The terms of use do not include any such thing. User creation states the following, and I quote, “and we strongly encourage you to use your real name to identify yourself.”

Strongly encourage is not the same as required. No where does it suggest such a thing.

As to the Gazette being privately owned and able to do as it wishes, I never said anything to the contrary. I merely stated that deleting posts not because of their content, but because a user chooses not to list their real name is a horrible policy. Especially when they allow you to choose a username that is not their real name, and they do not require it to be.

That is a horrible policy if, indeed, it is what is being done (I do not know, and I would actually be surprised if it is indeed happening because of this).

Yes, it does say “encourage.” However, that’s more or less semantics here Michael and the Gazette, as privately owned entity, can do as it pleases. The fact remains that most of the posts that are deleted are because those users are not posting under a “real” name. Said users posting under a pseudonym also receive periodic reminders that they need to post under a “real” name.

Go back and read Jennifer Hemmingsen’s columns from last summer and fall that have addressed this topic, or contact Jason Kristufek for more information.

Also, it’s not a “horrible” policy, it’s an effort to hold users on this forum accountable for their comments, something that’s not possible if they’re allowed to hide behind an obvious pseudonym.

Again, I understand that it can do as it pleases. However, if it wishes to attract users, then running them off is a poor way of doing so.

The “policy” as I’ve demonstrated suggests nothing to the effect that a username must be a person’s legal name. You want to say it is semantics, but it isn’t. If they want it required, then they should simply state that. Or do away with username altogether. They already list 2 fields for first and last name.

But this run around of “strongly encouraging” but allowing users to create accounts without their legal name, then deleting posts that are entirely legitimate and not breaking any sort of guideline is indeed horrible.

There are many places on the internet. The Gazette ought to remember that.

More or less semantics? Tell that to a lawyer. I’m not saying this warrants any sort of legal action, just that the Gazette is clearly not in the right when deleting harmless, anonymous comments. I haven’t seen any guidelines, or been notified that my account information is unacceptable, yet a perfectly nice post of mine was deleted. The posts you linked to were opinion pieces, not real guidelines.

Removing the shield of anonymity doesn’t make anyone more accountable for their comments. Plenty of people don’t need any shield in order to say something that the majority of people may find offensive. Believe it or not, Rush Limbaugh still uses his real name, as does Glenn Beck, David Icke, George Noory, and Ann Coulter.

I understand that they are allowed to do what they want, but pointless censorship only frustrates rational users, like myself, who prefer some anonymity on the internet. Do you know how much information you can find using only a name? I might be able to find you age (lets say you’re 40, right?), your phone number, and the small Iowa town you live in, or that your parents are 66 years old. I could know all that and be someone who never even posted a comment, yet felt like heckling you. What’s more dangerous: that or an anonymous post that can be deleted?

Michael: you’re right, there are many places on the internet and no one is forcing anyone to comment on here. I’ve provided my proof of what I’m talking about and my original point stands.

Alex: The gazette is not censoring anyone. If they really wanted to censor people they wouldn’t allow ANY commenting on this site. It’s simply enforcing the rules of this forum. The only thing it might be able to do is update the language of its guidelines. That’s neither your call nor mine. I disagree that people who post under their legal name aren’t any moreaccountable than those who hide behind an anonymous name. If you or Michael commented on here before the new system began you’d know there’s a marked difference in the overall civility of comments when compared to the previous format. Not everyone posting under their real name is more civil but most are.

Like it or not, privacy as we know it is dead, thanks to the internet as a whole, not just because of this tiny little forum or its commenting rules.

Both of you need to contact webmaster Jason Kristufek if you still have a problem with this, otherwise we’re completely off topic here now.

You haven’t provided a shred of proof except for a blogger’s opinion piece. You’ve not provided any link to any rule that states users must post with their legal name. You’ve not provided any link to any rule that states users that do not post with their legal name will have their accounts flagged.

All you have done is posted an opinion piece that quotes this unpublished “rule,” and then directed people to contact someone that no has ever heard of.

And no, I do not need to contact anyone. As others have said, if this is how the Gazette brass wish to conduct their comment section, then it will continue to be small and shrinking. Punishing people without providing to them the rules of the game is simply wrong. And no, there is no published rule; you’ve failed to provide any link to them, and I can’t find them. A bloggers opinion piece does not count as a rule given that it is not easily accessible, nor is an opinion piece considered by anyone as gospel.

