearly five years, to do the same.
Our view, and I speak of the Editorial Board in this moment, though the policy is not codified, is that we wish to foster dialogue and conversation. At the same time, while we believe that comments that may reduce participation will be removed, we wish to err on the side of free expression, free speech, and allow the marketplace of ideas through debate and discussion to carry the day.
There are three areas that I wish to discuss here that tend to generate controversy, and all three have actively done so this week.
First, earlier this week an anonymous commenter on this site criticized two city staffers by name. Several people who post under their true names objected.
Let me be very clear on where the Vanguard stands on anonymous commenters. When I started this site in 2006, the atmosphere in this community was toxic and, during some of the vitriolic conversations that emerged, people were legitimately afraid to speak out against the group-think mentality that was permeating the community.
And so, when I created the Vanguard, it was in part to create a safe space for people to comment without fear of social retribution. It is therefore the absolute right of the commenters to post without identifying themselves, they are not second-class citizens, and they certainly have every right to criticize public officials – whether they are elected or city employees.
There is nothing that was posted that remotely rises to the level of slander and, in fact, I have personally heard many of the same things – and worse – from credible sources in the city and the community.
Second, the issue of racism is a serious issue that we discuss quite a bit on these pages. The incident in Ferguson opens a lot of old wounds and that is a serious contributing factor in the currently proceeding riots and the nationwide discussion of racism and policing policies that have emerged.
If we are going to get past racism in this country, we have to be willing to discuss it.
For instance, let’s look at the comment: “One white cop shoots and kills one black teenager and riots happen. Thousands of black teenager shoot and kill thousands of black teenagers and cricket happen.”
This is not a comment I agree with. But it is clearly an issue. Conservative elements in the community see the black community rising up when there is a police shooting or a shooting of an African-American by a white person, or a non-black person as in the case of Trayvon Martin.
At the same time, they see much violence within the community that they may seem to have a deaf ear about.
I do not see this as a racist comment. I do disagree with it. As I wrote yesterday, there is a difference between a shooting in a community by other citizens versus the shooting by the police under the banner of authority. It revives the worst elements of the southern apartheid system that we lived under for generations.
The Trayvon Martin situation generated a similar response because it seemed to be an unarmed black young man who was harassed, pursued, and ultimately shot by a quasi-law enforcement official.
The specter of racial profiling and police brutality remains a strong and polarizing force.
But we have to be able to discuss this and we cannot shut down the discussion when we disagree or by shouting “racism.”
The Vanguard is working on language for handling discussions on racism. It is more tricky than you might think. It is easy to pull non-substantive posts that are provocative and profane. But we have gray areas, as well, as they delve into legitimate issues of policy, whether it be on racial profiling, police shootings or illegal immigration.
Again, it is our preference that these issues are handled through debate and dialogue rather than censorship. Will that offend some people? No doubt, but how do we deal with controversial issues in a bubble?
Finally, one area not up for discussion is the debate about moderation policies — unless that debate takes place in an article like this one where the topic of the article is the Vanguard‘s policies. Look, we get that people don’t want to see their stuff taken down, but we are trying to facilitate discussion about issues, not our own policies. I’m willing to talk on the phone, exchange emails or meet in person, but I want those discussions offsite rather than in the middle of discussions where they threaten to sidetrack or derail substantive conversations.
We don’t have many hard and firm lines in the sand, but this is one of them and I don’t think this policy is unreasonable.
Now, this is a thread where people have greater latitude to discuss issues like moderation and what should be deleted and what should be left up. I promise that anything posted here will get all due discussion at this week’s editorial board meeting.
Thanks for reading.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The gate is either open or its closed. As soon as you try to decide what is okay and what isn’t you make it hard because what I find acceptable someone else finds objectionable. This site has a long history of allowing racism and bigotry to be posted. Some of it is obvious and some of it is dog whistle. This has been going on going all the way back at least to a regular poster arguing that we should pay poor young women to get sterilized to break the cycle of poverty when I first noticed it. It persists until this very day when a poster remarked about the difference between “legal” and “illegal immigrants” not realizing that the correct term is undocumented. What is infuriating is the low quality of the moderation that is so tone deaf that it can’t hear a dog whistle even that blatant and left those remarks up while taking down other remarks that call out racism for what it is under the guise of not allowing personal attacks. The bigotry expressed in some remarks is shocking yet is allowed but call a bunch of MO. cops who screwed up every which way “crackers” and you get edited. This shows the biases of the site whether intentional or not. One solution would be to find a new moderator who can lay out clear guidelines and who isn’t both a regular poster and censor. Someone who starts fresh without compromised credibility. Credibility destroyed by a historical lack of providing an even temperament, good judgement or abiding by the rules for anonymity that you seek to provide. Or to put it more succinctly someone who can identify the difference between “undocumented” and “illegal” when talking about immigration.
That’s exactly correct so the line is drawn closer to being open with clearly inflammatory and verbose posts being taken down, and posts with more substantive elements being left up.
So you’re one of the more articulate people I know – so I fail to see why you would want stuff removed rather than engaging and debating it. Just because it offends doesn’t mean we take it down.
Toad, if you can’t see the big difference between saying “illegal immigrants” and “crackers” then I say you’re the one who has the problem.
I might. I don’t think crackers is offensive and I’m not alone in that understanding of the word but i’ll allow that it isn’t what I find offensive in my speech that matters its what others see in it that counts. Still how would one describe the cops of Ferguson MO.? Certainly the term I’d like to use for police, heroic, doesn’t come to mind.
On the other hand not recognizing the difference between “undocumented” and “illegal” presents its own problems because as soon as you use illegal it becomes not a humanitarian crisis on the border with all these kids but a criminal one. And that is just one example among many. Another obvious one is the situation with “dreamers”, kids who were brought here as children too young to be able to have the ability to know they are in violation of the law. People who have lived most of their lives here and know no other country but lack documentation to be here nor have they committed a crime because they lacked intent. Calling them illegal dehumanizes them and allows for what regularly follows, a lack of respect for the facts of their situation. These are but two examples of why simply lumping millions of people into legal or illegal categories does little but expose the shallowness of the thinking on the part of the author of such remarks. This is especially true when the author is making an argument that there a difference between the two categories and shows lack of understanding on the part of those critical of offensive remarks on the topic of immigration.
Toad, if you were the person who was being “cracked” by a bull whip, or were the descendent of a person who was so “cracked” you might feel different.
How do you feel about the term “nit picker”? If I said your comments here were simply “nit picking” would you be offended? If so, why?
Using the term “illegal” takes the issue down to its fundamental transactional problem and away from the emotional arguments. It is a valid term even though you might not like it. “Illegal alien” is common. It has been in all of our government documents and legal text. It is only lately that the left word and thought police have taken it upon themselves to try to remove it (along with a long list of other words and thoughts) from communication because, basically, they believe that is how they win.
And the rest of your recent posts on the Ferguson incident are basically the same type of thing. Demanding censorship of others under the false auspices of racism or some other PC code, so you can more easily win your point and safely protect your racial paradigms.
The bottom line here is that what you find offensive in what others write contrasts nicely with offensive and provocative language in what you write. And I find you one of the most provocative writers on the Vanguard and hope you don’t stop being so. Old paradigms don’t change without challenge. If you believe in something that requires breaking down the wall of group-think, then you have to be provocative. And when you get an emotional response back, you know that you are starting to chip away at it.
But there is a line. And I think the Vanguard does a pretty good job managing that line.
Frankly
I agree with you that given thee differences of opinion expressed here on what is offensive vs non offensive speech that the Vanguard including David as the proprietor and principle author, the editorial board, and in particular our volunteer moderator have done “a pretty good job”. And I think that we are demonstrating improvement over time.
There is ( of course ) a point in which we differ.
“racism or some other PC code,”
The implication to me in this statement is that you are implying that “racism” is nothing but a PC code. This, even if the number of incidents have dropped as you correctly note, racism is in my eyes completely unacceptable and is something to be eliminated entirely. Unlike you, I do not see this as an impossibility. Cutting off limbs used to be an accepted means of punishment and still is in some societies. We have entirely eliminated it here. Likewise, we are no longer stoning women to death for adultery or drowning “witches”. Just because something exists in our society does not mean that with time and peaceful resistance we cannot eliminate it entirely. This is part of the reason that I disagree with your view that there will always be racism. I believe that there will only be
racism as long as we allow it to persist. We have eliminated social abominations in the past and we could eliminate this one also if we had the will to do so.
Tia – there is never going to success in absolutely eliminating race-based bias.. in any country, state, city, nation, empire, continent… historically or in the future.
Same with gender bias.
Same with bias over people having certain sexual preference.
We have all the laws on the books to project people from material harm as a result of discrimination of every possible group except white males.
Your utopian desires are unattainable, and hence irrational to pursue. You will create bigger problems trying to attain them through top-down control than to accept imperfection and educate bottom-up coping, persistence and perseverance.
Let’s seek rational attainable goals, otherwise we spin our wheels and waste valuable time and effort and also fail to truly help.
Do you know the 90 – 10 rule?
10% of life is what happens to you.
90% of like is decided by how you act.
You really cannot control others. You can only control yourself.
That is a very tough message for liberals, because they think they can control everyone and every outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYZxZups06w
At 57 minutes into this trailer, Meryl Streep says “when people have the freedom to choose, they chose wrong”
Good posts above Frankly.
And I would like to thank David Greenwald for keeping this forum open with excellent balance (good article you write here David) and the moderators for very good (perhaps not perfect) judgement in permitting comments to stray to the edge of (but not far over the line of) civility; and removing gratuitous personal attacks.
I would like to add to Frankly’s comment a contention that I have stated previously on the Vanguard, namely that much of what is labeled ‘racism’ in the popular press and media, and even in communications between individuals such as on this forum, is more accurately a form of ‘culturalism’. Not that racism does not exist, but in my view ‘culturalist’ biases are much more prevalent in the USA population than are ‘racist’ biases. To the extent that certain cultural practices are more prevalent within some racial groups than in others, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between cultural biases and racial biases.
Good point tribeUSA. I use the term “classism” rather than “culturalism” but the result is the same.
“This has been going on going all the way back at least to a regular poster arguing that we should pay poor young women to get sterilized to break the cycle of poverty when I first noticed it.”
Toad, you have chosen a perfect example in your words above. There is a good chance that well over 50% of all adults in this country would not see the sterilization example that you have provided as an example of racism. Why do you feel that the suggestion is racist.
Many of the people who would not see it as racist, would probably agree that it is classist though.
“It persists until this very day when a poster remarked about the difference between “legal” and “illegal immigrants” not realizing that the correct term is undocumented. What is infuriating is the low quality of the moderation that is so tone deaf that it can’t hear a dog whistle even that blatant”
It is interesting that you see a meaningful difference between “legal” “illegal” and “documented” “undocumented.” Aren’t the documents simply the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace?
As far as the moderation policies of the Vanguard, my problem has been that it seems the conservative posters are more highly scrutinized than liberal posters.
Perhaps that is because there are more of them.
Part of the challenge for conservative posters is that they are much more likely to go “off topic” than liberal posters because they believe the “root causes” of many of our local problems originate from national and societal decisions, whereas local liberals believe the “root causes” of our local problems and challenges originate here within our own community.
John
“whereas local liberals believe the “root causes” of our local problems and challenges originate here within our own community.”
And there are some of us who really don’t see it as terribly relevant to our own actions whether the “root causes” are local, regional or national, or more likely an amalgam of all three because we believe that our best bet at making a difference in the world is to act locally.
While agreeing with much of the sentiment expressed by Mr.Toad, I think the sole moderator does a great job, for the most part. I am, frequently, offended by the racist and misogynist comments allowed in The Vanguard, largely without moderator or editorial response. David and Don show a great deal of tolerance and in the cases of certain VIPs, deference, in their censorial reticence. On the whole, I think their policies encourage open discussion and so often that allows the bigoted and megalomaniacal narcissists to break cover and show themselves.
In the end, no policy or practice will satisfy everyone. I applaud David for taking the issue seriously.
;>)/
Here we have a very nice example of pot calling Kettles black.
Those complaining the loudest are generally those prone to sharp, cutting and provocative posting.
Biddlin – I hope you don’t stop risking being offensive to certain groups to make your points. It would be really a shame to change your posting personality to someone you are not. I generally look forward to reading what you write.
No its not. Censorship here is arbitrary and capricious. It lacks depth of understanding. It allows plenty of closeted or out bigots to post both blatant and subtle hate. When you call people out and get censored while the objectionable stuff gets left up it calls into question the biases of the site. Whether intentional or not the site has a history of allowing hate speech to remain while removing speech calling out that hate. It is this specific duplicity that undermines your credibility. Bring in a hard hand that takes it all down or shut down the comments on an article completely and its not a problem and will even raise the level of discourse or let all the back and forth run. Either way is okay but the middle you seek fails to do anything but give voice to hate speech by protecting it from its critics.
