Since the beginning of the Vanguard, one of the more controversial issues has been commenting. We have done a lot over the years to address concerns about commenting. I submit to anyone who was here pre-2009, this place was much more vitriolic than it is now. However, required registration and moderation by Don Shor curtailed some of that.
Still there are persistent complaints, whether it is regarding anonymous posters or too many comments by the editorial board. Less public is a general belief that a small number of posters, some with strong ideological bents, dominate the conversation.
I want to address some of this today. Part of what we have tried to do this year is introduce more voices to the Vanguard, and we have gotten a number of people to sign up as monthly columnists. Some of these people have been submitting columns, others are expected to do so relatively shortly.
We have discussed anonymous posters many times, both on this forum and on the editorial board. I understand the concerns raised – however, each time we have discussed the issue, we have ended up in the same place. Anonymous posting has a place – there are people who for various reasons would not be able to participate without protection in place. There is also a general belief on my part that people need to have a safe space to be able to dialogue.
So here today, I wish to primarily discuss the other issue – domination by the editorial board. If you look at the list of the most prominent posters, there are 13 with more than 1000 posts. The most prominent poster is not a member of the editorial board.
There are three members of the board, in addition to myself – Tia Will (No.2), Matt Williams (No.6) and Michelle Millet (No.11).
Don Shor is No.5 on the list but he is not a member of the editorial board. There are a lot of people who mistakenly believe that he is a member of the editorial board. However, by design he is not. The idea was for him to be independent of the board. The board makes policies – we often ask his input, especially on moderation issues, but we have left the policymaker independent of the implementer.
Don Shor has also attempted to separate his participation as moderator from that as a poster by labeling his posts as “Moderator” when he acts in that capacity. There are those who have disagreed with Don Shor, but it is important to remember two things – one is that he has done this since 2009 and volunteered hours of his time with no compensation.
Second, he is simply implementing policy that the editorial board creates and so, if there are disagreements, we will often review more the policy than the specific decision to make sure that we are doing the right thing.
It is also worth pointing out that we currently have six members of the board; in addition to the three prominent posters we also have Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, Joe Krovoza and Doug Stone, who just about never post. And we will have a seventh member of the board this week, who also never posts.
So, while it is true that Matt Williams, Tia Will and Michelle Millet post frequently, it is also true that they will constitute less than half the board.
I would also point out, particularly in the case of Don Shor, Tia Will, and Michelle Millet – they were selected in part because of their frequent participation. I got to know Don Shor primarily through my interactions with him on the Vanguard, and Tia Will and Michelle Millet exclusively.
A final point – for the most part I did not select people for the board with whom I agree on issues. To cite several pretty prominent issues: I didn’t agree with any of the three prominent posters or Don Shor on the water issue. I was much more skeptical of the project than any of them.
On innovation parks, I’m probably more aligned with Matt Williams and Michelle Millet than Tia Will or Don Shor.
On the MRAP, I was in clear disagreement with Michelle Millet on that issue, while Matt Williams was more in the middle and Tia Will and I were in agreement.
On court watch articles, while I often find myself in agreement with Tia Will, the others ‒ Michelle, Matt, and Don ‒ aren’t even interested for the most part in court watch issues.
The point is that there is not exactly broad agreement among the board members on key issues before the community.
In the end, the Vanguard Board members were selected in part because of their interest in the issues facing our community, and there are times when they engage in the conversation. However, I disagree with the idea that they dominate discussions or that they should refrain from participation – that was part of why they were asked to join the board in the first place.
That said, we are always looking to improve. This year we are focusing on adding more voices to the front end of the conversation in hopes that will mean more people are willing to step up on the back end. As always, it’s a work in progress.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Personally I have no problem with how much the editorial board or anyone else posts. But being that the Vanguard allows posters to have multiple aliases how do we really know how much the editorial board actually posts? I don’t think multiple aliases should be allowed. I don’t think it’s right when posters can use themselves to back up points that another of their aliases posted.
And, your evidence that this “multiple aliases” is a happening thing? I’ve seen aliases “evolve”, and have seen folks using their own name/switching to alias, using alias/switching to name, but haven’t picked up on anyone using real/alias or multiple aliases in ‘real time’ (could be I’m naive). I agree it would be disingenuous to point/counterpoint or “rah-rah” yourself, unless of course the individual is possessed of multiple personalities. In that case, we should not discriminate on the basis of a medical/mental condition.