As for off-topicness, that ship sailed a long time ago. And it is a shame, as this is a sports blog. I really like Marc’s articles, as well as those of the other sports writers. I remember back when his and others articles were filled with comments, debates, etc. That is all but gone with this new system.

Maybe the brass needs to take that into consideration, because it is a real shame. But if your attitude is a reflection of theirs, then I guess they simply do not care. And again, that is a real shame.

Where are the rules to the forum? I’m not trying to be rude. I’m genuinely curious and will be happy to stop posting altogether if I’m wrong. I’d just like to see something official.

But, more importantly, why rollover and just concede the death of privacy? That kind of attitude is too fatalistic for me. As is defending something only because you can’t change it. You write as if (or at least give me the impression) you work for the Gazette, so perhaps you can help shape the comment system in a way that’s agreeable to the Gazette’s customers. All I want is to keep my favorite source of sports commentary and discussion without feeling like I’m giving up all my privacy.

You say the civility has increased, yet people are still using fake, or incomplete names. That hardly supports your argument and shows only minor correlation. Maybe the people that only want to post hateful comments aren’t willing to go through the registration process in order to be pointlessly mean.

And, as strictly defined, deleting posts is censorship in every way. Censorship is the suppression of speech, and by deleting comments that is happening. I’m not going to get into a debate on it’s definition, though. I’ve done that before and it goes nowhere fast.

Michael: Jennifer provided a quote directly from the webmaster in one of her columns. To dismis s Jennifer, or any columnist’s column as strictly opinion is being simplstic. Even columnists have to base their columns on some truth, which she did. That’s proof enough for me. It’s not my fault if you or anyone else has a problem with how this forum is run. Email Jason Kristufek if you’re so hyped up about it.

Same goes for you Alex. Email Jason Kristufek for further explanation.

Why even engage in a debate if you are planning to ignore valid points and refer us to the webmaster without showing us the “rules” that you seem to be in on? I can find find Jason’s name myself. I’m interested in your side of the argument, yet you only seem like you want to push us away and enforce your authority. Why even respond if that’s your only goal? Let us complain in peace, lol.

Alex, I’ve explained them many times over. I’m not the one ignoring anything, only participating in perpetuating this off topic dialogue. It’s you and Michael who refuse to accept what’s been presented to you so I simply provided Jason Kristufek as a way to back up what I’m saying. He has the miute details of what I’m referring to here. Take it or leave it but this has devolved to beyond worth debating under what’s supposed to be about a sports figure.

I’ll accept your argument as factually credible once you post the clearly visible rules you’re talking about. Other than that, have a nice night.

Here’s one of the columns I was referencing Michael. It doesn’t specify the new rules word for word but it does explain what I’m referring to above. Contact Jason Kristufek for more information.

http://thegazette.com/2010/09/25/putting-names-to-comments/

Lori, do you get a commission based on the number of references to Jason Kristufek you make? Because, if not, I don’t understand your constant refusal to engage in the substance of the conversation or your insistence to just say “email Jason Kristufek” as some sort of catch-all. At this point, you seem either willfully stubborn and overly-obsessed with style over substance.

As numerous people have noted, nowhere in the official, stated policies or the “Terms of Use” does the Gazette state that one MUST use their legal name. It is encouraged, and users who do so will, presumably, find posting easier; but it is not a requirement to post. Even the article you link directly above does not say that it is a rule. The pertinent part reads “Now, users who enter handles intended to protect their anonymity either are rejected or flagged so that every comment they submit to the site is moderated.” All this says is that people using pseudonyms will have their comments moderated/approved before they are publicly visible. Whether the Gazette should require legal names (and how could that possibly ever be verified?) is a whole other debate from whether they ARE required.

No, I don’t MAx.

I made my point, those I made it to refused to accept it so I simply referred them to the source of the policy in question. No debate dodging, just a refusal to further engage in an unproductive off topic discus sion.

Here’s another of Jennfier’s columns that has a comment where she explains what I’m talking about Michael. It’s further do wn in the comments section.

http://thegazette.com/2010/12/14/comment-thread-bingo/