We've moved!
DakotaFreePress.com!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Local Conversations about Arts and Everything Else

A couple of local conversation starters:

The Madison Area Arts Council somehow finagles space on the Lake Area Improvement Corporation website to talk about the arts as economic development. Is this a sign the LAIC is ready to open its ears to creative economic development? Or is this just more window dressing from an economic development corporation determined to maintain the status quo and tell artists (as the moneyed powers behind the ill-designed Dakota Prairie Playhouse did) that "We don't need your kind"?

Of course, the LAIC article, part of its all-new all-digital communications, doesn't include a comment section for the public. The LAIC should take a cue from the South Dakota State Extension Service, which is hosting community conversations in 80 towns around North and South Dakota throughout November.

The nearest Projects and Possibilities session will take place the Howard 4-H Building on Wednesday, November 17, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Three hours is a hefty conversation... and a tough block of time to schedule. Middle of the day is a tough time to catch working folks; the crowd will likely skew older. Let's hope Howard High School lets students out to participate in this conversation as a civics field trip.

Community participants will upload their notes on their meetings to the Citizing website for more public discussion. Notes from the Aberdeen and Redfield meetings are already online. If you can't make a meeting in your town, you can take the project survey online... but just as you would if you went to a meeting, you have to put your name to your words and sign in via a valid Facebook account. The Extension Service agrees with me: nymity promotes better civil discourse.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

KELO Killing Anonymous Comments, Replacing Fora with Facebook

I find the KELO fora a cesspool of cowardly gossip and macho bull. For instance, consider this thread on the Madison firefighter busted for DUI at the wheel of our firetruck. "GlassMan" alleges that the arrest was just a Madison PD vendetta. Pressed for details by other anonymi, "GlassMan" asserts "there's more to this story" that will "all come out in the wash." Funny: the story could come out pretty quickly if "GlassMan" would just tell it. But no: it's more fun to throw insults from behind the veil of anonymity and peddle one's vision of the world without actually backing it up. Grrr. If you have something important to say, can you not simply say it... and put your name to it?

Starting September 28, that's what KELO will require of all of its commenters. KELO is abandoning the fora in favor of a Facebook-based comment system. They appear to be installing a Facebook widget that will allow users to comment at the bottom of each story. That's a bold, bloggy step for KELO, mixing their journalistic product and user content on the same page. But the widget will also require users to sign in with their Facebook account. If I understand Facebook's terms of service, users are not allowed to create anonymous or bogus accounts. So by October, most user comments should come with some reliable attribution.

What will this do to conversation on the KELO website? For a small-potatoes comparison, I imposed comment nymity in May 2009. In one week the preceding April, the Madville Times received about 130 comments, about 90 of which (70%) were anonymous or pseudonymous. Last week I received over 80 "nymous" comments. After the nymity imposition in 2009, I saw a summer-long dip in blog traffic that didn't rebound until August... but that pattern matches the traffic pattern I saw this year: the moment warm weather breaks out, gardening and the lake rightly take people away from their computers to finer pursuits. The blogosphere bounces back right around when school resumes. My current weekly traffic is about double my pre-nymity traffic.

Unlike my commenters, virtually no one in the KELO fora has the guts to put name or face to their words. I would expect their comment traffic to drop 95% when the Facebook widget replaces the fora. But I hope the new requirement of name with words will result in an increase in quality. Folks like "GlassMan" won't be able to start long threads of gossip on supposition and wishful thinking... at least not without taking responsibility for it.

Now, I wonder if they will do us the favor of installing the same widget on the KELO blogs. I would love to see if the risible "Patriot Militia" has the guts to accuse me of treason and threaten me with deportation without hiding behind some fantasy name.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Conservative Website Claims Watchdog Status on Mayor-Elect Huether

...now if that dog just had a name....

NotMyManMike.com, an anti-Mike Huether website, appeared to fold the night Huether won the Sioux Falls mayoral run-off. But they're back with a nice new Wordpress template. As Nick Nemec notes, their latest post, "Election Recap," sounds like some last-gasp sour grapes, but the website promises to stick around as a "watchdog blog."

