Astute readers of the forums probably have noticed some regular users missing the past couple of weeks, with a couple of new names added to that list today.
I thought I would take a moment to explain why that is, and how we go about banning accounts.
Rarely have we suspended a user's privileges for one incident or with no warning. Our standard procedure is first to gently point out language that is libelous, obscene or otherwise a violation of our terms of service. A second offense might bring a more stern warning and perhaps a brief suspension. After two or three warnings, accounts are permanently suspended.Forum administrators are being more aggressive about language for a couple of reasons. Most important to us, libelous posts put the WDH in legal peril — as well as the user who writes the offending comments. Also, though, we want our forums to be a place for civilized and contructive commentary, with readers of all ages, backgrounds and abilities welcome. We have had several readers and news sources tell us they are avoiding the forum and the newspaper because of the tone and tenor of comments online. That's not acceptable to us.
I'm sure most everyone knows, before they click the "send" button, when a post is close to or over the line. Most every time, you can say what you want to say without being onscene, without personally attacking another user, or without violating libel law. Please take care before posting your comments.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
Another clueless Gannetter.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no "legal peril" for a newspaper allowing online comments.
The Communications Decency Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html) offers complete protection against libel, privacy, interference and other claims. The only liabilty would stem from copyright/IP violations, which are addressed by the DMCA.
see also: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/cnet-libel-and-user-generated-content
yup. you are not libel for the comments on your forums etc. case law so far is backing this up. Although I think some responsible policing is important so your sites don't turn into online ghettos a la Topix.
ReplyDeleteI want to be on the staff of a Gannett paper that has TIME to hold the hands of errant posters, gently remind them to behave themselves, etc.
ReplyDeleteCommon sense should tell you that insults, obscenities, trolling, etc., are unacceptable.
If people can't behave in public - and that's what being in the chat section of a Web site it - then I block them without warning or compunction.
Funny thing is, only a small percentage of posters even notice ...
3:41....
ReplyDeleteBanning evildoers may make you feel like the sheriff, and if it makes you feel good, do it.
But it's so easy to create a new e-mail address and resubscribe, it's a largely futile activity.
Deleting individual posts, or turning off Story Chat on particularly inflammatory stories, does have an effect.
what's really odd is that with Pluck, the member/comment system Gannett uses, you don't need to ban people, you can just "hide" them. They are allowed to post, and they see the post, but no one else sees the post. It works wonders. And it's also hilarious if you're moderating, people just rave like lunatics but it's as if they're in the woods or something.
ReplyDeleteThey also don't bother to sign up again, because they think their posts are appearing.
Pluck (the content system that Gannett uses) is an abortion. It is a nightmare to manage, and it is little better than Topix was IMO.
ReplyDeleteGannett is so hell-bent on allowing reader comments that they have opened Pandora's box, and don't care what's said or if those areas turn into racial and political namecalling minefields. I'd go as far as to say they don't care about the raunchy language either.