New Haven Independent

Posted by: norton street | May 21, 2009 9:28 AM

f... this

Posted by: joey a | May 21, 2009 11:32 AM

Ya as long as they fit the Independents agenda!

Posted by: anon | May 21, 2009 11:53 AM

Care to explain, Joey A?

Posted by: Hew Naven? | May 21, 2009 12:00 PM

Paul, have you ever considered requiring a username and password system, as well as comment voting and history? Sites like Reddit utilize this approach to avoid anonymity (in a sense), and provide background/history for a particular user, thus eliminating the ambiguity of a commenter's ideology.

The voting system would place pithy remarks near the bottom of the page and thoughtful responses at the top...ideally.

What do you think?

BTW, I never noticed that rule about using the same name. My apologies; from here on I will abide.

Posted by: Streever | May 21, 2009 12:19 PM

Norton Street :(.

Posted by: Wicked Lester | May 21, 2009 1:14 PM

What is the big issue with anonymity? The only time an anonymous poster is criticized for being anonymous is when someone disagrees with that person. But if you agree then it doesn't matter what name they use? Unless someone is a public figure, how do we know if indeed a supposedly real name is actually real? People use made-up names on message boards everywhere. It doesn't invalidate their message, despite what self-appointed kings-of-the-message-board-sandboxes think. As if they're some recognized celebrity.
You're all a bunch of strangers to me anyway. I have no idea who any of you are, despite your criticisms of anonymity. Your "real names" are just as anonymous to me as I am to you. Get over it. It's just a message board.

Posted by: Whatsername | May 21, 2009 1:53 PM

@Paul: I really appreciate this post. I think having a commenting policy and sharing it with the community is a good idea. I like your rules--it seems like you're simply setting up the parameters of public discourse about articles. Thanks for this. Can this be a permanent link in the commenting section for each article?

For example, after "Post a comment" perhaps you could have, in a smaller font, "Commenting policy" with a link to this page. This way it's always available for people to read, particularly new users.

@Joey A: From reading others' comments posted on articles, I find that there is no particular agenda being pushed--it seems to me that dissenting views are represented in the comments' section. I would have to disagree with your assessment of the situation.

@Streever: Thanks.

Posted by: robn | May 21, 2009 2:40 PM

verum vulnero

Posted by: nfjanette | May 21, 2009 4:20 PM

Holy Moses, Rush and Glen were right: the liberals DO control the media! Now, I have to go back to my "obomba" shelter and wait the the obvious end to western civilization caused by this revelation.

Posted by: Ken Krayeske | May 21, 2009 5:04 PM

Anonymity allows people to hide, to say things that they wouldn't normally say, and sometimes those things cross the bounds of decency.

It isn't so bad here, because Paul and Melissa do a good job moderating. And while anonymity has its place in American history (Publius - a pseudonym - wrote the Federalist Papers), I don't see anyone scratching out the Federalist Papers in the blog comments.

Newspapers, as flawed as they are/were, demanded that readers attach their names to feedback in the form of Letters to the Editor. The NHI has a little more free flowing version of that. Having gone to jail for attaching my name to online comments, I feel strongly that people should be held accountable for what they say, and anonymity prevents that.

I'd like what happens in cyberspace to reflect reality. That's a pipe dream. But in the meantime, I give far more creedence to comments that back themselves up with the full faith and credit of a name.

Every reporter uses their name, and stands by their information in that manner. Commenters should offer readers the same courtesy.

Posted by: Consti2amend | May 21, 2009 6:28 PM

I believe that being anonymous IS ok! Yeah, one of my posts did NOT make it in, but that is ok. I tried very hard NOT to offend anyone, and still don't know why it wasn't posted. My REAL e-mail address is included where it is asked for. If everyone has included thier "real" e-mail address, then maybe, we should be contacted OFF LINE {NHI}, concerning what is perceived as our wrongfull comment{s}!
OR, maybe there is a way to stop receiving e-mails from that addressee?

