I'm thinking about banning anonymous comments. They just seem a bit 'trolly' really. Being new to this blogging malarkey it's difficult to know whether to invite all comments no matter how little they bring or not. Blah.
I have been wondering the same thing as I dont really understand why someone would want to hide their true identity. However I feel its unfair to not let them speak if they have a genuine reasom for wanting to be anonymous. So for now I think I will still allow them.
Fair point. The anonymous comment in the previous post which I deleted but pasted the txt in from my email alert of a pending comment sort of annoyed me. Apart from pointing out an error with my abbreviation and trying to be a smart arse it added nothing. If you're going to say someone missed the point then be so good as to add why I think.
but what IS a "genuine reason for hiding their identity" in any discussion of responsible detecting?
Remember by English law, whatever you publish passed on to you for publication here is YOUR responsibility, so really accepting statements/information which cannot be traced back to a responsible and reliable informant can land you in trouble. This is why on lawyer's blogs (like Peter Tompa's) there is a policy on not accepting unattributable material for publication. The same goes for people appearing here under simply a Christian name, there are many "Sam"s and "Tom"s in the world, which one is it that wants YOU to publish something for them that they will not put their full name under and why?
One of course might say the same thing who writes under a pseudonym "detectorbloke" without giving a proper name to "this is who I am and what I represent". Why all the hiding and posing? What is there to hide in responsible detecting?
That's a fair point, nothing to hide, my real name is Ben Dolley. I think I created the detectorbloke name when i was just commenting on other people's sites and kept with it when I created the blogger account as it's all google. To be honest with a surname like mine I do my best to hide it, always thought about changing it.
Nothing Machiavellian, i'm on facebook as ben dolley / detectorbloke but may be better to swap them around.
The problem with giving an identity is that it invites personal and abusive attacks elsewhere. With respect Paul you are one of the worst offenders and if i were to give my identity along with my comments, i am sure that i like many others, would be given the treatment on your blog as you have done with respected archaeologists such as David Connolly. It is up to the owner of this blog to decide what to do and i respect that ,but to insist on an identity and i will be silenced which would seem to suit some. However the blog owner has the ultimate sanction in vetting what is published.
Weirdly Steve I don't see you as anonymous as such because your comments are always polite and thoughtful. It was more the random fly by useless comments that I had in mind. Still I'll keep it that anonymous posts are welcome subject to the usual moderation for abuse etc.
Thanks for the support. I would never stoop to the levels of using abuse and personal attacks on anyone to either denigrate what they have said, seek to belittle them for a spelling error, call into question their level of intelligence and so on in an attempt to silence them. I am sure you know where i am coming from in this respect. I always debate in a fair and measured manner and believe in a civilised exchange of views. Probably a result of my university days when postgrads were regularly tasked as a part of the course, in defending our research projects and findings to all and sundry. You had to be polite yet factual and firm with the various academics who problably knew very little about your topic yet wanted to appear that they were the world expert and you were a rank outsider !!!! As long as you excercise the right to moderate comments there should be no problems. The issues with anonymous posters come when they are there to merely disrupt and have no intention of becoming involved in proper dabate or add fair comment. I suppose that is where the term " Troll" could be used.
"Steve" is afraid that if we know his real name he’ll get some personal and abusive remarks and that the only sensible academic thing to do is use a pseudonym. He accuses me of being the “worst offender” here, but by my count he has sent 25 comments here and [though he has himself indulged in dismissive and disrespectful name-calling, March 25th] as far as I can see, has not received any such abuse from anyone addressed to “the man who wrote about the JCBs”. I fail to see why he thinks the comments on this blog on what he said would be in any way different if he’d written under his real name.
For some reason he brings in a third person into the argument. With respect, I know no “Steve” that would have any idea about the past history of my discussion with the person he names, and above all the tactics used by that person to avoid addressing certain fundamental issues which will obviously colour my views on what he says. I suggest, though, this is not the place to bring them up.
Ben, you share a surname with an eminent Medievalist and numismatist http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1982_BNJ_52_26.pdf there is no record that he had any problems with it.
If you check on the metal detecting forums, you will see that the empty-headed among your fellows take childlike delight in finding nasty things to do to even a mundane surname like "Barford".
