Point of Order

[billroper]

I am generally happy to engage in civil discourse with people here. If there is some issue that I don't feel like talking with you about on any particular day, I can disable comments. I've done that exactly twice, just for reference.

Not too long ago, I switched to screening anonymous comments before they were posted because I was being hammered by spammers who had latched onto one of my long-ago posts about baseball. I still allow anonymous comments, largely for the convenience of one of my good friends who does not have an LJ.

Unsigned, unsupported anonymous comments from people who simply feel moved to disagree with me will be consigned to the bit bucket. If your opinion is that much more valid than mine, then the least you can do is sign your name. When I comment on other blogs, I use my real name, not even a recognizable handle. I, at least, have the courage of my convictions.

And if I get tired enough of anonymous drive-bys, I can always disable anonymous comments altogether.

My good friend will just send me an e-mail. :)

Comments

[ericcoleman]

I do the same. A guy at works comments every so often, and I do get an occasional drive by from an 80s rock star so I leave the anonymous comments screened, but available.

[madfilkentist]

I block anonymous comments and screen non-flist comments, but I'm more cautious than most.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

When I disagree with you, sir, I shall tell you directly. Preferably over a drink at the corner bar; disagreeing with you is mighty thirsty work.

[billroper]

I try to make sure that it stays that way -- otherwise, it's just simple contradiction. :)

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

No it isn't!!

[jeff-duntemann.livejournal.com]

This is almost precisely my policy, and works pretty well. The spammers are easy to spot if you screen anonymous comments. I occasionally get a non-spam flame or near-flame anonymously, and if there's any least hint of content in the flame I politely request that the author identify. If there's no satisfactory response in two days, the whole thread (me and the flamer) vanishes. For me, it's the religious nuts, especially those who somehow think it's an abomination to criticize the Pope. I tremble to think what I'd have to deal with if I posted on politics on a regular basis.

[poltr1]

I too have a friend -- a former co-worker -- who has no LJ but leaves me comments on my LJ. Before he came along, I set my LJ to initially screen anonymous posts for the same reason you did. I've had a few rogue posts about topics that I'd rather not share in my LJ.

If I ever disagree with you, I'll either not respond or have the guts to sign my name to it. Anonymous disagreement is, IMHO, cowardly.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

I use my real name for my username on any forum I use, because I believe that if I'm not willing to put my name on a post or a comment, I really should shut the heck up.

Your proceedure for making sure only civilized disagreement appears in you LJ seems absolutely reasonable.

And yeah, I disagree with you on some political stuff, but I have better things to do than argue politics. It never convinces anyone, and I'd rather waste my breath singing badly.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I've been using "filkertom" on every forum since forever, along with tomsmithonline.com so people can figure it out. And, I ended up getting rid of anonymous commenting (and turning on IP logging) a few years ago, because I had a few nasty trolls. If they were going to insult me on my LJ, I'd at least make 'em work for it.

[billroper]

Sure. And there's obviously a difference between a well-known handle and anonymity.

Trolls can make you nuts though. And you're certainly more likely to attract them than I am, simply because you're substantially higher profile.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

I do that recognizable handle, which if you click on, leads you to who I am. I have been surprised by folks finding me due to my signing, but (so far) I have not had nastygrams. I hope folks maintain decorum for you.

[billroper]

Yup. As I said to filkertom above, there's no problem with a handle that I can use to keep track of someone by.

And I'm glad that you're finding nice folks who recognize your signing!

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

No problem here. As a matter of policy I don't use my name on LJ, but you know me.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

I allow anonymous comments on mine, but I screen them first. 99% of them are friends who keep up with me online who do not have an LJ account, and I'm usually VERY quick to say - ok, who is this - if they don't ID themselves. I utterly reserve the right to toss out jerks and rowdies. Or to close off comments.

Sometimes, I have to tell friends who are being abusive to other friends to lay off. It's rare. Usually, Person A tends to get to be a hothead on certain issues, and doesn't have much of a sense of restraint on discussing the subject. It starts off with 'you p**f**ker' and goes downhill rapidly from there. So you have to watch the zoo.

[gingicat]

I'm sorry to hear you're getting trolled. :(

[kizoku42.livejournal.com]

Also sorry to hear the jerks are after you. You're wrong, of course, when you talk politics, but always civil and rational. (I had to say that, but no, not always wrong.) (Yes, always civil and rational.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Your LJ. Your policies. Your right.

It seems like a sensible set of policies to me, FWIW.

As it happens I allow anonymous commenting and have only had a few spammers so far (which I promptly delete and block). But if it becomes a nuisance I'll probably screen them too.