BTW, being anonymous keeps my neighbors, employer, and some of my associates from knowing my true feelings on different subjects! No, I'm NOT a racist, hate-monger, or religious fanatic, but some stories that I would respond to could ALMOST make me look like one, to the un-initiated! Read the one on renaming Whalley Ave/MLK Blvd.

Posted by: DAFeder | May 21, 2009 9:24 PM

If we take Paul at his word, that, "We consider our news articles the beginning of the story, not the end; the comments move the stories forward," anonymous posters have to think about this: would you read the Independent the same way if the articles were written anonymously? "WestvilleComposter" and "CycleGirl" don't make me read past the headlines.

David

Posted by: robn | May 21, 2009 10:31 PM

"let he who scoth at anonymity be the first to shun the confessional"

Posted by: Consti2amend | May 21, 2009 11:37 PM

Wait a minute. Now I get it! My post was not accepted because I asked if Streever would loan out his bicycle pump!

Posted by: Streever | May 22, 2009 12:19 AM

The thing with the anonymous people is that they frequently post outlandish, outrageous, and illogical things. Telling us about conspiracy theories & secret dealings. It does hurt their credibility & make it less likely that anyone will get involved or care about what they are saying.

I'm sorry, but attaching a real name that belongs to a real person does give you a little more credibility--though, if any of the anonymous people ever posted actual facts instead of just opinion, we wouldn't even have to worry about their credibility.

It's not simply the anonymous nature of their commentary, but the inaccurate generalizations & lack of truth to what they are saying. It's frustrating because you know that the person is too embarassed to own up to their opinion, and frankly, if you can't acknowledge that you hold a viewpoint, I don't know why you need to share it, unless it will actually hurt you in a legal/professional way, and you are putting in actual fact out there that can be verified/researched.

Posted by: JMS | May 22, 2009 7:41 AM

This is not some mega national site where anonymous posters hammer away at eachother with talk radio inspired rhetoric. The NHI provides quality, specialized local news coverage along with this popular outlet for New Haven residents to voice and exchange (hopefully) facts, experiences and opinions on such topics. This forum remains local and populated for the most part with New Haven residents. And so I agree with Mr. Streever that having the guts to step forward and be known by our real names can add a degree of weight to the words we post here. I know it has caused me to think a little more carefully about what I post before I post it. I used to just hammer out reactionary comments like people tend to do on public forums... but now I take a quick moment to review my words to make sure I have not put my foot too far down my throat. Bottom line... I agree that dropping your anonymous status qualifies your content with many participants on the NHI. That doesn't mean I skip over posts from people with funny web handles... but I do switch gears when I see people posting under their actual names.

Posted by: Bulldog | May 22, 2009 7:53 AM

Thank God for bankrupt newspapers that pay their bosses huge bonuses. They at least allow FREE SPEECH.

Posted by: True Liberal | May 22, 2009 8:38 AM

So, liberal opinions are alright because the only ones to oppose these opinions are ignorant, Bible thumping, homophobic, racist, misogynist bigots. Those who are left of center have the right to censor opinions for the greater good of the community.

Of course racist and bigoted comments should not be printed- to this I agree. However, hiding behind political correctness and defining criticism of the superintendant of schools, and nepotism and cronyism in the NHPS and New Haven Government as racism is illiberal and unfair.

[Editor's Note: Just to be clear, the comments that I was apologizing for here, about those two officials, ahd nothing to do with liberal or conservative argumetns, but scurrilous invented personal jabs.]

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | May 22, 2009 8:41 AM

I'm sure this was a tough call for the NHI team, as I don't think that's why they started this website. Traditional news media is so horribly biased, and unlike NPR, doesn't give many facts pertaining to the actual story. So many articles/news bytes leave the reader/watcher hanging-on with questions and don't cover the story well.

Online newspapers have the advantage of fast reporting: when the NHI was the first to report the fire that claimed the Brass Monkey restaurant, Channel 8 (which sits 1 block away) took ALL DAY to respond to that story! New Haven Register's website was not updated with the news until THAT EVENING (if memory serves correctly).