I have been wondering the same thing as I dont really understand why someone would want to hide their true identity. However I feel its unfair to not let them speak if they have a genuine reasom for wanting to be anonymous. So for now I think I will still allow them.
ReplyDeleteFair point. The anonymous comment in the previous post which I deleted but pasted the txt in from my email alert of a pending comment sort of annoyed me. Apart from pointing out an error with my abbreviation and trying to be a smart arse it added nothing. If you're going to say someone missed the point then be so good as to add why I think.
ReplyDeletebut what IS a "genuine reason for hiding their identity" in any discussion of responsible detecting?
ReplyDeleteRemember by English law, whatever you publish passed on to you for publication here is YOUR responsibility, so really accepting statements/information which cannot be traced back to a responsible and reliable informant can land you in trouble. This is why on lawyer's blogs (like Peter Tompa's) there is a policy on not accepting unattributable material for publication. The same goes for people appearing here under simply a Christian name, there are many "Sam"s and "Tom"s in the world, which one is it that wants YOU to publish something for them that they will not put their full name under and why?
One of course might say the same thing who writes under a pseudonym "detectorbloke" without giving a proper name to "this is who I am and what I represent". Why all the hiding and posing? What is there to hide in responsible detecting?
That's a fair point, nothing to hide, my real name is Ben Dolley. I think I created the detectorbloke name when i was just commenting on other people's sites and kept with it when I created the blogger account as it's all google. To be honest with a surname like mine I do my best to hide it, always thought about changing it.
ReplyDeleteNothing Machiavellian, i'm on facebook as ben dolley / detectorbloke but may be better to swap them around.
The problem with giving an identity is that it invites personal and abusive attacks elsewhere. With respect Paul you are one of the worst offenders and if i were to give my identity along with my comments, i am sure that i like many others, would be given the treatment on your blog as you have done with respected archaeologists such as David Connolly.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to the owner of this blog to decide what to do and i respect that ,but to insist on an identity and i will be silenced which would seem to suit some. However the blog owner has the ultimate sanction in vetting what is published.
Weirdly Steve I don't see you as anonymous as such because your comments are always polite and thoughtful. It was more the random fly by useless comments that I had in mind. Still I'll keep it that anonymous posts are welcome subject to the usual moderation for abuse etc.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the support. I would never stoop to the levels of using abuse and personal attacks on anyone to either denigrate what they have said, seek to belittle them for a spelling error, call into question their level of intelligence and so on in an attempt to silence them. I am sure you know where i am coming from in this respect.
ReplyDeleteI always debate in a fair and measured manner and believe in a civilised exchange of views. Probably a result of my university days when postgrads were regularly tasked as a part of the course, in defending our research projects and findings to all and sundry. You had to be polite yet factual and firm with the various academics who problably knew very little about your topic yet wanted to appear that they were the world expert and you were a rank outsider !!!!
As long as you excercise the right to moderate comments there should be no problems. The issues with anonymous posters come when they are there to merely disrupt and have no intention of becoming involved in proper dabate or add fair comment. I suppose that is where the term " Troll" could be used.
"Steve" is afraid that if we know his real name he’ll get some personal and abusive remarks and that the only sensible academic thing to do is use a pseudonym. He accuses me of being the “worst offender” here, but by my count he has sent 25 comments here and [though he has himself indulged in dismissive and disrespectful name-calling, March 25th] as far as I can see, has not received any such abuse from anyone addressed to “the man who wrote about the JCBs”. I fail to see why he thinks the comments on this blog on what he said would be in any way different if he’d written under his real name.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason he brings in a third person into the argument. With respect, I know no “Steve” that would have any idea about the past history of my discussion with the person he names, and above all the tactics used by that person to avoid addressing certain fundamental issues which will obviously colour my views on what he says. I suggest, though, this is not the place to bring them up.
Ben, you share a surname with an eminent Medievalist and numismatist
ReplyDeletehttp://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1982_BNJ_52_26.pdf
there is no record that he had any problems with it.
If you check on the metal detecting forums, you will see that the empty-headed among your fellows take childlike delight in finding nasty things to do to even a mundane surname like "Barford".
heh interesting, don't come across many other dolley's.
ReplyDeleteI thank you three for your comments under this post but think it's time to move on.