BP, because this is an issue that you have raised repeatedly over time, I’ve taken your concerns very seriously and attempted to identify evidence of the multiple aliases pattern.
What I have found is that there are several posters like yourself who have changed their screen names on occasion over time. To the best of my knowledge you have had three, and none of those three overlapped with one another. Tia used to post under the screen name medwoman, but when she chose to move from alias to real name, like your changes, her change was “complete” and we have not seen a medwoman comment in well over a year. I can think of a few others BNice transitioned to Michelle Millet. But in all those cases the transition was both clean and complete.
There is another category of name changes that are benign in my opinion.. As you know from prior posts by me on this subject, there was a period of time where involvement in a legal case saddled me with a legal commitment that prevented me from posting under the name Matt Williams, and in topics that had nothing to do with the legal issues, I very transparently used an alias. When the legal case ended my public pronouncements constraints also ended. Like your transition from Rusty to GI to BP, my transition was Manechean … either one or the other, but not both.
That gets us to those screen names that one “suspects” are the same person based on posting style. Sometimes I “suspect” that you and Frankly are the same poster, because you frequently sound alike. Sometimes I suspect that Aggie and Becky are the same poster. However, those are suspicions, and the fact is that none of us really know whether our suspicions are correct.
The final category that fits your description/concern happens during the election season, and one particular poster, beginning with the Nancy Peterson events and lasting through the end of those events in April 2014 actively used more than one screen name simultaneously. The Vanguard Editorial Board has resolved to do our best to make sure that that pattern doesn’t repeat itself.
So, bottom-line I think you are carrying forward a level of concern about the simultaneous aliases issue that isn’t supported by the historical evidence. With that said, I am completely open to talking with you more about your concerns and/or suspicions.
Matt, the way you always step up to defend the Vanguard you remind me of Lanny Davis when he comes out of the woodwork to defend the Clintons as he is know defending Hillary. You of all people know I’m good at identifying when someone is posting under a different alias. In my opinion we have posters who have been using more than one screen name at the same time. Matt, answer me this, why does the Vanguard keep the practice of allowing posters to have more than one screen name at the same time? David must have a reason.
BP
I am neither accusing nor defending the Vanguard as I do not know the facts regarding posting under multiple names. If you have information that this is indeed the case, why not state who you think it applies to and then they can address the issue directly. This business of saying, “I know but I’m not telling ” seems a little coy to me.
BP and Tia… I respectfully suggest that anyone who feels/has evidence of inappropriate use(s) of multiple personas, forward that information, “off-line” to the VG, directly to the moderator, David, Matt, or any other board members who have shared their direct e-mails. By posting the “evidence”/suspicions on this venue runs many risks, IMHO, including being ‘wrong’ in an accusation. Rifkin, a long time ago, accused me of being Bobby Weist. That was weird.
I think it’s clear that David and the editorial board are receptive to concerns re: abusive/nefarious postings. Just my thoughts.
“If you look at the list of the most prominent posters, there are 13 with more than 1000 posts.”
God, to have not posted 21 of those posts . . . . .
Being in the top 13 (couldn’t have been the top 10 or top 12 ???) is not a badge I wear with any honor. I have had three friends recently suggest I could do much better and more effective things with this time than post in the Vanguard, combined with some choice criticism of the Vanguard itself.
Learning I had over 1000 posts is rather like an intervention, the part where your grandma brings in the 1000 beer bottles she’s been pulling from the recycle bin and dumps them on the living room floor to show you how much you have been drinking.
Oh, God, I did it again: now 1021!
Somebody stop me!
Alan: Very wise advice given to me–by a very wise man long ago–advice that I fail to heed enough:
Never pass on the opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
It’s served me well, and I wished I’d use it more. No copyright, so for your consideration.
A very wise man indeed . . .
However, I am unsure how to maintain my reputation as as asshole if I don’t open my mouth.
to steal from a good song, “I love you just the way you are…”
[OMG, since Stevie Wonder is black and blind, did I just say a racist, and or disability-insensitive thing?]
