Town Square

Post a New Topic

@recent and frequent commentators - will you kindly share why you stop posting when threads become available only to those who are logged in?

Original post made by village fool, another community, on Jun 9, 2013

Will you kindly share the reason that had you stop posting once a thread becomes restricted only to those who are logged in? I asked several times - it seems to me that not all commentators are made alike. I am asking again since it seems to me that more threads are being restricted recently.
Also - I'll appreciate any thoughts as to the possible reasons that had the folloiwng thread just restriced. example. Link - Web Link

Comments (13)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nice haircut
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm

The Weekly cuts off the open comments due to the following: 1. Repetitive and increasingly hysterical or strident argument; 2. People using so many multiple names its ridiculous; hot political topics sure to become heated but he's heading out for a movie/dinner/weekend trip/sleep/have a normal life and doesn't want to monitor the thread; when the thrust of posts is seen by the weekly and politically counterproductive (this last one is the least defensible since who appointed him the keeper of what is best for the public. It's one thing to have terms of service and another to edit for content. But that's what they do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Seems rather obvious that threads get limited to registered users when the comments become either repetitive or begin devolving into personal attacks or a disrespectable tone. Those that stop posting at that point are those who don't want to have any accountability for their comments...even under a pseudonym.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perfect
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm

It's a tough job to monitor these comments. I post anonymously because that is the right thing to do for me right now. I haven't revealed too much just yet, but I have noticed that some of my analyses are followed by the closing of comments for the general public. I only use one name per thread. I believe that is acceptable under the terms of use. As in any situation where opinions are shared, some opinions are less valued than others. We should really thank the Weekly for allowing this. Without their reporting in the last 13 months, many would be believing the drivel that comes out of the board, Kevin Skelly, et al. This is a great district with great flaws. Those flaws need to be addressed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Perhaps people figure that by the time a forum reaches the point that it will be closed to all but registered users, there's not much more to be said.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by village fool
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 5:24 pm

Thank you for responding. I am very grateful for the opportunity given, here, by the Weekly. I agree that the those who maintain the board and pay the bills are those who have the say. I have read the terms of use, and know that the Weekly does not have to explain anything.
Having written the above - sometimes I do not understand. I have seen several situations where a comment was removed without any trace that it was ever posted. Also - It seems to me that recently, threads related to education are locked by far faster than ever before.

@Perfect - I am facing a catch: I want to ask you why you think that your analyses was followed by the closing of the thread to the general public (restricting the thread to those who are logged in). But then, if you respond, and you are correct - catch.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm

I don't think the council or some on the city staff have the maturity to take criticism or input, which can lead to "retaliation" on matters before council/commission member/staff.

Criticism or suggestions should be based on the merit of their content, not who is suggesting them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by village fool
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm

@Nice haircut - could you kindly explain, carefully, the later part of your post?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm

I won't give PA online my identity. This is the reason why:

Web Link

And given recent events, it seems the "Privacy Protection Act of 1980" is no longer valid.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nice haircut
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 9, 2013 at 8:31 pm

The Weekly has a definite, explicit perspective taken in editorials both on the substantive issues and on the appropriate procedural ways to pursue them. Edits are often made to posts not when they violate any terms of service (i.e., not disrespectful, not profane, not quoting anyone, etc) but when they argue points that the Weekly may agree with in principle but thinks that they exceed the bounds of what the public will find acceptable. For example, the Weekly persistently deleted all posts referring to the fact that the gym donor is an [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff] who was one of the largest donors in the county to Prop 8. People are very grateful for the Paly gym and the topic was adjudged to be I think not one that the Weekly wanted to be seen to be allowing to get much play. If Mr. Peery was to withdraw his funding as a result of being called a [portion removed] in the Weekly, the Weekly didn't want to be blamed for that loss of $20 million dollars. [Portion removed.] This even happened after a gay Paly student posted. There was never a public discussion of whether or not the school district ought to accept $20 million from someone with such views. And then of course the same donor gave to a playground for disabled children, was publicly sainted, and that was the end of any conversation. But this is the same Weekly publisher who withdrew his endorsement from a judicial candidate for giving a far far far smaller amount of money $500 -- to Prop,. 8 for having values inconsistent with a public role. So when it is $20 million, we have evidently crossed the threshold into "shhhhh." [Portion removed.] Criticism of the board that becomes harsh is also deleted, even though they are public figures and elected officials and even though quite a bit harsher criticism of the City Council is permitted. The custom in Palo Alto is to treat the school board as girls and the City Council as boys -- the critique is gendered. Criticism of the board must be quite a bit more genteel than of the Council which is more rough and tumble. Another example is the fear exhibited by the paper of any accurate reporting of the role of Mandy Lowell Munger in the last board election which was quite important and not reported at all. This entire post will be deleted shortly so I hope you see it quickly. It will be disappeared including the fact that it ever happened. This is an example of that phenomenon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Unsafe
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 9, 2013 at 8:38 pm

[Portion removed]It is not safe to be a registered user, and once the thread is closed to all but registered users, that is that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by village fool
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 9:03 pm

@nice haircut - thank you for taking the time to elaborate. Without any response from the Weekly - I am left sharing some of your observations, those were the reasons that had me start this thread.
@Unsafe - can you please share where or when the PAPD announced that it is unsafe to be a registered user?
@Outside Observer - thank you for the enlightening link.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by village fool
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 11:03 pm

@nice haircut - I responded fast, wishing to thank you, and hoping that this thread will not be restricted as I was posting. I do hope you had nothing removed.
I want to think that this is a storm in a teacup - you did mention however, examples that had me pay close attention. There were others. I still do not understand.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by village fool
a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2013 at 11:47 pm

village fool is a registered user.

@nice haircut - It so happened that I saved this thread when it included your longer posting prior to being cut.
I was warned as to registering, above - too late for me as I registered before, even earlier today. I want to think that I can trust the editor.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Opening alert: Zola, in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 3,524 views

Middle Class Scholarship for incomes up to $150,000!
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,419 views

Men Are Good For Three Things
By Laura Stec | 21 comments | 2,377 views

Two creative lights depart Palo Alto, leaving diverse legacies
By Jay Thorwaldson | 2 comments | 1,363 views

Reducing Council Size? Against
By Douglas Moran | 11 comments | 1,041 views