Good Choice.....I was getting sick of reading the comments from the area readers..

Scott, just a thought here, since you have the persons IP Address, why not just ban those who are consistently violating the terms of use? No more changing user names, just ban them all together. It's not that hard to do, as you stated in a previous thread, you know who the person is by that IP Address. I know that the ycould still go and use a diferent computer and create a new user name, but chances are that they would violate again and end up being out once again, and if they don't then it isn't a problem any way. Some stories about crime are asking for help in finding someone and comment threads could be useful for police when it comes to that, some people may find it uneasy to call police with a tip or not feel like it's their business to do so, but on here all they have is a user name and that may be all they need to take the feeling of uneasiness away and may end up being helpful at the same time.
Many Madison newspapers still have open forums on all of their crime stories and it has been shown to help law enforcement in making headway on some cases.

All I have to say is "thank You". Having been on the other side of the comments(rrstar). I know all to well how people can jump to conclusions and post nasty and very untruthful comments. After my husband passed away at work, people who didn't even know him or even work with him posted comments that cut me very deep. I spent the first few months after his death reading the articles over and over. I will never get over the negative things said about him. And to think he went to work to provide for his family and had a heart attach on the line and all people could do is speculate and ridicule a man they didn’t even know.
So yes sometimes, if not all of the time, these comments need to not be allowed.

Maybe dont allow people to register with free email accounts (ie Yahoo, Gmail, Rocketmail, etc) and require ISP emails (yes you can get about 10 ISP free email accounts, but they are tied to your ISP account). A site I'm on did this (to curtail spammers using free email) and it also got rid of a few problem 'children' we had on the site who kept getting banned and coming back under new names.

Thanks Scott, maybe I didn't hit the post button!

wow. people have such strong opinions! I enjoy bantering too, although I usually lose in the end :~}

HOWEVER, this is a business and a business decision was made. We should do everything we can to help The Janesville Gazette succeed and not have to eliminate the print edition or make cuts that further diminishes the quality of the news. (I remember the days they had a paid proofreader.) Budget cuts, the Internet competition and the opinion that a reporter should be able to write a good article. But we've all made typos in an email and sent it before you caught it! Man, a paragraph is confusing or a word is misspelled and these bloggers go CRAZY! Let's just relax a little and enjoy life instead of worry about how we can argue on newspaper articles (or any website that will read our drivel). This whole blogging site has become quite childish, yet since there are several very intelligent comments I admit I have become more knowledgeable on several subjects. I've been corrected and I have probably made some nasty comments myself a time or two. Everyone knows it went just a little too far. I don't blame the Gazette! I wouldn't want a lawsuit or to see someone bullied like we read about on Facebook and Myspace bullies...and the bullies at Janesville Public Schools. Maybe we should behave better and the kids in the schools will follow by example...

donnaw,
We've looked and can find no trace of that comment. Perhaps it never got posted. I can't think of a reason why it would be deleted.

Scott Angus

Maybe someone can tell me why my comment was not allowed in response to the health care bill. I commented that one item in the bill has to do with making companies provide a room for nursing mothers so they could nurse every four hours. What gives?

Ridiculous. I just cant understand why deleting some posts is not enough. If commenting is not allowed- why even read it. I enjoyed bantering with some, I enjoy others view point.. Two thumbs down to the Gazette.

No blogs on the cmic strip about man shooting his TV after results from Dancing with the Stars?
So people can vote on this topic nationally, but not blog locally.
What is this world coming too?

I think this is a good decision. Its not the gazette's responsibility to provide anyone with out outlet to express their opinion, except the gazette itself. Since so many users cannot seem to follow the rules I can understand how much additional work it must be for the gazette staff to babysit and remove inappropriate comments. This is a good step for now, and hopefully another solution can be worked out in the future.

I just love the comments on this article that prove it was the right decision. Bravo.

If there are comments that are not within the guidelines then just delete those comments, not the whole comments section. A lot of times I know that the comments help in making the story make sense when it doesn't just from what has been written by Gazette Staff, I'm not getting on the staffs way that they write stories but sometimes the comments section helps in getting the whole point across, or when we wonder why it's even news worthy they help with that as well. Please rethink it as I have noticed a larger number than usual lately have had the comments section removed so early..... Thank you Scott

Wow — this made the top of Poynter's Romenesko daily e-mail. Tough decision to make, but all newspapers are struggling with how to deal with comments.

I haven't read all of the comments, but my comment is this: if you have disabled the comments section, please don't have it on the list of "More popular discussions"...if there isn't a discussion option, how can it be on the list? I'm just sayin'...

Did anyone see Mr. Angus's editorial on the 14th? We may be paying now even to read these comments. What is going on? If they do that, they might as well fold up shop in my opinion.

Might as well just stick with the Shopper.

skinnypuppy: I can see your point, but why would somebody who finds the comments offensive even bother reading them? Couldn't that person just read the article and move on to the next one?

Maybe all the "serial commenters" can contact each other privately, actually meet face to face, or have a conference call and own up to some of their ridiculous, judgmental, cruel remarks right in front of each other. AGAIN, I am glad the online version is now somewhat restricted to provding news or information rather than one-sided dribble from a handful of serial commenters. It just seemed to bring out the worst in most people...just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

You've taken away most of the fun of reading the paper via the internet. Please let us know if this decreases traffic on the website and ends up cutting into the Gazette's advertising earnings.

What on earth would we do without the Hitler
character?I guess we would have to use
the wonderful French character Napolean Boneparte to beat on,blame,criticize,etc.It is
always easier to point the finger than to
look in the mirror each day.Remember,sin is sin.

