I favor:

Full registration with some sort of email confirmation. No anonymous posts.

If someone doesn't use a real name, ban 'em.

Registration to post wouldn't be so bad. It could cause people to stop coming if you put a registration though so I guess it has its drawbacks. DailyKos does seem to have a pretty good handle on everything also.

why not move over to soapblox, or install scoop? user accounts, comment ratings and community created diaries would be a great asset to this site.

psuedonymously yours...

For this type of web site, there is a lot to be said for not accepting comments from people using pseudonyms. Commenters on The Source Weekly (Bend) web site who were making outrageous comments and attacks while hiding behind phony names were strongly criticized on line and retreated to their burrows. How long that will last remains to be seen. If people don't have enough confidence in themselves to use their real names, then they should keep their rants and other comments to themselves.

I like it as-is. The thing I like most about BO is the openness of the conversation... with only the most grevious offenders deleted or blocked.

Trolls, idiots, self-satisfied conservatives: these people pop up often enough to keep the posts on edge, but we should beat them down with better arguments -- not automatic scripts. To me, that's what separates BO from a blog like NW Republican -- BO (and LO) foster honest discussion while NWR's habit of simply deleting disagreeable comments degrades it to a den of self-satisfaction.

I like the "town square" aspect of the whole thing as-is.

I personally have no problem with the genuine right-wing trolls, and a lot of other folks, that cowering BlueOregonians seem so genuinely ill-equipped emotionally to abide. I find reading the (non-)arguments they mostly make, and the occasional substantive argument to be worth considering.

DailyKos makes a market by affirming the beliefs of a certain segment that really needs affirmation, more than it values serious political thought. The two-round Lamont-Lieberman election (who was the third guy in the general?) showed us the true shortcomings of the current thinking of the netroots in the electoral sphere in the Lieberman-Lamont debacle. The primary turned out the way I wanted. That was because the netroots were talking to themselves. Lieberman won the general election, however, solely because a percentage of Democrats, more than big enough to make the margin, voted for him. Kos and the netroots cost us the general election by being too arrogant and too clueless to talk to the rest of the electorate in anything approaching a politically-astute way.

That said:

"If someone doesn't use a real name, ban 'em."

Spoken in the best tradition of suppression of expression that is the hallmark of soft-brained Blue Oregonians. Read the long history of Supreme Court decisions on the primary American value of anonymity and pseudonymity in American political discourse. Invective included. (paul, care to confirm or dispute this?)

"I don't care if you want to be "Big Joe from Tigard" - as long as you're always that name. Over time, we'll figure out if BJFT is smart, stupid, cranky, happy, lefty, rightie, etc."

Actually, what you are after here is further facilitating the laziness of the already lazy segment of the progressive community. Why actually pay attention to the substance of any comment, when fragile egos can just lapse into their desire for consistent confirmation of their beliefs (re: Arendt), and just avoid a commenter altogether, eh?

You own the forum Kari, so you can do whatever your little heart desires, and we all know it is not censorship. (For that reason, this blog really isn't "the commons" either. Care to confirm or refute, paul?) Shutting off anonymous comments does have the strong potential to turn Blue Oregon into a backwater of more easily dismissed, self-obsessed, comments that really don't have much to do with genuine progressive thought. An Oregon version of the DailyKos if you will. A place where all the Erics of our side of the political spectrum congregate certainly would make it easier for elected officials to keep tabs on the ineffectual, self-obsessed segment of the "progressive" community. And make it easier for them and some of us out here to ignore them.

So believe it or not Kari, I strongly encourage you to throw up the walls. Please do throw them up high enough to create a warm and unchallenging place that will tend to keep lots of the folks who comment here, including paul, snarky comments and all, inside. There is good reason to hope this will create a market opening for a quality, open, free-wheeling political blog where sharp intellects, sharper tongues, and tougher hides will choose to congregate to go at it in genuine political debate. The Web 2.0 peanut gallery likes watching the spectacle of it that much better too.

A few numbers for you also: Understandably, DailyKos readership peaked on election day. According to Alexa, the percentage of global internet users reading DailyKos and the traffic rank declined 44% and 1,697 in the last 3 months (i.e. starting a 1-1/2 months post election). One has to take these number with a grain of salt because the base number of global internet users and sites has increased in that time. However, the number of unique page views by unique readers has declined by 11% in the same time, indicating a non-trivial drop-off in interest.

Your percentage declines in the same 3 month period are 28%, 68,606, and 13%, respectively.

So please do go for it. Just let us know when you do so we will be able to know what are before and after numbers. Some of us who follow such things will actually find it an important, interesting, (and free to us!) experiment to watch.

I favor: Create a full-featured user-registration system.

A bit of a hassle the first time, but after that it would be no problem.

Keep up the good work.

I'd prefer the last 4 options Kari listed. I do think it is important for posters to be able to remain somewhat anonymous, though....as long as the web-hosters can see true identities behind the scenes, and the privilege is not abused. We wouldn't want even one person to become a target of any kind....political or personal. Some people are in business, or otherwise in the public eye, and feel it's professionally prudent to keep their political beliefs out of the "office". If their votes are private, so should be their identities when they post political opinions, if they so choose. God know we have so little privacy left these days. Am I wrong in assuming part of blueoregon's mission is to boost citizen involvement and interaction?

