Comment Reduction
I have noticed a reduction in our comment volume of late. Because our comments are at times very thoughtful and helpful, though they do range from very helpful to . . . something else, we do value what our readers think. In that vein, I was wondering if the reduction was anything we have changed here or anything we can address. Please leave a comment or email us directly at caaflog@caaflog.com or noman@caaflog.com. Happy reading.
For me it was Messr Spillman’s threat to out unsavory posters a few weeks back. He had a point, but his entry was totally inappropriate in tone. My posts don’t put me at risk for outing, but the idea that the CAAFlog management can track IP addresses and identify “Anon”‘s and reveal their identity to the online miljus community is too spooky for me.
Light on the comments mostly because there is not much going on. Once CAAF starts issuing some opinions, I think you’ll see a return of the lively debate.
It also doesn’t help that you’ve got a “rogue” member who has intimated that he might have the skill to track down anons or otherwise mess with them. I am sure that could put off a few folks.
Ditto on the concern of anons being tracked down and persecuted. I don’t think I’ve posted anything that merits such treatment (if it’s ever merited), but seeing as though I’m not the one who decides which IP addresses to identify, I just can’t take the chance.
Agree and agree. It was Lt. Spillman’s post that stopped me from commenting. In fact, I wanted to respond to him directly, but because of his threats, I decided not to. Of course I realize that the obvious solution is that as long as one keeps their comments appropriate, then they’re not at risk. But I think Anon 0701 properly addressed that issue.
I concur with the late admiral. Hard to have a lively debate about CAAF’s outreach program. Lots of “so what” going on.
Thanks to all that have posted. A very helpful informal polling.
On the Z issue, I don’t think the intent of his post was to intimate that our policy is to track down rogue anons by IP addresses. To be honest I don’t even think you can do that with the diffuse nature of servers-this post has an IP address of where ever my mobile service provider’s computer is. We don’t make it a policy to out people here on our blog. Although, I have to say the lack of comments hasn’t been all bad, it would seem some of our more borderline anons have refrained from posting lately.
Bottom line is none of us have that kind of time to go around sleuthing out anons, we actually have day jobs.
Agree SDC.
As to the “threat.”
I have the luxury of not having to worry about who reads my comments. So it was that I did not take Zach’s comment to be a threat to out me or to out others for that matter. (I’m not sure I would have recommended he publish the comment regardless of peoples sensitivities. I believe I had such a discussion with one of the “personnel” off-line. The issue was well past and pretty much played out. I’m of the view that the less you respond to inappropriate comments the less they continue to appear — without an audience many don’t play.)
However, out there it is.
I took Zach’s comment to be a caution that if people wanted to continue to post vitriputive comments, there were ways to terminate a persons access to CAAFLog commenting. That’s all I took it to be. But I understand and often preach that it’s not what I say but what you think I said that matters. So in that context I do understand Anon(s) concerns.
I think I can attest to the integrity of the site “personnel” that they would NEVER knowingly disclose any information in their possession about anyone who posts to this site – to ANYONE.
If you are like me you enjoy trying to guess who the anonymous people are or who the Admiral is. But that’s not so we can turn them in. And I’ll call you disingenuous if you say you don’t also try to guess.
I think Dwight will allow me to say this. I consider him to be the kind of friend I would throw myself under a bus for. And so we often share gossip. The joke is that we consider it attorney-client. So I had no hesitation one time and asked him to confirm one of my guesses of who a particular person was masquerading as with a nom e plume on CAAFLog. He refused to tell me, the %%#(D(&W^W twit. Can you imagine, integrity over a juicy piece of gossip.
Joking aside, I anticipate Dwight will weigh in soon. I’m satisfied he will do his best to reassure commenters that their “status” will be respected. I think we’d all prefer to know who a commenter is for various reasons because knowledge allows context for the comment. However, it is not realistic for the audience to have to declare themselves because there’s always going to be some jerk who doesn’t respect open dialogue on important subjects affecting the community of military justice.
To the Anons, your concerns deserve respect. Let’s give Zach a silver bullet and move on.
Cheers all!
“Well, internet anonymity is long dead. It’s not hard to pinpoint someone’s physical location from an IP address and some open-source tools; from there it’s a short hop to street-view photographs that sometimes include faces. As much as that’s an implicit threat, it’s also an acknowledgment of the ease with which we can stifle discussion.”
Sounds to me like a threat of public identification.
Let me add my quick 2 cents’ worth. I may have more thoughts tonight. I believe that it is factually correct that an anonymous/pseudonymous poster runs some risk of having his or her identity revealed. This happened fairly recently in relation to another blog as a result of a lawsuit. And Mr. Cossio recently purported to identify an anonymous commentator on CAAFlog. (I don’t know the methodology that he used, but perhaps information is available to anyone accessing this blog that would allow them to identify the computer from which a post was made.)
I certainly have no intention of ever outing an anonymous/pseudonymous commentator. But it strikes me as fair warning to those who wish to post anonymously/pseudonymously that it is possible that their identity will somehow be revealed. I think the wise reader should make an anonymous/pseudonymous post only if he or she is willing to run the risk of later having his or her name attached to that post. (Of course, as I’ve indicated many times, I would prefer if people posted comments under their own names but I still believe that the value of allowing anonymous posts outweighs its cost.)
My general thoughts at least as to why I have been posting less:
1. Too busy at work
2. Nothing interesting going on
3. Less posting by posters (named and pseudonymous) I have come to enjoy conversing/debating with
4. Posts hijacked by commentators I don’t particularly enjoy conversing/debating with
5. I liked the google format better (probably just because I don’t like change)
I think the new math part of making a reply is tripping up a number of posters.
I think Anon November 5, 2009 at 8:02 am has his finger on the pulse of the commentariat.
Agreed. It’s got to be the math. And as for “anonymity” on the web, anyone who believes such a thing exists is silly. I’ve done too many cases involving computers to believe that anything I put on one is ever really “anonymous.” I just take comfort in the fact that I doubt anyone really cares enough to go through the steps to find out who I am or what I say.
Echo all 5 of O’Connor’s plus anonymous #1. This blog remains an OK sourse of information sometimes (with a hard left bent worthy of MSNBC) but the conversation has lost all of its luster.
Want to chill debate? Just threaten to put a picture of someone’s house on your site. This is my last comment.