Alan Miller, I work from my desk at home so I keep an eye on the Vanguard while I sit here. But like you I feel my time could be more productively spent than hanging out on the Vanguard, just ask my wife.
You mean your husband-wife.
Ms. or maybe it’s Mister, Palin brings up a point for which I’ve had a long-held suspicion, but no proof.
There have been posts in the past where there seemed to be some level of contrivance or orchestration. One post was essentially a “hanging curveball,” followed immediately by “a grand-slam home run.” Was this one person posing as two?
Now, Palin’s post says we do have schizophrenics in our ranks. If this is true, anything that can be done to prevent this gets my vote.
Don Shor does a good job in a thankless task.
I know that the Vanguard allows multiple aliases. This isn’t the first time this has come up, I’ve complained before and was told the policy would remain. Phil Coleman, I have my suspicions too, especially in regards to one poster in particular.
Phil, to the best of my knowledge (see my comment to Barack Palin above) there have been no instances of simultaneous aliases since April 2014 when the second alias of one particular poster last posted. If you have suspicions of such a “hanging curveball” and “grand slam home-run” contrivance, please e-mail Don Shor and share your concern so that we can look into it in more depth.
Matt: I accept your pronouncement on faith alone. As I noted, my suspicions lacked any evidence or proof, so I kept them to myself. Probably should have continued with that stand. I sure did not lose any sleep on this issue.
But I do appreciate Palin’s raised point of concern, your assurance, and what appears to be, resolution.
Phil, I have offered Barack Palin many times the opportunity to dig deeper into his concerns. That offer still stands, and will stand forever. To date he has not taken me up on that offer. I know that he has concerns about preserving his anonymity, and I have assured him that I will make Herculean efforts to ensure that his anonymity is preserved if we do meet. When I read his comment last week to TrueBlueDavis that he wanted to exchange e-mail addresses with TBD, I had a glimmer of hope that he might reach out to me as well. He knows that my e-mail address is mattwill@pacbell.net.
“there have been no instances of simultaneous aliases”
Given that I have figured out or been told who a couple of the anonymous posters are, I can tell you definitively that is not true. You’ll have to confirm that yourself. Hint: one instance is VERY recent.
Matt, please tell us all how you would know for sure?
There is no way to know for sure whether someone is posting under multiply names.
I don’t think Matt knows for sure, but one of the things he did do was attempt to go through thousands of spam registrations and attempt to discern real from spam, and in the process has a fairly good handle on the registration situation.
BP,
Miss Clairol told me, which is why I said “to the best of my knowledge …”
With that said, one of the Vanguard’s regular commenters pointed out to me that I excluded the recent dust up where people objected to Frankly posting comments in Jeff Boone’s article. From my perspective that was a Flip Wilson / Geraldine moment.
Lol, Matt. The Devil made you do it!
“Frankly posting comments in Jeff Boone’s article.”
We are close friends.
Which is why the two of you were easy to overlook.
Guess I could see someone posting completely factual information (no spin) under one ID (real or alias), and posting feelings/opinions/etc. under another. Been tempted, a few times, but haven’t given in. Yet.
Having 3 on the editorial board and DG making so many of the comments (~ 9800) is like the Vanguard having a conversation with itself! LOL
in practice, i don’t see the board members having conversations with itself. for the most part, there is a small core of people that post everyday, there is another group of people who post often. my biggest complaint is that there are about six hardcore right wingers that monopolize the conversation, a lot of my posts are when i take the bait and decide not to allow those comments to go unchallenged.
“my biggest complaint is that there are about six hardcore right wingers that monopolize the conversation”
And that is a problem WHY?
“a lot of my posts are when i take the bait and decide not to allow those comments to go unchallenged”
I would venture to say that the “right wingers” (I wonder if DP considers me a “right winger” . . . hmmmmm . . . ) similarly take the bait and post so your comments do not go unchallenged.1022 . . . #doh!#
it’s a problem because a lot of people who used to post here don’t anymore and while there are a wide variety of reasons for that, one that i hear all the time is that they don’t have time to sit on here all day and respond to the few right wingers that seem to hijack every topic and if allowed to would turn every topic into a debate on obama.