And omygod I am ashamed to say that I fell victim to the goading, demeaning, button-pushing insults of 2 recent commenters, and responded a bit vehemently in my own defense. Shame on me. However, if no one challenges the trolls and abusers at all, well Kari's right....half of the readers apparently don't feel brave or comfortable enough to become involved through the use of this wonderful tool: the internet ....an opportunity the likes of which we've never before known!

So I think a mode of blueoregon community watch, rather than forcing full identity disclosure, is best. As long as THAT is not abused. Let's keep the exchange of opinions and ideas flowing and not limit it to those who agree with us. Perhaps just knowing they might be flagged and deleted will be off-putting enough for bad children to behave, or go home.

I think the neighborhood would improve greatly if you started by banning boorish, self important asses whose elitist comments are intended to offend, not educate.

If that policy is acceptable, start with banning TheEnlightenmentEra.

I think posting the IP address is a good idea. It might dissuade those GOP staffers from spamming your board anonymously. I don't like the registration type of system, though. It makes the conversation too exclusive. Or you might have an option to allow the comment reader to choose whether they want to see comments that are anonymous and/or made by someone who is not a registered "member." That way those who are bothered by those comments don't have to see them, and those who find them interesting or who don't want to be identified can still participate.

First, I really appreciate the service that the editors provide. Second, I am comfortable with some sort of registration scheme. I started using a pseudonym only because I'm a scientist with a public agency, I was posting on discussions of climate-change science, and I didn't want someone with an agenda claiming (spuriously) that I was trying to represent an official agency policy. But having been admonished :-) to avoid the climate science topic here, perhaps the pseudonym has become pointless....

I doubt that a registration system would deter anyone sincerely interested in critical but polite discussion. If it proves a deterrent to the impolite, the trolls, the folks who post using a variety of pseudonyms, so much the better.

Most newspapers require signed letter to the editor. For the more permissive blog atmosphere anonymous posters are OK, but I would like to see an AKA designator for multi name posters. Let readers decide when rants aren’t worth reading to the conclusion. Question documentation of suspicious claims. Why not try posting the IP addresses -would this expose the sock puppets? Maybe a thumbs up / thumbs down rating system with categories; or a: 1 for great, 5 for bad, X for crappy, BG for bogus or.. I've read blueoregon for some time and enjoy the free flow of ideas; keep up the good work

Registration is the way to go. It seems to work on other sites I participate in. If you let people use pseudonyms, you will encourage participation of folks in state & local government who may hold views that don't align with those in power.

"It would also be nice to know if what seems to me a decrease in the use of this forum by elected officials is related to the increase in anonymous drive-by attacks. I always valued the contributions of members of council and state legislators, and we don't want to lose that if we can."

I wonder if in part of the decrease in use, if it is real, has anything to do with the fact that some elected officials who posted here weren't given a pass by some whose comments were anything but drive-by attacks. They may have resented the fact that, when they posted here, they weren't simply fawned over by synchophants as much as before. Poor performing leaders, who traditionally could simply get by claiming they were "progressives", to "progressives" who obviously don't have much understanding what that word means, except that they too can use it to mean whatever they want for themselves and fellow "progressives" will nod approvingly, are reluctant to face a forum in which they might be exposed. Come on paul, as an educator you have to do better than that. No one forced these people to be leaders. Facing critical, informed members of the public capable of calling BS on them is the price they pay for their impulse to power.

(By the way, paul, in your field aren't peer reviews of papers for publication done anonymously? At least here in effect you get to read the reviewers' comments to both the author and to the editors. That's a big improvement over peer reviews where the real snarking goes on in the comments to the editors, because snarking in the comments to the author risks bad reviews when the tables are turned. Right?)

"I think the neighborhood would improve greatly if you started by banning boorish, self important asses whose elitist comments are intended to offend, not educate."

As commented to MCT in another thread, be careful "Commoner" casting aspersions about facts you don't have, in response to comments you apparently don't understand. Did you learn something about academia and peer review in the above? Does that throw any light into your muddled thought processes on how being confronted directly, with argumentation and facts, is pretty much the opposite of snarky elitism?

When someone insists their opinions have merit, simply because they hold them, the best education for all concerned is to simply say directly that person is ignorant, providing the evidence, of course. Throwing terms like "elitist" and taking a pseudoname like "Commoner", in an attempt to play to mob sentiments, is far from honoring and defending the interests of average folks.

Now I'm reduced to begging Kari. Please, please, raise those walls to keep inside those folks who just can't cut it in the brusing world of real politics. We have big issues of war and peace; life, death and health care; and poverty and economic survival to confront in the next few election cycles that we need to confront and fight out. It's better for the country, and our state, if a lot of the folks here who want a quiet, safe, place to chat for their own amusement have a sandbox in which to play while the real work goes on elsewhere. I am becoming more cheered that if Blue Oregon joins blogs like the DailyKos, this will open up market space for a blog that gets down to the real-world, arena-style political debate with teeth on which our future depends. And paul, if that we are fortunate enough to have that happen, the elected officials won't be able to risk staying away.