What we’re trying to do is formalize the rules so that it seems less arbitrary and capricious.
“What we’re trying to do is formalize the rules so that it seems less arbitrary and capricious.”
Read: It will still be arbitrary and capricious, it just won’t seem that way anymore.
I can’t walk because I’m missing a leg. I blame it on Miller.
“When you call people out and get censored while the objectionable stuff gets left up it calls into question the biases of the site.”
There is a difference between calling out the person who has posted the remark you see as racist and calling out Don for the quality of his moderation. My observation of your pattern of posts on this subject over the years has been that you focus on Don, rather than focusing on the poster and even more importantly focusing on the racism you see in the post.
Rich Rifkin called out Davis Progressive earlier this week for what Rich felt was egregious and libelous behavior. The tone of his confrontation of DP amped up to a 10 on a scale of 10, which heightened the subsequent dialogue, but because he focused on the issue rather than the moderation, the subsequent dialogue was productive. Perhaps there is a lesson for you there.
Mr. Toad does not want people to be allowed to express views on race that are more conservative than his own. He wants the Vanguard and the moderator to pull those comments. He believes that people who don’t share his views and perspectives on race are racists, and should not be allowed to post here. He wants the freedom to call those people names. He wants the freedom to use racist epithets on the Vanguard, and claims censorship when those epithets are edited out. He wants the freedom to call the Vanguard owner and moderator names if they disagree with his positions on race (and other issues) and the management of the Vanguard.
When directly addressed on this issue, he replies with juvenile obscenities, posting them on the Vanguard. Contacted privately, he replies with juvenile obscenities, and then tries to flood the board with his comments.
It’s like dealing with a holier-than-thou seventh-grader. I take constructive criticism seriously, and in the spirit in which it is offered. But Vanguard readers should understand that a forum run by the values and methods espoused by Mr. Toad would just be an uber-liberal echo chamber.
Robust, free-wheeling discussions of difficult issues like race will be productive. A lightly moderated board simply keeps those discussions as civil as possible. Mr. Toad does not further the goals of open discussion.
Well said.
I second that; well said Don. At the risk of storm and fury, I will post a biblical passage:
“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3-5
To be clear, my biblical quote is not for the edification of Don, but for others in the forum who ride high on their horses by seeking to cast down and out those who have certain opinions that disagree with theirs, and who exhibit intolerance in the expression and opinions of others in the name of a more tolerant society.
Well I guess its open season on personal attacks when the moderator gets to go full bore like a hog run wild. I guess contact me privately by the moderator isn’t private another blow to his independence and integrity and shows why I generally never respond to him in any meaningful way and shows why, once again, he is unfit to hold the censorship keys to this site. Not only will he out you he will do it any way he thinks he can get away with.
Its not the occasional “fuck you” throw away that is a problem. When you put something up knowing its going to be taken down in about two minutes as a personal insult to someone who just censored you it may be childish but its certainly therapeutic. The problem is that the moderator or the moderation lacks the depth of understanding to be effective. As such I stand by remarks that its either all or none. Seeking a middle ground only provides cover for speech that is offensive.
I was out of here the last time Don outed me. David you asked me to come back as did many friends and other posters i don’t even know. Perhaps there is no obvious answer but certainly if you are not convinced after Don’s last tirade, where he discusses private correspondence he doesn’t like after soliciting such correspondence, that he is unfit to moderate this site please don’t ask me to come back here again.
” The problem is that the moderator or the moderation lacks the depth of understanding to be effective.”
You are assuming that the statement you make here is correct. “Depth of understanding” is a highly subjective assessment.
For example, was Joel Chandler Harris practicing racism when he created and published the story of Br’er Fox, Br’er Bear and Br’er Rabbit having their “tar baby” encounter in the road? Did Toni Morrison’s publishing of “Tar Baby” make Harris’ fable racist retroactively? The answers that you get to those questions will vary considerably based on subjective criteria.
Mr. Toad
“Not only will he out you he will do it any way he thinks he can get away with.”
I am unclear about what you mean by “will out you”.
I have always considered being “outed” in the context of the Vanguard as having your true identity revealed. Since no one has posted your true identity, I can only assume that you are intending this word to have a different meaning which I am not understanding.
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by “outing” ?
I agree with Don here Mr. Toad. I think it is shame that you did not take a deep breath and think more deeply about your complaints here. Some posts stirred you up and you got mad and you lashed out. But you are just a pot calling that different kettle black on this topic… because you are plenty prone to writing that others can call insensitive.
How about instead of letting your anger get the best of you to demand that others be censored, you use that marvelous intellect to post responses that make your point and move the needle in understanding?
The absolutely worst response to someone who offers you negative feedback, whether you view it as constructive or not, is to tell them that they are wrong. That in a nutshell is how the Editorial Board and the Moderator respond to negative criticism on this site.
In short I believe this type of response is disrespectful not just to the original commentator, but to every other reader who is being told that their point of view is not valid. This response is not the sort that will elicit more conversation, rather it is a means of controlling the conversation and ‘getting the last word.’
Mr. Toad has a valid complaint. I may disagree with some (perhaps most) of what he has to say, but that does not change the validity of his point of view of the actions of the Moderator on this site. The challenge for the Moderator and the Editorial Board is to learn from his point of view, not to publicly challenge him by telling him that he is wrong in an effort to claim the last word.
For those of us who don’t know who is on the Editorial Board. Who is?
Tia said, “And for John, the editorial board currently consists of: David Greenwald, Cecelia Greenwald, Joe Krovoza, Matt Williams, Michelle Millet, Dan Parella, and myself.”
Mark said, “The absolutely worst response to someone who offers you negative feedback, whether you view it as constructive or not, is to tell them that they are wrong. That in a nutshell is how the Editorial Board and the Moderator respond to negative criticism on this site.”
Mark, which of the Editorial Board members that Tia has listed fit your description. David? Cecilia and Joe and Daniel almost never post, so it clearly isn’t them. Matt posted regularly about water and Mace 391, and sometimes about financial issues. Does his posting style fit your criteria. Michelle has a strong focus on solid waste, but in all the other issues that the Vanguard covers is pretty much silent. Tia is pretty vocal with proactive healthcare posts and reactive to Frankly posts being her specialties. Does she fit your description?
I’m not seeing anyone on the Vanguard Editorial Board who responds to negative criticism in the manner you have described. Do you feel otherwise?
There are two points here. One is censorship and the other is appropriateness of moderator responses that are integrated with his/her personal posting.
On the first, I think Don is absolutely correct and Mr. Toad is not. Mr. Toad is upset about things he reads, and maybe there is something there for the posters, and even Mr. Toad, to learn. But censorship is not in the spirit of the blog. If Mr. Toad just wants the standard liberal rant he can tune out and tune in to the Huffington Post or most of the major News Papers, or ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and all the entertainment industry. He has plenty of choice.
On the second, I think Mark West has a valid point too. Can the referee play on the field? I think most of us would feel that the game is not fair with the referee playing on the field. It would certainly take some finesse from the referee to stay out of any perception of calling the shots and penalties to his/her favor.
Personally, I would never take the job of moderator because: 1. It is too difficult… 2. I would not be able to play on the field the way I want to.
With respect to the censorship demand from Mr. Toad, with some more difficult subjects there is a line we are going to hit that causes tension and then there is another line that leads to agitation and the next line leads to anger. If something written causes tension, and even a bit of agitation, then I think it hits the mark. If it causes anger, then I think there is reason for both sides to pause and consider the tone and the response. Some people anger easy over certain subjects and it is difficult to have a conversation with them unless they can calm themselves. Some people are just caustic and abrasive by nature, and with them it can also be difficult to engage in meaningful conversation.
The value of a community blog, in addition to debating the issues, is learning how to effectively communicate with people we don’t agree with.
John: “I’m not seeing anyone on the Vanguard Editorial Board who responds to negative criticism in the manner you have described. Do you feel otherwise?”
I would not have made the comment if I did not believe it was true from my perspective. You have a different perspective, congratulations.
Mark, are you being purposely coy? If you have constructive criticism to share I’m sure both the readers of this thread and the Editorial Board members themselves want to hear your thoughts. There is always room for improvement. Your insight can help that happen, but only if you share it.
“Cecilia and Joe and Daniel almost never post, so it clearly isn’t them.”
Are you sure about that?
John:
Over the past couple of years I have shared my concerns on several occasions, both publicly and privately. So far I have seen little change in behavior, though I have seen several attempts at justification. I do not feel any obligation to repeat those concerns or justify my perspective on the demand of you or anyone else.
I will say however that over the years, every comment that I have posted on this blog has been under my own name, allowing readers to judge my credibility as they wish. Looking at the current list of Editorial Board Members I suspect that there may be one, or perhaps two, who can honestly make the same statement.
Barak, no I am not sure, but the few posts that Cecilia, Joe and Daniel have made over the years, have been under their own names. Does that mean that Joe isn’t really Mr. Toad, Barak Palin or John is something we can only speculate on. Given my observations of Joe’s from-the-dias style over the year, I haven’t seen any poster here in the Vanguard that has a similar style.
Mark, there was no intention to “demand” anything. You appeared to be talking to your fellow Vanguardians in your comments rather than to the Editorial Board members. So I thought asking for an additional level of sharing was not problematic.
Regarding the current list of Editorial Board members, Tia Will has been very transparent about her past posting as madwoman. Michele Millet has been equally transparent about her historical posturing as BeNice. Matt and Barack Palin are regularly bantering about how practical matt is and how rusty Barak is about growth issues, so I suspect Matt has posted under the pseudonym Practical. That leaves David, Cecilia, Joe and Daniel to make your two. David posts articles regularly as Vanguard Administrator, so he is out. Do you think Cecilia, Joe and daniel re three, or more than three.
“Regarding the current list of Editorial Board members, Tia Will has been very transparent about her past posting as madwoman.”
I believe Dr. Will would question your spelling of her previous nom de plume. Your version is admittedly humorous, though wrong.
“That leaves David, Cecilia, Joe and Daniel to make your two.”
Long time readers here will remember that David once signed his name to a post that had been entered under the guise of a frequent anonymous poster (at the time). When called on it, he responded that he hadn’t noticed that his computer was still logged on as the alias, a name which subsequently disappeared fairly quickly on the site. You are free to make your own judgement on who in his household was responsible for the anonymous posts.
My one is Daniel, who in my opinion has shown no apparent need to play those sorts of games. I could well be wrong, but that I my assessment.
“Long time readers here will remember that David once signed his name to a post that had been entered under the guise of a frequent anonymous poster (at the time). When called on it, he responded that he hadn’t noticed that his computer was still logged on as the alias, a name which subsequently disappeared fairly quickly on the site. You are free to make your own judgement on who in his household was responsible for the anonymous posts.”
I remember that post too. David played it off at the time just as you stated.
LOL Mark. SIRI clearly doesn’t think medwoman is a real word. I hand;t thought about How David posted for years as Doug Paul Davis. That truly does leave Cecilia, Joe and Daniel. I have no reason to believe any of those three have posted under an alias.
With that bit of housekeeping dealt with, I think the “My way or the highway” issue is much more important. When I read Tia’s and Frankly’s interchanges they seem to be a dialogue of equals. Do you see Tia dominating Frankly? Although Michele doesn’t have a posting buddy like Tia does, do you see her postings as overly dictatorial when she posts?
Frankly’s observations about Don would appear to fit your model, but Don isn’t an Editorial Board member.
In my opinion we have some editorial board members now posting here under an alias. As for you John, since your alias is new to the board and you have so much knowledge of the Vanguard’s past and poster interactions that you too used to post under a different alias or name.
John: “but Don isn’t an Editorial Board member.”
John…I am beginning to fear not only for your spelling ability, but for your reading comprehension as well. Go back and read my original comment that started you on your quest and you will see that my statement was in regards to the Editorial Board and the Moderator. I have never claimed that Don was a member of the former so I really do not know why you are confused.
Mark, I’m not confused at all. Don’s pattern of actively posting on issues about which he is passionate is well documented. All you have to do to get him started with a “my way or the highway” posting is utter the words “Mace 391.” The question has always been whether your model has application beyond Don.
“the editorial board currently consists of: David Greenwald, Cecelia Greenwald, Joe Krovoza, Matt Williams, Michelle Millet, Dan Parella, and (Tia Will).””
Take note everyone, all these people have REAL NAMES, i.e. if they say something “inappropriate” or “racist” (both opinions), they are held accountable. Thus:
TRANSPARENCY OF IDENTITY LEADS TO SELF RESPONSIBILITY.
So Alan, are you saying they all use their real names when they post comments on here? I beg to differ.
