2009.06.03
A reminder of the rules
The poster who has been commenting as "DT" used a fraudulent e-mail address (i.e., not his own) for his posts. As a result, he has been banned from this blog.
As a reminder: All comments must include a valid e-mail address so that we can contact posters with questions, concerns, etc. Posts with invalid e-mail addresses will be deleted.
While on the topic of rules, here are a few others to keep in mind:
Please pick one screen name and stick to it in order to avoid confusion and other issues.
Please do not post comments consisting solely of links to other sources. Give some context so people know what they're clicking on and why it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Please do not post others' words as your own. If you are citing another source make that clear by using quotation marks and linking to the original.
Above all, remember that The RT is intended as a place for respectful, reasonable and reasoned dialogue. Keep debates focused on issues, not individuals. Personal insults or attacks against other participants in this blog will not be tolerated.
Adherence to these rules will make the blog a more pleasant place for all.
Thanks.
RSS feed 
i thought when we signed up here, it had to send us a confirmation email to register?? Was it really set up just to use any ole legitimately working email address whether its yours or not???
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I understand being anonymous to some extent, but what is the point of using a fraudulent email? I do not fully grasp some of the blog etiquette and appreciate the reminders and the moderator (although I know it has to be a chore). I sincerely apologize for any offense, debate can get heated but my 'wry' sense of humor can certainly look mean and I do not intend that.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Maybe this highlights the potential need for registration? I don't recall how many, but haven't there been at least a handful of people banned for reasons such as this (at least in the past 6-8 months that I remember), or for impersonating another poster, or for using foul language and derogatory remarks aimed at particular posters? I definitely recall a couple, along with a few warnings for the other general guidelines being violated as well. And, if anyone thinks the actions of the RT are aimed solely at removing right-wing folks or removing their posts, I've had a post or 2 removed and an e-mail warning sent because of the direction I took a comment.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 11:11 am
OJ,
The need and desire for registration are there. The technological infrastructure is not. We're working on it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Thanks for the clarification, Dan. I recall some past discussion on it, but could not remember if it was being pursued at this time or not. What kind of infrastructure is needed for that? The only infrastructure I really understand involves cables, pipes, asphalt, bridges and the like.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Well yeah, if we are keeping a tally, I get rejected often enough to know I over step. Can you imagine? Passion can slip into insult easily in the heat of a discussion and even when you do not intend it you can sound mean, hateful and insulting. It is harder with the written word in some ways and easier in others. Given enough rope, I can usually be counted on to hang myself.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 11:22 am
DT..who spent half his time whining about moderation and the "libs need for protection"? Didn't have the juice to even use his own email address?
God I love the internet.
A couple of years ago, not long after I came to Roanoke, I got an email, out of the blue, from a Christian Trejbal. He was letting me know that one of my posts wasn't going to be approved, and why. I responded to him that A) I'd never made that post, and, in fact, B) I had no idea what a Roanoke Times blog even was and certainly had never posted on it. He let me know that that email address was henceforth banned from posting on the RT blog and, if I ever chose to post myself, I would need another email address to use.
Which, years later, is what I did. I wonder how often this sort of thing happens.
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 11:29 am
It's a software issue, OJ. We're trying to work out with our online department, which oversees the actual internals of the Web site, how to best implement registration and some other things that would streamline the RT experience.
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 3, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Hopefully not the same online dpt that oversees new user registrations on the roanoke.com main page. Have you went there and clicked on 'Sign Up' up near the top left lately?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Sandi - I'm with you...I simply don't understand what the point is. It's not like any of us can see the email address that DT was using anyways so what difference would it make if he used his own or not?
Comment by HCS — June 3, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
How can the technology not be there yet? You register with twitter and facebook. Connect them to an IP address. Admittedly they do change when using a router. I know who comes to my website by labeling their IP and have even blocked one. Give a code when registering that must be entered correctly when posting. That code matches the valid email provided when they registered. The "secret" code could then replace the email "required." Don't keep that field in cache like all info is kept now.
Comment by Valerie — June 3, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
HCS: "I simply don't understand what the point is. It's not like any of us can see the email address that DT was using anyways so what difference would it make if he used his own or not?"
HCS, I suspect this was a previously banned poster who hoped that by using someone else's valid e-mail address, he could get away with circumventing the ban, at least for a time. This is not the first instance of this, unfortunately.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 3, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Valerie, the issue is not the existence of software that would accomplish what we want. As you note, such systems are widespread on the Web. The issue is integrating it with roanoke.com and our blogs as well as finding the right package to accomplish what we want. Our online people have a lot of other things to do than just serve the RT, though obviously we should be their top priority even if they don't realize it.