I think some sort of registration would be a good idea. It's depressing and a disincentive to read the comments when a few trolls manage to hijack useful threads. I don't mind discussion between honest people who disagree, but the trolls here seem to be mostly two-bit thrill seekers who are only trying to stir the pot and have some fun, not to make any actual serious points.

My preference would be to require registration with email verification, but allow people to pick their own username.

Also, the slashdot method of rating posts works quite well. As I understand it (ie, this may not be 100% correct), people gain karma points by making posts which are "modded up" by moderators. Once they have enough points then they are eligible to be chosen as moderators themselves. Moderators are randomly selected, weekly I believe, so even if you get someone who abuses their power it doesn't go on for long. Only moderators can mod a post up or down. I'm not a slashdot reader myself but my husband says this really increases the quality of most of the posts.

I like this one best, "Create a full-featured user-registration system. Require all commenters to have a single username, password, and verifiable email address. Comments would no longer be fully anonymous, but could be pseudonymous - and the pseudonyms would be consistent over time."

At least to start to control access. Some of the Blue Oregon users will be running for public office, and therefore having a "pseudonymous" ability would be valuable. But the trolls will be more exposed.

For me, Blue Oregon is at its worst when the crazies take over a thread. Perhaps that step would reduce this problem. If that doesn't work, a green light/red light system might be a second step.

This sounds like an attempt to stifle free speech. Hitler tried it, Sadam tried it and Khrushchev tried it. And now in addition wanting to dictate transportation choices, have control over housing and land use choices, and have the power to order what people should and should not eat in Oregon; is it that a political party wants to rein in free speech too? In the mean time those citizens who disagree with this measure of command are called “trolls”. I guess that demonstrates to what level and how far some power brokers in elected and leadership positions will go to represent all citizens in a society where everybody is considered with equal voice – just call the nonconformists “trolls”, and charge on with authoritative domination and the power play supremacy to make decrees that force an agenda on the public at large. This demonstration of a lack of respect for the equality of all people to speak out and be represented in a democratic and free society only explicates the growing distrust the populace now has for our government and its partisan leadership. No longer are party politics the parties of the people, by the people and for the people; because so-called “trolls” are both taxpaying citizens and people too

I think you should continue to ban the I.P. addys and delete the comments of those you disagree with, no matter how measured and respectful their disagreement.

I think posting the IP addresses associated with each comment would significantly reduce this problem.

kari,

sorry, my point wasn't what software package to use, but what those packages make available, so let me repeat myself without any software specifics to confuse the message: user accounts, comment ratings and community created diaries (diary ratings would be nice too). judging by the frequency of guest columns, there seems to be a lot of resources here in oregon who would contribute to the community, and it would feel much more like a community than the current format.

1. The folks who run this blog are volunteers providing a service to everyone who reads and comments. They deserve thanks, not silly sniping. They are under the same obligation to give me access as The Oregonian, say, is to print my letters to the editor: none. Let's have no silly verbiage about "censorship".

2. Displaying IP addresses would be a useful sort of keep-em-honest move. I would be happy for mine to show up. (I use DSL.) Then the equivalence of The EnlightenmentEra with Ask Questions1st with HalfThe Story with.... would be clearer (although presumably it's already clear to the folks who run this blog).

3. What is arguably more problematic than the multiple pseudonyms with folks like The EnlightenmentEra is that they provide phony return e-mail addresses. The Enlightenment Era's return address is given as [email protected], which has approximately the value of a $3 bill. I have trouble seeing why a legitimate return address should not be a requirement. Note this requirement would do nothing to breach pseudonyms.

4. The registered-user scheme would deal with all of these issues, I think.

The problem with posting IP addresses is that everyone behind a proxy server has the same one. It's less of a problem these days now that fewer people are on dialup; most DSL and cable modem customers have unique IPs. But what if you happen to frequent the same free WiFi location as one of the trolls? That could be distressing, to say the least - I don't know which would be worse, having to prove that you're not posting that stuff, or looking around trying to figure out who it is! :)

Where in blueoregon's 'mission statement' does it say it will be to keep inside those who can't hack it in "bruising world of real politics"? And if elected officials are scared off by having to listen to voters who post opinions here, then we really DO have a failure of government and a crisis of culture.

Here's the original mission statement...if you will.:

It'll be progressive; it'll be smart; it'll be funny; it'll be compelling; it'll be provocative; it'll be unpredictable. It'll be political, but not narrowly so. It'll be a free-ranging social and cultural critique. It'll be by Oregonians and for Oregonians, but not always about Oregon. Above all else, BlueOregon will not be boring.

Who will participate? Some of our contributors will be well-known; while others will make their fame (but not likely fortune) at BlueOregon. Some will be elected officials, others prominent activists, others totally unknown; some are already writers and bloggers, while others will be new to online commentary.

Beyond that, we seek to create a wide range of voices - from urban sophisticates to gun-truck-and-dog Democrats; from radical vegetarian leftists to cranky government skeptics. (Not that these are all mutually exclusive.) We'll be working to reflect the full diversity of Oregon progressivism - socio-economically, geographically, ideologically, ethnically, and beyond.

