Letters to the Editor
-
Yeay!
Excellent move, in my opinion.
I have used Anonymous myself in the past a couple times here to discuss sensitive topics, but I am willing to trade that off, and reveal myself, if it will lead to higher levels of discussion. Not just mass agreement, that would be achingly dull. But to be able to follow a person's thoughts and opinions across Salon makes this more into a real world interaction. I'm for it.
-
No Anonymous = Longer Posts
So... Maybe somebody might post a crispy little idea, and later think of something else, and then post the other good idea as "Anonymous," in order not to seem a thread hog.
In the future, we will sit here, writing, writing, writing, boring, boring, boring, to make sure we milk every little nuance.
-
Banning anonymous postings.. Overall good idea..
Moderated letters threads.. Overall very bad idea..
Moderated threads quickly turn into politically correct (of whatever stripe) snoozefests. The mods simply are unable to keep from enforcing their own particular biases in a discriminatory way.
-
Anonymous with moderation
I agree with those who suggested that when someone wants to post something sensitive or personal, she should be able to request to post anonymously -- then it could be posted once a moderator gives the okay.
I imagine most people would not bother to use this option if the post wasn't truly something difficult to say under their own screen name. And the moderator would have an easy job, glancing at letters to confirm that they are not attacks but thoughtful posts.
I have posted deeply personal letters on Since You Asked -- I don't want them associated even with my screen name. Without this option, I will be much less likely to share experiences that are personal or embarrassing to me.
You probably won't notice that letters like that are gone, since you will only see what people are willing to post under the new rules. But it will make a difference to people like me who feel moved to share, and don't. I always appreciated being able to share my experiences in the SYA forum, and it will be a loss to me that I feel I have to be more careful without the anonymous option.
-
Good. I changed my mind.
I was one of those that thought anonymous was a good idea. No more. War Room is filled to capacity with anonymous plants, operatives, and trolls. Or, at least, the whole anonymous thing gives the impression that there is a large number of people each saying a large amount of crap. But maybe it's just a small amount of people each saying a huge amount of crap.
We'll see.
And it is always great to take a look at someone's previous letters and see if they are usually fine and just flipping out today (and don't we all have days like that?) or a full-time poo-flinging monkey.
-
apparently I'm in the minority...
...but I made heavy use of Anonymous here at Salon to write about political things that I no longer dare to write about under my own name.
Nothing defamatory, very well within the canon of Salon readers -- but it wasn't the Salon readers I was worried about.
Could you not allow registered, paid viewers to not disclose their names when posting? If you had to pay, that'd eliminate 99.9% of the spam, and have full disclosure for the rest.
-
We hear ya. Great! Now, let's talk about...
...how it is that Dick Cheney can delete emails with impunity and get away with it?
Can we talk about the mysterious box on Bush's back during his debate with John Kerry?
Are we going to let these scounderels (sp?) slide away under the camouflage (sp? too lazy to check) of the 2008 presidential campaign without ever having to account for their actions?
I really hope not.
-
Real names
I shall continue to post under my real name.
A. Vespucci.
-
Thank bloody God.
Well it's about time. I notice at least one respondent complaining that this was sign of readers' thin-skinnedness, but as someone who actually does have a hard time scrolling past obviously trollish posts without getting that infuriated little twitch in my right eye, I've no regrets about eliminating the anonymous posting option.
-
Another idea
I would favor a two-pronged approach:
1. Allow anonymous posting; and
2. Allow logged-in users to set as a user preference whether or not to see include anonymous posts when displaying letters. The default would be "hide anonymous posts." At the top of the letters page there would be a link to "show (or hide) anonymous posts for this article."
Then the people who wish to post anonymously would still be free to do so, but with the disincentive that most Salon readers wouldn't see their words.
-
If I could post anonymously...
I would write that I love Poster Amerigo. But I cannot do that, so I will not post, because you all might suspect that I might be gay.
Anonymous
-
hierarchical,threaded layout
"I second the suggestion for a hierarchical, threaded layout."
Copy and paste from one of the letters.
-
Chris Sinnard
Cheney and Bolton aren't neocons They are rabid ultranationalists.
In other words, neocons.
Neoconservatism is a disgusting and morally bankrupt ideology
Which describes the policies of Bushites exactly, which is why they're neocons.
but it isn't a blanket term for "bad people on the right".
Quite right. Some are just garden-variety wingnuts. Others are rabid neocon right-wingers. But it's not exactly a Big Tent.
-
This is great news!
I enjoy reading Salon articles, reading letters re: those articles, and posting my own letters on the article or on another post. But it can be a very frustrating experience -once the number of posts gets into triple digits I have trouble keeping up, primarily, because of all the junk. I know that I am missing some very thoughtful, well-written, and well-reasoned letters to which I might to reply. So, this policy will help all of us who want to read good, thoughtful letters will benefit from this policy. Thank you.
-
Can we edit our posts, too?
The Curse of the Commons hit. Someone had to ruin it for everyone. Had people not ABUSED the anonymous posting option, we wouldn't have this problem.
Far too often it was used for silliness.
I supported the availability of the option. I have to say that perhaps the loss won't make that big of a difference. It facilitated oversharing, deeply off-topic posts, narcisstic rumblings, and lots of just plain rude behavior. If disliking rudeness makes one thin skinned, then thin skinned is good. If wanting to be treated with respect is being thin skinned, then thin skinned is healthy.
The off topic silliness needs to go. This will not stop it, but it will slow it down. Increased moderation is probably going to rein in the people who don't get that you can disagree without being a jerk. Those screaming that this will end differing opinions are wrong. We can disagree. We just need to be less rude.
Cursing, however, when used correctly, is a spice. Idiots overuse it to cover up their lack of argument and intelligent (lack of taste to the food). When used correctly, it highlights an argument (sharpens the taste).