I remember an episode of Roseanne when they had nudists move in next door. Dan and Roseanne couldn't keep themselves from staring through their bedroom window at the neighbors. Finally, they invited the couple over to discuss the need to plant a hedge to block the view. The elderly neighbor couple said the problem wasn't them, but rather, Dan and Roseanne's lack of self control. Roseanne stood up, ripped open her blouse, and asked, "Oh, yeah? What color are my eyes?!?!?!?!"

I don't know why the Gazette needs to provide a method to block certain posts. There are posters whose comments I don't want to read, and I simply don't read them. I don't need a self-control button to help me.

Oh, and my eyes are brown.

"In God we trust.....ALL others must have data" ...End of story

the gazette tried to warn people not to be making personal attacks , they even had a blog how you could get sued. some didnt take the warning and have now caused some of the stories to be off limits. maybe we need a support group for serial blogging , or aggressive serial blogging lol

Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.

Believers here want to quash religious discussion. Non-believers welcome it.

Of course Hitler didn't like that. If he lived within the guidelines of religious values (principles of Christian) which this country was founded on, he would've chosen to be a good boy.

matthew, have you ever heard of the First Amendment? Hitler didn't like it.

scooter~ Angus and the Gazette staff don't have the guts to ban posts on religion because they'd lose most of their bloggers.

jvlcomments, the Hitler card is like the Satan card, but not as funny.

matthew..., did you read what garyprimer said?

andre...., PrettyWoman launched the religious element on this thread.

garyprimer, I'm not familiar with how the Hitler card is played. Is it like Falange:
"Do you have any Goerings?"
'grumble... Here's my Goering card. Do you have any Hitlers?'
"Go fish!"

or is it like: Götterdämmerung: The Gathering
You have played the Hitler card. Roll 2d6 to determine damage to your enemies. Roll 4d6 to determine damage to your allies. Roll 6d18 to determine damage to yourself. Lose 3 turns.

netwize, I agree with you. The articles that get the most arguments are the religious ones. Ban those along with the others. Human interest stories and politics will be all that is left, but oh well, find somewhere else to blog and post. It doesn't bother me. I hate seeing the arguments on here that go on and on, even up to 400 to 500 posts. Now that is ridiculous! The bullying needs to quit also. Thank you Mr. Angus and the Gazette staff.

It's never a good sign when the Hitler card gets played...

Please please PLEASE Gazette- next time you overhaul the comments section, allow us the option of blocking certain posters so we don't have to read their senseless drivel. I realize that some of you will be blocking me, but I might be blocking you!

No, I don't think so, matthew....

If Hitler were infact a "Christian" he would also merit the title "wannabee". We're such evil people aren't we "gazettefan"?

theres an easier solution and many business are using it to ensure people are who they say they are. charge a 1.00 to get set up to blog that way they have to use a credit card. while the rest of the world may not know who they are the gazette will have easy access to their true identity

Hitler was a christian who knew the value of demonizing outsiders AND insiders.

gravity~ There's alot of merit to that last post of yours. That's what the "powers that be" in this country want us to be doing. As long as we're entertained to death with things and arguing and fighting over things, "they" can have their way. Hitler had that all figured out. You're right. This culture is too prideful to simply just get along. We're too busy trying to be right all the time that we miss out on what's actually true!

I hope we all learn some decency soon. This blog is a prime example of how we get smoking bans, cell phone driving laws, censorship on TV and radio, etc.

We can't count of people to act appropriately so we have to mandate, and legislate, and ultimately enforce common courtesy.

We're all losing freedom because a few of us can't be counted upon to act decently.

I'm with you blood.

When cannabis is re-legalized in the united States then we can all just mellow the hell out and start treating each other with dignity and respect! I hope the prior happens long before the latter. Stop the insanity, Re-Legalize Cannabis/Hemp now and avoid the rush...

Then if there's enough staff time available, why not sort out who is posting only to be argumentative against other posters while not actually participating in a legitimate debate that has some relation to the story?

The change is a step in the right direction.

I would recommend an additional change - to actively moderate the comments. If people start to veer off-topic, such as bringing up the Pope or President Obama in the comments about a story on the School Board, the moderator can step in to write a warning - essentially a yellow flag - and tell people to stay on topic.

This type of moderation could help keep things focused when a "discussion" starts to devolve into a you-know-whatting contest between two diametrically opposed camps, as seems to happen all too frequently. Again, the moderator can flag the comments and remind people to stay on topic and stay civil.

I frequent several comment sections on news sites, and many hobby-related discussion forums. Although there are some negative comments, particularly on the news sites, I have not seen any others that devolve into the ugly cat fights that are frequently seen on the Gazette site.

It is truly a sad commentary on the people involved. The lack of civility towards those with differing views is disturbing. Debating opposing views is healthy. Calling each other names and blindly posting replies without “listening” to what the other is saying is not.

There ya go Angus, you got 'em fightin' again, life is good right? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

some people's kids...

Prettywoman and gazettefan,
Don't you feel a bit odd having a one-on-one argument in a public forum intended to encourage online civility?
Anyway, this discussion has pretty well played itself out. Thanks for those who offered constructive feedback and ideas.
Stay tuned.

Scott Angus

Good to see that Scott's update on trying to control civility on the message boards has turned into a whirlwind of name-calling and personal insults. It is a riddle wrapped in a conundrum splattered all over a dirty little Midwestern town.

PrettyWoman, what about turning the other cheek?

Let's get serious: You're a believer, you've been bested in the ongoing debate, long-term. You only recently signed on with a new username. Your comments are contradictory, you really don't have much to say, most of it is negative. As a matter fact, your comments are almost word-for-word the same ones you used with your other username(s). Them darn words are hard to come-up with, aint it?