Our goal? To be the single best place for progressive Oregonians to catch the zeitgeist of our world; to motivate, educate, and elucidate; to help keep Oregon Blue.

I'd suggest a combination of greenlight and redlight, with enough registration to make it work. Requiring the first few posts by a new user to wait for a moderator would reduce drivebys without deterring someone who wanted to join the community. Having a redlight system would handle those few who became a major problem to the community.

I assume that conservative opinion will be welcome in the comments. I've certainly learned from some of those commenters, if only how to better state my own opinions.

Unrelated to the problems you are trying to solve, I very much like the ideas of a Kudos system. Sometimes I just don't have time to read 30 or more comments, and would very much like to scan for those that were "top rated".

Oh yea, forgot one other thing - most DSL and cable modems don't have an assigned IP address; if you turn the box off and on again for any reason you'll usualy be assigned a new one, and sometimes it changes for no obvious reason at all. So in those cases an IP address is only good for tracking someone for a relatively short period of time.

(I'm sure Kari knows all this already, but not everyone does)

one more thing... definitely, whatever you do, preserve the truly anonymous posting option.

Maybe just limit the number of times anyone can post to a given thread--say, three posts and you're out? That might solve multiple issues.

I favor the user registration system. I think if that is implemented then people will develop their own ideas about posters' reputations. It would also prevent impersonators/smartasses (though I'm not sure how much of a problem that has been in the past).

I'm really against posting IP addresses. While I find it disappointing that GOP staffers may be trolling here, I don't find any value in having their location(s) disclosed. If they want to register and post semi-anonymous comments, then that's fine. My main problem with posting IP addresses is privacy and security. I don't mind using the same username here, but I don't want people knowing my personal information -- my name, where I live, work, etc. So, for the record, I would absolutely stop posting here if IP addresses were identified.

If you want more of the comments that BlueOregonians like and fewer and fewer of the others (over time), provide a sophisticated comment ratings system that rewards good ones AND uses those same people to rate others.

Here's the plan: You pick 10 people who you either know and trust or who have posted 10 or more really worthwhile comments at BlueOregon. At first, only these people can rate others' comments. These people would all initially have the same personal "rating weight" at 10.

As people post, raters would assign ratings to the comments whenever the spirit moves them, 0 to a worthless troll post, 10 to a superb post.

Once someone has had 10 posts, they get their own "weighting" and are able to rate comments by others. Their "weighting" is the average value of the ratings on the comments they made. (And the original group starts having a rating average change too, as the other raters rate each others' comments.)

The point is that, before long, every comment posted can quickly have a value rating score, where the score is determined MORE by the people whose comments are themselves valuable.

Figure out a way to display the score at the top of each comment and, before you know it, people can use the score to skip the troll noise--just move on by it.

It sounds complex, but here's how it could work:

Say that Jane and Joe are two people in your original group of comment raters, meaning that they each start with a personal weighting of 10 (full weight).

Whenever Jane and Joe rate a comment by anyone, their rating is applied at full strength because they each have full weights. So if Jane really finds a comment insightful and gives it a 10, and Joe likes it but not that much, he gives it a 5. That comment would have a score of 7.5, and that commenter would too (since that was the first comment).

Over time, that commenter would post more comments that others would choose to rate, and so develop his/her own personal rating weight. Once they had ten comments published and rated, then they would be able to rate comments by others.

Say this person, Jill, winds up with a score of 6 once she is able to rate comments by others. That means that all of Jill's ratings are weighted at .6 --- so when she gives a 10, it only counts 6 towards the subject comment's score, and only contributes a 6 to the commenter's weight. Over time, her rating would continue to change--the more she posts things that others think are valuable, the higher her personal rating will go, and the more her ratings will count in determining the weight that others have.

You could even have a threshold anti-troll cutoff that says that you can't rate others' comments if your own personal weighting is less than 3 or 4.

This keeps trolls from using multiple identities to boost each their own comments or trading ratings to boost each other, because they would have to post 10 comments under each troll identity, and they would be rated so low that they could never gain rating power.

Presuming that you start with a group who want the site to thrive and will rate comments according to their usefulness (i.e., according to how useful they are to the discussion rather than whether they agree with the substance) then you will soon have an increasing number of "heavyweight" raters, people who have rating power because THEY post good comments, and who can use that power to reward and welcome (and boost the visibility) of good comments and help spotlight the comments that are a waste of everyone's time.

It's possible to imagine someone who secretly lusts to be a troll posting enough good comments to win the right to rate, and then starting to blast trollish comments out (and downrating other people)--but the collective response would probably end that pretty fast.

I would much prefer this to an active moderation system or any form of required registration. I do like the $1 idea too--via paypal or by sending 3 39 cent stamps to the ODP office for their use. It would really cut down the use of multiple IDs.

Do what DailyKos.com (and Lucianne.com on the right) do: ban idiots spewing anti-progressive thought, or let other readers do it. To continually engage in the same trite arguments prevents us from evolving progressive issues.

While I'm intrigued by some of the ratings ideas, I tend to shy away from anything that looks like it's going to evolve into some kind of popularity game/cult. I think (or would hope) that people are capable of discerning the merit (or demerit) of posters' arguments without a sophiscated ratings system.