Internet-based journalism has always been an interactive medium. It is expected that readers participate; it is dynamic in the viewpoints presented. Reader comments are therefore encouraged, though monitored.

As a longtime member of TechIMO.com, I have come to admire and respect the moderators of that forum. There are trolls, flamers, and those who do "number 2" in the posts meant for computer-related Q&A, and which do nothing to advance the discussion, often focusing on topics completely irrelevant (including racist comments, shameless plugs of their websites/products, questions of their own which aren't on-topic, etc).

Moderators are necessary to keep discussions (often heated!) civil. There are moderators at town hall meetings, candidate debates, and in the court system (bailiff, judge). The fact that the NHI has taken the time to spell out what's ok to post and what isn't, as well as actually acknowledging the fact to its readers that censorship in the form of reviewing comments before they're posted is admirable. Not a whole lot of news sites have a comment feature, and those that do are pure rubbish.

When the NHI decided to start moderating the responses, I was happy! No more Alphonse Credenza thread-dumping in the traditional sense. I think he decided that in order to be taken seriously, he would have to accept that bikes DO belong on the street and pursue other debates.

Thank you NHI. Also, thanks to the sponsors and to those who subscribe for making this news"paper" possible. Were it not for my recent unemployment and subsequent frugality, I'd be a subscriber!

~Eric
of New Haven

Posted by: Wicked Lester | May 22, 2009 9:13 AM

So "Streever" and "JMS" are real names? I've lived in New Haven all my life and have no idea who these famous New Haven celebrities are. How did I miss "New Haven Idol"? Is Streever one of those one-names like Fabian, Cher and Prince? If I go to the green today and ask random people who Streever and JMS are, people will know? You're still anonymous to me, and your posts do not carry any extra credibility just because you're supposedly using real names. Unless you're public office holders, you're still essentially anonymous.

Posted by: jawbone | May 22, 2009 9:50 AM

DAFEDER,
The articles in the The Economist magazine are written anonymously. No byline provided. It makes no difference to me whether those articles are credited, or not.

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | May 22, 2009 9:58 AM

go on a critical mass bicycle ride. yell out "streever!" and you'll see one head turn 'round. That's streever!

celebrities are sometimes born into their fame; others create it. Streever is a self-made new haven celebrity, and he has done much good for new haven!

I met him a few years ago when I sold him a bicycle from my Dwight St residence, and later I found out he was my ex-gf's first kiss! small world!

back on topic, thanks, NHI for selecting my above comment for public viewing. if moderation were not implemented on this website, I wholeheartedly believe I would have stopped reading this site; bad manners, rude comments, and off-topic responses turn me off to sites and I rarely return!

leave Jerry Springer on tv, this is a NEWS DISCUSSION FORUM!

Thanks again!

oh, and New Haven is certainly an interesting place; I have my windows open and can smell tomato sauce cooking at Est Est Est pizza restaurant! mmm!

Posted by: William Kurtz | May 22, 2009 10:13 AM

The 'anonymity vs. real name' debate is yet another example of how binary thinking about issues is not particularly useful or productive. The question perhaps shouldn't be, "is it good or bad to use an anonymous handle?" There are good reasons to post anonymously, and good reasons not to. Some people work in climates where they might not want their political views, whatever they are, to be known. Some people might not want to invite criticism or worse. Anonymity also allows a person's responses to be evaluated on their merits, independently of any baggage attached to the poster. His or her argument can be evaluated on the validity and relevance of its facts and the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn from them, and not on the reader's opinion of the writer. (i.e., "Oh, that crazy unicycle-riding Streever.")

On the other hand, anonymity often seems to grant a person the license to say things they would probably be reluctant to say in polite company. Like JMS said, using your own name makes you think about what you're writing--for my own part, I don't consider myself some kind of celebrity and expect that anyone else knows who I am, but I avoid writing anything in this forum that I wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation.