I quit reading the comments a loooong time ago because it gets so personal and sometimes does not relate at all to the story.

gazettefan - I've been reading the Gazette for years - and the blog. One thing that stood-out and provoked me was your nasty comments to Christians that could make ALL non-believers seem rude. I guess I'm in both camps, and I appologize for upsetting you.

PrettyWoman, let me refresh your memory. You came on this thread and bashed me without provocation -I hadn't even posted on it yet. Therefore the pre-religious and pre-christian virtue of turning the other cheek could have been demonstrated nicely by you. Why no such demonstration?

Instead, the virtue you promote was demonstrated by me. My comment about the quality of our posts on this thread was approved by you.

You might want to rethink what camp you're in. Believers post on this site regularly in failed attempts to manipulate site staff into thinking that other posters are being rude when they aren't.

there are people disagreeing in here.. better shut it down before it get's out of hand.
seriously though sometimes I just read the comments and not the story just for the entertainment but isn't that what newspapers are for?

The beauty of posting with a blog name instead of my real name is that I can comment on what I really think rather than what people expect me to think and not have to worry about repurcussions. I also find that posting a comment outside the norm stirs up some interesting comments from posters. I have learned a lot of things through this blog, I don't want censorship to ruin it for everybody. Please reconsider banning offensive bloggers rather than news stories.

Turn the other cheek gazettefan - and, who knows, they might be right.

PrettyWoman, thank you for your kind words. What are your thoughts on believers who bash non-believers? -which is predominantly the case on this site.

Quite the contrary gazettefan - I feel that your posts are better than mine- you have a way with words. I'm new to posting, I just don't/won't bash a believer just because s/he is a believer - making us quite different. Anyone can believe or not believe as they choose - they can be a Packer fan or a Bear fan as they choose - drive a Chevy or Honda, etc. It's not my place (or yours) to be nasty to people just because they choose differently than you do.

When the issue was raised here a few years ago I was for all of us using our real names -an even playing field. The problem would be for the Gazette to confirm that the name actually belongs to the person posting. And what of the problem of someone using another person's account with or without permission?

If we were all truly identified, the exchanges would be more civil.

PrettyWoman, your Shaw quote was a good one. But I don't see how your posts are better than mine. In fact, they are worse. Mine are appropriate to what I responded to -yours aren't.

Perfectly to the point, Janesvillean. There is sure to be some babies tossed with the bathwater. Still, readers are free to write letters to the editor, which will be reviewed before publication.

Opinionsforfree, when you proclaim "Goodbye, cruel world!" ("Please delete my account if you reading this"), you are supposed to take a hike. Try deleting your favorite/shortcut/bookmark to the Gazette until they get around to deleting your account.

Thank you.

As I've noted before, the State Journal -- which also has a comments feature -- simply does not enable them on many of these types of stories in the first place. I was surprised that the Gazette did. Although I may not have agreed with copperguy on every occasion, I do agree that there was a great deal of misinformation in the comments on these articles, as well as some objections that were based on simple lack of education about government and our criminal justice system. I tried to enter these conversations to improve that overall understanding. For those of you tired of hearing me, you'll be happy to know I won't need to do that anymore!
.
It was often shocking to me, additionally, how personal comments would get about an individual's poor choices, and how much moralizing would go on about living individuals who may have committed no crime, and were certainly legally innocent until *proven* guilty. It was sometimes enlightening to hear from family members, but other times it was a little upsetting to know how they were personally affected even by neutral or factual comments. It's probably best that these articles are no longer open to discussion.

It's about damn time.

Billnewbie - Yes, we agree that was good advice and worthy of heeding! :-)

Excellent move Mr. Angus. Instead of civil comments made on an original article, I have seen comments posted merely to insult others making comments and going completely off topic. After reading comments back and forth between the same people, you wonder why they don't just set up their own web page and start their own blog so they can continue to complain about everything. I know it was a tough decision, but I agree it had to be done.

Fool_on_the_hill, your advise reminds me of advise you've offered in the past. You know, the advise you offered others to ignore my posts. If you won't follow your own advise, why should anyone else, particularly me?

I realize that you think I'm just complaining about how some have wounded my pride. What you don't realize is that I'm trying to get folks like you to realize that you aren't following that creed that you and others insist has evolved into your consciousness. You know, the golden rule. You claim it's universal. That we inherited it through our genes. That it evolved over millennia into what it is today. You remember what it is, don't you? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It doesn't have any qualifiers, such as unless you're on an anonymous blog, or unless they do to you first then you can do what you will unrelentingly until they won't dare show their face around you again. It certainly does seem that on an anonymous blog like this, since know one knows who we all are, that the understanding of the golden rule seems so lacking as to call into question the idea that it really is universal. Instead, what becomes obvious is that many have adopted the personal philosophy of survival of the fittest when they blog anonymously. In other words, if you can't convince them, either try to chase them away or try to make pariahs of them. But that's not why the Gazette offers us this forum, so that we can try to browbeat each other into submission, is it?

Or that some insist that folks are immoral because they believe in things some insist never happened, like you do Gazettefan?

Unfortunate. I understand the decision, and it's too bad that folks can't play by the rules. I've had two posts (I believe) deleted, and one of them I almost agreed with the deletion. The other, I believe, was not a good call. However, it does point out that monitoring the posts gets to be a taxing experience.

Most of the stories I have commented on will no longer be open to comments. They typically involve crime, courts, and accidents. I have tried to use those blogs as a way to help folks understand the complexities of laws and to see situations from a law perspective. I have had many private messages that demonstrate the need for such discussion. I'm disheartened by the fact that I will no longer be able to make that contribution.

Still, I do understand. Even banning the frequent offenders takes time. It's a sad day.