I don't mind thoughtful conservative commentary (in fact, I prefer it to thoughtless progressive commentary) so I'd hate to see people who think differently dissuaded from posting, strictly for ideological reasons. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have an engaging, intelligent discussion with someone I disagree than sit around and nod in agreement with like-minded individuals all day. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little provocative political dissent.

I hope that BlueOregon continues to be a place for thoughtful debate (not to mention news and gossip!) -- I'm certainly grateful for its existence. So, thank you, Kari.

Re: IP address -- I don't know that much about them. But I have seen how they can be used to reveal identity. (I think the Jack Bog/Torrid Joe brouhaha comes to mind.) I would rather not know where people work, go to school, etc. -- employees can post on their breaks and then that can wind up a reflection on the employer and I'd just rather not go that route.

Also, as much as I stand by my beliefs and would be happy to discuss them with most rational people in real life, I don't exactly want my "real" name broadcast all over the internet. Employers, recruiters, and ahem school admissions officers increasingly look for info on potential employees/students online and I would hate to have a future job prospect soured based on my personal politics. (And do I really want my mom/prof/boss/SO Googling my name and wondering what the hell I am doing posting at BlueOregon at 1:30 in the morning? Heh.)

Is there any statistical evidence that trolls are hurting BlueOregon? Have the number of readers or commentors dropped off?

I don't see a huge problem. Periodically, a right-wing nut posts a lot of comments that are nasty, sneering, or vitriolic. Some people post back; most ignore him. And after a few weeks, he goes away.

It adds a spice. It also gives us a chance to look into the mind of the dyed-in-the-wool opposition. We're not going to convince these people, but it's interesting (and a little scary) to see where they're coming from.

Kari, "A "troll" is someone who attempts to drown out the conversation with repeated comments that don't actually engage in dialogue - but rather shout slogans at people." Oh yes Kari , and I suspect your take on all the comments by pro M37 and global warming "denier" trolls has been nothing but shouting slogans?

Peter Bray, "To continually engage in the same trite arguments prevents us from evolving progressive issues."

Oh yes Peter. We need more of your "evolving" on Judge Mary Merten James and M37. How "progressive" that was. This whole thread is typical liberalism. It amounts to your putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "I can't hear you". Along with your typical pretense of higher contributions to all things good with never any misbehavior. Anonymity is important to some and for good reasons in many cases. Contrary to your own self images there are those of us who find many of you not all that nice. And that your methods as a group are at times quite despicable. But then having an opinion, this opinion, of you all is entirely unacceptable, now isn't it.

I've witnessed other similar discussions of blog rules and every one of them take on the air of arrogance, narrow mindedness, censorship and intolerance with zero improvement to an open door policy. This discussion has added nothing.

I'm in favor of allowing some level of anonymity. While I'm not entrenched in many political battles, I think anonymity allows people involved in the system to comment on important issues, without taking a risk that their boss or some other elected would take offense at a contrarian view. So if staffer for commissioner XYZ wants to comment anonymously, taking a stand that commissioners XYZ opposes, I think it's valuable to allow that dialogue.

As for trolls, sock puppets, etc., something short of a Boglike-aggressive system of banning IP addressees might be useful (coming from one who has been so banned from BoJack).

i support email verification (but not full blown registration and a "report post" system. that way your readers can alert people when something obnoxious comes up.

A forum as this should be a living room discussion of ideas and not a rant and rave, spit in your face brawl. I am in favor of boundaries. And moderated discussion is the only viable boundary. It keeps the trolls out and keeps the living room guests civil. Free speech is not a license to trash and burn.

First: Whatever, keep Blue Oregon alive

Second: With regard to the free-speech argument, let's not forget there are legitimate restrictions on speech - not only the one about shouting fire in a crowded theater, but there are also the various parliamentary rules of order in Congress and state legislatures and debating rules in political campaigns.

Third: There are ill-informed commenters on this and other blogs. It is in our mutual interest to engage them in a responsible debate, but if it becomes obvious they are more interested in polemics than facts, then either delete their posts or ignore them. Indifference can be an effective tool.

"My answer to that, and I'm saying this without being critical, is maybe you need to keep your politics to yourself."

wow, that's a bit harsh. there are many good , completely valid reasons not to want to have a huge google trail of comments you've made on blogs attached to your real name.

Have a separate comments page set aside for out-of-line comments and make it available to those who wish to read what the rest of us might see as a waste of time and ire. That way the breadth of opinion is available while we keep our focus on "not Left, not Right, but Forward." The sensibilities of a few will dictate the content of the "Sideways Page," but their biases will be clear while freedom of information is served.

Actually, this isn't true and you can verify it on your home PC.

Err, actually it is true. Some services may allow your IP to persist when you restart your box, but unless you have been assigned a static IP it will change eventually. It might take a while, but it will. They do this to discourage people hosting websites from their houses, among other things

We run our business out of our home and have the Verizon FiOS service. They will not give us a static IP unless we upgrade to the (significantly more expensive) business level service. I don't know how often our IP actually changes, but they have the right to change it at any time.

