Col Sullivan asks:

What does a blog administrator do when someone contributes a post that the adminstrator is ashamed to have on a blog with which his name is associated?

I think it’s awfully polite to refer our twice-convicted denizen Cossio as merely “someone,” but he continues:

Like Mill, I believe there is value in the expression and refutation of falsehoods.

Indeed. But Mill presumed the ability to make a refutation of an opinion. That’s something I can influence.

Starting today CAAFlog sports a comment rating system:

Enough negative ratings and a comment will be hidden:

It’s an adjustable trigger that I’ve set low and will adjust as necessary.

Enjoy.

UPDATE: An anonymous comment finds irony in this, but the tragedy of the commons appears when society gives room for anarchy; and no, a benevolent dictatorship isn’t the answer. Generally, the heckler is going to have a better barometer anyway.

The ratings are a moving target – enough negatives and the text of a comment is hidden. However, the comment itself isn’t deleted. The time and author still appear in the list, with the text available with just a click. Besides, enough subsequent positive votes will reveal the hidden comment. That’s hardly a blacklist.

Implemented at the same time is the option to easily quote another comment:

Mr. Cossio’s latest comment presents this question:  what does a blog administrator do when someone contributes a post that the adminstrator is ashamed to have on a blog with which his name is associated?  I could delete the post.  This isn’t a public forum and I have no more obligation to allow a comment to remain on this blog than the Washington Post does to print any particular letter to the editor. 

I nevertheless decided to leave the comment up (though I won’t be offended if one of the other administrators reaches an opposite conclusion and removes it).  Like Mill, I believe there is value in the expression and refutation of falsehoods.  We’ve recently seen some empirical support for this proposition:  while it ran counter to the political communication schoolbook solution, the Obama campaign’s “fight the smears” web site proved more effective than the Kerry campaign’s decision to largely ignore the swift boaters.  While there’s little prospect of changing Mr. Cossio’s mind, perhaps other readers have thoughts similar to those that he expresses.  And perhaps some of them might be swayed by counter-argument.

Mr. Cossio suggests considering restricting military recruiting of Muslims.  One obvious objection is that any such restriction would be unconstitutional.  It would violate not only the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, but also Article VI’s prohibition against religious tests.  It would violate two portions of the Constitution because it is fundamentally inconsistent with core American principles — religious tolerance being very high among them.  It would dishonor the service and sacrifice of legions of patriotic and courageous American Muslims.  Colin Powell, in responding to false rumors during the 2008 presidential campaign that Barack Obama was Muslim, gave a far more eloquent explanation of this concept than I ever could:

Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian.  He’s always been a Christian.

But the real right answer is, “What if he is?”  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine.  It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave.  And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone.  And it gave his awards—Purple Heart, Bronze Star—showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death.  He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.  And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American.

He was born in New Jersey.  He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. 

You can see that picture here. 

I believe in General Powell’s vision of America.  It is a vision rooted in the Constitution that every American servicemember has sworn to support and defend.  I honor Corporal Khan’s ultimate sacrifice for our country. I grieve for his family, just as I honor the service and sacrifice of those killed and wounded at Fort Hood and grieve for their families.  And I won’t remain silent while the service of any honorable, patriotic Marine, Sailor, Airman, Soldier, or Coast Guardsman–living or fallen–is besmirched.

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.

I read, with some bemusement, Col Sullivan’s post on civility among commentators. I haven’t known him long, but I wouldn’t say CAAFlog is the excitable type. I didn’t pay it much attention until tonight when my curiosity got the better of me and I discovered that, apparently, all hell broke loose.

Some months ago, during the transition to the new site and software, I was part of discussions about comments. One considered forcing commentators to register.  Another considered banning comments altogether. At one point during a discussion about anonymous comments was this bit about the new software’s penchant for disclosing commentators’ client information:

You know that part of the inquiry into the PTA where the military judge says, “I don’t know, and I don’t want to know”…

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.

I’ve seen plenty of folks enjoy censoring others, usually for illegitimate (and pathetic) reasons. CAAFlog and NoMan’s concerns are different. There’re also nothing new. I know I’m not the only one who thinks about getting called into the CO’s office every time I see my name under “contributors.” I also know I’m not the only person who values the comments on this blog. But there are plenty of reputable legal blogs that don’t allow comments, generally because they think they’re more trouble than they’re worth. It’d be nice if that didn’t become the case here.

I just removed three comments that included entirely gratuitous contemptuous language toward the President.  (I left up posts containing disrespectful language toward the President that was at least related to the topic under discussion.) 

Please note that my favorite blog in the world no longer allows readers to post comments.  I really would like to avoid emulating that aspect of SCOTUSblog.  But neither the No Man nor I have the time to sift through all of the comments posted on CAAFlog to remove the gratuitously offensive ones.  The only real alternatives are: (a) self-policing commentators who are occasionally pushed back into line by a deleted comment; (b) no comments; or (c) a highly regulated and inefficient marketplace of ideas in which only comments by a select few are allowed or in which there is an inordinate delay before comments are posted to allow them to be vetted, thereby eliminating any opportunity for a virtual conversation in the comments.  I much prefer option (a), but it requires all of our cooperation.  Of course, most of our readers who post comments contribute to a civil, informed conversation — and we sincerely appreciate that.  I wouldn’t want to silence those voices in order to root out the uncivil and the gratuitously offensive.

Tomorrow I’m heading OCONUS for Reserve duty.  I anticipate being off the ‘net until Wednesday night.  In my absence, the Fab Four will be performing my normal duties.  The Fab Four consist of CAAFlog co-founders the No Man (who may not be able to post much due to being deluged with work) and the Kabul Klipper, Judge Mathews the Greatest, and Code 45 and OMC-D alumnus Brian Mizer.  That lineup looks so good, our readership will probably want to ship me overseas more often.

reCAPTCHA is on hold for a while to troubleshoot issues with it not loading on government machines and mobile devices.

I’ve replaced it with some simple math.

Unless many of you have decided to start selling Viagra in your online pharmacy, comment spam has become a problem for CAAFlog. Fighting these nuisance posts is a time-consuming distraction. To alleviate the problem, I’ve installed a reCAPTCHA widget in the comment form:

If you get illegible words, you can refresh the reCAPTCHA box by clicking the refresh button.

reCAPTCHA doesn’t require a perfect response; it recognizes that some letters look like others. An incorrect response will refresh the comment page and your comment will be lost (the comment box will reappear empty). To recover your comment text, click your browser’s back button. You will have to refresh the reCAPTCHA box before you can continue.

For anyone interested in the technology, reCAPTCHA was profiled on NPR a year ago.

I’m out of here shortly.  I’ll be back online in about 72 hours.

I hope the commentariat’s blogging experience is as good here as it was on our old home over at Blogger.  Many thanks to Blogger and Google for getting us started.  But, I will say, the new digs are like drinking 35 year old Macallan after having Johnnie Walker Red for 3 years.

In case you were wondering, yes, you can still comment anonymously.  The email field is there if you want to enter it and receive responses to your comment, but is not a required field.