“it’s a problem because a lot of people who used to post here don’t anymore”
#smallestviolinintheworld#
“and while there are a wide variety of reasons for that,”
Such as . . .
“one that i hear all the time is that they don’t have time to sit on here all day and respond to the few right wingers that seem to hijack every topic and if allowed to would turn every topic into a debate on obama.”
Or they could choose to not read the posts by those they consider right-wingers.
• Do your friends have so little self control?
• Are you proposing banning the right wingers from the blog?
• Have you considered that the right-wingers don’t particular like all the postings by left-wingers, such as yourself, also known in today’s article as “Number Three” (and “Number Two” may be considred a bit left of center as well); not to mention the blogger themselves!
Trait that I have noticed much more of lefties than righties is a tendency to want the other side silenced, often out of some belief that leftie views are so absolutely correct that the “other” view should not be heard.
i find it interesting how you can dish it out but not take it.
“Or they could choose to not read the posts by those they consider right-wingers.”
that’s what they did – they chose to not read the posts by those they consider right-wingers by no longer posting.
“Do your friends have so little self control?”
i don’t #1024
“Are you proposing banning the right wingers from the blog?”
yes
“Have you considered that the right-wingers don’t particular like all the postings by left-wingers, such as yourself”
they can choose not to read the posts by those they consider left-wingers, do they have so little self-control?
on a more serious note, my actual goal was to reframe this debate away from the vanguard editorial board and towards the right wing posters. do i consider you one of them? on some issues. you’re more zany than anything else however.
I don’t care about hard-core republicans posting. I do care when posters personally attack the author or other commenters, or other people in the community. It is also annoying when they tell people “what the really think”, or when they make assumptions about why people act the way they do and state those assumptions as fact.
“i find it interesting how you can dish it out but not take it.”
I would say choosing to not post anymore because of a lot of people with other opinions would be ‘not taking it’.
“that’s what they did – they chose to not read the posts by those they consider right-wingers by no longer posting.”
I would say choosing to not post anymore because of a lot of people with other opinions would be ‘not taking it’.
“i don’t #1024”
Assuming I understood that, you may have got a laugh out of me.
Are you proposing banning the right wingers from the blog? — “yes”
Not THAT I would love to have you expand upon: why, how, who would do the judging, reason that would be a good idea, etc.
“they can choose not to read the posts by those they consider left-wingers, do they have so little self-control?”
. . . “and I turned it around” – Boston, band, “Don’t Look Back”, lyrics
“on a more serious note, my actual goal was to reframe this debate away from the vanguard editorial board and towards the right wing posters.”
I think we actually agree on one thing, not having an issue with the editorial board posting.
“do i consider you one of them? on some issues.”
Good answer.
“you’re more zany than anything else however.”
Great answer.
For example:
“Ten years ago or so, I would have been like Alan Miller. I had not personally experienced differential treatment on the basis of race, nor had I observed it.”
They includes the very heartbeat of the Vanguard.
Anon, one of the common characteristics of the members of the Editorial Board is their long history with the Vanguard. My own first comment on the Vanguard is dated July 8, 2007 … 2,801 days ago. So my 2,324 comments amount to less than one comment a day on average. That isn’t a whole lot of conversation with oneself on a daily basis. Like many commenters here on the Vanguard, I have issues that garner my attention. When Mark West complained that Tia and I were commenting too much, I did a study of comment pattern, and for me, more than four out of every five articles David published garnered no comment from me. Water … Land Use … The MRAP … Elections … All of which are topics that broadly engage a substantial cross section of the Davis populace. In those issues, if the Vanguard is having a conversation with itself, then there are lots of other people participating in that conversation as well.
Bottom-line, what I have observed is if the individual positions of different posters are different, then the chances that one poster will believe that the other poster posts too much are greatly increased.
The other hot button that some people have is when they don’t want a particular topic talked about. That happened in Water, where many posters wanted Mike Harrington silenced. [edit] Mr. Toad has accused the Vanguard of providing a haven for the propogation of racism and hate speach.
When everything shakes out on most of these hot buttons there are frequently just as vehement feelings at the opposite pole of the issue.