Alan, it has been established in prior posts that David Greenwald has posted with a name other than his. For years he posted as Doug Paul Davis. Are you saying that David was not “self-responsible” during that period? Michele Millet has been very open that she posted for an extended period of time as BNice. Are you saying that Michele was not “self-responsible” during that period? Tia Will has been very open that she posted for an extended period of time as medwoman. Are you saying that Tia was not “self-responsible” during that period? Matt Williams has been very open that he has posted with a selected alias that was consistent with the topic being discussed. As I remember, one was Not a Davis Resident because the discussion of parcel taxes affected him differently than other posters. Are you saying that Matt was not “self-responsible” during that period?
I am really tired of the games that are being played here.
MY BETTER SENSE SAYS I SHOULD NOT RESPOND, BUT WHAT THE HELL:
Barack Palin
August 19, 2014 at 9:41 am
So Alan, are you saying they all use their real names when they post comments on here? I beg to differ.
RESPONSE: I agree, of course many of these names are made up, such as Barack Palin.
John
August 19, 2014 at 10:44 am
Alan, it has been established in prior posts that David Greenwald has posted with a name other than his. For years he posted as Doug Paul Davis. Are you saying that David was not “self-responsible” during that period?
RESPONSE: I stopped beating my wife last week.
Michele Millet has been very open that she posted for an extended period of time as BNice. Are you saying that Michele was not “self-responsible” during that period?
RESPONSE: Yes, I mean No.
Tia Will has been very open that she posted for an extended period of time as medwoman. Are you saying that Tia was not “self-responsible” during that period?
RESPONSE: OK, I stopped beating my wife six days ago, satisfied?
Matt Williams has been very open that he has posted with a selected alias that was consistent with the topic being discussed. As I remember, one was Not a Davis Resident because the discussion of parcel taxes affected him differently than other posters. Are you saying that Matt was not “self-responsible” during that period?
RESPONSE: Yes . . . maybe?
ACTUAL RESPONSE: I’m not going to dignify your so-called questions with an answer.
Don Shor
August 19, 2014 at 11:32 am
I am really tired of the games that are being played here.
RESPONSE: Games?
I believe that when people post under multiple log-ins, to the point of referring to themselves in the third person, that it diminishes the credibility of the Vanguard. I consider it dishonest and a form of trolling.
Toad wrote:
> Well I guess its open season on personal attacks when
> the moderator gets to go full bore…
Can you even have a “personal” attack when no one knows the “person’s” name???
“Can you even have a “personal” attack when no one knows the “person’s” name???”
EGGZACTLY! (I am tempted to insult SODs mother as the ultimate irony, but will refrain)
I wouldn’t want the job of moderating this site and I appreciate Don Shor’s volunteering his time to do it. The comments here are in general a lot better than those on the apparently now-deceased Davis Enterprise comments section, probably due in large part to his efforts.
You might think an Ignore function doesn’t make a material difference because it’s so easy to scroll through comments without reading them. That’s actually what I thought until I tried it. Somehow it does make a noticeable, positive difference in my experience of reading the other forum not to be confronted with the writings of someone whose posts I consider to be a waste of my time.
Anyway, I don’t think the Ignore function is hugely critical, nor do I think it’s in any way a substitute for thoughtful moderation. I simply offer it as an idea to think about.
“Somehow it does make a noticeable, positive difference in my experience of reading the other forum not to be confronted with the writings of someone whose posts I consider to be a waste of my time.”
Probable insight into how one filters the world in general.
The main thing that keeps me from reading more and commenting more is that the comments are dominated by the same handful of posters beating the same drum over and over and squabbling between themselves. I don’t think there is a defensible moderation policy that will fix that, unfortunately, but I suspect that I am not the only one who finds this behavior offputting. Too bad the posters in question can’t exercise some self restraint and make this space more conducive to including more voices.
davisite4
As one of the culprits in this form of frequent participation, I had to smile. It seems to me that the best way to change the relative proportion of posts, would be for those who are “off put” to comment more frequently themselves. The Vanguard is not like a personal conversation where one person can continually speak over someone else, or constantly interrupt thereby dominating the conversation. For example, it is entirely possible for you and I to be posting opposing or supporting posts at exactly the same time. Neither or us is preventing the other from speaking ( which is as it should be as this would represent a “soft” form of censorship).
Another difference from the in person conversation is that we can skip over topics or individual posts that are not of interest to us. When certain pairs ( such as Frankly and I) get on a roll with the latest left vs right diatribes, no one is obliged to read. One can just skip over it ……we are clearly labelled. I know a number of folks for example who are avid followers of city events, but who never even look at the court watch articles.
As a reader of the Vanguard preceding the pepper spray incident, frequent poster since then, and more recently a member of the editorial board, I am happiest when there are multiple new voices and frequent posts from those that we hear from rarely. I feel strongly that our power as individual citizens is in our words. The unexpressed thought is one that has no ability to lead to a richer, fuller conversation. For that reason, I would encourage everyone who reads the Vanguard to become fully engaged and posts your thoughts. I think that I can speak for the entire editorial board in saying that we would truly love to hear from you, regardless of where you may lie on the ideologic spectrum.
Tia, surely you realize that some of us don’t have the time to comment more often. I certainly could not keep up with some of the more prolific commenters here. Likewise, I cannot sort through the voluminous comments in order to find ones that are of interest to me. Often I just flip through pages and pages, see the same names over and over, and give up without reading. One person suggested an “ignore” function which would allow us to ignore selected posters. That might help a bit, but in truth, I do want to hear from everyone. I just don’t want to hear so much from the same people. Perhaps some discussions could be taken off-blog when you “get on a roll.”
If you really want to hear from more people, you should encourage the more frequent posters to rein it in a little bit.
Agree. In the hip youth quick reply social media world the term is TLDNR, “Too Long Did Not Read”. I practice this often here for just the reasons you site. Reminds me of one verbose poster from several months ago who often was the last poster on a thread. I imagined most, like me, simply read their post and a few paragraphs concluded, “NEXT!”.
“If you really want to hear from more people, you should encourage the more frequent posters to rein it in a little bit.”
seems like a lot of different people have commented here. if more people post less, then you probably end up in the same place.
most articles don’t end up at 177 comments and when they do, it’s usually not on day one. yeah you don’t read everything, neither do i.
For me, this site adds value when people who are knowledgeable about local issues discuss those issues. I follow national media reasonably closely and am generally familiar with the various issue frames and narratives that are pushed by the major political parties, advocacy groups, ideological movements, etc. I derive little value when posters retell national talking points on this site, especially when they do so without new evidence.
DavisVoter
I completely agree with your comment about the value of those knowledgeable on local issues presenting their viewpoint. As a member of the editorial board, I talk with people who are well versed in national and international issues and those who are not. Some folks like a locally based article which can be firmly linked to the larger issues of our day, while some prefer that the discussion remain local. One topic of interest to the editorial board has been how to balance these varying interests. We have invited articles about national issues but have not received any to consider to date with the possible exception of my piece on the ACA which had a strong local tie in and Frankly’s piece on the “American Dream” which also had apparent local implications both of which might qualify depending on your perspective.
I personally would like to see more authors presenting local, regional and national pieces, or indeed any piece that has implications on the local level.
And for John, the editorial board currently consists of:
David Greenwald, Cecelia Greenwald, Joe Krovoza, Matt Willimans, Michelle Millet,
Dan Parella, and myself.
Speaking only for myself, I am happy to address questions about the Vanguard issues through my private email as I have done in the past with a number of readers and posters. I will provide my private email to any one who has questions or issues that the do not want to bring up on the Vanguard through the existing means of communication.
the biggest answer to that problem is post more your selves otherwise it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I’ll have to remember that the next time my 8 year old’s teacher tells me he talks too much in class. No really, he doesn’t talk too much, the other kids just don’t talk enough…
Spot on hilarious!
“The gate is either open or its closed.”
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. This is the kind of dichotomous thinking that I have frequently called out in the posts of certain commentators from the right who have a much more “black and white” view of the world than I hold. I believe that it is possible to discriminate obvious “hate speech” from the postings of someone who mere holds a truly more conservative or liberal view point from ones own. An example might be “that arrogant, stupid, obstetrician “c….nt” who can’t shut the “f….ck” up ” vs “that arrogant, poorly informed obstetrician who feels the need to post on everything”. I think that most of us would agree that the first should at least be edited if not pulled entirely while the second is fair expression of opinion.
“This has been going on going all the way back at least to a regular poster arguing that we should pay poor young women to get sterilized to break the cycle of poverty”
I have asked you about this previously because I do not know where this is coming from. Can you reference the post in which you believe a poster was recommending what amounts to bribed sterilization ? I know that I personally favor economic compensation as incentive for the use of long term fully reversible contraception but I have not heard the call for sterilization of the poor on the Vanguard. And, as a previous member of the demographic being referenced, “the poor”, and having very, very light skin, I can hardly interpret this as “racist” which implies to me that the author was not intending race but rather poverty as his or her standard for the proposed program.
This might help Vanguard readers and posters understand something.
Frankly, because I am, I think that many people in this town, because they are surrounded by so many people that think just like they think, cannot distinguish well between reading something truly offensive or something that just directly challenges their views.
Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
From that article:
To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided. The funniest and most painful illustrations are Haidt’s transcripts of interviews about bizarre scenarios. Is it wrong to have sex with a dead chicken? How about with your sister? Is it O.K. to defecate in a urinal? If your dog dies, why not eat it? Under interrogation, most subjects in psychology experiments agree these things are wrong. But none can explain why.
The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others. Haidt shows, for example, how subjects relentlessly marshal arguments for the incest taboo, no matter how thoroughly an interrogator demolishes these arguments.
To explain this persistence, Haidt invokes an evolutionary hypothesis: We compete for social status, and the key advantage in this struggle is the ability to influence others. Reason, in this view, evolved to help us spin, not to help us learn. So if you want to change people’s minds, Haidt concludes, don’t appeal to their reason. Appeal to reason’s boss: the underlying moral intuitions whose conclusions reason defends.
And when you understand that last point, you understand a couple things. First, you understand that people claiming to be completely objective and intellectual are either blind to their biases or they have picked up a strategy for trying to protect them. Second, this is why people censor and police thoughts and words. And these people are gleeful that they can use “racism” to beat back opposing dialoged so they can win.
This brings up the fundamental point I am trying to make… is racism a true case for the left, or is it an underlying moral institution whose conclusions defends their paradigms and helps them win?
Personally, I think it is a mix. But unfortunately, it is the latter that prevents the type of problem-solving that would once and for all improve the social and economic circumstances for blacks and other disenfranchised races in this country.
Good post Frankly; yes I think most people (myself included) have sometimes or often jumped immediately to a conclusion about a controversial subject; then later use reasoning in the form of rationalization to justify their pre-formed (and a-rational) conclusions. Yes, to what degree are opinions founded on reasoning from a deep base and to what degree are they founded on rationalizations from a shallow emotionally charged base? Although it also appears that some on the forum are able to express emotions and at the same time exhibit deep reasoning.
I also would contend that often controversies over what are called “racial” issues are the result of sloppy thinking and poor communication skills, including the labeling of some incidents and issues as primarily racial in nature, when they may be more accurately described as cultural in nature.
In my opinion, Don Shor does an excellent job as moderator. It is a fine line to walk, when determining what to “censor” as so unacceptable it kills productive dialogue while allowing the free flow of ideas. That said, one commenter in a previous article hit one nail on the head as to why there are so few people commenting. Too often the editorial board is having a conversation with itself or going into attack mode against those who disagree with themselves or the Vanguard viewpoint, the editorial board providing most of the commentary. I’ve noticed that has started to change, and the conversations are definitely better. Another troubling aspect of this blog is the constant antagonism expressed toward city staff, which I think also drives people away. Thirdly, the blog itself is so overtly liberal, it is sometimes hard to take it seriously. Local issues so often have nothing to do with liberal/conservative ideologies, and yet somehow national politics is often inappropriately interjected into the discussion. Fourthly, the blog has drifted away from good investigative reporting that it used to engage in, and it has become more of a platform for the author’s opinions, which too often are based on whoever happens to have his ear. I have been absolutely appalled at some of the credence given in the blog to blatant misinformation. I recognize the author of this blog is free to write whatever he so chooses, but if greater readership is the goal, I would strongly suggest the editorial board think about some of the constructive criticisms I have offered. I went away from the Vanguard for a long time, and am not quite sure if I will continue to comment.
“Fourthly, the blog has drifted away from good investigative reporting that it used to engage in, and it has become more of a platform for the author’s opinions, which too often are based on whoever happens to have his ear.”