Anyway, this is all tangential to the thread so I'll shut up now. I just wanted to make the point that IP addresses are not always a good way to positively identify a poster.

I really liked Steve Maurer's suggestions. If it weren't too difficult to set up or require a lot of maintenance by our tireless moderators, I think that'd be great.

I also appreciate all the comments about avoiding creating a left-wing echo chamber. I like the variety and welcome the challenges to my ideas and wouldn't be as interested in BlueOregon if that went away.

I don't care for the Trolls but am willing to keep seeing their postings if that is the cost of having a varied and lively discussion. I can always skip their postings and the threads they generate.

I support having a registration system that verifies the email address. I agree that it doesn't matter really what the name is, as long as its always the same name.

If people want their opinions to be heard, rather than simply dropped as a bomb, then they shouldn't have an issue with registering. Those that don't are those that are more into simply causing problems without any real constructive goal.

I am among the 50% of folks who never comment. However, I am a daily, sometimes hourly (depending on the posts of the moment)reader. When I am reading comments, if I come across posts that I find annoying, I don't read them and move on to the next. This is how I manage the trolls and the drive bys. I would not like to see BlueOregon change significantly to manage this problem. As someone posted earlier, "indifference can be an effective tool". Let's try not responding to their comments and see how long they stick around. Perhaps I will comment again in the future but I am content, for now, to learn from all of the wise and talented people who post here.

Kari-- Could you give some examples of "tireless trolls that aren't interested in conversation, and merely want to hear themselves rant?" I read selected posts, and I haven't seen a problem. If you don't want to read someone's comment, it's as easy to skip: just hit the 'page down' button.

I don't post my last name (although you can easily deduce it from my email address), because I value anonymity, which allows me to say what I really think. When given the choice, I think BlueOregon posters coddle the Democratic Party, which is far from resembling a progressive institution in this state. Limiting commentators' free speech would only increase my suspicions about whether this site is really for preaching to the choir or about promoting true progressive policies, such as weaning politicians off their fat cat underwriters...

While you're thinking of tinkering, here are some other things that would make the site more helpful/useful. You can refer to Gristmill blog for an example of a similar site where these are offered, and they are nice:

1) A "recent comments" sequential listing box to the right--you can click on it to go right to the comment (and the thread) -- that way you don't have to hunt for that older but still active discussion

2) Add a "new comments" feature--that is, for those of us who are registered with the site, one of the rewards is that it keeps track of our visits enough to say when a new comment has been posted. So instead of seeing "75 comments" and wondering how many there were the last time I read the thread, it would say "75 comments, 7 new" because it knows that there were only 68 posted the last time I looked into that thread.

I did a Google search of BlueOregon.

Number of posts that 'trolls' commented on: Mister Tee-98 Bailie--49 Dover--37 The Wolfe--25 Tompkins--15

Number of Posts at BlueOregon in the past week--21. Some of the posts the trolls commented on go back years.

I'm not sure I see the problem. Keep it simple. Just ask people to hit 'page down.'

My first post. Usually scan this blog every couple of days, but recently less often as prolonged arguements with a couple of posters have been boring. I'd favor registration but preserve anonymous posting in the interest of more open discussion. Also, on other blogs I can list usernames whose posts I want to ignore and these do not appear in my display, thus again saving me scanning time. Also like the idea of being able to selectively view new comments made in last 24 hours, again to save scanning time. Thanks for the forum.

I thought the whole idea of having people donate to Democratic organizations and candidates was a decent tactic for "troll" management. Does this mean that method wasn't working anymore? I suspect that this thread was prompted by GT's rants and subsequent threats against the site. Am I wrong here, Kari? If the problem was GT, I thought you dealt with that appropriately by barring him from the site. But otherwise, I don't see those kinds of things really compromising the threads here...at least not anymore than any form of selective censorship would...

As a proud troll, maybe a nice compromise. Track IP addresses for anonymous and allow logins/registrations.

I went through the fist 15 posts on the site. I saw some random stuff that could be considered objectionable, but nothing of significance. I still don't see the problem.

Or are we trying to imitate instant messaging and have some kind of flowing conversation? If so, this is not the medium for that.

I 'second' Jenni's comment.

Frank, I believe you're well-meaning but I don't think you're considering other perspectives. Just because you're comfortable posting your full name does not mean others are or should be -- there are serious implications to consider, both professionally and personally. I am a female student -- there is no way in hell I am posting my first and last names here, period. The First Amendment may allow me to say what I want but it doesn't really "protect" me. If you still think that people should post their full names, then you're going to lose a lot of posters and a lot of the diversity that makes Blue Oregon what it is. Maybe that makes them "cowards" in their eyes, but it makes them prudent in mine. I will not sacrifice my career and personal safety for blog commentary, nor do I expect others to do so.

I don't find the newspaper analogy comparable. This is not a newspaper; these are not formal letters to the editor. (In fact, look at The O going the other way online -- allowing "anonymous" content on its material, with "nicknames.") This is the "water cooler" -- it's an informal gathering place for discussion. As such, it doesn't seem necessary for full identification. Now if I wanted to write a guest column, then - yeah - I can see where use of a full name would be appropriate. But on comments? Nu-uh.

