Tracy Press

I see what you are saying Motown, but seriously, what are we all hoping to accomplish with our posts? Are we really thinking that we are going to change people's points of view? Chances are that our fellow knucklehead posters are just as stuck in their opinions as we are, and will not swing over to our camp just because they've read our pithy morsels of wisdom. Are we going to change the world with our opinions and comments?

I doubt it. I understand you get frustrated when someone uses your name. The same thing has happened to me. However, that doesn't stop me from putting my opinion out there, though. I continue to opine. Heck, I could even make up a new name for every post, and that doesn't change the fact that my opinion is getting out there.

And with a little luck, I will change the world!

why not just make all posts anonymous? the only problem i see is that we all have tremendous egos and want credit for saying something smart.

Blake,

That may be the smartest thing I've read here.

Score one for your ego!

joedawgsteel,

Please refer to my previous post. You're right, this isn't the New York Times. However, that doesn't mean we can censor comments.

Also, on popular articles the comment count can easily sky rocket. So sometimes it can definitely be a handful to keep track of everything.

---

I'm liking the suggestions so far! Keep them coming!

Regards,
Nick D

Some interesting feelings and opinions--which we are propogating, right?

Anyway, earlier this year there were some really violent, vulgar and dispicable posts directed to a writer. I contacted the TP via email, and it was taken care of pretty quickly. At the time I suggested and volunteered to be moderator (among many, of course) to zap such garbage as soon as it hit the site. I join with JimF in asking the TP SERIOUSLY consider setting up such a system to monitor and edit the site. Oddly, as I type there is a totally inappropriate comment post under Sam's opinion piece (which I would love to remove IMMEDIATELY--it is the right thing to do), and I saw Cheri had stricken two other articles as well. These appear not to be one time occurences but rather rule. There is a true problem here that appears to be growing, and I encourage the Uppers of the TP to take some action as oppose to marvelling at all the "good suggestions". Lively debate, including artistic license and bits of name calling are gonna happen. Unfortunaltey, proper debate ediquette can and should not be edited and legislated. HOWEVER, vulgarity, slander (see senseless comments under Mickey M's Opinion piece) and other forms of vile and rougish behavior can. The Tracy Press needs to monitor and edit the online comments in the same manner they would their Op-Ed page. If this pap is not copesetic for the printed page, then it is just as unworthy of online publication.

My suggestion:

Set up some standards and procedure for posting. These do not have to be stringent or completely impinge on the free speech rights of individuals, just hold them accountble to being on the very fringe of civility. With Free Speech comes accountability. Bring together a group of TP volunteers to monitor the site for posts that do not meet the standards. I would then set up a system whereas readers can "flag" inappropriate posts and the abuse of the service, thus ensuring prompt attention to truly abusive posts including what appears to be the fashionable sport of impersonating or slightly changing the names of REAL particpants. Just like grafetti, if you keep cleaning it up, the taggers get tired and move on. Lastly, I would strongly encourage a more stringent registration process. All participants must register providing pertinent information like phone, address and email info. You can take things a bit furher and require the actual use of your name--heck, opinion pieces and letters the editor require this exact information. These steps alone will send the Uncouths packing.

So why is this only a "good suggestion" and an idealistic hallucination and totally impractical in the 3D world? The answer lies on the front page of Saturday's TP--"316,376 page views and GROWING". Whom do you think this statement is geared towards? First, the egomaniacs (like most of us that enjoy having our say and shouting to the world : ) and Second, ADVERTISERS. Completely banish any thought of Freedom of Speech protection. It is all well and good, but if you set up a system that deletes and discourages the participation of Rogues and Knaves, you also cut out about 50% of your participating population; thus cutting site activity and advertising allure. And I am not just referring to the posters, but also the folk that do not post but keep returning to see what new indecent maliciousness is being wrought. I am very sure the good folk of the TP do not support Vularity and Boorishness, but I can not believe they do not mind the namecalling, the posting wars and uncivility that DRIVES the numbers under the heroic umbrella of Freedom of Speech and Expression. To be frank, it does provide for some good and humerous reading. HOWEVER, at some point advertisers--and maybe that is whom those who are upset with the monitoring of the site should address--may ultimately dictate the level of speech and content that is deemed acceptable and necessitates some form of judicious monitoring. As a business owner, I would never advertise on this site in its current state of being.