I totally agree. The Vanguard has changed, it’s not the hard hitting investigative blog that it used to be. In my opinion the Vanguard is now more of a mouth piece for City Hall than the watch dog that it used to be. Is part of the reason because we now have a Mayor pro tem that used to be on the editorial board, a former mayor and a council candidate now serving on the board? I don’t know, but in my opinion I feel the Vanguard has drifted away from its roots of going after anything or anyone regardless of their position or status.
has the vanguard changed or the city changed? it’s a completely different council after all. do you think the vanguard changed a month ago when davis got elected?
I think two things have happened. Davis politics have changed primarily because of the severe budget problems, and the Vanguard has matured to cover things more broadly.
I think anyone can write a rabblerousing piece and it would likely be published. That is unlike the Enterprise.
BTW, who owns the Enterprise?
burt and foy mcnaughton
It is owned by the McNaughton family of Davis. They have owned it and several other local papers for decades. Dean McNaughton, who passed away two years ago, purchased The Davis Enterprise in 1967. Before that he purchased papers in Fairfield and Placerville. The family newspaper business goes back much further in the Midwest.
“Thirdly, the blog itself is so overtly liberal, it is sometimes hard to take it seriously. Local issues so often have nothing to do with liberal/conservative ideologies, and yet somehow national politics is often inappropriately interjected into the discussion. “
With respect to the comment above, when talking to local liberals who used to frequent the Vanguard on a regular basis in its first five years, and especially its first three years, their reason for no longer posting is that in their opinion the Vanguard has become a haven of conservatism, and that it has “compromised the liberal ideals that were its reason for being in the early days.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Beauty is absolutely in the eye of the beholder.
All blogs tend to invite a certain level of tension and conflict. People that don’t like that type of thing might be better off getting their news elsewhere. Or maybe they should read the articles and stay away from the comments.
Personally I think they can learn to desensitize themselves by understanding that there are a lot of people out there that think differently and that there is value in having conversations with people that think differently.
Honestly, my motivation for posting on the VG has been that the town has been so liberal that the thinking was myopic… and people were consuming repetition and validation from like-thinkers as facts that were really just opinions. That is a dangerous direction that leads to problems like severely busted budgets.
Anon
I am on my way out the door. I think that you have made some very good points and will be back to address your comments later this evening.
Anon
“Don Shor does an excellent job as moderator”
I completely agree with this. Don is a very good moderator and has been very forthcoming in sharing with David and the editorial board his thoughts on how to improve and be transparent in his role. If his were a paid position, I would agree with those who feel that this is like having a referee involved in the game. However, I would like to remind everyone that he is providing this service as a volunteer. I do not believe that Don should be excluded from commenting here any more than I believe that any members of the editorial board should be prevented from posting.
“Too often the editorial board is having a conversation with itself or going into attack mode against those who disagree with themselves or the Vanguard viewpoint, the editorial board providing most of the commentary”
1) The only time that the editorial board would be having a conversation with itself is if others are not posting.
Do you see an alternative to others posting to remedy this ?
2) Do you have examples of times when the Vanguard editorial board has expressed a unified viewpoint ?
We are really quite often in disagreement over specific issues thus making this a little puzzling to me.
“Another troubling aspect of this blog is the constant antagonism expressed toward city staff”
I agree that a constant tone of negativism can be troubling. I personally would prefer that we discuss ideas and issues rather than individuals. However, when it is individual players in the public sphere whose actions are being criticized this does become difficult. I would add though that city staff is not the only group frequently targeted.
So are elected officials, volunteers on various commissions, specific groups of city workers, candidates, Vanguard volunteers,….it would seem to me that there is plenty of negativity being spread around.
What I am wondering is if you have specific suggestions about what could be done to raise the overall tone given that we have some posters who feel that the Vanguard is no longer “hard hitting enough” while others seem to want a more positive presentation ?
““Thirdly, the blog itself is so overtly liberal, it is sometimes hard to take it seriously.”
On this point, I would have to agree with John that this is a matter of perspective which is clearly dependent on where one falls on the political spectrum. The Vanguard is frequently not nearly liberal enough for my tastes which also illustrates the point that we do not speak with a unified voice. Again, my feeling is that the best way to get a more conservative point of view onto the Vanguard is to submit articles and post in the comments.
The Vanguard, like all blogs that allow commenting in real time is a compilation of the ideas put forth by the authors of the blog and the commenters. This is a conversation space that can be shaped by the individual commenters, and it is unlikely to more closely resemble your point of view if you do not share those views freely.
What I can guarantee to you and anyone else who has suggestions is that your thoughts will be discussed at the editorial board meeting.
Anon: “Don Shor does an excellent job as moderator”
Dr. Will: “I completely agree with this. Don is a very good moderator…”
The vast majority of the time, Don does an admirable job as Moderator on this forum. At issue are the times that he does not act admirably. His defensive attack on Mr. Toad above where he used the content of private emails to justify his position is just one example of his less than admirable efforts. Though relatively rare, his mistakes in judgement negate his overall effectiveness and in my opinion make him unsuitable for the job.
Dr. Will: “If his were a paid position, I would agree with those who feel that this is like having a referee involved in the game…”
It matters not whether Don is paid or volunteers. You cannot be an effective Moderator on a forum where you are also a highly opinionated and frequent poster. This might be ‘doable’ by someone who is able to clearly differentiate between his roles as a poster and Moderator, but there have been too many examples where Don has used his position in an attempt to stifle debate or attack posters he disagrees with.
Anon: “Too often the editorial board is having a conversation with itself or going into attack mode against those who disagree with themselves or the Vanguard viewpoint, the editorial board providing most of the commentary”
Dr. Will: “1) The only time that the editorial board would be having a conversation with itself is if others are not posting.”
I agree with Anon. My complaint is that the excessive Board postings don’t leave ‘space’ for others to have a conversation.
Dr Will: “Do you see an alternative to others posting to remedy this ?”
Yes, limit your comments. When you, Don and Matt account for more than 50% of the comments on a topic you cannot claim that it is a community wide discussion. You are drowning out the other commentators attempting to take part in the conversation with your apparent love of the sound of your own voice.
I was one of three moderators at the very beginning. There was no policy set at the time on what was acceptable or not. We were mainly looking out for trolls – people who post inflammatory statements with no connection to the topic at hand. Then one conversation devolved to allegations that one of our City Council members was severely mentally ill. I felt that this very personal attack had no place on the Vanguard and was off topic and removed the posts. The push back I received astounded me. I was stopped on the street. People phoned me. I had violated their freedom of speech, they said. I explained that the long conversation about the mental health of the council person was a very personal attack and not relevant to the topic, but I was told that I shouldn’t have interfered. I resigned from the role of moderator after that. I felt that people had crossed the line and were taking advantage of the ability to post without identifying themselves to attack someone in such a personal manner. I felt that I was having to place myself in the line of fire to protect people, which was changing how I felt about this community. I believe that public officials actions are open to scrutiny, but there must be some respect for their personal lives.
It is a very hard job, being a moderator.
If this was an anonymous poster, I agree with you that they should have been “moderated”. If they posted by their name, making such an accusation they would be accountable. There is somewhat more leeway I would give to elected officials over city employees, but obviously DG does not agree with that perspective.
this is a funny thread, some are complaining that the vanguard is too liberal, some too conservative.
some complaining that the vanguard is a mouthpiece of the city, others that it attacks city staff too much.
i agree with john, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
DP wrote:
> This is a funny thread, some are complaining that the
> vanguard is too liberal, some too conservative.
When I lived in SF and worked on Willie Brown’s 1st campaign for mayor many of my gay friends (many who were working for the Ammiano campaign) could not believe that I was supporting a “right wing conservative”. The same thing happened when I worked on Newsom’s 1s’t campaign for mayor and my gay friends, Green party friends (who really thought they would help Gonzalez would win) and even the Burning Man friends were shocked I was working for a straight, white, rich, right winger (who they all thought was a plant by the GOP).
Getting outside of SF 99.99% of the US population (including the New York Times) called both Brown and Newsom what they are liberal Democrats. Sure they are not the “most” Liberal (like say Tom Ammiano who in an interview on KGO would not say that he disagrees with Karl Marx when he said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” or another big fan of Marx Matt Gonzalez who (before he became a Green) even members of the US Communist Party called a super Liberal Democrat.
If anyone were to take a summary of the Vanguard outside Davis I’m betting that 99% of the people (including the NYT) would call it a “liberal Blog”. To David’s credit it is not a “partisan liberal Blog” and he breaks Governor Regan’s rule against calling out people in his own party (much to the dismay of people like Toad). We still have huge numbers of people (on both sides) doing what is “best for the party” not doing “what is right” and I’m happy to see that more and more people like David are taking the heat from friends in “their own party/team/tribe” to call out people and work for what is best (even if it is not best for the “party”)…
I think that one perspective that is being missed is the highly variable ideological perspectives of those of us on the editorial board. We vary from myself, the acknowledged furthest to the “left” politically on most issue ( what ever than means ) to Matt Williams who ( arguably now with the new post-election composition of the Editorial Board) is the furthest to the “right” on many issues. We actually represent a fairly broad spectrum and certainly do not march to the same political “drummer”. As DP said, this is truly a matter of “in the eye of the beholder”.
You might see Matt as the furthest to the right of a group of hard leftists. But to me Matt is still a liberal. Try as you might to portray the editorial board as representing a fairly broad spectrum, but in truth the board is still very left leaning.
BP
What I think would be very interesting is to have an actual measurement on where we fall on a number of issues. I think that you might be quite surprised about some of our positions on a number of issues. I know I was. What is needed to achieve this kind of perspective is a willingness to give up on the idea that any individual will be liberal or conservative on any issue that comes along. This can only be achieved if we are willing to give up our stereotypes of what someone must believe.
A recent example was several posters being surprised that I would favor the option of allowing assisted suicide at a time of their own choice to death row inmates. Through the lens of their own philosophy, they found this incompatible with being a doctor, or perhaps inconsistent with my previous posts. But humans are capable of examining each issue separately and judging each concept on its own merits. I am not sure that anyone on the
Editorial Board could be seen as a “hard leftist” but me since Bernie’s departure.
Tia wrote:
> A recent example was several posters being surprised that
> I would favor the option of allowing assisted suicide
Since about 99% of my “left wing” friends agree with me (who is Pro-Choice on EVERYTHING) that assisted suicide is OK I’m not “surprised” that Tia would favor assisted suicide. Maybe those same people (who don’t know many on the left) will be “surprised” when Tia announces that she thinks women should be able to get a prescription for birth control without a note from their husband or father…
Since I no longer have any interest in living in Davis, I have been limiting myself to those issues which transcend your geographic borders. Even though I try to use pointed humour to make my points, I must say that from the beginning of my involvement, I have been surprised that some of the “conservatives” who posted the most hyperbolic and vitriolic comments are so thin skinned. Frankly, I’m glad some have hung around, to carry their pennant. I would be fine with no moderation, since I realise that this blog is just electrical discharge and has no real power over me or anyone else, but you guys living in the peoples republik all know each other and someone might get punched in the nose(Look out, Toad!) or worse.
But come on, disallowing “Oxadised Oracle?” Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
;>)/
You no longer want to live in Davis? No!!!!!!!!!!!!
David, first let me say that I recognize what a difficult task running a blog can be. It ain’t easy.
To be constructive… one possible avenue to address the issue at hand is to develop a list of values (or better yet, have the members develop the values) that members must agree to in order to post; a use agreement that must be checked in order to be granted the ability to comment. There are numerous WP plugins you could use for this.
The benefit of a values agreement is that it provides some latitude for the moderators while laying out clear guidelines for behavior and interaction.
Enforcement will always be tough, but if you implement a system for “group standing,” like green yellow red (red meaning you lose the ability to comment for a designated period of time), this would allow for some enforcement while providing the commentor with a chance to change behavior.
Bill
A values agreement is certainly an interesting concept for board discussion.
To Tia:
My more substantive suggestions:
1. Innuendo, e.g. that somehow city staff are corrupt, etc. is not helpful and is a below the belt tactic. Neither are accusations based on what someone else said assistive or fair. If the Vanguard makes a personal accusation, it should have hard evidence to back up its contention. Don’t throw out mud and see if it sticks. Stick to the facts and what is actually known and provable.
2. Limit comments of the editorial board, so that comments from the editorial board do not make up a majority of the conversation. Don’t choose members for the editorial board who agree with the Vanguard on a particular issue, for the overt purpose of neutralizing opposing points of view.
3. Start doing some solid investigative reporting, rather than taking the word of whoever first whispers in the Vanguard’s ear. Check sources. Interview all sides when exploring an issue. Make sure the Vanguard itself is not spreading misinformation.