I disagree with some of the website's apparent politics and take on fiscal policy. I also don't care much for a site that dedicates itself to attacking one man personally but won't identify its own author(s) by name (skyorbit? Come on: we are not the Green Lantern or Vendetta). I do note, however, that the author was willing to identify the website's funding source as Ivan Ven Osdel of Sioux Falls. Site registrant and technical contact is Sioux Falls Libertarian Tracy Saboe. Interestingly, their small blogroll includes a link to a blog by conservative Neal Tapio, a hearkening to South Dakota blogosphere history.

Political disagreements aside, I share the thus far anonymous author's concerns about America's usury capital being governed by a rich former bank president. Democrat or not, Mayor Huether (and every other local government) can use a good watchdog. I hope NotMyManMike.com will ably and honestly fill the role it now claims... and will do so by name.

-----------------------
Update 10:35 CDT: I take that back: skyorbit appears to be Tracy Saboe's online handle. I just wish NotMyManMike.com would make that connection a little clearer. You speak in the public realm, you should speak directly by name.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Comment Nymity Catching on in South Dakota Blogosphere

The Madville Times banned anonymous comments last May. I often consider lifting or lightening the ban to permit casual nameless comments back in the mix. However, my experience on the mudfest forums on KELO and that Sioux Falls paper and the occasional nameless snarkbites submitted here keep me thinking the costs of anonymous comments still outweigh the benefits.

Some other members of the South Dakota blogosphere are coming to a similar conclusion. A couple weeks ago, Mount Blogmore dean Kevin Woster announced a comment policy shift: anonymi can still leave comments, but they cannot issue personal attacks against others who go by name. It's not an absolute policy, but it establishes the reasonable principle that if you want to criticize someone, you have to be willing to stake your own name to your criticism and accept the heat you might get in return.

Bob Newland at the Decorum Forum is quitting anonymi cold turkey: if a post is headed "Anonymous," he now deletes it. But this is a ban more in form than substance: Newland is requiring each speaker adopt a username, but unverifiable pseudonyms are fine.

Meanwhile on the corporate side, Heartland Consumer Power District has adopted a blog to offer a mix of PR material and political commentary. Their comment policy: "Heartland reserves the right to delete any anonymous comments or those containing profanity or personal attacks." They didn't delete my first comment; I'll try to keep it civil.

I'd love to claim a leadership role in encouraging blogs to move away from anonymity. But it's just as likely that this shift is a response to the discussion aroused by the Blog Control Acts (House Bills 1277 and 1278) considered briefly by the South Dakota Legislature this winter. Or perhaps this shift is a result of the natural cultural evolution I suggested to Rep. Noel Hamiel as a superior response to discourse in this still-new medium than draconian and unconstitutional legislation.

So what's your read of the state of the South Dakota blogosphere? Are the blogs moving toward a more civil and responsible role in democracy? Or is move to rein in comments akin to the closing of the frontier, an end of the Wild West days, with cowboys and saloon girls giving way to schoolmarms and church singalongs?

-------------------------------
Web Bonus! Retired journalism professor Bill Kunerth takes a turn at the Black Hills Monitor mic to discuss anonymity/confidentiality in a different context: the hiring of public officials. His comments come in response to the Rapid City school board's super-secret superintendent selection process. Kunerth says revealing names weeds out the weak and selects the strongest, most competent candidates. That's kind of like what happens with blog comments... although Bob Ellis is a powerful counterexample.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Heidepriem Practices What He Preaches on Openness

...Opponents Use Anonymity and Sneaky CyberSquatting

Compare:

Democrative candidate for governor Scott Heidepriem announces a unique fundraising program in which donors and all the rest of us will know exactly which ads they've paid for. When Heidepriem talks about openness and transparency in government, he means it.

Now if you're Googling around to learn more about the Heidepriem campaign, be careful where you click. Heidepriem's website is ScottHeidepriem.com. Some anonymous trickster bought HeidepriemForGovernor.com and redirected it to an Aberdeen American News editorial from February 2009 criticizing Heidepriem for a conflict of interest on gambling legislation.

This criticism may be worth discussing... although the Republican-controlled Legislature never saw fit to bother with investigation the editorial called for.

But why has the online prankster not put his or her name to this criticism? Run the WHOIS search, and you find that the web domain was purchased last July via DomainsByProxy.com. No direct contact information. No willingness to take ownership of this criticism.

People have used cybersquatting before to oppose South Dakota Dems. Jeff O'Hara has been sitting on CoryHeidelberger.com and a few other relevant domains for three years in an attempt to hinder my online presence (I don't think it's working).

