Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Conyers Blog Spiraling despite registration

Curious how one solution fails to stop the problem. I would argue that allowing the bloggers and commenters to vigorously discuss the issues [regardless their political correctness] was far more effective in monitoring the blog.

Solution: Get rid of registrations and simply allow the blog-comments to regulate themselves.

Conyers blog has a new registration system. Unfortunately, I've been unable to register. I requested access, made other attempts to alert them, but heard nothing back.

As an outsider, I thought I would share some observations. It is interesting how things can continue to spiral down despite the registration.

Disclosure: My interest in the ConyersBlog is twofold:

A. I support the effort to find the truth in re Downing Street effort
B. I have not been able to register, so I'm looking at the blog from the perspective of someone "who would like to participate, but is unable to do so; therefore, I'll be blogging on a new subject:"

  • How bloggers, despite registration, will provide comments to a blog that continue to be derogatory

  • Exploring the ability of an "unmoderated board" to self-regulate

  • Explore to what extent those who "pass the test of registration, and are allowed to participate in a board" spiral down into chaos and mud slinging.

    What I've noticed

    Given my inability to post directly to the Conyers Blog, I've taken the view that "anyone allowed to blog and post comments in the Conyers blog may not realize what a privilege they have."

    This is not to suggest that the commenters grovel on the ground. Rather, it is curious to me that despite [a] the registration process; and [b] the difficulty that one could experience in registering, I am amazed that registration-requirements has not solved the problem.

    Moreover, I don't think that people who can post to the blog appreciate their special privilege; and at the same time, despite them having that privilege it doesn't appear to have been a catalyst for more refined interactions.

    Rather, the issue of "registrations" has simply been a distraction from the real issue: People will throw mud, regardless the registrations.

    Rather than register people, why not simply ban those who are disruptive?

    I cannot answer that.

    Conyers Blog Administration and Registration Issues

  • #184: They talk about the annoyance of registration to "stop bigotry," only to realize that the registration-requirement hasn't changed anything.

  • #178: We realize that the Conyers blog admin is a volunteer. Aha! Non-professionals who are attempting to defeat a carefully organized RNC. Warning! If the DNC wants to prevail, you need to ensure your conduct and staff are professional, not simply a rag tag group of volunteers who fall down on the job.

    Commentary on the Conyers Blog Comments

  • #275: Makes an interesting point about the ConyersBlog crackdown on discussion of religious issues.

    Admin at #51 restates the policy in response to these these comments: #11, #12, #24, #26

  • #73 throws a fit and says, "Bye."

  • #76 continues, despite the warning.

  • #127 discusses someone's religion with a sanction by Admin

  • #162, 168: Now we see what is going on -- anyone who dares have a "different view" about 9-11 is threatened with being banned. Curious. Isn't the problem with 9-11 that "we don't know": Why were some given an advance warning prior to 9-11; who put the explosives in the twin towers?

    Is it "OK" to call Muslims "extremists" but not call those who actually put the explosives in the basement what they are, "Fascists?" No answer.

  • #173 Religion: Is the "RNC" a religion; are people who are fascists and members of PNAC fascists; are those who lie about WMD and the reasons for going to war a religious cult; is accusing them of being fanatical something 'we can't talk about'?

  • #175, 209: Why is it "OK" to smear Muslims [who are defending themselves against unlawful invaders] as being "extremists"; but the charge that Catholics defending themselves against Protestants is "something else" and "can't be talked about"?

  • #251: Celebrating the crackdown on anti-religion; but sending a greenlight to continue speaking out against those who defend themselves against unlawful invaders.


    If that was the standard and condition for posting/registering, why aren't people being banned?

    For those of us who cannot post/have not had the registration approved, could the "registration of those who are being banned" be opened up to a "general entry" by the public as a "public sign-in"? [meaning: Transfer their registration to either others individually, or opened up to the public?]

    Summary Discussion Topics

    It certainly is interesting to notice how my interest in the issues have changed. Now that I'm no longer able to actively engaged in the discussions directly, I'm noticing my reactions.

    Before, I used to have no problem with diving right into the conversation and stating directly what I did or didn't think about someone else's comments.

    However, there are two problems as I see it. Not only can people not easily post; but the Admin can quickly interject and make changes to the comments based on accusations.

    Which, I have no problem with: But it does change the character of the blog from something that is blogger-commenter centered to something that is more focused on the Admin-centered.

    These are issues which the blog will have to decide:

  • Has registration solved the problem

  • Would opening up the blog to public-participation allow for a self-regulatory system

  • To what extent have those blogger-commenters who said they were "not participating because of the spiraling standards" now spiraled down into the same behavior that they initially said 'warranted their non-participation"

    remember, the reason Conyers blog changed to a registration system wasn't simply because of what was or wasn't being said, but it was the argument that because of the content people were staying away.

    Now, we have the same result: Same spiraling content; people being forced to stay away; and I believe more people walking on eggshells; and those who "stayed away" are now back doing exactly what they accused others of doing.

    This is alot like Animal Farm: Where, into he end, there is no difference between the Farmer and the Animals. Those who advocated for change have turned into the very beasts they once decried. But now they have the full backing of Admin to censor that which they find offensive.

    In hindsight, I'm glad I'm not registered. I wouldn't feel free to express myself and worry that my comments are being constantly monitored.

    I have a problem when countries like Israel continue to play the "woe, look what happened to us during the Holocaust" while at the same time their agents spy on the US; lobby for the US to invade Iraq; and at the same time are caught fabricating explosions.

    Have the Israelis followed the Animal Farm model? I think so, and there is a chorus of millions screaming, "Anti-Semitism" to silence that concern.

    No wonder the Arabs fight the hypocrites, especially with more vigor since the Israelis continue to lean on WWII and the justification to spread hatred and violence in 2005.

    We should not be confused why 9-11 happened; nor why the US invaded Iraq. There are powerful forces who want the US to police the world in "their vision," even if "that vision" has to be propped up by a mountain of lies.

    I'm less inclined to care whether the ConyersBlog opens or I receive an approval to post to the site. It's been a welcome break.