If it is determined that registration requires my full name and e-mail address for the moderators' exclusive use, then I might be OK with that. But I don't put my personal ID out there for public consumption.

One last comment: long comments are more annoying than trolls. Short, pithy statements are more likely to be read than interminable, rambling monologues.

Maybe BlueOregon should put a 200 word limit on the comments. Or make long commentators get licenses. Of course, that would probably prevent most of our politicians from even getting warmed up. All the better...

I don't like anything that makes it difficult to post on my site, but after getting machine spammed I had to re-institute the blasted "letter verification". Personal insults and profanity go away. Otherwise, my object is to provoke some sort of discussion. That's my place & it's much smaller in volume.

I'd leave it alone. It only takes about 1 sentence to see that an idjit is posting. I know perfectly well that I've provoked people here, but I've also guest posted & been cross linked, it's shaky ground to start cutting where not absolutely needed.

I've taken a 20% decline in the last week, the only thing I can spot is that I missed posting 2 days the previous week. don't know what that means. Maybe I'm just not very interesting lately.

"Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 26, 2007 6:13:05 PM

Those are only a few that Kari mentioned, JohnH. There are plenty of others. Just now in the DeFazio thread, we've got a new one - "Ted Foster" - who just posted a classic troll: a contrafactual "insult" calling DeFazio, Oregon, and us the "Democrats Socialists of America". (Apparently Mr. Foster is unaware that in many First World countries, parties calling themselves Social Democrats are the conservatives.) And of course, like all such trolls, writing blatant falsehoods always gets a response.

I would be curious as to the definition of "Troll"? Apparently I have just been labelled a Troll in this thread for comments I made in the Defazio thread. Defazio is a member of DSA - fact. Oregon is a socialist state - Fact. So by, stating facts Im labelled a troll? I was not trying to insinuate that Defazio was or was not a conservative! My point was: Defazio should have no problem beating Smith in the race! For that Im labelled a troll.

You know, labelling people "Trolls" just like labelling people "Fags", or "BullDikes", hurts. It hurts self esteem.

Agree mostly with Steve Maurer. The roll up method makes sense with one question. Would a new visitor, poster, etc be aware that their very insightful comment was not going to be visible at first? Not a personal fear because I don't have insightful comments, but might discourage someone who has something to contribute.

Like the idea of somehow flagging off comment rants. Really suggest we don't get into flagging "trolls" because I can easily see how that then becomes the focus of the next 20 posts.

Like the idea of publishing the IPs, but can see the inherent problems and as Ellie pointed out, the risks (although how much specific info can be gleaned from an IP?)

I REALLY like the idea of flagging ad hominem attacks. I think there is very little disagreement about what constitutes an ad hominem attack (ie you are attacking ME not my views). But I don't like the idea of deleting them, which brings me back to Steve Maurer's proposal about roll ups.

Would prefer to keep an anonymous option because I think good gossip and info would be lost. Also some of us are easily idenitfiable with organizations and want to prevent any misunderstandings about personal beliefs v. organizational stance.

No to threads. Ironically my ADD is aggravated more by the thread option than the interspersed commentary. (self diagnosed, not a doctor )

There should most definitely be a self initiated symbol or flag to indicate sarcasm. I know if hurts the sarcastic to have to point out that they are being sarcastic. (where's the fun in that?) but it might aid in reducing "hurt feelings". (actually I care not about those, just hate having to wade through them) No "type the following random letters...is that a K or a P? Do they want it capitalized or not? " A word limit - absolutely. Spell (and grammar) check if possible. And sobriety tests for those who get more irritated or loquacious when enough alcohol is added. (again, self diagnosis)

James

Kari, I think BlueOregon should start going out for doughnuts.

My personal technique for reading Blue Oregon is to open to the Comments list, search for the names of a couple people whose comments are pretty reliably interesting, open those posts in new tabs and read them from the top. (I read this post, for instance, because there's a doretta comment in it.) So I agree with JMG that a "recent comments" sequential listing is an important feature. I disagree that it needs to be added to the right side of the site, where it would interfere with paying real estate.

I would like to see a way to flag excellent comments or excellent commenters.

In this post, for instance, we've learned the names of specific commenters that some people avoid, and we've had expressed (Jeff Alworth is another commenter I pay attention to) the belief that we could benefit from being as concrete in encouraging positive contributions as we are in stifling destructive behavior. Ok, so get concrete: Which comments, and which commenters, do you want more of?

I.e., of course it's good to have thoughtful voices from the right end of the spectrum. You can stop saying that; it's just another feel-good slogan if you don't take it any farther. How about saying: Paul Gronke's pro-privatization comments include data I haven't heard elsewhere, such as (aarrgh, now I can't remember the specifics...sorry, paul, I'll try again when it isn't 3 a.m.) and his sober and careful statement of them made it easier for me to consider points I thought I disagreed with.

On the matter of anonymity:

There are many situations in which people can't afford to back their opinions with their names. Personally, I handle the problem by trying really, really hard never to have an opinion, but this is not a realistic approach for those who are not, as my darling family tells me I am, freaks of nature. And even I can't guarantee that I will never have an opinion.