Cybersquatting isn't a crime, but it's not particularly ethical, either. If you're going to do it, though, why not be open about it? Mr. HeidepriemForGovernor.com, why not have the guts to say, "I'm Rufus Goofus, and I approve of this message, because I disapprove of Scott Heidepriem"?

In a new and public way, Scott Heidepriem's supporters will say, "We believe in our message, and we'll stake our names to it for all to see." Will Heidepriem's online detractors have the same courage?

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Anonymity and Legal Liability: Under Blog Control Act, Only Lawyers Will Blog

Amidst the hullaballo about South Dakota's proposed Blog Control Acts, Cap Journal cool cat David Montgomery points us toward some civil discussion in the Chicago Tribune of anonymity and the Internet. The article views the tracing of identity online as easier than we all think; however, requiring every person who allows Internet posts to collect and archive such information creates an ugly tangle of legal liability.

Some significant quotes from the Tribune report:

If people … are afraid that some editor is going to look behind the administrative interface, then (they) won't come and talk on the site, and they certainly won't be as willing to talk about controversial topics," said David Ardia, director of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project [Georgia Garvey and William Lee, "Anonymity Is No Guarantee in Online Postings," Chicago Tribune, 2010.02.14].

In other words, chilling effect, the kind of thing that gets laws overturned on First Amendment grounds.

Flax says the Tribune has been subpoenaed more than once for information about anonymous posters, including civil cases where people felt they had been defamed and criminal cases where someone may have witnessed a crime.

"We would always try to give time to let the poster go (to court) and quash" the subpoena, Flax said. There may also be instances where the news organization determines the commenter was acting as a news source and the company could elect to fight to protect the person's privacy, she said [Garvey and Lee, 2010].

There's another legal complication for bloggers. Suppose someone leaves a nasty comment on my blog. An offended party drags me to court under HB 1277 to get the commenter's identity. Do I have a legal obligation to contact the commenter myself first to alert them to the court action and give the commenter a chance to quash the subpoena? There's another question I can't afford to pay a lawyer to figure out for me... and another liability that might make regular citizens decide blogging is more trouble than it's worth.

HB 1277 and HB 1278 are so vaguely written and leave so many questions about legal liability up in the air that, if I didn't know better, I'd think lawyers wrote them just so that no one but lawyers would dare to blog.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Friendly Reminder: Leave Your Comment, Leave Your Name

We've had a surge of comments (hooray! thank you!), so a little reminder of the comment nymity policy for new participants is in order. Your comments are always welcome; however, I want to know who is speaking. If you don't leave a recognizable full name or a link to a publicly accessible profile or a website that lets us know who you are, I will delete your comment. We may argue passionately, but we will do so face-to-face, as neighbors (local or global, the word applies).

Now I know some folks log in by pseudonym or leave just a first name—I can live with that, as long as I can identify the speaker. "Goldman" links to his full-name profile. "Nonnie" is Linda McIntyre from Winfred. Adam is Mr. Feser of Red Blue & Purple. And so on.

Note comment nymity isn't law. It's not a contract. It's just the price I set for participation in public discourse.

p.s.: When I implemented this policy last May, a commenter whom I couldn't identify at the time said, "RIP Madville times your glory was memorable. With the new policy it proves all glory is fleeting." Let's see...
  • Average weekly unique visitors in (roughly) April 2009, pre-nymity policy: 2510.
  • Average weekly unique visitors over the past four weeks, including the relatively slow holidays: 2711.
(Of course, half of those visits are from Steve Sibson... but his crush on me is flattering.)

Who needs glory? I'm having more fun than ever here. Onward!

Thursday, August 27, 2009

No Shouting at Ghosts: Leave Name with Comment

We're having a spate of anonymous and pseudonymous comments this morning, so a friendly reminder is in order. I'm happy you're all reading, and I'm happy to get your input. But the price of publicity is nymity: put your name, your real name, a name I can verify, to your comments. If I can't tell who you are, I delete the comment, regardless of its content. Putting names to words promotes civil discourse and accountability. Words you are afraid to put your name to probably shouldn't be said... but you can also send them to me privately.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Nymity Policy on Comments; Friendly Friday Reminder

I've had a small surge in anonymous, pseudonymous, or seminymous comments lately, so it appears a reminder on the comment policy is in order. Remember that every comment should be traceable to a real, recognizable person, just as if you were standing up in a public meeting to speak your mind. If other participants aren't able to tell who you are, either by name or quick Google search or asking me, I will delete the comment. It's neither personal nor political—I have deleted a number of comments that express complete agreement with the leftisit propaganda found here. It's simply an effort toward more reasonable, responsible communication... which has been working quite well, thank you readers!