4. Try not to interject national politics into what are clearly local issues.
I am not sure what the Vanguard is trying to be. On the one hand the Vanguard seems to indicate it wants to reveal “the truth” about what is actually going on in the city – to reveal what it feels the Davis Enterprise fails to report. Yet IMO the Vanguard often uses less than savory tactics and imprecise language to foster a particular viewpoint to effect public policy. It is the unsavory tactics and imprecise language that I have a problem with. Hope that makes more clear exactly where I am coming from. And I know I am not alone in this opinion.
Anon – you have some good suggestions, but I fear you might not understand what a blog is.
From Wikipedia: A majority are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via GUI widgets on the blogs, and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.[2] In that sense, blogging can be seen as a form of social networking service.
Funny, I do not know your political orientation, but I see a commonality in ideological bent related to the recent commentary.
Some people crave order and control and are made uncomfortable by a more organic self-organizing system that dynamically goes where it goes.
A blog is the essence of the latter. The value is that blogging communities form and sort of make it what it is. If you want to change what it is, then you most blog… make it so from the ground up.
So much top-down control does not fit a blog. Leave that for the Enterprise.
The problem with your premise that the Vanguard is a “blog”, so is nothing but a forum for opinion, is that the Vanguard touts itself as a seeker of truth. I think the Vanguard needs to decide exactly what it wants to be.
Anon
Thank you for putting these points out in such an organized fashion. This will make it much easier for me as I am in the process of compiling a list of suggestions for discussion at the editorial board.
I really have to disagree on one point however. I do not support deliberately censoring any participant on the Vanguard whether it is an editorial board member, the moderator or any other participant. I see the Vanguard as a conversational space where anyone should feel welcome to post their opinion. Again, if you feel a view is being under represented, to me the best way to remedy that would be to put forth that position in a comment or article of your own. It will be interesting to hear other members of the boards opinions on this as it has not been a point that we have addressed directly.
No one, least of all me, is asking to censor anyone. However, IMO the editorial board should not be monopolizing the conversation. Furthermore, you asked for suggestions from your audience that might improve the Vanguard, and increase readership/# of commenters. I gave my personal suggestions. The Vanguard is free to agree or disagree, as are other commenters. What I would say, however, is often the comment section is filled with only a very few people doing all the commenting. That is very telling.
1. Where innuendo starts and stops fits into the same “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” model mentioned earlier. Taje Davis Progressive’s comment about the 5th Street Project. Do you consider two Council members and Steve Tracy, a primary participant in almost all the meetings, sufficient robustness of sourcing to have transcended innuendo?
2. As Tia has pointed out the Vanguard Editorial Board is definitely not “of like mind” There have been significant very overt clashes between Board members and between the Moderator and individual Board members. Don Shor has repeatedly stated here in the Vanguard that he will no longer speak to Matt Williams as a result of those differences. Why should the Vanguard Editorial Board members be sanctioned just because they are volunteering to help the Vanguard be a community resource. I want to hear Tia Wills perspective on healthcare. I want to hear Joe Krovoza’s perspective on transportation. When he was on the Vanguard Editorial Board I wanted to hear Robb Davis’ perspective on both bicycles and connectivity. I want to hear Danniel Parrella’s perspective on being young in Davis. i want to hear Matt Williams’ perspective on water. I want to hear Michele Millet’s perspective on Solid Waste. Why do you want to silence those voices?
3. My personal perspective on this particular issue is that Davis’ government is working much better now than it was in 2006 when the Vanguard began. As a result there are fewer scandals and fewer back room deals to investigate. Our local government is much more transparent and much more collaborative than it used to be. That means less opportunity for “hard hitting investigative reporting.”
4. Good luck on that one. LOL
1. Innuendo is “an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature” – in other words a derogatory accusation without proof. When the Vanguard stoops to personal attacks based on no evidence, or evidence based on what someone else said, I have a problem with that. Why not ask the person being accused of their opinion on the issue and present their view as well, instead of believing the word of someone who is willing to trash another person behind their back? I have no patience for that sort of thing.
2. How does it make for robust conversation when the editorial board monopolizes the conversation? How fair is it for the editorial board to be specifically chosen because they not only agree with the Vanguard’s position on a particular issue, but they are chosen for the specific purpose to neutralize opposing viewpoints? IMO that is not fair play.
3. There are plenty of issues to investigate. Certainly listening to only one side and reporting that as the definitive “truth” is dishonest, especially if what is being whispered in the Vanguard’s ear and repeated by the Vanguard is misinformation.
4. Most local issues have absolutely nothing to do with national party affiliation.
1. Good point. I agree with you.
2. Also a good point. Do you think the Vanguard editorial board speaks as a single voice?
3. When I open the Vanguard each morning, it isn’t difficult to differentiate between the opinion articles and the news stories. Your point appears to be that David can still do better. Hard to disagree with that.
4. Most national issues are independent of national party affiliation. As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents. By 2011, Gallup found that Americans identifying as independents had risen to 40 percent.
No, I do not believe the editorial board speaks as a single voice. What I do think is that an editorial board member may be chosen specifically for their agreement on a particular issue with the Vanguard, for the sole purpose of neutralizing opposing views.
Anon – Why don’t you just come out and tell us who and what you’re talking about? Aren’t you the one who supposedly opposes innuendo?
Anon, do you think the Vanugard has chosen the editorial board members or that the editorial board members have chosen the Vanguard?
The Vanguard chooses the editorial board.
While true, probably about two-thirds of the people I have asked over the years have turned it out and mainly because of time crunch.
That is like saying the City chooses the membership of its various Commissions, Committees and Task Forces. For the most part volunteerism starts in the home of the volunteer.
Frankly
“Your utopian desires are unattainable, and hence irrational to pursue.”
I totally disagree with you that my belief that we can eliminate racism or any of the other isms is either utopian or unattainable. We as humans have the ability to exercise free will. When the majority of us were willing to stop drowning witches, we stopped. When the majority decided that we would stop lopping off people’s extremities or putting them in public stocks, these behaviors stopped. When we choose to teach our children that being a different color, or religion, or gender, or having different sexual preferences do not matter to one’s worth as a person, then and only then will the “isms” end. We have only to decide to do this. It is in our hands. To pretend that it is beyond us is to condone what we know to be a reality. We have the ability to change our world and have done so again and again. To pretend that we cannot change this aspect of our being is to advocate not even attempting to change it. I find this a very disappointing attitude from someone who frequently posts that he believes in personal responsibility.
This has nothing to do with personal responsibility, and everything to do with human behavior.
So are you content in just weeding out 100% of any speech that may be considered racist or biased against some protected group, or do you also want to reach down into their thought to weed out those too? Maybe some shock therapy? Or, how about we “evolve” hate crimes to include a knowing look?
And what about all those man-haters at the League of Women Voters and Now events? Are you going to perfect that language too, or let is slide?
I’m a realist. I don’t chase rainbows because life is too short and it would cause me to waste time and never accomplish anything.
Here is what I would rather we do.
Say “Son, the world is full of ignorant and emotionally dysfunctional people. Most of them are really harmless, but some of them are dangerous to your well-being. Let’s talk about all the ways you can deal with them and not let them prevent you from achieving your goals. And by the way, note that we have a black President… there is really no reasonable goal you cannot achieve owing enough hard-work, self-determination, personal responsibility, care about your fellow man, belief in something bigger than yourself, strong morals… and a little bit of luck. But you know what? Do all those other things and luck tends to be there. Good people having decision power and influence recognize a good person and a winner. They recognize someone with goals and striving to reach those goals. They are drawn to those type of people no matter what color their skin. However they turn away from people behaving badly no matter what color their skin. You will face adversity and you will likely make some mistakes. Just don’t make bad mistakes that you cannot recover from, and learn and grow and develop your capacity and capabilities. There will always be a percentage of people that are racist. Because racism is ignorance, and there will always be ignorant people. Don’t let it bother you. Rise above it and be great, because you can be.”
Frankly
Now you just made up a bunch of stuff to throw out there. Please notice that I did not say anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What I said was that we have ability to teach our children anything we like. If we choose to teach them to think of others as inferior or immoral, they are likely to do so. If we teach them to be non judgmental and open to others, they are likely to approach the world in this fashion. We have previously done this with many, many other attributes of people, I believe that we could approach the “isms” in the same way.
Tia – I am wired for solutions not constant chatter about problems. Can you help me understand your vision for solutions?
You believe there is too much racism in Davis and in the US in general. Certainly you believe there is too much racism in St Louis. Fine, so then what do you propose in the way of real tangible solutions to reduce racism to a level that you would no longer count it as a big enough problem to warrant fixing it or chattering about it?
But let me put a hypothetical out there for you.
Teachers hold power over students. Some teachers oppress the development potential of students. Should we start a constant chatter about this… letting students know that they will be oppressed and mistreated by some biased teachers and so they will be victims of this and not responsible for their own failures in life? Or should we explain to them that teachers are people with their own personal biases and flaws of character, and that they should learn how to cope in school because teachers just reflect life in general.
Tia wrote:
> If we teach them to be non judgmental and open to others,
> they are likely to approach the world in this fashion.
I’ve noticed that most (but not all) people who tell others they “teach their kids to be non judgmental and open to others” more than 90% of the time it only applies to the people they “like” and they are ready to “judge” and or try to silence people they don’t like such as born again Christians, NRA members, and tea party members.
As a test I’m wondering if Tia (or any others on this site) would be “open” to any of the following at a Davis School event:
A born again Christian group talking about how same sex relationships (and abortion) are a sin (that will send you straight to “HE” double “L”).
The NRA talking about how kids can learn how to defend their homes with guns (and how making your own lead bullets and reloading can help to get around any future restrictions on ammo sales).
How we can lower taxes (and reduce ADA funds that trickle down to many people who think the term “illegal alien” is racist) by closing our borders and deporting all the “undocumented super hard working nice people” here who are not actual “citizens”.
I might be open to these kinds of talks, with a few caveats (such as Tia, below, provides).
First of all, what age group are we talking about? I would suggest that your first event (telling impressionable young children they are going straight to “HE” double “L” because of their sexual feelings) is probably only appropriate for high school students.
And while a talk on gun safety (which I would hope would be rolled into your suggestion) is probably appropriate for elementary-school kids, the issue of taxes and the ADA is likely to go right over their heads, if not the undocumented worker issue.
Secondly, I would be uneasy with such a religious event being tied closely with the school. If it were an after-school event such that attendance was not compulsory, and if there was an opportunity for a rebuttal by perhaps the high school Gay Student Alliance (or a community group of that nature), or medical doctors providing medically-correct information (if the topic is sexual health and abortions), I think this would be fine for high school students–and possibly even more mature junior high students.
For me, my willingness to support any of these events would boil down to the age group, whether attendance is mandatory, and whether or not there would be opportunity for opposing views to be heard.
Offering one man’s opinion; I think Don is overall doing an excellent job as moderator, and have a hard time imaging anyone who could do much better. Perhaps he’s not perfect, but even Solomon himself would likely displease members of the forum at certain times. Like a politician, he has the impossible job of pleasing all the people at all times.
A few thoughts after reading every single comment in here.
First, everyone needs to keep in mind that it is mid-August. A week from tomorrow we will have the first city council meeting in six weeks. So we have had a lot more commentary, but I have also tried to bring in much more in the way of guest pieces, than we might normally have.
One of the things I have really tried to do in the last two years is draw a hardline between news and commentary.
Second, we are constantly trying to figure out how to do this better. So I will keep in mind everyone’s comments.
Third, balancing the line between decency and free speech is far more complicated than people think.
Fourth, those who see too much influence from the editorial board in comments, that may have happened in an article or two, but I just don’t see it. Michelle has been gone a lot this summer, Matt is infrequent depending on the topic, and really only Tia is on here. Ironically I’m trying to get my board to do more in terms of the writing. And we’re not of one mind on the issues. So that’s one I’m not getting.
Fifth, in terms of the bent of the Vanguard, when I started this in 2006 until 2010, there was a constant 3-2 majority that was diametrically opposed to every major issue. Since then, the council more often than not agrees on core issues. I don’t think either the council or city staff thinks that the Vanguard is their mouthpiece, the city manager has some choice words about the Vanguard from what I hear, but naturally the focus is going to be different than it was five years ago. We’re a lot more focused on public engagement than we were five years – for example.
Hopefully that helps.
We are working on several documents and when the new website is launched in four weeks, we will have an about page with those documents posted.
Nice summation. Keep up the good work!
I do hope you’ll consider the Ignore feature. It would make it easier to filter this site for useful information and well-supported viewpoints vs. less useful commentary.
I think you need to explain this feature. I am not familiar with it. I am familiar with a “like” button. In that case you just don’t click like if there is something you don’t like and would prefer to ignore.
And what you consider useful commentary and what others consider useful commentary are going to be different.
For example, I consider your post above to not be very useful.
Frankly, the Ignore feature when activated replaces the comment of a specific poster with some thing like the following:
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by DavisVoter. View it anyway?