Many of the opinions held by people who can't afford to tie them to their own names are worth hearing. Some of them are so interesting that somebody who, like Frank, is able to hold opinions in his own name might want to take up the banner. He might in that case be sorry if there weren't a place for him to hear anonymous opinions.

I would support a word limit. And a subject line for each comment.

I suspect that Tenskwatawa would not be on the troll list if he had known he had to get to the point and shut up; I have found interesting points in his comments when I have had the time -- for instance, when I was home, immobile for a number of days, recuperating from surgery -- to read through them. Not enough to make me willing to read them regularly. But enough to make me wish they were accessible without a shovel.

I know, I know, I'm sitting here filling up screensful of type. But really, I'm trying to make distinct points, and to express them discretely and with some hint of organization. Possibly having to pause every few hundred words -- and accept the risk that somebody else will interject a comment -- will encourage other people to be far clearer and more coherent than I could hope to be.

And I mean it, Kari, I think it's a real shame that Blue Oregon doesn't go out for doughnuts. Maybe that could be a change-of-pace for Progressive Happy Hour? You know, for diversity's sake.

Janice said it all:

"This whole thread is typical liberalism. It amounts to your putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "I can't hear you". Along with your typical pretense of higher contributions to all things good with never any misbehavior."

"Contrary to your own self images there are those of us who find many of you not all that nice. And that your methods as a group are at times quite despicable. But then having an opinion, this opinion, of you all is entirely unacceptable, now isn't it."

Unless you were raised during the McCarthy era, the value of civil discourse and communication, free of even basic logical fallacies is hard to find.

Janice cites M37. I have yet to find pro-M37 discussions that do not degenerate into name calling by proponents. Nonetheless, we can't craft or discuss public policy unless the options are presented and discussed.

It's your website; how much you want to spend to control it is up to you. Denying accesss to your website does not to my mind deny anyone their right to express themselves; it merely reduces the website to a choir, singing in harmony.

The technology is far too sophisticated to keep out the troglodytes. Maybe you could periodically append a troglogyte to some of the messages - maybe a little shame would help

After reading about a thousands posts on this thread, I'll put in my two cents: go with user registration and real names or pseudonyms. You can see where I'm coming from. I guess I'm not clever enough to make up names.

But BlueOregon is starting to lose the "smart and funny" edge of its mission statement because of troll sniping (and the inevitable temptation to respond to trolls).

Registration works fine. Many sites with lively discussion use it. Not a problem. Flagging works, too. Should be about ideas not people.

One more suggested tweak: run the comments in reverse chron order (newest ones on top, rather than oldest)

I vote for use of real names only, but fear that it would be easy to cheat.

But, at least it WOULD be cheating and some may fear exposure if they cheated.

Thanks JK

I consistently used my real name (first & last) until Kari banned me from BlueOregon (for calling him a hypocrite). Subsequently, I adopted the monniker "Mister Tee", which was also banned. I used several variation on that name (and others) AS EACH OF THEM WAS BANNED.

Translation: I wouldn't be using multiple screen names if Kari wouldn't keep banning them. Ditto with my I.P. addresses. I own four computers, and routinely use 5-6 internet connections. Kari has banned 5 of those I.P., but I can still drive a few blocks to any open Wi-Fi location to get the message out.

You are going to need a much more secure environment if you wish to silence those who disagree with nanny government and socialized everyting.

Just a hint:

When you are on someone else's property it is good form to avoid insulting the owner.

Thanks JK

Some of us have jobs where part of our job may be publicly agreeing with our boss all the time - even outside of the office and especially on contentious issues. I, for one, don't agree with my boss 100% of the time.

I'm not saying that I have a right to post on BlueOregon (it's Kari's property as far as I'm concerned), but being required to provide my real name essentially means that I'm out of the conversation.

Not complaining... just noting.

One more idea: MichiganLiberal.com lets anyone have their own "diaries" (posts), which only appear in a listing, rather than on the main page. Occasionally, one of the pooh-bahs likes the post so much that the promote it to the main page. It's a much more "progressive" system in some respects--the main thread is the center of the page, just like yours, but others who wish to discuss other topics can do so without hijacking the discussion inside another post/comment thread.

What's with the "regurgitate this character sequence" key? I didn't hear anybody say there was a problem with roboposting -- is that going on behind the scenes?

And is there a way to use a character sequence generator that doesn't make the characters so difficult for us folks with older eyes to read?

Thank you, Jenni.

though complete anonymity frequently turns people awful, i'm chiming in with those who say that requiring a full name and real identity weeds out good people who have careers to think about.

i haven't been visiting much recently (there must have been a bad hillary clinton post, 'cause i took blueoregon out of my feed reader). but last i knew, your brilliant ignore-the-trolls system was working pretty well. and a quick look at recent posts doesn't show any trolls. a little spirited debate between left and way-left, yeah, but that's great.

<h2>if this post was partially motivated by kathy sierra's death threats, it's nice that you're considering it. though i haven't seen an unusual amount of misogyny here (not to say none), it would be perfectly legitimate to delete comments that are threatening or personally insulting instead of insightful. or some other fix, but requiring real, full names would kill blueoregon, or any blog for that matter.</h2>