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 3, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Sandi and HCS...I think the point is...that with a fake email address one is free to post with impunity and there is zero chance of any further interaction or backlash ( like a love note from the editorial staff).
Pretty easy to complain about the constrictions of monitored blogs when one has made oneself completely unreachable by anyone else involved.
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
HCS, we require valid e-mail addresses for several reasons. Two, though, are most important.
1) It provides a way for us to contact comment writers if they attempt to post something inappropriate or something about which we need clarification before clearing. Typically, issues are quickly and amicably resolved. If we didn't have the e-mail addresses, we would have to delete far more comments.
2) They protect you and all of the other regular visitors to the RT. Because the e-mail address is kept private, in theory only you know what it is. So if someone else posts as HCS, we'll see that she used the wrong e-mail address and not approve the comment unless she changes her name. That way no one can impersonate you. (Something else that we've caught someone doing in the past.)
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 3, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I see. That makes sense then.
Comment by HCS — June 3, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
C. Trejbal, I understand why you all want valid email addresses what I was asking is why a poster would want to try to use an invalid one. Dan answered my question in post 12.
Comment by HCS — June 3, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your question. Hopefully someone found my post informative.
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 3, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Thanks for all the info Dan and Christian. I do not understand the motivations of a determined bunch of people to wreak havoc on any website even as I know it is done. People will abuse their own mother so abusing internet opportunities is simply par for the course. I do not begrudge the moderator even when I am being purged. I appreciate the opportunity and the effort you all go to to give us this free and wonderful forum.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
So why wouldnt a person, even if they have been banned, just go to yahoo or gmail and create a new email address??
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
"Connect them to an IP address."
Not quite that easy. Most service providers dynamically assign IP addresses to users. While you may have a lease on the same IP address for quite some time, unless you have an agreement for a static address, it's apt to change. Then some poor old lady down the street will be blocked, rather than Joe Foulmouth. (not saying poor old ladies cannot be foul-mouthed...)
Comment by Ed S. — June 3, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
That's sort of why I didn't get it Marked...it's so easy to get a "valid" email address even if it's one you don't really use.
Comment by HCS — June 3, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Mark & HCS, the only answer I have for you is that some people must not be all that bright.
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 3, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
Funny, C. Trable, but methinks we already knew that...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
I think that Dan Casey needs to be reminded of the 'respectful' part of the rules that are stated. Reference the renaming Liberty University contest.
Comment by Susan — June 3, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Susan,
If you are referring to Dan Casey's blog, his rules may be different on his own blog.
Comment by Jack — June 4, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Kristen: I'm with you; the irony of someone who claims "conservative values can stand up to anything" while bemoaning the moderation of this site who doesn't feel strongly enough about his own convictions to use a valid email address. Even if he was someone who was banned previously and "had" to use a false address, it's pretty telling.
I always thought "DT" was a little too interested in an unmoderated forum for someone who thinks conservative values can withstand any challenge. People who can't defend their positions find it much easier to hide that fact when they can freely post whatever libelous statements they want, unfettered.
Comment by Rob Miles — June 4, 2009 @ 8:09 am
I agree Rob. This site is better than any I have found, with the exception of the Voices of the Valleys but that is really a different format with a slower pace and one topic per week as well (although they manage some great repartee and MUCH real knowledge).
Dan Casey is having some fun at the expense of a school that placed itself in the cross hairs to earn money and make a statement. It is only fair that someone makes a statement back. I love the gravatars on his blog. A little irreverence never killed anyone, P.J. O'Rourke is hilarious.
P.S. I am trying to find something or someone to "love" every day. I hope no one is offended when I gush, "I love you", I promise I am harmless!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Just for the record, I am the one who posted about the Walnut Bridge, but I did NOT make that post above with regards to Dan Casey's column. That was someone else.
Comment by susan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:34 am
susan with a lowercase s, you might need to add something else to your name then to more uniquely identify who you are. I had to add the Other to my name because there were a couple John's posting, if i remember right that's when BJ added the Blue to his name too because it was hard to keep things straight.
Comment by Other John — June 4, 2009 @ 8:41 am
OJ's suggestion is a good one, Susan. Sorry - we try to catch duplicate user names, and ask the newest person to choose something different, but this one slipped by us.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 4, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Good idea and I shall now add a last name to my posts to avoid future confusion.
Comment by Susan St. Clair — June 4, 2009 @ 9:13 am
OJ is correct about our names needing an identifier. I'll bet he also remembers a poster that was banned sometime back that had the same opinions and writing style as DT.
Comment by Blue John — June 4, 2009 @ 9:41 am
yes I do, BJ. If I remember correctly, he was found to be impersonating some other posters on here and was banned for that...not because of his writings. But yeah, the opinions do seem rather similar.
Comment by Other John — June 4, 2009 @ 10:06 am