I think one of the best benefits of this kind of forum is that it does allow all (nearly all, with the restrictions Mr. Bass identified) voices to be heard on equal footing. Everyone has exactly the same amount of time and space to make their case, access to the same facts, time to think and frame their response--it's not the O'Reilly show, where the host can tell you to "shut up" and cut your mike off, or Jerry Springer when you never know when someone's going to come out and hit you with a shoe. The playing field is as level as it gets.

Posted by: Pedro | May 22, 2009 11:00 AM

As dot com boom refugee, moderated anonymous/non-anonymous postings are the best of both worlds, and allow for both civilized AND raucous debate.

Interestingly, WTNH and NHR both appear to have tightened up their registration and moderation. Perhaps there will be decent debate on those forums, rather than a race to the bottom.

Posted by: DAFeder | May 22, 2009 11:55 AM

It's a fair point, Jawbone. But The Economist is also 166 years old; the NHI has 163 years of authorial credibility to make up. I bet Paul & co. could do it in 100 -- they look pretty healthy...

I'd say that anonymity doesn't affect my respect for the ideas involved, but a real name gives me some respect for the writer as a human being. And let's be honest -- for a lot of posters, that's the only respect for them that I have!

Also -- this isn't a new policy, right? Just a clarification of what's been done in the past? I also appreciate the time put into editing. An example of the alternative -- the Register's first reader comment after the recent shooting at Wesleyan was (and I'm loath even to reproduce it here) something like "one fewer Obama voter." It was removed sometime later, but there's no reason to expose a family member, say, to that kind of abuse. Suffice it to say, it was anonymous.

David

Posted by: susan barnes | May 22, 2009 12:03 PM

Hey, Robn - I guess you have not been to confession of late. It's now face to face. Try it, you'll like it. LOL

Posted by: lance | May 22, 2009 12:34 PM

so if obama wrote 'typical white person' in the comment section, you'd censor it as offensive....

[Editor's note: Yes.]

Posted by: Edward_H | May 22, 2009 1:23 PM

I have an idea. The NHI should throw a anniversary party and invite all the posters. That way no one is anonymous anymore! I'll bring the chips and dip.

Posted by: William Kurtz | May 22, 2009 2:55 PM

Hmmm . . . in fairness to Lance, I'll call the editor's attention to this comment which does not seem to have been censored as offensive:

This really low hanging fruit, but look at the pictures. I've never seen so many ethnic whites in one place in New Haven. For me, they're the scary people.

Moderation is a good thing. Anyone's who waded through the swamp of the NHR comments section, with its open expressions of racism and calls for violence, should certainly agree.

Posted by: Consti2amend | May 22, 2009 4:33 PM

I am in agreement with the "policies" stated above!
BUT we cannot go to far with the "Political Correctness" issue.
Please read Brian Jenning's book "Censorship, The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, The "NEW" Fairness Doctrine Exposed".
Become "enlightened"! I wish only to be as smart as William and Streever {honestly!}. Both icons in the local comunity!
Maybe I will start a "fan club" for them? ;)

Posted by: JMS | May 23, 2009 1:03 AM

Sorry... don't know how the change my tag on NHI... but JMS are my initials. Joshua Morris Silverman. Born and raised in New Haven... public school product... Edgewood, Sheridan, Cross, HSC. Proud resident, home owner, tax payer, married a local girl, kid in public school, etc.

I have (for example) seen David Streever at various events and therefore know he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to his local activism, and views/comments he posts here on the NHI. Not a celebrity by any means... nor am I... far from it. Just not afraid to post our names. And no it doesn't make our words any more qualified then anyone else's. But in my mind the non-anonymous posters here are simply willing to take a slightly higher degree of ownership of their opinions and contributions to these running debates and commentaries. Not a huge deal but it simply means something to me as a fellow resident. And for the record I don't always agree with Mr. Streever but I know he's the real deal.