Of course, if you'd like to establish your identity to comment, you don't have to go through the rigamarole of creating an online account. You can come to tomorrow's South Dakota Blogosphere Open House and introduce yourself! Macgregor, redhatterb, Nonnie, even Searaven—come visit!

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Nymity for Neighborly Conversation: Comment Policy Reminder

I'm receiving a welcome stream of pleasant comments that I am nonetheless deleting in adherence to the anonymous-comment moderation policy. Thus, a reminder is in order: the nymity-only comment policy remains in effect. If you want your comment to stick, I need to know who you are. Include your name—full name, or at least a link that will allow me to easily verify your full name and your actual existence as a real neighbor. If you prefer to conceal your identity but still want to share info, contact me privately. It's nothing personal, and it has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with me. It's just about keeping the conversation real. Public discourse is great; identity is the price of admission.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Anonymity and the Internet as Real Life, Not Second Life

My poll on anonymity for commenters drew 163 responses, a pretty high response rate for Madville Times polls. In connection with my new practice of deleting all anonymous and pseudonymous comments, I asked you if blog commenters should be required* to include their full name. 104 said No, 59 said Yes. 64% to 36% against. Still better than President Bush's closing approval rating.

So how's that new and wildly unpopular policy working out? Read through the comments from the last few days, and you'll see exactly what I expected: a mostly civil exchange among Stan, John, Rod, Curtis, Tony, Kelly, Don, Tim, Kelsey... (dang... pretty guy heavy!). We talk, share ideas, point out pros and cons in each other's ideas. Posts (e.g., here, here, and here) that a couple weeks ago probably would have drawn vituperative outrage and ad hominem attacks have seen nothing of the sort. The daily anti-O comments have disappeared (please don't tell me the commenters are too scared of fascist retribution to put their names to sincere criticism of the President).

Not that my goal is to stifle dissent; far from it, I still welcome vigorous disagreement, and I still get some. But with anonymity gone, I just don't get the screaming, "Cory, you're an evil bastard going to hell!" type of disagreement. Funny—if I really am an evil bastard, why would anyone be afraid to say so? Folks talk about the need for anonymity to avoid retribution, but it's not like I have the money or power to make my critics lose their jobs or catch swine flu.

I continue to think a lot about anonymity and pseudonymity and the nature of online discourse. Part of the problem with using no names or false names seems to lie in enabling people to act without integrity.

Think about how easy it is online to act in ways that are uncharacteristic. We are disembodied on the Internet. We are separated from almost all of the normal social cues of a conversation: facial expression, tone of voice, body language. Despite multimedia capabilities, we still make our presence known and know the presence of others almost solely by words transmitted via keystrokes and uniform fonts. Online, it is hard to feel like ourselves, because we can transmit so little of what we usually think of as ourselves through this medium. When we are so separated from ourselves, it becomes easier to act like someone else.

For many users, the Internet is still a not-quite-real realm. Perhaps some view the Internet less as real interaction and more as a video game. We have an urge, it seems, to put on masks and imagine ourselves to be superheroes crusading against the profound evil perpetrated by Dick Cheney or the unholy Obama-Reid-Pelosi Triumvirate, the Tea Partiers or the New World Order, the theocrats or the RINOs or the LibDonks. We fire our rhetorical lasers at each other with all the sympathy reserved for the little blinky dudes in Space Invaders or the hulking sword-wielding Grendels of World of Warcraft.

This video-game perspective changes when you use your real name online. Your name is the most compact bit of personal context you can transmit online. When you attach your name to your words online, they remain a part of who you are. You keep accountability for them. You accept the possibility that someone will look you—not your online persona or avatar—in the eye and say you were wrong or rude or over the line.

And to protect your good name, you will inevitably take a little more care to avoid being wrong or rude or over the line.