Well said goodforjanesberg. And, like I said before, nasty comment makers will simply find an 'open' blog to dump their load. You can see that even THIS blog has turned into a religous dumping ground for gaxettefan - giving us non-believers a bad name.

I think it was agood move by the Gazette. I'm not against anyone expressing their opinion, but some of the comments become rather harsh (to say the least). The other things I notice when reading the posts are that the same people, same agendas and same issues are present...no matter what the original storyline is. It sometimes feel like I'm reading personal e-mails instead of blogs. These people who seem to know one another should just get a coffee and have a private discussion. A simple post would suffice instead of these long drawn out "conversations". Maybe I'm off base, but JMO.

Actually, gazettefan, I don't prefer quotes from H L Mencken. George Bernard Shaw quotes are more acceptable, such as:
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one”

billnewbie, you forgot to mention that some posters refer to other posters as satan or possessed by satan and immoral because they don't believe in things that never happened.

I kind of support this decision; however, the one category you left out of your list of articles where comments will be disabled immediately are those that have to do with Jenifer Keach...have a good day.

I have never understood why you disabled those all the time...

Billnewbie - Sorry if you think every reference to idiotic opinions is about you. You might consider the advice given in a previous comment about people carrying grudges for 6 months. Wait... that was your comment. Never mind. :-)

like most posters ive probably crossed the line in a few discussions. its never anything personal...since i know very few on a personal level...its just more about the convo being elevated by BOTH parties. i have no problem putting my name here...or my mugshot for that matter;). what i do is not wrong and i believe with every ounce of my being that it should not. be. illegal.

That's right, Fool_on_the_Hill. What's different is that posting such comments here is a violation of the Gazette's User Policy Agreement, an agreement we all have to concede to for the privilege to post here. Here is one of those rules, "Do not leave harassing comments or personal attacks." Here's another, "Inappropriate comments include defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening, or illegal material." Just because the Gazette doesn't want to police the site doesn't mean we are free to ignore the rules. We are suppose to be on our honor. "Idiot" and "Dimwit" are examples of those inappropriate comments we all agreed not to use when we "signed" on here. You'll notice that it doesn't say "unless provoked". But it does say "If you are the subject of personal attacks by another user, do not respond in-kind."

If you think a statement is idiotic, what's the point in saying so, other than to inflict a little pain? If it is idiotic, don't you think others will see that too, or do you think they need you to point that out to them? What makes a statement "Idiotic"? Many folks seem to think that their disagreement with it is all it takes, but that is more than a little arrogant.

Billnewbie - There is an enormous difference between viciously defaming a real person --whose name, age, address, photograph, etc are the subject of some published news item-- and posting a derisive response to the voluntary published, idiotic opinion of some other anonymous poster.

Kudos to the gazette for this decision. As big of a problem as bullying is with our chilren in this society, we should also be held to a higher standard as thier example. I believe children learn this behavior somewhere, and when they see us adults be nasty to one another, they are sure to believe they should be able to be also. I think it's sad that the gazette had to go to this extreme because people could not just see how their words could hurt another. If we all just practiced a little common sense and remembered what we try to teach our kids "treat others the way you would want to be treated" things wouldn't have to go this far.

All you people bellyaching about censorship and freedom of speech and the press ought to bear in mind that the 1st Amendment applies only to government actions, not the actions of a private entity like a newspaper. So the Gazette can censor your comments all it wants. You have no rights vis-a-vis the Gazette. It can allow you to comment as much as it wants, or not at all.
Having said that, it seems to me that a responsible newpaper will pass these rights along to its readership--as the Gazette has done.

I have to agree with this policy. In the world of downsizing, particularly in the newsroom, you can't afford to have paid employees spending hours policing these posts. And I can't say I'll be sorry to see the last from the usual bunch of cut & pasters who appear with their "thoughts and prayers" every time some kitten stubs its toe. On the other hand, I was always amazed that the relative of someone who committed an infamous act is surprised to find negative comments attached to the resultant news story. If someone close to you gets drunk and kills another person while driving home, you really shouldn't be scanning the postings looking for sympathy.

As for requiring real names, I wonder if it won't open a new, and worse, can of worms. Cyber-bullying is a fairly new concept, but a very real hazard for some people. Many of the regular posters here obviously have a pretty thick skin. But if some started getting hounded by the more obnoxious trolls via e-mail, facebook, etc . . . how long would it take before they disappeared? What about physical violence? If a person posts their opinion, and is later assaulted or killed by someone who objected to that opinion, what would the Gazette's liability be? Just something to ponder.

iam1to : you can not filter based on IP address based soley on large organizations. The School District, Mercy Health Systems, and a few other very large employers have THOUSANDS of computers that appear to come from fewer than 30 IP addresses each. In many cases all their computers appear from a single IP address. One student posting something nasty would eliminate all comments from other students and staff based on your suggestion.

In other news: worker productivity in Rock County skyrockets!

Good move for the Gazette! As stated, comments generally start out as good feedback, then a some of the commenters start 'fighting' on here and it gets ugly. I won't miss the ugliness on the comments.

You see, the problem with some of you proudly using your real names is... nobody knows who you are.
God has granted you natural anonymity.

frogger - If you send Scott Angus a message, maybe Gazette will allow a special exception to allow public pillorying and defamation in case you or one of your family members is ever falsely accused of some really heinous act. ;~)

Just before reading this editorial, I read the article about two tragic deaths. As I approached the bottom of that article, I began to cringe in anticipation of all the thoughtless comments about how the victims were to blame; that they somehow deserved their fate; etc. I breathed I sigh of relief when I read, "Sorry, comments for this story have been disabled by the site staff." (Yes, I realize this paragraph comprises somewhat of a Catch-22.)

Some types of stories are ideally suited for public comment and some are not. I hope Gazette makes the right decision for each type of story. In my opinion, they are off to a good start.

Opinionsforfree , first you insist that words don’t hurt people, then you insist you have a right to be offensive (hurt with words) and that if one is offended they need mental help. In your haste to condemn my opinion, you contradict yourself then you affirm what I said. Do you really think anyone would freely give their life to defend your right to post such things? Those soldiers you mentioned fought for the right of all to be heard, even the meek that you seem to have so much contempt for and whom you would silence with your offensiveness.

Words don’t hurt people. A blunt object hitting someone might hurt, but words don’t hurt people. People who are weak and simple minded are hurt by words that is why we live in such a PC world now. People like yourself are like "aww he said a bad word I am offended" Whatever happened to Free Speech?

It’s a right to offend someone and to be offended. If you’re offended by anything I have said maybe you should be seeking out mental help.

Solders have died in wars defending these right to chip away at them is not honoring these fallen hero's but only spitting into their faces.

The issue here is much larger than this sad piece of journalism here today.

Great maybe KAB will get into council now. People wont be able to read the truths about her!

spinmaster I am offended by your comment I think it should be removed

Hongkongexpat makes a good point Scott. Personal biases are so strong with some folks that they have no tolerance for opposing opinions. With those people, if you installed software that would refuse posts with a small selection of words such as "Idiot", "Stupid", "Moron" "Dimwit" and a few others, they would have very few posts with little left to add to any subject. Some of them don't even offer any opinions. They just offer denigration as if that were an acceptable substitute for reasoned debate.

Rusty also has offered a good point too. From my own experience, there is a new poster who has only been posting since Sept. '10 whom I had never had a dialog with who slammed me in a discussion "out of the blue". He is so incensed with me that he sent me an email through the Gazette to make sure I knew he had slammed me. It's hard for me to believe that a new poster would get so angry about my opinions so fast (though it's possible, I suppose). However, I’m not the only object of his “affections”. He’s one of those who freely use those words I mentioned above and he likes to tell people to stop posting, which in my opinion is a particularly outrageous thing to do. He's obviously either a previously banned poster who has taken up a new identity or else he has more than one identity he's using to post here, which is against the rules. (Users agree not to create multiple user accounts or impersonate anyone on this site.)

If I hit you with a spitball, do you then get to hit me with a baseball? If I threw my spitball 6 months ago, do you get to throw your baseball at me every time you see me, even going out of your way to hunt me down to apply your “tit for tat”? In the real world, while some would do that if they could, there are laws and police to put a stop to it. Here in the virtual world of the GazetteXtra, the staff has no time and little inclination to police these discussions. Therefore, the vindictiveness of some gets full venting here. And they always find a way to blame the people they victimize. In the school yard, this is common. In the virtual world of GazetteXtra, it’s also becoming common. There seems to be an almost irresistible urge among some to be bullies. And it's easy to be a bully when there is no incentive not to be outside of character, which they lack.

Opinionsforfree said “Do words really hurt people?” Well, not like a baseball up side the head hurts, but yes, they do. If they didn’t, some people like the ones I’ve mentioned wouldn’t be so eager to launch insults the way they do. For some folks, words are harmless, but for most, they aren’t. And those who throw denigrations at others know it. When you call someone an idiot, you aren’t throwing a kiss.

Yes I hate the nasty comments on some scumbag who rapes or hurts children- NOT.
They should be allowed!
Maybe then the perp would get a clue that this is NOT accepted!

I hate to say I told you so, however......After the first few weeks this forum went live I sent you, specifically an e-mail concerning the responsibilities of this type of forum and warned that without serious policing you are giving people an open forum to spread mis-information, character assassination, slander and offensive content that could seriously turn-off or "damage" your readers, neighbors and supporters. Your response and one of your staff members who chided in was to the effect "We don't have the staff to police every thread, so if you don't like it don't read it." Just like some of the commenter’s, it was a very sophomoric reply from what I considered a "professional" organization...but I told you so.

The Gazette is well within their scope of authority to do what they did.

Subscription canceled.

Within the scope of my authority :)

I agree somewhat, but I think a lot of the abuse would stop if posters had to use their real name. I have no problem that people know BLOOD=Steve Trueblood and what I say on line or in emails is a reflection of me, not some nickname to hide behind.
If people want to say something to the public, just like the letters to the editor, let them put their name on it!

Thank you Mr Angus. Well thought out. Civility & respect begins with oneself. I believe thoughts & opinions & beliefs can be shared kindly & respectfully.

Censorship is when editorial decisions are made on a comment-by-comment basis; deciding which comments to delete and which comments have merit and should remain published. This is what some of you are calling for, while incorrectly referring to Gazette's editorial/business decision to allow or disallow any commenting whatsoever as "censorship". In other words, some of you have the whole concept of censorship completely backward.

As long as I'm being pedantic... freedom of the press is what recognizes and protects The Gazette's right to publish. It has nothing to do with some fabricated "right" to force anyone else to publish YOUR opinion. Whenever someone else is the one providing something, not only is that something not your right, it couldn't possibly be.

Oh for crying out loud. Many people under Stalin were repressed, many persecuted, tortured and executed. That is (obviously) hardly the intention of the Gazette. They are well within their legal right to reduce the whining on these blogs that they have to spend their valuable time deleting. (Yes, even Mr. Angus values his time.) They have obviously put a lot of thought into how best to reduce their time spent deleting comments that don't follow the rules; they said they are looking into software platforms that will allow the bloggers to moderate the thread of conversation as well. Everyone is allowed free speech in America, and everyone is also allowed the right to NOT provide the outlet FOR free speech on their privately owned website.

Oh, Joseph STALIN. I get it. Of course, he probably knew how to spell.

There already is the ability to remove comments... why take it further? Someone must have cried to the gazette. Cant have anything in this world without some over-emotional person crying about it.

At a minimum a comparison to Joe Stalin lacks proportion.

Thank you.

Joseph Stallion was the opposite end of the political spectrum of Wisconsin's own Charlie Horse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCa...

mentor....., I'll concede that both sides take shots. But I'll also insist that the great majority of the shots come from believers (this would be confirmed if someone took an accurate count). And the great majority of those shots are in response to reasonable comments and questions by non-believers. That's why the advantage would go to non-believers if no shots were taken at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stal...

Gazettefan, the shots are taken by all sides. The trouble is that everyone wants a forum for their own beliefs, but the ability to attack everything else they might object to.

Opinions, who is Joesph Stallion?

Well Gazette, good job. Once again you have achieved your (all too obvious) goal of getting people stirred up so your comments count approaches 100. Most of your stories are no-news stories or just something thrown out there to get people riled up. It seems to me that you are the Grand Imperial Poobahs of the Loyal Order of Trolls. Way to go! Now that other trolls are seeking to have as much fun as you, you see fit to take measures to curb others from having the same kind of enjoyment that you're having. I take my (water buffalo) hat off to you.

I would love to be able to discuss religious issues on this site without anyone taking personal shots at the others.

The advantage to non-believers would be immeasurable.

Do words really hurt people?

I agree with the decision of the Gazette on this one; however, it is only hiding a wound with a band-aid. It is not really addressing a larger issue: bigotry and prejudice by Rock County and Janesville residents. I am not a journalist nor in the newspaper business but I wonder what the Gazette can do to slow the tide and teach, if possible, that other people exist outside of the majority and contribute in our society? I realize that bigotry exists all over the world. I've also lived in numerous areas both domestically and abroad; however, I have never seen the hatred of others so apparent as towards those who don't fit Janesville resident's preconceived notion of their one dimensional twisted norm.

Scott: the only problem as I see it with eventually banning certain people from making comments is that they'll just log on under a different name & continue.

The unAmercian Gazette

New Name: The Censorship Gazette, IE, the PC politically correct Gazette, The Joesph stallion gazette, The China Gazette. Please delete my account if you reading this I will get my censored news somewhere else as the new on this site is a day old

PrettyWoman, would you prefer that quotes from H L Mencken, such as the one below, be banned?:

"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected."

The change is a great idea.

We all have a right to speak, but no one is compelled to give us an outlet for it. The Gazette giveth and the Gazette taketh away. If you need to be heard on the web, go and write your own blog.
 
It's easy to be negative online. It's harder to be relevant enough to maintain an audience.

Thank you for doing this Gazette. It's unfortunate that people cannot act in a civil manner and have intelligent conversations on topics. I know it's a few bad apples but the blogs have really changed my opinion on this community in the past few years to the negative.

Why were comments blocked on the teachers who were disciplined or fired for misconduct? I enjoyed hearing the 'other side of the story'. Is there some way the Gazette could do an article that supports the good these school staff members have done?

I do support your decision, but the worst comments seem to have been made by a select few . . .

I also feel that an elected official does place themselves out there and people have a right to voice their opinion. However, there is a way to do it that does not necessarily need insults or namecalling. I'm sure I have degressed on these blogs at times, but I feel a new tone is needed not only in politics but this community in general. I like the changes being proposed by Mr. Angus.

Not sure why i even bother to read this anymore..Most of the time the main stories have nothing to do with the surrounding area...when they do its stuff like Lizard at Large...But i do agree that Posters like "TheKid" always seem to have something negative to say so its people like that who ruin it for others to make comments about stories that actually involve this area. I say cut out all the stuff that happens in Milwaukee and north and Maybe this paper will come alive again....

It's about time!!

I like the decision and thank you for it, Mr. Angus. Living in the direction of Milwaukee, but originally being from Janesville, I frequent both the Gazette website and the Journal Sentinel website, and the JS does not allow for comments on stories similar to the ones the Gazette has not eliminated them on. Though the "nastys" still come out in other comments, it keeps much of the personal and potentially libelous comments to a minimum.
.
I also like the format of the JS comments. There are only so many comments per page, and users are allowed to give comments a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".

There is no censorship or freedom of speech.The Gazette is a privately owned company.
There can make any policy they please good or
bad.
Its there sandbox if you don`t like it vote with
your wallet or click another link for a different paper.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

A. J. Liebling

I could toss in a variation of the technology red herring anti-gun people use "The Constitution never mentioned web sites, just newspapers", but with the Internet, that is irrelevant. You can host a domain outside of the United States.

If the Gazette's web site is too restrictive for your taste, you can register a domain name at GoDaddy.com for $12.00 a year, and host it at deerfieldhosting.com for $60.00 per year, including features such as PHPboard message board software. For 20¢ a day you can be your own boss and nobody can censor you. Last time I checked, "ihatethegazette.com", and "thegazettesucks.com", were both available. If you want to have a more positive-sounding domain name, you should grab "imabettereditorthanscottangus.com" while you still can.

Perhaps when the Gazette starts getting adequate revenue from their web site, they could add software that will allow just subscribers to their print or web edition of the Gazette access to post comments. They would just need to mail access codes tied to the subscriber accounts and if someone abuses it, lock them out.

I am trying to determine if I care. I seem to be unable to decide.

"Poor tasting comments"?
That one has a strange flavor...
;-)

Allow me to be the first- (This comment was removed by the site staff)

I guess I don't see what the big hullabaloo is all about regarding this decision. It's embarrassing to read some of the threads where people who post turn their attention to attacking each other over their differing opinions. How exactly is that related to the story/topic? It's like politics and religion...by all means state your opinion...but you're neither right nor wrong. Nothing good really comes of people commenting...other than finding out who the completely irrational and illogical people are. It's unfortunate to see so many people who want to do nothing but find something to whine/complain/argue about.

it really surprises me how many people prefer less comments than more. really really surprises me.
**************
scott,
i predict that as you restrict comments, the people who have complained, will continue to do so.
i'd love to have you write about this again in a month -- let us know if the nattering nabobs keep on keepin' on.

I agree that something had to be done. I hope this improves things. Those who are complaining that they have a right to comment do not seem to understand that they do not own the web site.

Mr. Angus,
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to articles, express our opinions and you staying true to the forth estate. Well, sort of.

The Gazette acting like the U.S. Government now.....playing "God"

What about the articles on religion that the Gazette loves to post? Why not eliminate commenting on those articles as well? The nastiest comments on this site come from that.

Mr. Angus~ Excellent decision. I applaud this decision.

Wisdom wins, thanks Mr. A...

iam1to,
Pure and simple, Gazette staff time does not allow.
Scott Angus

my 2 cents worth is that if possible - track the IP addresses of the posters - maybe limit the number of posts within a given time frame (like 5 comments per day or whatever) from that IP address - allow other posters or readers to suggest removal and give them of different reasons why want to remove - if a poster gets too many suggest removals within a given time frame then block that IP address from posting comments for a period of time (or if the poster/IP address post gets removed by the staff before others suggest removal) - if gazette staff/time allow have someone monitor posts and have a time delay from when posters make a comment and the time its visiable (meaning like someone makes a comment at 9:05 pm, staff reviews it, then it gets visiable at 9:15 pm or whatever - so the poor tasting comments are reviewed before it is visiable)

About Time......

Thank you for making this effort. Time will tell how well it works. While I appreciate the consideration so many people have regarding our freedom of speech, opinions, etc., I have always struggled with those who have taken the right as an excuse to be insensitive, vindictive, and often cruel. When I was growing up the rule was that if I abused a right, I ended up losing that right. Looks like that is what has happened here. Thanks again, Gazette.

I don't approve of the idea of anybody telling me what I can and cannot comment on. Taking articles off the blog isn't the answer. Taking offending bloggers off is. Maybe a three strikes rule. I realize The Gazette is a private business and can do what they want, but restricting commenting on particular articles makes participating less appealing to me. The bizzare, inane, stupid, and anger infused comments are fun to read after all. I thought there was a certain freedom of speaking our minds on the internet that otherwise couldn't and wouldn't be shared in the newspaper itself. If we can only type 'Letter to the Editor' type comments, why have a blog?

100% agree with this move. I would ban all blogs myself due to the pettiness and ugliness of people on this site.

Community moderation is an interesting idea and something we will look into in the future. A newspaper site is different from most, however, in that we have different responsibilities given our role as a trusted news source and our close connections to the community. We're doing our best trying to balance lots of competing needs and interests here. And we're learning as we go along.

Scott Angus

First of all, the Gazette can not "ban" someone, only their nick. And using an anonymous proxy server can hide who you are. But that's for the more technical people, the average reader here would not know how to do this. Personally, I wish the Gazette did not stop commenting on any article. Perhaps a solution to the offensive comments that take up staff time could be resolved by allowing the community to moderate the discussions. Most online forums have community moderators if the comments are moderated. Or the Gazette could even go the route of www.slashdot.org where the coding for the site is open source and allow the community to moderate. Part of the issue for the Gazette I expect, is they might be liable legally for comments, if they moderate them. The owners of slashdot have only once in 10 years done any moderating of a comment (copywrite issue of Scientology stuff). Since they don't, they are not legally liable for what is posted.

I don't necessarily agree with your decision but I do understand the drain on resources that unlimited comments must cause. It is a shame that we live in a time when the stupidity of a few results in unfortunate restrictions on us all. It is becoming more and more common with no end in sight. Too bad.

ImJustSayin, the Gazette discontinued its Juarez edition some years ago. I'm not even sure they have a reporter there anymore.

Will the Gazette suppress the AP news article about the 20 people that were murdered in Juarez this weekend because it would make it's readers too uncomfortable?
Just askin' one last question...

scott,

i see nice coments, smart comments, idiotic, rude and sometimes very funny ones.
i don't see the LA times, huffpo of glenn beck cutting back. rather the opposite.
it sounds as if the squeaky wheels are getting the grease.

a handful of people complain and people run for the hills.
here's my squeaky wheel thought -- don't cut back -- i think doing so "hurts your image."

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I saw it coming. The former situation really was unsustainable. I know the trend online is all about Web 2.0, but while a person may be smart, groups of people tend to be simply about Mob Mentality and getting the most outrageous sound bite.

Everyone is looking for attention, perhaps that's it.

I'm grateful that our country allows our right to free speech. The Gazette has shown what happens to any institution that doesn't allow it. As I said a couple years ago, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is a private site that doesn't have to abide by the rights enumerated in the constitution, but I but you're handicap accessible.
The Gazette is a news site. A site that records history.
I don't believe the Gazette records history accurately by suppressing comments. It hurts the Gazette's credibility in my opinion.
Do what you want Gazette, and I'll do what I want. It's still a free country.

HOW can YOU not GET nasty WITH certain BLOGS?

Thank you Gazette for making these changes. Reading the paper on-line became very stressful. The news was secondary to the blogs. Poor citizenship seemed to prosper on blogs.

I think they did the right thing. There really is no need to have comments for the crimes, courts, accidents, race or sex. We can just read those articles and then move on.

1st amendment does not apply to privately owned "stuff." If it's their baseball and bat and they don't like how the game is going they can take both and go home and you are out of luck. Oh, try walking into your boss, call him an idiot, then claim 1st amendment. Tell me how that works out for you.

Censorship and the First Amendment apply to government restricting the speech of people. They have nothing to do with a private business making strategic and sensible decisions.

Scott Angus

I can understand though why they do this. Think of the man hours it takes to manage the comments and moderate when the comment section does not generate one dollar to help the business. I mean, sangus has been on here numerous times trying to chill things out a bit but it has not worked. I guess I don't blame them even though I don't necessarily agree with them.

Censorship is a form of speech. Apparently the Gazette considers the 1st amendment their right and no one elses. I havent taken the Gazette in decades and now I can ignore Gazettextra as well. OK, I will still read the death notices and Obits, ironic getting info about dead people from a dying organization.

Whatever happen to freedom of speech? Freedom of press? Sounds like the Gazette is going the BIG brother socialist path.

I disagree with this decision. Some of the comments do get nasty but for the most part, you can read through the hostility to see a valid point someone is making. I appreciate someone's point of view even if it isn't phrased the greatest.
There are nasty comments that have nothing to do with the subject and nasty comments that are intended to hurt the other readers, and I think those comments should be deleted.
There is a way to moderate without banning all comments. I think you should have tried that first.
I find the new policy is rather restrictive so, I probably won't visit as often.

Censorship is the failure of society. Your cutting the communication ties with how stuff actually is, and the sugar coated version the media makes up. There is more people who would rather hear it like it is than not. You'll never please everyone no matter what you do. The people that get offended easily are actually emotionally weak. We should not cater to them at all.

Controversial is one thing. We don't shy from legitimate controversy. Never have. Personal attacks and unfounded allegations are something else entirely. We're out to cut down on those. As for our credibility, some people have argued convincingly that the nastiest comments on our website hurt the Gazette's image. I side with them over the people who believe this latest move will hurt our credibility.
Scott Angus

one other thing, the gazette publishes comments from these forums in the dead tree edition. and SOME of those comments are pretty far out there. i suppose the gazette editorial staff should stop that practice as well. or just publish "non-controversial" comments. here's one you can start with -- "have a nice day."

guess i should've read all the early comments, but it seems that the ability to comment will be severely limited with the new rules. oftentimes, the comments are more entertaining than the original stories.
and even if the comments get vitriolic, is anyone hurt by a petty online argument?
i agree with pretty women, i think the gazette's credibility takes a hit.
this seems to be a very PC decision.

if you eliminate comments on "stories that involve crimes, courts, accidents, race or sex," what do you have left that's actually news or a story on which we would have opinions?

The rules for posting comments seem very clear and fair to me. I would rather see repeat offenders banned from posting rather then making some stories off-limits to comments. If you are going to choose which articles are "post worthy" you may as well eliminate comments all together. Censorship of articles will not stop the nasty comments.

Excellent decision for stories of a more "personal" nature. Too many victims of misfortune are pilloried and too many people charged with crimes are tried, convicted and executed in the GazetteXtra comment section. Good move!

That makes sense - and it's good to know that you do ban some of the nasty ones. This may be a good 'first step' to curb the ugliness.

We do watch and eventually ban people who consistently violate our rules. But that doesn't address all of the issues. And to be honest, some of this is about the time it takes us to monitor comments. This will reduce the number and type of stories on which comments are allowed, and it will allow us to better monitor those that remain.

Scott Angus

A decent move. Too many comments end up not being about the article.

A nasty comment maker can simply go to an 'open' blog to comment on a 'restricted' article. This restriction does almost no good at all. Why not BAN the nasty comment makers?

You have been saved... from yourself.

Scott, I agree fully with your decision.. this was a bold move to allow all types of comments, but it has gotten out of hand,,, I find it (more often) that people single out one another with the comments, some are just crude, rude, and plain mean... ( i too made these comments, and became ashamed of myself after doing so) , My wife asked me why do you read these,,,??? I answered her by saying they are fun to read, just to see what ignorant people are placing comments...
so with out being too winded,, THANK YOU for taking the steps to Curb this nonsense..

This is called 'the shotgun approach'. Penalize everyone instead of banning the obvious 'nasty' comment makers. I'm afraid the Gazette's credibility takes a big hit on this one.

Why not disable the anonymous posting function? Make everyone register with their names/addresses and verify that people are who they say they are. Then make them post under their own name. People who do not have to take ownership for their words are a lot more brave when they are hiding behind a screen. For some reason people find it acceptable to say things on the internet under this cloak of anonymity that they would never otherwise utter in public. I appreciate the readers who make thoughtful, insightful and well-written comments. Unfortunately those comments are usually overshadowed by the posters who do not measure their words carefully before they hit the "submit" button.

You know what though, if you are a public official, you are fair game. You put yourself out in front of people to get the accolades and kudos, you have to expect they will respond the opposite when your behavior deems it so. I was very critical of Mike Sheridan during the election because I felt the Gazette turned a blind eye to his behavior. BUT...If you are NOT a public figure and your relative or you die in a car accident or suffer some tragedy, then yes the comments should be disabled.

Good decision, Mr Angus.

Considering the nastiest comments on the site have been involved in the local political race and the state elections I think you will still have plenty to monitor.

How about deaths? those should be disabled also

What's left? Local government, education, politics, feature stories, and much more.

Scott Angus

"We no longer allow comments on stories that involve crimes, courts, accidents, race or sex."
What's left? :)