I love the ability for good folk to instantly respond to articles and opinions as well as engage in "lively" debate. I have no problem that civility is often bent in such activiites when exercising our right to speak--which is not altogethe guaranteed when a private entity is involved. Meaning, even though as a media outlet, the TP has a preordained duty to champion Free Speech and abhor is limits, it still has the right to edit and limit what goes on ITS site no matter how frontier-like, lawless and untamable the Internet may be viewed.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughs

Some interesting feelings and opinions--which we are propogating, right?

Anyway, earlier this year there were some really violent, vulgar and dispicable posts directed to a writer. I contacted the TP via email, and it was taken care of pretty quickly. At the time I suggested and volunteered to be moderator (among many, of course) to zap such garbage as soon as it hit the site. I join with JimF in asking the TP SERIOUSLY consider setting up such a system to monitor and edit the site. Oddly, as I type there is a totally inappropriate comment post under Sam's opinion piece (which I would love to remove IMMEDIATELY--it is the right thing to do), and I saw Cheri had stricken two other articles as well. These appear not to be one time occurences but rather rule. There is a true problem here that appears to be growing, and I encourage the Uppers of the TP to take some action as oppose to marvelling at all the "good suggestions". Lively debate, including artistic license and bits of name calling are gonna happen. Unfortunaltey, proper debate ediquette can and should not be edited and legislated. HOWEVER, vulgarity, slander (see senseless comments under Mickey M's Opinion piece) and other forms of vile and rougish behavior can. The Tracy Press needs to monitor and edit the online comments in the same manner they would their Op-Ed page. If this pap is not copesetic for the printed page, then it is just as unworthy of online publication.

My suggestion:

Set up some standards and procedure for posting. These do not have to be stringent or completely impinge on the free speech rights of individuals, just hold them accountble to being on the very fringe of civility. With Free Speech comes accountability. Bring together a group of TP volunteers to monitor the site for posts that do not meet the standards. I would then set up a system whereas readers can "flag" inappropriate posts and the abuse of the service, thus ensuring prompt attention to truly abusive posts including what appears to be the fashionable sport of impersonating or slightly changing the names of REAL particpants. Just like grafetti, if you keep cleaning it up, the taggers get tired and move on. Lastly, I would strongly encourage a more stringent registration process. All participants must register providing pertinent information like phone, address and email info. You can take things a bit furher and require the actual use of your name--heck, opinion pieces and letters the editor require this exact information. These steps alone will send the Uncouths packing.

So why is this only a "good suggestion" and an idealistic hallucination and totally impractical in the 3D world? The answer lies on the front page of Saturday's TP--"316,376 page views and GROWING". Whom do you think this statement is geared towards? First, the egomaniacs (like most of us that enjoy having our say and shouting to the world : ) and Second, ADVERTISERS. Completely banish any thought of Freedom of Speech protection. It is all well and good, but if you set up a system that deletes and discourages the participation of Rogues and Knaves, you also cut out about 50% of your participating population; thus cutting site activity and advertising allure. And I am not just referring to the posters, but also the folk that do not post but keep returning to see what new indecent maliciousness is being wrought. I am very sure the good folk of the TP do not support Vularity and Boorishness, but I can not believe they do not mind the namecalling, the posting wars and uncivility that DRIVES the numbers under the heroic umbrella of Freedom of Speech and Expression. To be frank, it does provide for some good and humerous reading. HOWEVER, at some point advertisers--and maybe that is whom those who are upset with the monitoring of the site should address--may ultimately dictate the level of speech and content that is deemed acceptable and necessitates some form of judicious monitoring. As a business owner, I would never advertise on this site in its current state of being.

I love the ability for good folk to instantly respond to articles and opinions as well as engage in "lively" debate. I have no problem that civility is often bent in such activiites when exercising our right to speak--which is not altogethe guaranteed when a private entity is involved. Meaning, even though as a media outlet, the TP has a preordained duty to champion Free Speech and abhor is limits, it still has the right to edit and limit what goes on ITS site no matter how frontier-like, lawless and untamable the Internet may be viewed.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughs