March 26, 2007
I think I have gone over this before, but I will try again. We can get up to 100 posts each day, sometimes more when there is a specific story of interest. We allow posters to remain anonymous, though users can change their anonymity settings and tell people who they are as a handful of posters have done.
When I am dealing with anonymous postings, it's very difficult to determine the credibility of the poster and the accuracy of certain claims. And trying to debate an anonymous user is a little like trying to box a ghost.
That being the case, I generally don't spend a lot of time weighing whether a specific post should stay or go. When someone suggests that a post be removed, I get an e-mail notification with a link to the post. I'll read it quickly - almost always, the post contains one of the following:
1) A personal attack.
2) Offensive language.
3) A one-sided story that cannot be verified that reflects poorly on another individual.
4) The suggestion that another person be physically harmed.
In these cases, the person suggesting removal gets the benefit of the doubt. Elected officials get less slack. To use Gwen's case, I'll allow harsher criticism of a School Board member than of a principal and harsher criticism of a principal than a teacher. Each, in my mind, is a different level of public figure.
If a post is completely benign, I'll ignore the suggestion for removal. That is rarely the case.
I went through this before in my Coulter column when Kielbasa questioned how closely I looked at comments suggested for removal before deleting them. He suggested that my post explaining how I decide to remove posts be removed. I did not remove the post.
The comments on stories add value to our Web site. It's an interactive feature that users truly enjoy. But ultimately, it's a moderated forum. We define what's appropriate and there really isn't much room for debate.
It amazes me how posters who have their comments removed are so quick to claim they have been censored. Nobody here is stopping anyone from launching their own Web site, printing their own pamphlets or shouting their perspectives from the steps of City Hall. We're just deciding what gets to stay on our forum.
An old editor of mine once taught me to presume good intent unless I had evidence to the contrary. I think that's sound advice that would help some posters ensure that their comments remain visible on our site.
Comments
gwendolyn 6 years, 1 month ago
If VOLUNTEERS such as Troeger and DeVincentis can be publicly attacked on this forum repeatedly and not a single poster censored, then I would certainly think a PAID public servant would fall ABOVE that standard!
No offensive language was used.
Most of the postings appearing on your forum contain information from anon posters. Much of that content is disgruntled, names names, and cannot be absolutely verified. The content I posted could be verified. No one bothered, however, to do so.
At no time in any post have I ever indicated a person should or would be harmed.
I claimed to have been censored because I believe I was. My posts met none of your criteria.
Your own wife fled from this very school district and bending over backwards to protect some of these people is a bit above and beyond your role as editor, if you ask me. It's censorship.
gwen
Scott Stanford 6 years, 1 month ago
Gwen:
Thanks for your reply - My wife loves it when she gets dragged into this stuff. In general, I don't delete comments about me or about her. So, I'll have to hope she misses this thread.
Honestly, I do not remember the content of your posts specifically, just that I got a request for removal, reviewed them and understood why I got the request. I erred on the side of the offended.
Your post above is incorrect - performance issues of public employees ARE NOT a matter of public record and may not be discussed publicly unless the individual employee requests that the discussion be public. By contrast, issues involving elected officials must be discussed in public, according to the Open Meetings Law
I'm sorry if you disagree. Again, I am sure there are many other outlets for you to express your views on the matter, and I would encourage you to do so.
You ever want to talk about it more, please give me a call or stop by my office. Otherwise, it goes back to that "trying to box a ghost" thing.
Scott Stanford, Editor
sstanford@steamboatpilot.com
gwendolyn 6 years, 1 month ago
Scott,
If you've got 2 solid hours of time to spend with me, I will happily meet with you. Problem is, you're so protective of the likes of K and T that I don't trust your ability to review documents, discuss the contents, and keep this informer anon. As a journalist, your objectivity is less than stellar -- and your wife's connection to the school district complicates it all even more.
In regards to the Open Meetings Law -- I am well aware of it. Even so, your perspective on protecting admin staff are not shared by me. Especially given the salary they receive AND the fact they have direct access and exposure to our children. They are key decision makers at the school they serve and have a large role in directing how teachers treat students/parents. The direct power they wield is far and above any member of the school board -- or even the supintendent, for that matter. When they become vindictive against specific students and/or parents, how does one get them to stop? You can't. You simply can't. Ultimately, the only person who truly pays the price for this behavior is the student.
Do the right thing. Been my motto for a long time. Unfortunately, I don't believe the current school admin have a clue what it really means.
As for your suggestion to create a website -- I am. Timing is everything, however. Because I am not the only parent involved who thinks the way I do, there are considerations I must make above and beyond my own gripes.
BTW, there was nothing stopping you from emailing me privately for verification of content....
gwen
gwendolyn 6 years, 1 month ago
p.s. "Gwen" is my real name. Gwendolyn is a name my brothers used to taunt me with when we were growing up and, well, I actually like it better. Hence, the signature of "Gwendolyn".
Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 1 month ago
Scott- Since I rarely look at the Blogs, thanks for your response to the time when I did "Suggest Removal" of your post. I remembered it as having to enter your Handle when doing that, and I wanted to verify it. I used your post in that thread as the Guinea Pig.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID