I’ve been mulling over the possibility of adding a new level of online discussions. I notice that there is a lot of interst, resulting in lots of comments, on certain issues, usually issues where there is a strong contrast of opinions but sometimes a wide disagreement over the factual context. I’m wondering if there is any interest in a series of more focused online discussions that would include some specific readings, to get us on the same page regarding the “facts,” and perhaps Q&A’s with experts or other authorities.
My cousin, who teaches at Boise State, is an expert in such things, and I asked her for suggestions. She reponded:
I suppose you could use a threaded comment section following a blog post that either contains the article or a link to it, and close the comments for each blog post when you post the next article. I haven’t deployed a threaded comment plugin myself, but people seem pretty happy with both the Disqus and Intense Debate plugins for WordPress. I have had issues, as a commenter, with Disqus occasionally, as the university’s network here doesn’t always recognize it as a “trusted resource,” and in that case won’t display any comments at all.
Or you could use a WordPress plugin to turn a section of your site into a forum (for example, at forum.ilind.net or ilind.net/forum), and each article could have its own thread. You could close threads after a certain amount of time. Again, I haven’t tried this myself, but I have looked into it, and from what I found, there’s no one forum plugin that everyone loves (surprise!), but people who have a lot of members and don’t want to spend a ton of time approving and managing members tend to use either WishList Member or aMember in addition to their forum software. There’s also vBulletin and phpBB, of course, outside of WordPress.
Those online forum systems could accomodate as many as were interested, without scheduling issues. Smaller groups, though, could possibly use an online conferencing setup to hold live lecture-discussion sessions as well.
This format could be used to explore Hawaii’s sunshine and ethics laws, their substance, history, and politics, or jump directly into more political topics.
Or, perhaps, reading a daily blog is about all anyone has time for.
All comments or reactions appreciated.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m interested
While hard to keep some folks on point, I think this could improve with this exchange, I am more interested in analysis versus dogma but I suppose one blogger’s background is another’s opinion.
The idea to post ‘specific readings, to get us on the same page regarding the “facts,”’ is a gallant one, but I find that then people disagree, they disagree on both “facts” and the validity of the source of the “facts.”
Speaking only for myself of course, I like your blog exactly the way it is. You write about an interesting topic, and some of us chime in.
Sounds really interesting!
Isn’t this sort of what Civil Beat aspired to at the start (remember the “reporter-hosts”) but has not really succeeded at. You yourself have mentioned problems with the way their comments on articles are handled.
I think a forum would be valuable but would like to see real names used with enough biographical information to understand where people are coming from. I work for Hawaiian Electric, no secret there, and while I would not be speaking for or representing Hawaiian Electric in a forum, that fact would inform my contributions. With real names, short bios and contact info should come a higher level of civility. Would it be too much to ask people to write in something like complete sentences, have some tangential connection to the rules of grammar etc. Most comments you post are pretty close, but both a requirement for minimally good writing and a word limit per post would be good. (Obviously, I need the word limit more than most others.)
From experience running a forum, absolutely require real names and vetted identities, or you will end up overrun by trolls. I finally shut down the board I used to run for several years when it became obvious that the trolls would not stop, no matter what I did or said. Some people live to disrupt any orderly discussion. These are the “trolls.”
Do you think a nominal entry fee would discourage trolls?
I would love to see some serious, civil on-line discussions but agree with a couple of the previous commenter’s that real names and vetted identities is a must to keep the discussions from degenerating. However, I think that some personal information such as addresses, phone numbers and email addresses while known to you as a condition of participation should not be made public or be available fro harvesting by web crawlers.
I would like to put in a negative vote for Disqus. That was used on the old Advertiser site and I found it to be a pain to use.
Etoa is correct: Vetted by you, publicly named, but otherwise personal information would not need to be published. As far as a nominal fee, it would not stop trolls, absolutely, but it might help. Then again, the mantra might become, “I paid, therefore I can say what I want and you can’t censor me.”
Real, vetted identities would probably be the most reliable way to prevent abuses. If someone were banned for cause, they would have a harder time creating another account with another verified identity.
One of the problems I had was that when a troll was banned (after much effort at arbitration and counseling) they would inevitably sign up for another account, under another name, another email address, at another ISP (original IP address blocked) and would resume disruption of discussion.
The obvious argument against real identities is that would tend to detract from discussing ideas on their merits alone.
From what I’ve seen, the posts to your blog have been pretty civil.
Back in my days on The Honolulu Advertser editorial page there were very rarely letter writers who asked for anonymity for fear of repurcussion. If the letter really had merit and value it might be run without a name, though that name would be known and confirmed by the editor responsible. (An editor’s note would explain to readers.) Clearly, as moderator, Ian would have that power as well. A small fee would be fine with me. It could go to a cat treats fund.
I used my real name online for many years because I thought I had nothing to hide. Then one day as a moderator of a forum, I made a decision that a group of “friends” didn’t agree with and that got me smeared, stalked and harassed for months online and off. Now I don’t even use the same pseudonym in more than one forum anymore. I still have nothing to hide but I don’t need the hassle.
I love your blog. Although I lurk for the most part I have never felt that it is an unsafe place to state my opinion, and I do occasionally. I don’t know if you do a lot of moderating, but I don’t recall ever seeing it get too ugly around here. Your comments are already threaded (you can reply to individual comments, although without a subject line).
I agree with Kalaheo on two points. Your blog is just fine the way it is, and there isn’t a chance in hell that there will be any kind of consensus on what constitutes the facts — real identities, nominal fee or not.
As long as you are willing to actively moderate, what you got now is as good as it is going to get. The public discussion side of civil beat has been a complete failure. Most people want to stay under the radar. There is nothing to be gained by being a gadfly in this town. I’ll be happy to come forward and discuss about 20% of your topics with a real name. The other 80% I could only give you calculated and measured input.
“and close the comments for each blog post when you post the next article” that would be frustrating as heck. I would pay a small fee no matte where it went. people food fund, Mac fund, cat treat fund, cat litter fund. Hell, it’s then Ian’s money, not money. He can do with it what he wants.
I am open to considering just about anything here on this site.
However, many of us not only post here but we also have our personalo or professional websites so that could create a trolling/harassing praoblem.
Would you screen the applicants before their initial posting or would the forum be open to all who want to participate?
I think you are doing a splendid job, Ian. Your site is a pleasure to visit for several reasons. It’s interesting and unpredictable. It reflects an individual, disciplined, and well-informed kamaaina mind. It offers a nice blend of information, opinion, criticism, and cats. Thanks to your site, I feel better informed. I am better informed. I appreciate being introduced to Mike Lofgren’s “Goodbye to All That,” which should be anthologized as one of the best essays of the year. I was glad to see that somebody else here took notice of Warren Leslie’s book on Dallas. Your fairness to Kenneth Conklin was also impressive, almost a miracle. Conklin, to his credit, seems to be on his best behavior when commenting on your site. Like Peter Rosegg, I think the site would be more useful as a serious forum if pseudonyms were not used. Peter’s hope that everyone write in complete sentences is not asking too much. It’s what we expect children in school to do. Paying admission would make the site more of a club than the wonderful open, informal online community it has become. You’ve made it an indispensable resource. But if moderating the site is becoming a chore, more of a job than a pastime, then, by all means, ask us to pay the price of admission. Please give this a lot of thought before coming to a decision.