[moderator] edited by request
I suspect that David and the VG got criticized over something I wrote critical of the three CC members that voted to approve the CFD.
I am not surprised that I have the highest number of comments. Like BP, my job (which is a much more than 40-hours per week) keeps me on-line almost constantly. So I get to monitor the VG almost constantly (as well as a couple of other news and debate sources I frequent). I also only sleep about 5 hours per night.
About 8 years ago after ranting about the growing left tilt of the media and the increase in the amount of political or ideological “editorial” embedded in what was supposed to just be news reporting, my wife said “why don’t you do something about it?” She is probably sorry now that she said this because my “do something” was to actively debate the other side of politics and ideology in a feeble attempt to pull the conversation back to a reasonable middle ground.
In all the months I have been in this active debate mode I have learned quite a lot. That was the other benefit I expected to get out of all of this participation and I have not been disappointing there. My thinking has changed on a number of topics that have been debated on the VG. I have learned and continue to learn a great deal.
But one thing that did not change is my understanding that people, especially people in Davis, had grown used to hearing their more left-leaning views echoed in all the things that they read and hear. They claim vitriol (and there is certainly a supply of that from both sides of many of the debates we have on the VG), but much of that is simply writing they disagree with. They basically have lost the ability to respectfully listen to and accept opposing views. They want the other side to at least concede a tie. But there should be no tie when there exists ideals and values deemed harmful and damaging… from either side.
I don’t know of a single successful and active blog that does not generate a lot of complaints about tone and civility and ???. Getting that type of response is, IMO, a sign of success. The VG has implemented a policy and an effective moderator to help keep it managed… and I think it is effective. Beyond that, if the VG wants to try and keep everyone happy and concedes to these people that really want a more politically/ideologically-sanitized resource, then I would expect much lower blog participation.
But another idea is to decouple the blog/comments from the article. If people are upset at the comments they don’t have to read them.
I don’t understand the complaint about editorial board members commenting too much. (I do see how anonymous commenting could be a problem for someone). If editorial board members were be given some kind of posting preference or as a group pushing a pre-determined agenda then I guess I could see were someone might have a problem, but that is not the case.
If people have concerns that VG is being dominated by editorial board commenters, and thus unfairly shaping public opinion, my suggestion to them would be to comment more themselves, instead of asking others to remain silent.
“I don’t understand the complaint about editorial board members commenting too much.”
Obviously, editorial board members are neither human nor members of the Davis community. Is that so hard to understand?
Alright you got me, I”m not really human. I was sent down from an alien planet to conduct a social science experiment to see if I could successfully, and unfairly shape public opinion, buy spending all my time commenting on a community blog.
My commanders better not see my numbers, or it’s (we don’t have genders where I come from) going to know I’ve been slacking on my mission. Damn Facebook, why do videos of kittens playing and pictures of what people are eating for dinner have to be so alluring.
If you have a small scar on the back of your neck, I saw that movie.
The original or the remake?
And here I thought you were sent from an alien planet to rid the Earth of plastic bags.
That is my cover story.
Maybe those six hardcore right-wingers (me included I am sure) and the VG editorial staff should agree to not post for a month or two and then the VG can determine if this improves the business in any way? Will those irritated reads fill the void with comments, or will they continue to remain silent?
When people advocate for silence it makes me nervous and it leads me to wonder if they, or someone they support, is doing something the don’t want people to know about.
I think there are those that advocate for silence (and I agree with your concern) and then there are those that welcome conversation but want everyone to frog-march down a narrow path of group think. I think it more the latter than the former.
I don’t read the Sacramento Bee any longer because the left bias in the reporting would cause steam to shoot out my ears. My spouse and the kids and the dog would all run and hide from the coming tirade.
But that was because the Bee was/is supposed to be a news source (not talking about the Forum section).
But the VG comment section is supposed to be individual opinions. So anyone complaining about opinions, from my perspective, are just upset that the conversation is not more controlled and sanitized down to a narrower path of group think. I understand their steam, but it is misplaced. They have been spoiled by the lack of verbal opposition outside the lines. But living in a bubble is about as unhealthy as is having steam shoot out your ears. The VG is actually good for readers’ health if they can control their steam.