I understand this is the big bad internet and many people are uncomfortable posting their real names. On some websites I do the same thing. But this site feels very friendly and local and so I don't have a problem doing it here. I am glad to openly be a small part of what I have found to be a very interesting little group of concerned (if not occasionally ranting and raving... myself included) fellow New Haven residents.

Posted by: robn | May 23, 2009 9:04 AM

Look,

If transparent identity for all means that I won't get to hear insider info from people like CityHallWatch (who I infer is an insider) then I prefer anonymity. I don't agree with everything he/she posts, but I still want to hear it.
And maybe a lot of it is hyperbole or absurdity but there may be a subconscious kernel of truth at the center of ridiculous comments...or maybe the absurdity can elicit or provoke truth from others.

Posted by: Esteban | May 23, 2009 10:07 AM

I can tell you from personal experience that Paul Bass will make an effort to find out who you are when you post a comment that he doesn't like. Be careful of Big Brother! In fact, why bother posting at all? Sadly, I've come to realize that in New Haven nothing you have to say makes a difference unless you are part of the oligarchy that has plagued this one party town for the last fifty years.

Posted by: John Smith | May 23, 2009 11:42 AM

Anonymous or otherwise, few have less credibility than David Streever.

While I don't think any Yale social "scientist" has collected the necessary data to provide quantitative proof of the above, it is a fact nonetheless.

Although I, too, would like to boast of my courage for boldly using my real name, I am not afforded this pleasure because my name is so common. There is no easy way to distinguish me in the comments section from the countless other John Smiths in New Haven. Thus I remain virtually anonymous and outside of the limelight offered to such brave souls as William Kurtz.

Posted by: jackie | May 23, 2009 12:54 PM

@Streever: you know that the person is too embarassed to own up to their opinion [...] I don't know why you need to share it, unless it will actually hurt you in a legal/professional way, and you are putting in actual fact out there that can be verified/researched.

"Actual facts" are not the only things worth saying. Moreover, there may be "actual facts" around town that people don't want to admit for various reasons. Here's a fact: Living here for a few years has opened my eyes in a way that occasionally generates comments in "real" conversations that my pre-New Haven self would have found deplorably "racist." But these comments in fact originate in part in a set of complex problems that have clear inter-racial and cultural factors as well as socioeconomic ones. Ignoring these facts is foolish and counterproductive, but suggesting their existence will make you unpopular with people who don't want their pristine visions of reality disturbed.

And so speaking of binarism, I see that people are generally conditioned either to blame, e.g., certain groups for everything or are discouraged by a set of self-imposed cultural restraints not to blame those same groups. This latter choice is one we make not only for ourselves (to preserve our own standing among our peers) but also for the community in which we live; we don't want to cause problems and create a sense of antagonism.
Yet that sense of restraint is not very helpful if it prevents things that should be said from being said. Especially considering no group/individual is perfect and we should all be looking toward self- and community-betterment.

So if anonymity can help us all identify problems and solutions that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do, then I think that's just fine. But that's just my opinion, not an actual fact.

Posted by: Walt | May 24, 2009 10:59 AM

I find folks such as Norton St, Cedar Hill, Fedup,Park St,, Lester,ROBN, no less reliable than those like Streever who like to promote their names and denigrate those who disagree with their point of view.

When Cedar Hill was outed by the Advocate as Ms. T, her comments did not become more or less truthful, nor will those of Silverman change now that he has used his name instead of still being disguised as JMS.

It is obvious that the Independent has a liberal bias, but most times they stretch to allow comment from folks like me with whom they most likely seldom agree.

If I have been censored in the past, I do not recall it, but if it has happened, probably I deserved it.

Paul and Melissa do a good job. Their guidelines are excellent and they usually follow them.

Posted by: Consti2amend | May 24, 2009 3:05 PM

Aww, shucks! Now I have to start a John Smith Fan club, too!!