The comments for any individual poster are hidden only for the person who has activated the Ignore feature in their profile for a particular poster. For instance, Rich Rifkin went out of his way to call me a troll last week, citing the fact that none of my posts had any substance or redeeming value. Given those feelings, Rich with the Ignore feature could go into his own user profile and put John on Ignore status. Thereafter he would have seen “This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by John. View it anyway?” rather than whatever drivel I happened to be posting at that particular moment.
The Ignore feature makes scanning a Comments section easier and less time consuming.
“Rich Rifkin went out of his way to call me a troll last week”
Actually he didn’t because there is no “you”, only a pseudonim. Hard to call someone who has no face a name.
Let’s use your example to help you understand how this common feature of Internet forums works. Let’s say you decide that my posts in aggregate are not useful to you and that you’d prefer not to see any more of them. You would have the option to “Ignore” me, and my posts wouldn’t be displayed anymore. You could opt in to see individual posts of mine at any time. (The opt-in feature helps when a conversation you want to follow engages a poster you’d otherwise choose to ignore). Your decision to ignore me would have no effect on anyone else’s ability to see my posts.
Your second and third points help explain exactly why I would like an Ignore feature. Rather than explaining to the community why you find that my posts offer you negative value, you could simply mute me and enjoy the site more while allowing others who dislike the posts less to continue to read them. Each person can apply his or her own criteria to customize his or her own experience.
As noted previously, the function would not be a substitute for robust community standards, but rather a supplement to them.
The drawback of course is that perhaps ignoring makes it too easy to withdraw from conversation rather than engaging others. This is a topic for a longer conversation, but one short reply is that people have the choice of leaving the site altogether rather than upping their level of engagement with viewpoints they might prefer not to engage. The Ignore function offers a middle ground.
I don’t know much about the inner workings of Internet forums and blogs, so I have no idea whether such a feature is reasonably technically feasible for this site.
I have never seen a feature like that on any blog I have participated in. You are basically asking for a tool to help you segregate yourself into your own custom community of bloggers. That is exactly the opposite of what a community blog is supposed to be about.
The drawback of course is that perhaps ignoring makes it too easy to withdraw from conversation rather than engaging others.
Yes, that is the problem.
What blog psychologists have discovered is that a simple “like” or “dislike” button tends to help motivate better posting. People tend to like the sound of their own voice, and naturally seek more likes and fewer dislikes.
But I am thinking that the VG might want to raise the sophistication of that mechanism to a “value” or “don’t value” switch. Or something along those lines. For me, I can value a post that I don’t like. And also, I might value a lot of “don’t likes” depending on the topic.
By the way, I find this post very, very useful and interesting. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I disagree with the characterization and argument in the above post, but I don’t really want to spend more time discussing this unless I hear that it is something that will actually be considered at some level. If it doesn’t fit with Greenwald’s vision for his site or is technically infeasible, so be it.
As mentioned above, this is a common feature on many Internet discussion forums (perhaps not so much in “blogs”).
And it’s not so much that users who take advantage of this feature “segregate [themselves] into [their] own custom community of bloggers.” Instead, the feature is typically used in cases where the person finds posts made by one or more members of the community to be very offensive, and so they wish to not see these posts.
Personally, I’ve only ever known people to use this feature in extreme circumstances and not just to block alternative opinions they just do not wish to listen to. In my experience, it’s a last resort sort of thing.
To David:
1. I would agree that trying to draw the line between “decency” and “free speech” is a very difficult one, and in general, IMO, the Vanguard gets it right. I appreciate the ability to post anonymously, something the Davis Enterprise no longer allows, which has cut off almost all dialogue.
2. If you cannot see the over-influence of the editorial board in the comment section, you must need reading glasses! On certain articles, an editorial board member(s) almost completely monopolizes the dialogue. Several of us who comment and are not on the editorial board strongly agree on this point – I certainly was not the first one to bring up this point. When another poster brought this issue to light, suddenly it seemed as if members of the editorial board made an effort to tone it down, and the dialogue was much improved because it represented more voices. I don’t have any particular problem with editorial board members commenting, but what I do have a problem with is editorial board members commenting more than a majority of the time on any particular article. I would agree with the poster who mentioned this issue first – more than 15-20% of the comments by editorial board members is just too much.
3. I do not think the Vanguard is a “mouthpiece” for the city. However, IMO it at times is a “mouthpiece” for certain members of the community who have the Vanguard’s ear, and the Vanguard does not take the trouble to obtain opposing viewpoints, do even the most basic research, often relies on what someone else said as its source of “evidence”, and at times spreads the very misinformation that has been whispered into its ears.
4. Innuendo, by degrading others, w no evidence, is below the belt tactics, and never acceptable in my book.
“If you cannot see the over-influence of the editorial board in the comment section, you must need reading glasses!”
I often don’t get a chance to read the comments until the next morning, but it hasn’t been my perception that this is a frequent problem. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a frequent problem, just that I don’t have that perception.
I personally don’t think the ed board writes too much. Their comments are generally of high quality, refer to evidence, and don’t just amplify a national noise machine’s talking points.
“I appreciate the ability to post anonymously, something the Davis Enterprise no longer allows, which has cut off almost all dialogue.”
That’s not actually true. The Enterprise requires that you have a Facebook account (a policy I abhore because Facebook is evil). You can create a Facebook account under any name you wish.
“Innuendo, by degrading others, w no evidence, is below the belt tactics, and never acceptable in my book.”
Especially from the Anon . . . . . ymous posters.
South of Davis
“As a test I’m wondering if Tia (or any others on this site) would be “open” to any of the following at a Davis School event:”
This depends completely upon grade level. If you are talking about at the high school, I would support any such group presenting their ideas as long as done in a format in which a presentation was also allowed from anyone having opposing views and/or differing information. I think perhaps you did not take me seriously when I have said that I believe that even the Westboro Baptist Church ( whose speech I found about as loathsome as possible) had the right to present their message. I believe that our right to free speech should apply to everyone.
Tia:
I’m impressed to hear that you are breaking with the typical left (and right) “it is not censorship if we don’t like it or think it might hurt some feelings” point of view.
P.S. Bonus points for supporting the Westboro Baptist Church (who just about everyone on the right AND left hate)…
South of Davis
Just one point of clarification. Please do not for one moment think that I am “supporting
the Westboro Baptist Church”. I am supporting their right to free speech which I feel is identical to that of everyone else.
PS I hope that did not lose me any “Bonus points”. At this point I feel that I can use all I can get ; ).
Tia wrote:
> Please do not for one moment think that I am
> “supporting the Westboro Baptist Church”.
Don’t worry I don’t think anyone thought that since I would be surprised if even a single person (not a “member” of the church) supports them…
As one of the few people that supports free speech for ANYTHING and is Pro Choice on EVERYTHING I’m surprised how many people (on BOTH the right and left) “only” support free speech when they agree with what the people are saying (You can talk about Jesus, but not about Satan) and are only Pro Choice when they like the choice (you can choose to have an abortion but you can’t chose to stop paying a union).
> PS I hope that did not lose me any “Bonus points”.
You can get even more bonus points if you exercise “your” right of free speech to tell the bikers, gang members or UFC fighters that lost brothers in Iraq when the Westboro Baptist Church is going to be “speaking”…
“I believe that our right to free speech should apply to everyone.”
Everyone who is a person. A pseudonym is not a person. Free speech applies to those who have the courage to show their face as well as their opinion.
Alan
I have mixed feelings about this issue. I can see many reasons other than cowardice for choosing to use a pseudonym. I myself chose to post in that fashion for several different reasons.
The first was ignorance. When I first began posting on the Vanguard, I did not appreciate that it was not basically universal to post using a pseudonym. I did not yet know any of the players and so did not know whether anyone except David was using their real name, or one they had just made up. Thus the choice of medwoman. The second was out of intended protection for others, not for me. I was concerned that my kids, one of whom was still local, might in some way be targeted. Also, I was concerned about the well being of my colleagues since there are still occasional hostile actions taken against those who promote certain sensitive women’s health issues.
I got over it. But I have recently had some very nasty comments ( directed at me through my personal email) which gave me pause. However, I feel strongly enough about the importance of a space for conversation about public issues that I got over that too.
This is an ongoing issue in editorial board discussions. I personally continue to lean towards an open policy because I do not want to drive off those who prefer their anonymity and would not post without it.
On the other hand, I certainly can understand your position and would like everyone to feel safe enough to post using their true identity.
Several years ago, on another site, some individuals posted personal information about me, including what they thought was my address (thankfully, they were wrong), and my phone number. Soon thereafter I received an anonymous death threat.
T,
When you say, “getting over it”, I suggest you gained courage. Having said that, I agree with those reasons to be anonymous. As I posted down at the bottom, I am not protesting anonymity, only the imbalance when someone misuses anonymity power by not be accountable for ones actions by not being identifiable. When we were granted in our constitution the power of free speech, I don’t believe that included yelling insults and exposing people from a position of anonymity. How could that even happen before technology? An interesting conundrum: does free speech apply to those that hide behind the cloak of technological anonymity?
We were granted in our Constitution a lot of rights that are largely trampled upon. Coordinated attacks by well funded activist groups seek to destroy people over “free” speech they disagree with.
I think you don’t get the spirit of a blog. If you knew my name only, you would not know me. As I post and you read what I post and respond and we have a conversation, you would get to know me.
And for all you might know my name is what I post as.
It should not matter what name I use as long as I use the same name.
Nobody is forcing you to read or have a conversation with anyone else. You have freedom of association. It is the freedom of named posters that is at risk.
If you are a child of the 60s, blame in on your generation for elevating the uncivilized behavior of civil disobedience to some respected status.
I post as a private citizen, but previously have had the company I work for damaged and threatened over things that I wrote.
Speech is far from free.
“We were granted in our Constitution a lot of rights that are largely trampled upon. Coordinated attacks by well funded activist groups seek to destroy people over “free” speech they disagree with.”
Agreed.
“And for all you might know my name is what I post as.”
Actually anyone with only a first name is anonymous unless they are sincerely posting as “Oprah”, “Cher”, or “Barak”. And I do know who you are because, (1) Someone outed you here about a year ago — not directly but enough to identify you, and (2) You made the same exact comments once at City Council meeting that you posted as “Frankly”, about something that identified you like a finger print.
“It should not matter what name I use as long as I use the same name.”
And as been pointed out here, some people don’t.
“It is the freedom of named posters that is at risk.”
And only because of technology can people have a voice without an identity.
“I post as a private citizen, but previously have had the company I work for damaged and threatened over things that I wrote.”
And if you stand behind those things that you say, that is the price of free speech, and worth it.
Frankly
I am totally confused by your last post directed to me. Your first state that you are wired for solutions, not chatter.
Then you proceed to “chatter” about what I must think about racism in Davis.
Then you appear to be asking me for my solutions.
Then you “chatter” on about some kind of hypothetical with teachers than totally left me wondering what exactly we were talking about.
If you are truly asking me what I see as the solution to the “isms” of our day, I will answer. I believe in a three step approach.
1) We stop denying that this is an ongoing issue in our society. You yourself have said it exists and that we will never rid society of it. In other posts, you have claimed it to be “minimal”. My guess is that it is not “minimal” or “inconsequential ” to the person experiencing it. So if it exists, ending denial would seem an obvious first step.
2) As individuals, we call ourselves, and our family members and friends out on it when we see ourselves manifesting this. Until we honestly address it in ourselves, we will have little chance to do away with it. This would include my previous comment about not teaching it to our children either deliberately and to the best of our ability inadvertently.
3) We apply the same standards and expectations to everyone whether in our medical system, our educational system, our judicial system…..not just say and pretend that we do.
“I am wired for solutions not constant chatter about problems”
Do we have a Post of the Year competition here? I have an early nomination…
For someone on his high horse for meaningful posts, you don’t seem to take your own medicine.
I have no problem with the barb if only you followed it up with something to actually contribute to the topic.
You really don’t seem to get it. It’s not that every single post has to be serious, data-driven, and/or humorless. It’s that when the balance gets too out of whack for a poster, I’d like be able to ignore the person. Length matters too.
If we had an Ignore feature, you could simply ignore me if you don’t like my posts…
Now you have indicated that you are a female.
How is that for tasteless and useless humor!?
On the serious side, maybe the VG should consider a word limit to keep the posting succinct and compact.
“On the serious side, maybe the VG should consider a word limit to keep the posting succinct and compact.”
Wow, talk about DOA in this environment.
Tia – there are no actionable items in your post. Step 1., step 2, step 3.
What is the protocol that you recommend.
Saying “we need to stop denying that this is an ongoing issue in our society” means absolutely nothing. It is just chatter.
Think “how” now that you have chatted about the “what” ad nauseum.
You see a problem. How do we solve the problem?
For example, how do we “stop denying”. And by the way, I would like for your solution to be applied to any case where there is destructive denial. A person that denies he has a drug problem. A person that denies that we have severe fiscal problems from overpaying government employees. A person that denies that we cannot afford to take care of every poor and uneducated person that comes to this country illegally.
Your second point has a bit of a solution, but is still lacking in enough substance to put something into action. Don’t we indoctrinate all of our college students into hypersensitivity? And I think even the public schools do the same these days. So what do you want to do differently? What actions? What government policies? Or do you think that just continued chatter about the problem is enough of an action plan?
Your point about applying standards in a business makes sense because there is authority and consequences for not applying standards. So what are you talking about here with respect to racism? Again, there is not actionable suggestions here, just chatter.
Think about a medical treatment protocol. Say we have a disease called racism, and you are the doctor that is going to treat it to make the patient (the American public) better. What are the steps you recommend in that protocol? What policies? What actions? What tools? How are you going to lift (or “left up”) up those minority groups that you believe to be continually held down because of the existence of racism in this … the most open, the most free, the most inclusive, the most accepting, the most multicultural… country in the world (except maybe Canada)?
Frankly, what you advocate is the antithesis of critical thinking. You are focusing on the implementation of a solution, but with your methodology is there any assurance that the solution you are implementing is a good match to the problem?
First step… identify the problem.
So let’s start there. What is the problem?
I can define it from my perspective… that blacks as a group are overrepresented in negative social and economic circumstances, and underrepresented in positive social and economic circumstances.
“that blacks as a group are overrepresented in negative social and economic circumstances, and underrepresented in positive social and economic circumstances.”
I don’t think that identification of the problem, even while true, is helpful. I would revise it thusly:
People overrepresented in negative social and economic circumstances, and underrepresented in positive social and economic circumstances, generally come from broken family environments 1) where most children are born out of wedlock, 2) where before having children mothers and fathers fail to establish stable marital relationships, 3) where mothers and fathers before having children fail to provide a stable economic household or one where, even if they suffer an economic setback, they have developed the work skills to suffer a loss and move on, and 4) where their children’s education is not a high priority.
Insofar as black Americans are overrepresented in the negative stats, I think that mostly emanates from the four family factors outlined above. Of course, millions of black Americans are successful, as well. A disproportionate share of those who are come from stronger, healthier families. The difference thus, is not being African American; it’s the decisions of large numbers of mothers and fathers who are black.
Obviously, the same faulty family traits that many black families have occur in whites, Latinos and other groups. Where whites or other non-blacks have negative outcomes, certainly their family structures in general play a big part in that.
I have not seen any data for years regarding black immigrants from the Caribbean* or from Africa. However, I recall (back in the 1990s) that they had very good numbers in terms of success in school, economic prospects, business start ups, low rates of incarceration and low rates of out-of-wedlock births and low rates of divorce. I suspect most of the reason they were not highly represented in the negative categories was due to their drive as immigrants and their stronger and more stable family structures.
————-
*If I recall correctly, the Afro-Caribbean stats exclude Puerto Ricans, due to their status as American citizens, but include all others from the Caribbean basin.
This NYT op-ed by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld lays out a lot more factors in terms of culture and values which they believe generally drive success:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html?_r=0
What caught me–largely because I was looking for some supportive information on black immigrant success–was this from the Chua and Rubenfeld argument:
“There are some black and Hispanic groups in America that far outperform some white and Asian groups. Immigrants from many West Indian and African countries, such as Jamaica, Ghana, and Haiti, are climbing America’s higher education ladder, but perhaps the most prominent are Nigerians. Nigerians make up less than 1 percent of the black population in the United States, yet in 2013 nearly one-quarter of the black students at Harvard Business School were of Nigerian ancestry; over a fourth of Nigerian-Americans have a graduate or professional degree, as compared with only about 11 percent of whites.”
Also, I found this statement interesting, because all too often affirmative action racism puts “Asians” in a certain box and “blacks” in another and “Latinos” in another, etc.:
“Meanwhile, some Asian-American groups — Cambodian- and Hmong-Americans, for example — are among the poorest in the country, as are some predominantly white communities in central Appalachia.”
Not said, but what those three groups generally have in common is they come from mountainous regions rich with natural resources. That is a recipe for poverty the world over. They also never develop an affinity for education. The cultures which come from those circumstances tend to be more about surviving in the present and not planning for or saving for the future. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to that. There is a Hmong family in Davis which runs the excellent fresh strawberry and other fruits business out at Road 98 and Road 31. You won’t find better strawberries. They seem to have good business sense and a strong family.
Rich – I think you moving toward root causes.
Hypothetically, if blacks as a group were not over represented in negative social and economic outcomes and were not under represented in negative social and economic outcomes, I don’t think we would care so much about those other issues because we could not say they were contributing to any actionable problems.
But you are taking the next step after defining the problem, and that is defining the root causes.
Only after that should we develop solutions. Because if we don’t target the root causes of a problem, we will never solve the problem.
What I see is people focusing on racism as the only actionable root cause. I think that is absolutely a mistake as racism as it exists today is only a small piece of the puzzle… and it is constantly shrinking as older generations die and are replaced by the more socially enlightened generations. We don’t need to do much to decrease the occurrence of racism other than just wait.
The argument from many on this blog is that racism IS the problem. But it cannot be the problem based on several perspectives. One prominent one is that other groups face racism (or similar) too but it does not impact their positive or negative outcomes (for example, Asians and Jews).
If I were to agree with your list of root causes, then I think there is tremendous value in starting the dialogue for how to solve them. Solutions to the root cases are the key to making improvements. And don’t we all want the improvements?
“What I see is people focusing on racism as the only actionable root cause.”
In the long list of things which lead to economic and social failure, the prejudices of outside groups has to have the least impact.
Even if someone were convinced as a child into thinking that, due to his race and the racism of others, he had virtually no chance to make a success of his life, he would still likely become a success if 1) his parents were in a stable and married relationship, 2) his parents had a stable source of income and prepared themselves with education and job skills before they started a family in order to survive economic setbacks, and 3) his parents highly valued education and encouraged him to work hard in school.
A person with that sort of family background might still think something like “America is imbued with racism.” But the education and stability of his childhood would convince him, at least, that he could overcome any hurdles in his path.
I agree 100% with this. And one able to overcome the hurdles in his path becomes a force to help nullify the effects of ongoing racism.
One the most absolute ways to fix the problem of discrimination is to become the boss and lead by example.
But I think, and it is the reason for so much of my effort blogging on this subject and risking being labeled racist and a cockroach, is that I see most of the energy going to blaming the prejudices of outside groups on the negative over and under representation. For example, it is absolutely racism that is the reason this 18 year old kid was shot and killed by a white cop. It might be proven that this is the case, but the writing has been almost immediate that this was/is the case. We don’t know yet.
For me the more important discussion would be about this kid’s behavior that led to this tragedy. And related to his behavior, did he have the strong and stable family with the values you mention?
How do we prevent the next tragedy like this? What are the real and lasting solutions? That is what interests me the most… and I think it should everyone else too.
Even though I think racism plays almost no role at all in holding back any Americans who come from good families, I do think that cops (of all races, including blacks) whose experience on the job leads them to assume the worst of young black males. As a result of that type of thinking, it stands to follow that completely innocent young black males are going to have more negative interactions with cops than most other Americans. And as a result of that, it’s understandable why young black males and black people in general might have either a negative view of the police or a wary view of the police, and when there is a horrible outcome, as happened in the Michael Brown case, so many people assume the worst of the cop.
On the other hand, I think a lot of people, who should be more circumspect in cases like this one, are quick to presume Mr. Brown’s innocence and the cop’s guilt* in order to send the “I am not a racist, brother!” message out to the world and especially to their fellow travelers.
_____________
*I am sure there are plenty of people who have done just the opposite: presumed Brown’s guilt and the cop’s innocence. They likely run in completely different social circles from the folks who have been quick to assume the cop murdered Brown and he did so because of racial bias.
Rich, a friend who was a police officer knew the stats – that he was 8 times more likely to be killed by an African American male, than by any other individual. He said that when he pulled a car over with young black men, the hair on his neck stood up. I should also mention that my friend never discharged his weapon in his career.
(for example, Asians and Jews)
As I have stated before, I find so-called “positive” racism as destructive and offensive as so-called “negative” racism. Opposite end, same stick. Burn the stick, people. Quality of their character, not the . . .
I don’t think being aware of facts or culture or success is “racism”.
If you take a mammoth jump and say that “Orange people are incapable of being doctors or college graduates”, then sure, open the floodgates of criticism.
“I don’t think being aware of facts or culture or success is “racism”. ”
Absolutely agree, TBD.
My point about “positive racism” is that individuals may be expected to have those traits, and harm to even come to individuals by expectations, positive or negative, being placed upon, ahem, “their race”.
Everything is polarity. You cannot have “Asians and Jews are smart, without the implication that everyone else is dummer. You say a “positive racist” statement (one end of the stick), and without saying a thing about the other end of that stick, the other end of that stick has been created. That’s why I say, “burn the stick”.
I think if the so-called “black underclass” followed the formula of Ethiopian-Americans, Nigerian-Americans, and Korean-Americans – marriage, family formation, savings, education, they would have similar success.
Frankly
“Saying “we need to stop denying that this is an ongoing issue in our society” means absolutely nothing. It is just chatter.”
I could not disagree with you more.
My career tells me that the first step in problem solving is to admit that you have a problem.
My own daughter’s first step to recovering from anorexia was to admit that she had a problem.
I have met many, many women who’s first step to dealing with their breast cancer was to admit that the lump in their breast was a problem.
You state that you are solutions oriented. As a doc and surgeon, so am I.
I do not know of a single solution that can be arrived at until there is acknowledgement that there is a problem to be solved. Lack of acknowledgement of a problem is called denial.
Tia–I value the inputs of both you and Frankly on the topic of racism and other topics, and usually read both of your posts with interest; in my view you each are contributing something of value to this forum. My own views on the topic of racism is that it is a problem of moderate importance in the big picture of our society; and while it may be minimized by some, this is often in response or reaction to the inflating of this topic by many politicos and the mainstream media–one need only look at the present situation regarding the shooting near St. Louis; many influential and high-ranking politicos, rather than responding in a mature and balanced fashion to moderate the situation, have followed the somewhat irresistable route of attempting to collect political capital on the situation, and have helped to inflame it with rhetoric that contributes to the rioting; the media is having a field day with this and making their own contributions to keep this violent circus going.
tribeUSA
Thank you for the comment. One thing that Frankly and I firmly agree upon is the issue of personal responsibility. One thing that we seem to disagree on is the influence of the press.
While I agree that various “politicos”, talking heads, and various members of the press will spin this into whichever version best meets their ideologic viewpoint, this is simply not important to me. The issues that are important to me are :
1) What actually happened ?
2) Where did the responsibility lie at each step along the way ?
3) Could there have been other actions that could have been taken by any of the participants ( the young man or the police) that would have avoided this outcome ?
4) What are the lessons that we can bring back from this event to our own community to prevent similar episodes from occurring here ?
That is basically if for me. All other speculation about his behavior in the store, his family composition, his demeanor towards the police are all just that at this point in time, speculation.
Who has denied what? This topic has been beaten like a dead horse for three decades, but rarely is the topic of absent Fathers addressed.
TBD
My comment about denial was based on conversations between Frankly and myself in which he has repeatedly stated that he feels that the issue of racism is “de minims” in our society today and others in Vanguard posts have frequently labeled basically any mention of a contribution of race as “race baiting”.
To me these comments represent a denial that racism is a problem in our society.
Now I realize that there is a difference between “denial” and assigning a lower level of importance to a problem. I also feel that there is a difference between “chattering” about a problem and working towards solutions. My “denial” comment was in direct response to Frankly’s question about my suggested solutions.
I think that the first step in solving a problem is always admitting that there is one. That is the necessary first step even before prioritizing it or breaking it down into smaller manageable components for resolution.
I don’t agree that the topic of absent fathers is “rarely” addressed. It comes up almost every time there is any conversation here about race or poverty. True, it is not often elaborated on. That is a shame because I think it is clearly one of the contributing issues. What I would like to see is an article, perhaps from someone who does raise this issue repetitively, on how we, as a society could promote strengthening this relationship.
Tia wrote:
> Now I realize that there is a difference between “denial” and assigning
> a lower level of importance to a problem.
I’m also hoping that Tia also realizes that “race” is FAR less of a problem than “class” and other social issues.
Many of the left leaning people I know brag about how “diverse” their circle of friends are, yet while their friends are Black, Asian, Indian and Mexican they all went to Cal, Stanford or Harvard…
There are times that frequent posters work to drive people they disagree with off. I feel that sometimes. If you want people to participate, then these kinds of attacks need to be at least identified for what they are. I think we all need to be more conscious of posting comments that add to the conversation and try harder not to try to steer the conversation toward favorite, but off topic, issues.
Like your constant attacks on Mike Harrington?
Perfect. Just perfect.
Yes, I wonder if the irony was intended.
Fine. Goodbye.
The irony of Barack Palin’s comment, not yours.
Spot on hilarious!
I see by far the majority of the comments are by anonymous people. With the Enterprise shutting down comments by the anonymous, we have a situation similar to when your neighbor sprays for cockroaches — all the cockroaches go next door, zooming around ultra-active fighting for their survival. From the article the roaches have nothing to fear — the Vanguard likes cockroaches. I will continue to post under my name, knowing that as a human being I am superior to cockroaches.
O loathsome crawling thing
Be done with your miniscule affairs
O hungry creeping speck
I release you from your cares
Be gone Roach!
You live on carrion
That’s outrageous
You’re probably contagious
Blind crippled and half-squashed
and yet you carry on
Your persistence is disgusting
I could never find myself trusting
A creature that would rather live in the trash than in the lawn
Cockroach your problems are not mine
I love life but with you I draw the line
Not to flaunt my superior design
But next to you I’m practically divine
Ha! Leave it to a Davis poster to create a new class elitism… those posters that use their own name versus those “roaches” that don’t.
I like cockroaches. They are survivors.
You don’t count Frank Lee, because I know who you are. Actually I know who several of the anonymous posters are. I hear (from anonymous sources) that DG knows who most of the anonymous posters are. I may even be one of the anonymous posters myself. Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
Ok, but I still like cockroaches. My kids had pet Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches. Fascinating bugs. They gave birth and we called the Exploit center and they took them all in… because the 100s of babies was the last straw for my poor spouse.
Did you really say “the Exploit center”?
Interesting perspective Alan. Can you name a single new anonymous poster that has come to the Vanguard since the change in policy? I can’t think of a single one.
How about you, John?
Good question Rich. I have never posted a comment on the Enterprise, so the change didn’t affect me. Read about the policy change in one of the Enterprise print editions. In addition, I ended my long silence on the Vanguard somewhat prior to the Enterprise’s change in policy. So no migration in my case.
Anon’s participation predated the policy change as well. No migration there either. A quick Google search of the terms DavisVoter and Davis Vanguard shows a post by DavisVorter in May at https://davisvanguard.org/davis-city-council-community-values-forum/ which was long before the Enterprise policy change. So no migration there either.
Google found nothing other than very current for Napoleon Pig IV and Davis Vanguard, so that poster may indeed be a migration.
Napolean had posted a few times in the past this spring.
Napoleon Pig IV.
Anon, John, DavisVoter to name a few.
Please let that fourth-generation Corsican swine trundle on over! He/she will make the case for the Ignore feature better than I ever could.
I’ve been posting some for several months, although I’ve been posting a lot more in the past few days, obviously. I don’t think it’s related to the Enterprise as I posted there only rarely.
I obsessively track them on an excel spreadsheet.
I would think that calling other posters “cockroaches” violates the Vanguard name calling policy. So why is the post still up?
Why do you think?
Please explain, I don’t know when I compare it to other posts that have been taken down for much less.
I suggest you focus on the content of your own posts, and worry less about the content of others. And if you have comments or suggestions about the moderation practices on the Vanguard, you can contact me directly at donshor@gmail.com, or contact David via the links at the top of the page.
Barack, perhaps it is because Alan paints the characterization with such a broad brush that it doesn’t apply an insult specifically to any individual person.
Okay John, perhaps then I can post similar posts as long as I use a broad brush. Do you think that’s practical?
Per David Greenwald:
Barack, the only one who can determine whether that’s practical is you.
I have a knack for identifying what’s practical.
You do have that knack. Don’t let it get rusty.
Thanks, I’ll be sure to keep my senses sharp. There are a few others that I’m pretty sure of too but unlike you they’d never own up to it. That’s one of the many reasons I do happen to like you, believe it or not.
I believe it. we should have an anonymous cup of coffee some time.
“I would think that calling other posters “cockroaches” violates the Vanguard name calling policy. So why is the post still up?”
” . . . perhaps it is because Alan paints the characterization with such a broad brush that it doesn’t apply an insult specifically to any individual person.”
The purpose in posting this inane characterization was to bait the anonymous posters to see who if anyone would take it personally and call for it to be taken down, and to see if — in the ultimate irony — the Vanguard would take it down. Of course, I insulted no one, because:
1) You can’t insult someone who only they themselves know because of the use of a pseudonym.
2) In “insulting” a group, especially when they are all by their nature pseudononymous, you are indeed not insulting any one person, and certainly not by name, as they have no identity.
3) I was being ridiculous. So ridiculous that not recognizing how ridiculous that was would be ridiculous.
4) Although in being ridiculous I was making a point, by painting a picture, a picture full of cockroaches.
Kudos keeping the post up, Vanguard!
“An idea isn’t responsible for the people who believe in it.”
― Don Marquis, Archy and Mehitabel
Egg-zactly!
Amazing, I guess the Vanguard is showing its true colors.
tut tut Alan–by the curl of my antennae, you sound cockroach-phobic to me!
A swing and a miss.
To David Greenwald: In the Vanguard article My View: The Community Needs to Come Together If It Wants Economic Development, there are 26 out of 54 comments by either you or the editorial board. That is essentially half the comments.
If we made a movie about the Davis Vanguard and all who blog here I think it would look something like this…
http://www.wimp.com/strangepublic/
Clem
Thanks for the laugh.
You’re Welcome
Anon
I would like to respond to your point about the composition of the editorial board and why we were selected.
I was very surprised when David asked if I would like to participate. I asked him outright why he had asked me.
I hope he will not mind my sharing, but I think what he said was an honest and complete answer.
He told me that he felt that I would bring a different perspective to the editorial board. One of his goals was to build a board with links to different aspects of the community and he did not have anyone from the medical, public health and safety oriented community. I think that it is safe to say that I definitely bring a different perspective in that I have what I agree are some very idiosyncratic and outlier viewpoints about our society.
I can absolutely guarantee that I was not selected to advocate for any position of the Vanguard. As a matter of fact, David and I are frequently at odds, but clearly have respect for each others point of view as I find to be the case with all of the editorial board members, past and present, with whom I have worked.
To Tia: Just because you may have been chosen for the editorial board, does not mean others on the board were not chosen to neutralize opposing views. Look to what issues are important to a particular editorial board member, the timing of when they were asked to be a member of the board, and the circumstances surrounding their appointment.
I don’t see this as a very fruitful point of discussion, editorial board members were chosen for a variety of different reasons and the people that I have asked represent a pretty varied group. I don’t see how this really furthers the conversation or understanding at this point.
Just responding to Tia’s comment.
I will now repost my comments on Vanguard policy, as DG’s article here suggests that my previous comments may have been taken down since they were not in an article about Vanguard policy. Which is cool, if not ironic, as the posting of comments critical to the Vanguard comments policy created this article and thread on Vaguard policy. I post these so they may be considered in tomorrow’s discussion by the editorial board.
Note that I do not call for a ban on pseudonyms. For the record, I do not believe anonymous posters are cockroaches, nor do I believe that all of them are cowards — only some of them. There is a use and purpose in being able to post anonymously. Most obvious is when someone with inside information posts this information anonymously because to do so under their name could threaten their job or place in the community. My serious objection is the use of anonymity to attack others or expose others — especially to expose those who are not “public figures” — while remaining free of repercussion by hiding like a coward behind the cloak of lack of identity. If a known person such as myself makes such an attack or exposure, I am accountable for my actions by being known. I am asking that the anonymous, and I include those under fake names, be held to a higher standard because by nature of being anonymous are of a different standard of identity.
Here are my previous comments:
Allowing an on-line public pissing contest between a known person and an anonymous entity makes as much sense as throwing a baby in a cage with an evil spirit. RRs comments may seem like name-calling, and they are, but he is a real person standing by his remarks. The anonymous are . . . well, RR already said it. Yes, I will now be attacked by the anonymousites here, and in this I will respond as RR did, except in advance, to all anonymous in particular.
I frequently called for the shutting down of the anonymous in the Enterprise comments due to the destructive nature of the anonymous yielding power thru their ability to say anything without personal consequence. The Enterprise recently did so . . . The anonymous, shut down there, are now trolling louder here as their very existence as anonymous obnoxious beings are threatened.
Mind you, unlike on the Enterprise, I am not for anonymous beings being shut down here in the Vanguard. I understand that some are, on some issues, in a position where they cannot say certain things that are valuable information (though I think far more use that as an excuse to say anything they want without consequence). Trollish flaming, however is cowardly, uncivil and unproductive. That is the failure of Vanguard commenting policy.
Several days ago I called one anonymous entity a “d–k”. I am sure that comment was immediately removed and it should have been. My point in doing so was not that my calling someone a “d–k” was appropriate, but that the comment previous where an anonymous person used a common shutdown tactic that included a directed insult at me while remaining anonymous doing so was far more inappropriate than calling an anonymous person, who by nature cannot be identified, a “d–k” or “S head” or whatever. I request of David and the Vanguard not to allow personal insults by the anonymous as comment policy. Note: earlier in the discussion another commenter also used a shutdown tactic / personal insult, but they identified themselves by name, taking responsibility for the comment; to them I would say, on-line or in person, “well played, sir”, as they displayed courage by declaring identity.
Further, the discussion a few days ago in which City Staff were named, and then their alleged motivations declared, was disgusting, as done from an anonymous pulpit. Again, I blame Vanguard comment policy far beyond the anonymous person who is simply being enabled in their infantile cowardice. Whatever personal feeling I have toward a member of our City Staff, they are employees, not public figures, and they should not be personally cited BY NAME in a forum such as this, and most especially not by an anonymous entity.
Those are my beliefs on bringing improvement here for informative yet remotely civil comment discussion.
Alan
“toward a member of our City Staff, they are employees, not public figures,”
A point of clarification about your post. At what point do you differentiate “employee” from “public figure” ?
For example the city manager would in my opinion be both. So would Nate Trauernicht and Bobby Weist.
Would those employees who give presentations before the City Council count as both, or as only employees.
My personal preference would be for the action, not the person to be referenced in derogatory statements from those who are anonymous, however, I do see the downside as they will then be challenged to “be more specific”. It can get a little sticky and I am wondering where you would draw the line.
“Several days ago I called one anonymous entity a “d–k”. I am sure that comment was immediately removed and it should have been. My point in doing so was not that my calling someone a “d–k” was appropriate, but that the comment previous where an anonymous person used a common shutdown tactic that included a directed insult at me while remaining anonymous doing so was far more inappropriate than calling an anonymous person, who by nature cannot be identified, a “d–k” or “S head” or whatever.”
Without intending it Alan has pointed out one of the other pitfalls of anonymous posting, which is the prejudging of a comment based purely on the identity of the commenter.
The directed insult that Alan references was in a post by me, in which I asked a question and made an observation, “Alan, what alternative billing method do you propose? It appears that your comments are much more about complaining than they are about solving.” It was an honest question. It was a quest for a solution to the real life sewer service billing problem that Alan had illuminated in a prior comment.
It was also an observation on the fact that Alan had initially called out the problem and stated that “Other cities have other structures for sewer that are perfectly legitimate.” but he chose not to describe any of those structures.
On the surface the question and observation appear to be benign, but it appears that the anonymity of the questioner transformed the benign into the malignant. Either that or my choice of wording in the question and observation was poor enough to convey an insult where no insult was intended.
And I do owe you an apology, “John” for labeling you a “d–k”. Obviously you did see the post before it was (I assume) taken down. I was making a point, but even though you are pseudononymous on this forum, you are human, possibly even someone I know or will know. Your reasoned response to my insult shows you to be a person of character. Well played, sir . . . or madam.
The issue beyond the barb and response, was that I am not an expert on utility rate structures. I know enough to know that not all towns (probably not most towns?) have their sewer rates based on a previous set of month’s water usage. [My objection is persons paying the sewer rate may not have lived in the house at the time. While the idea may work when *analyzing* sewer use spread over the population on average, it will completely fail in numerous individual cases, and therefore is inappropriate to apply as a billing method.] My sense was you knew I didn’t have the answer to your question and that you were using that to shut me down, as I was not going to spend hours researching city sewer rates in order to find a better answer. I was not trying to evade the question, I just doubt most people know enough about utility rate structures in numerous cities to give a reasoned answer.
Apology accepted, although not needed. Chalk it up to heat of the moment.
You and I are in agreement that the current winter water lookback is massively flawed. The challenge is finding a less flawed method.
Cheers . . .