Actually, frankly (because I know you are) you and some others have adopted a style of commenting that uses [deleted] pejorative/’universal’ adjectives that are [deleted] almost every [deleted] other word. Those who [deleted] feel that they [deleted] have to use [deleted] adjectives so [deleted] often, in my [deleted] mind lose their [censored/deleted ] credibility. But that’s just my [censored] opinion.
LOL! Very [deleted] entertaining hpierce!
Yes, I am into labeling. I do so because it stirs up heat to get people off their high horse of cemented righteousness, and also helps to flush them out of hiding behind their wall of cemented righteousness.
When there are profound differences in opinion and there is no conflict then there is generally no progress. I know a lot of people would prefer to be allowed the dignity of holding onto their values and beliefs while not being labeled as being part of the tribe that holds the same values and beliefs… but then why even talk about the differences between our values and beliefs?
There are individuals, but there are tribes and there is group-think. There is also demographic filtering and possibly one day science will help us understand why a place like Davis is dominated by people holding liberal views.
When I use the term “left” or “leftie” or “left-leaning” or liberal or Democrat in anyway critical… the response from those fitting the criticism seem to quickly take it personal and get defensive and actually quite steamed. However, if you want to label me a Conservative or “righty” or “right-leaner” in criticism of my views and values… I have absolutely no personal problem with it as long as there is some topic we are debating and there is some meat behind that criticism.
If you are really confident in your views, and/or if you are really open to listening and learning, then you are someone that is less likely to get steamed and take things personal when there is criticism.
“But another idea is to decouple the blog/comments from the article. If people are upset at the comments they don’t have to read them.”
If people cannot not read them anyway, decoupling them is not going to do a lot for these poor souls.
Alan, you also have people who claim not to read posts but then still comment about them. I guess they’re clairvoyant.
or, Clare Voy’s aunt.
“you also have people who claim not to read posts but then still comment about them.”
I comment without reading the articles. Saves time.
Frankly
“If you are really confident in your views, and/or if you are really open to listening and learning, then you are someone that is less likely to get steamed and take things personal when there is criticism.”
Very strange coming from an individual who has on occasion become “steamed” enough to electronically shout, use expletives, call others by names (“godless” for example)……and then write back saying essentially “well now I gotten that out of my system. ”
Surely you are not attempting to portray your occasional rants as merely a calculated technique to get those who view issues differently from you to come from behind the “wall of their self righteousness” or off their “high horse”, while ignoring that in order to do so they are going to have to side step you on your doubtless all white stallion of absolute moral surety. Because to do so would suggest that you are being less than Frank, or possibly delusional.
or, using “rhantoric” instead of “rhetoric”… leave to others to decide.
I have only lost my cool on at a personal level once (well on one topic)… and that is the claim or inference that I am a racist because of my views about about racial outcome differences and race-relations in general. I don’t lose my cool with any attempt to label me other than that (well maybe a Nazi or a baby killer or a person that kicks dogs and cats). And it is not because I lack confidence in what I am or am not… it is a measured response from me that is commensurate with the seriousness of the claim.
Other than that I can be irritated with absurdity, lack of objectivity and logic… and basic displays of stupidity… but all on issues and not anything personal. You can call me what every you want to call me and it does not bother me unless what you are calling me is both inaccurate and potentially materially harmful to me or my family or my business.
And yes, I rant or use “rhantoric” (great “youspamism” hpierce!) to get a rise of people to open up the debate.
You did hit on the connection with my moniker and my blogging style. I have another Moniker out there in the blogiphere “socialmisfit”. Again, meaning something about my blogging persona that does not really care too much about PC-correcness and speech code rules.
We learn and grow from conflict and debate. If we all agree then we are all doomed to make too many mistakes.
“I have only lost my cool on at a personal level once (well on one topic)… and that is the claim or inference that I am a racist because of my views about about racial outcome differences and race-relations in general.”
Strange, the only time I commented to the editor of this blog “[edited for language – not moderator] you” was for the same reason.
“Youspamism”. LOVE IT! The only problem I have with the term is that I failed the think of it first! May I borrow it from time to time, or is it copyrighted?
“Rhantoric” is ‘open source code’, so anyone can use it…