I was born and raised {until 8 yrs of age} in New Haven. I went to Ivy Street School and St. Mary's Grammar School, up on Prospect and Star Streets.
I recently moved back to New Haven, after living no more than 15 miles away! So my roots are "in tight" in New Haven! My father was an Alderman in the "old" 18th Ward. My Grandfather ran, unsuccessfully, for Alderman in the same Ward, prior to my father's winning it! Their time in New Haven Political involvement ran from the mid/late 1920's thru the mid/early 1960's!
No, I do NOT think I will run for ANY position in New Haven! Primarily because I do NOT believe a Constitution thumper could EVER be elected here.

Posted by: XXXX | May 24, 2009 10:10 PM

I find it very interesting that we are told how to be politically correct 6 months before an election. If I was paranoic I'd think the present administration was putting pressure on the Independent's sponsors to put pressure on its editorial staff. I am not paranoic, so this would never happen. Is this sufficiently politically correct to be posted?????????????????????????

Posted by: Wicked Lester | May 25, 2009 10:48 PM

Regarding censorship, I need to address something I found to be disturbing.

There was an article on NHI about a sex-offender being seen cruising a neighborhood. I submitted a comment declaring open season on perverts, no bag limits. That didn't get posted.

However, in the comments section of a Father Manship/immigration article, someone's declaration of wanting to murder East Haven cops was posted!

So let me get this straight: it's not acceptable to wish death upon child molesting scum, but it's OK to wish death upon a cop?

Posted by: Hew Naven? | May 26, 2009 9:56 AM

I don't know. With a name like Wicked Lester, you might become a target of your own posse.

Posted by: Wicked Lester | May 26, 2009 10:37 AM

Hew,

Wicked Lester is an obscure rock 'n' roll reference.

Besides, good guys don't shoot good guys.

Posted by: eddie | May 26, 2009 4:54 PM

Some perspective. I used to work for one of the other newspapers that does not censor comments.

There was a reason: Some corporate attorney had provided a legal ruling that if the editors actively monitored and censored posted content, then they were legally liable for anything posted there. So, for example, if someone posted something libelous, the newspaper was exposed. On the other hand, the attorney argued, if the monitoring was purely passive -- e.g., removing content reported as offensive -- then the newspaper would not be exposed, since it is only the platform provider.

Personally, I prefer a scheme similar to the ones used by Digg, Slashdot and Reddit, where the community of users self-censors by "burying" comments that are judged inappropriate. The downside is that people with viewpoints that are unpopular (but not necessarily in violation of the "rules") also tend to get buried.

Posted by: Wicked Lester | May 27, 2009 8:08 AM

Eddie,

So is "burying" comments the way to play King of the Online Sandbox?

Posted by: Tina Louise | May 27, 2009 11:29 PM

*All Rules for Publishing Have Been Met 5/27/09*

Steve,
You have a unique perspective on the "kill the killers" mentality? I don't think so. Perhaps you should have declined the invitation to watch the execution you were invited to attend.Your poignant version of looking into the eyes of someone who is about to receive his just sentence of death,by a jury of his peers,that has been legally mandated,is a slap in the face to victims everywhere.
Do you believe that your colorful portrayal of an execution impacts those who have had family members brutally,viciously murdered. The answer is no.
You have sympathy for those who survive? Where,when or how do you implement your sympathy to these very real people,who could be your mother,your father,your child?
http://chasingnormal.blogspot.com/
Justice is the issue,not closure.
You were thrilled about the results of the vote here in Ct?
It is my experience,as the first rule of journalism, to check your facts. The Death Penalty most definitely is a deterrent to violent crime,and will continue to be.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm
~The DEATH PENALTY IS about justice.It works.
Check your facts,so you may not write from a distance,with not a clue of the devastion involved.
Death up close and personal is the way the victims of families have to deal with it every day of their lives,forever,without those they love by their side anymore.

Posted by: eddie | May 28, 2009 3:35 PM

Wicked:

The system supposedly works by consensus. One person's "vote" isn't usually enough to bury something below the threshold for viewing.

Posted by: enigma | September 17, 2009 1:42 PM

to you concrenedwestvilleres

if we all like you then murder is a game.