The Internet is not just Second Life. It is real life. It is new and strange (not even 20 years of widespread public use), so it is understandable that we would still view it as somehow separate from who we really are. But as I have interacted with it and through it over the last thirteen years, as I have put my name to e-mails, teacher websites, blogs, and scholarly publications, the Internet has become an integral part of my life. The Internet is not an escape, a place I go to do things I wouldn't do in public. The Internet is a tool that makes it possible to do more in public—in my case, to express and solicit opinions and ideas in ways that would be prohibitively expensive for me by older means of publication.

I like speaking publicly. So do some of my readers. If you don't, that's fine. The Internet gives you plenty of opportunity to send messages and play games without anyone knowing it's you. But understand that this corner of the Internet is a space for neighborly conversation. And neighbors know each other. Neighbors have names.


*Amazingly, after two weeks, no one called me on the typo: "requireed". Maybe outrage at such an error skewed the negative vote?

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Nymity:Amity::Anonymity:Enmity?

Hi, I'm Cory.
What's your name?
It's a glorious Sunday! Before you go fishing, take a moment to vote in my new poll (upper left sidebar) on anonymity and blog comments. I've received some useful comments from folks on the new Madville Times comment policy banning anonymity. I'd like to supplement that input with some numbers (yes, you can vote anonymously—irony?).

And as you go fishing, think about this hypothetical: You meet someone. You begin the conversation by putting out your hand and introduce yourself. Instead of shaking your hand, the other person hides her face and doesn't offer a name. What's the impression you get?

Awkward? Disrespectful? Shy? Finnish?

That hypothetical got me to wondering if we can accept anonymity as a template for real neighborly conversation. The Internet is a different medium with different rules and different possibilities... but it's still human interaction. Worthwhile communication still requires some basic human respect... and isn't responding to an introduction with your name and a handshake part of respect?

I've got a dissertation on the blogosphere in the works (expect a call from me, fellow bloggers!), so I've been thinking quite a bit about the impact of anonymity on the sense of community we can build online. The hostility anonymity can unleash is obvious to even casual readers. Yet anonymity can also open the door for unexpected insights. How to choose?

You can Google up a number of suggestions for the opposite of anonymity: identity, accountability, nymity, anonanonymity.... I like nymity for novelty, brevity, and assonance... but identity will likely be the scholarly choice.

You can find plenty of other perspectives on anonymity and its opposites at these sites:
You might also be interested in reading about Robert J. Nash's concept of moral conversation. He offers moral conversation as a template for effective teaching. I'm wondering if it will work (and if I have the moxie to live up to its principles) as a template for blogging and online community building.

Stay tuned: more to come! in the meantime, your thoughts are welcome. Oh, by the way, my name is Cory Allen Heidelberger. What was yours again?

Friday, May 1, 2009

Anonymity or Publicity: Take Your Pick

Would you walk into a city commission meeting or Gary's Bakery wearing a mask to chat with your neighbors? Neither would I.

Therefore, new rules of engagement, kids! See the new Madville Times comment policy:
  1. Leave your real name with your comment.
  2. If I don't recognize your name, and if you don't provide a hyperlink to a profile or other identifying information, I delete the comment.
  3. If you have something to say but are unwilling to say it publicly, send your info privately, and we can talk.
  4. Don't like it? Get your own blog. It's easy, it's free.
(Still not as concise as the admirable comment policy at this website... but I'm trying.)

Life is full of choices. In civil discourse, you can choose between anonymity and publicity. Attaching your identity to your words is a small price to pay to participate in neighborly public discourse. Think of it as an investment, an investment of added context, meaning, and decency to your words. I've been doing it for four years here at the Madville Times, and I quite enjoy it. I hope you will, too.

All policies are provisionary: we'll try this and see how it works. Onward and upward!

Friday, April 27, 2007

Anonymous Comments -- a Policy Update

Readers may note with interest an update to the Madville Times comment moderation policy (linked permanently in the sidebar under "MT Editorial Links"). I have been thinking for some time about following the common practice of Jon Hunter and other newspaper publishers and disallowing anonymous comments. The policy update does not announce a change -- I will still accept anonymous comments -- but it does offer the official Madville Times viewpoint on anonymous comments and criteria for commenters to consider in moderating their own comments. Please file any comments under that post, not this one.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Robert on the Tyranny of Unanimity

South Dakota's National Forensic League District Student Congress contest took me away from blogging last weekend. I spent Friday and Saturday coaching my kids, scoring speeches, and strolling the majestic and inspiring halls of the State Capitol building in Pierre. Nine of our state's finest student speakers qualified for Nationals, scheduled for Wichita in June.

A key component of Student Congress is parliamentary procedure, so when we hold our "StuCo" contests every March and April, I always find myself paging through Robert's Rules of Order, (Newly Revised), that venerable manual of parliamentary procedure first created by America's General Henry M. Robert in the 1870s. This year, between reviews of actual rules, I paged through the historical introduction (see the 10th Edition, Perseus: Cambridge, MA, 2000), which notes that Robert, who believed firmly in vigorous debate and majority rule, was well known for guiding the various boards he chaired toward unanimous votes and reports. "This was not the contradiction that it may at first seem," says the Introduction:

Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings -- reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity -- can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility. Robert saw, on the other hand, that the evolution of majority vote in tandem with lucid and clarifying debate -- resulting in a decision representing the view of the deliberate majority -- far more clearly ferrets out and demonstrates the will of an assembly. It is through the application of genuine persuasion and parliamentary technique that General Robert was able to achieve decisions in meetings he led which were so free of divisiveness within the group.

Such is the lesson students learn every day in my classroom and every weekend at speech contests. I'm so used to engaging in debate and pushing students to do the same that I'm always surprised to find people afraid to speak up in disagreement with various public sentiments. I wonder -- is the tyranny of unanimity part of the fear of speaking up that I hear from a number of my fellow Madisonites?

I have an essay on local fear in the works. The central question I'm chewing on -- and which I pose with genuine eagerness and curiosity to my readers now -- is this: What are we afraid of? What scares Madisonites away from participating in open public debate? Robert wasn't afraid of open debate. He spent a lifetime composing rules that would facilitate productive debate, rules now that my own students study assiduously during the first month of spring. We voters should all be so dedicated to open, honest public discourse.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Comment Moderation -- The Madville Times Policy

Update 2009.05.01: I'm trying out a new comment policy. Given my experience that anonymous comments foster unneighborly, unproductive, off-topic ranting, I'm banning anonymous comments. Very simply:
  1. Leave your real name with your comment.
  2. If I don't recognize your name, and if you don't provide a hyperlink to a profile or other identifying information, I delete the comment.
  3. If you have something to say but are unwilling to say it publicly, send your info privately, and we can talk.
  4. Don't like it? Get your own blog. It's easy, it's free.
My rules of civility outlined below are worth reading. And if you think I'm picky, feel free to compare comment policies from NPR, Huffington Post, and New York Times.

----------------------------------------------------------
--earlier comment moderation policy, repealed 2009.05.01--
sections rendered wholly irrelevant by nymity policy
appear in red italics

----------------------------------------------------------
The Madville Times does not moderate comments. If you submit a comment—pro, con, or neutral—it will appear (barring gremlins) uncensored. The Madville Times reserves the right to delete comments at whim, but will use that right sparingly. The Madville Times assumes no responsibility for illegal content (e.g., libel); commenters retain sole legal responsibility for the content of their submitted material.

Cuss words are generally unnecessary.

On anonymous comments: The Madville Times recognizes that some citizens want to participate in public discourse but are afraid that other citizens may retaliate in some fashion against them for expressing unpopular views. The Madville Times does not share such fears and urges all citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights respectfully yet fearlessly.

Nonetheless, recognizing that a call to fearless speech is more easily said than done, the Madville Times is currently willing to tolerate anonymous comments. Please note that this policy runs counter to established practice for most social institutions:
  1. The Madison Daily Leader, as well as nearly all newspapers, will not publish anonymous letters to the editor and requires verifiable contact information with every letter.
  2. The school districts I have worked for will not act on anonymous complaints.
  3. The legal system permits witnesses to testify anonymously only in the most extreme cases where a clear threat to the witnesses' safety can be demonstrated.
  4. People who show up at public meetings wearing masks are generally viewed with suspicion.
In general, the Madville Times frowns on anonymous comments because they represent a weaker form of civil discourse. As members of a community, we should speak with each other as equal partners in the great endeavor of maintaining and improving the quality of life in the city and state we share. Even when exercising the privilege of anonymous commenting, readers should moderate their own comments by the following criteria:
  1. Would you be willing to say these same words in a face-to-face conversation with the person to whom you are directing your comment?
  2. Would you be willing to say these same words in person with other people listening?