I prefer the aninimity; however would likely still participate regardless. The pro of being anonymous is that people aren't afraid to tell you exactly what they think...the cons of it being anonymous: people aren't afraid to tell you exactly what they think. Good luck with your decision.

*I honestly think letting people comment was not a smart decision.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone wnats to hear them.*

Uhhh, then DON'T READ THEM.

Sheesh.

copperguy, great argument for anonymity.

I am amazingly refreshed at the intelligence and overall respect in this blog. A question was raised, and honest, respectful answers are given. Bravo everyone...BTW copperguy, which baby name book did your parents get your unique "first name" from? ;) And I tip my hat to Rhonda Graf...you are brilliant and you read my mind!

I have seen several posts talking about standing by your comments. I know those are directed at some of the nasty posts folks have seen.
I'm glad wisconsinheat asked what the purpose of the forums is. I enjoy the ability to address some of the misconceptions and confusion around areas where I have some professional knowledge. However, it is really important to me that I have the veil of anonymity. In my profession, speaking your opinion can be hazardous to your employment. Still, I hope that my posts do help others understand the law a little better.

I am very disappointed with the lack of civility from some posts and posters. Folks are doing nothing to decrease my job security if that's the way they raise their children. Judging from experience, that's exactly the way they raise them. Nonetheless, I think the tradeoff between that and eliciting public input weighs in favor of eliciting the input.

So, my vote is for anonymity.

I would have no problem with posting my name. I stand by what I say, whether it is sarcastic or not. :-)

The lady with the lengthy and sometimes redundant comments makes a number of great points that I agree with and puts forth principles that we should that we all should all try to adhere to. I respect everyone's opinions, but sometimes I disagree with them. This may upset some people, but that is a problem that they must deal with if they intend to respect other people's opinions. The personal attacks that I have seen in posts do not impress me, I tend to skip over them and look for something of substance in the other posts. I feel that the idea for these posts is to hear what other people are thinking. Sometimes we don't like what other people think, but I for one would like to hear it anyway. Isn't telling everyone that they must be nice a subtle form of bullying?

I would like to turn the tables and ask Scott and/or the Gazette staff "Is anonymity the way to go?"

I am curious to know: what was the objective of the Gazette when they initiated the online comments section?

Was it to draw additional web traffic?

Was it to attract additional advertising revenue?

Was it to just plain and simple provide a forum to discuss the "issues" with no other agenda?

Arguing is as American as baseball, Chevy, and apple pie. And this site sure gives everyone that opportunity.

Well?

I honestly think letting people comment was not a smart decision.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone wnats to hear them.
I do not think the Gazette moderates the comments enough.

My hat off to you Rhonda. (Tim Brotzman)

RhondaGraf: WOW!!! I would like to be the first to admit and apologize to not always being appropriate or following the "user policy agreement."

Even though posts will follow RhondaGraf's and cause it to move down the page and even though her post is lengthy, everyone should make sure to read it.

I am happy to see the "Before you post a comment..." was added, I am still disappointed at what people continue to comment on. I think the intention of this blog was to post on the story at hand and to give the Gazette an idea at what stories interest people; not to disrespect the people involved. Many people who post seem to have a lot of answers and tend to be judgemental. It is as if people have never or would ever do anything wrong. Maybe more people should think about using their expertise in public service and help others instead of just talking about them. Many posts are very disrespectful. Some posts come across that people really enjoy degrading and insulting each other. This is sad and it is no wonder that today's youth find nothing wrong with teasing, bullying, and being disrespectful. They see first hand "mature" adults acting inappropriately. Where are the role models that they need? Our world is really messed up and it isn't getting any better. We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them. A lot of the problems of society that we read about are caused by everyone as a whole. We all need to respect everyone for who they are and quit tolerating inappropriate behavior or being a part of it.

I signed up to post just because I felt people need to realize that most of the posts are used to insult and degrade. I did sign in under my real name because I stand by my post. I am not going to hide behind an alias. I feel if you have something constructive to say, say it, but if you can't personally stand by your statements by letting people know who you are then really this blog is nothing more than a gossip mill. I try to make statements as if the person were there or if confronted by them personally would I stand by what I said if not then it is nothing more than gossip and should not be said. In saying this I am reminded myself of what truly is and isn't appropriate and I personally try to work on this everyday and hopefully I make the right decision more than the wrong ones. I have made mistakes myself that have not always been appropriate, but now I try to be more aware of what my motives are. I still make mistakes and always will; I just hope that I can become a better person by learning from them and how they affect others.

Please use this blog for what it is intended for and not bring personal attacks into it. People make mistakes and they have to deal with the consequences and hopefully everyone can learn something from them. When we see or hear about various news stories maybe instead of being so quick to judge, we should think more about our own lives and see if we ourselves have been in a similar situation at one point or another and what we did and where we are now.

I hope the best for everyone. It would just be nice if everyone including myself could learn and help others to be better people by being accountable for our own actions and just treat everyone with the repect they deserve.

If this blog amounts to a vote, then anonimity wins.

You believe wrong. I hope that's not a habit with you.

I agree that everything on these and all other forums should be taken with a grain of salt, but to be honest, reading some of the Gazette articles don't take them at complete face value either.

I believe that riverfront property is next on the list for sidewalks also so you better start saving up.

Yes, Scott, anonymity is the way to go.

So, claiming to have inside information here comes with a credibility problem when the writer is anonymous. There'd be a greater tendency toward telling the truth if the writer was known. Not a hundred percent guarantee, though.

Otherwise, expressing opinions becomes a matter of whose reasoning makes the most sense.

I've seen that riverfront property, it needs development.

That is why, my dear friend, that you should take everything you read here, or elsewhere on the web with a grain of salt. Because if you believe everything you read, then allow me to tell you of the deal I have for you about the awesome beachfront property along the beautiful Rock River in downtown Janesville...

What about the false claims that anonymity would encourage by people claiming to be in the loop?

If you require names the Gazette and the public may miss out on on input from some people who have valid and/or correct information on certain subjects. Examples such as city/county employees, school teachers ect... Most of them and everybody else knows that they would be burned at the stake if they show that they have an opposing view to thier employers ideas and policies.

Aways down.. joejack has a valid point. I feel the Gazette does slant certain issues. I love having the opportunity to read what people think - however I do feel that sometimes both sides of a story aren't unbiasedly given in the articles which leads to some misinformed comments. Journalism needs to be careful to stay away from words with negative connotations when presenting a two sided issue. Again, for the most part I think the Gazette does a nice job getting the local stories to us - BUT - please give both sides a fair shot.

I would prefer the forums to remain anonymous,with posters identified only by a chosen screen name. Were real names required, it would definitely limit who posts and thus the scope of the resulting discussions.

I don't know that "civility" would necessarily increase. I do know that participation by people who might be able to offer an inside view on events/situations discussed would definitely decrease.

While people do not necessarily feel obligated to be kind to each other in these kinds of forums, for the most part, they are honest. It may not be pretty, but it is real. I would think that would be the whole point of offering such forums.

gwendt, I have to disagree. When I first started posting I thought that my comments and political bent would be criticized. (I would think myself a too far left for Janesville... YES LEFT)
Mr, Angus has been very fair and objective in moderating here. I (obviously) would not be able to maintain civility the way he has- and being an editor in Janesville has got to be a rough row somjetimes- you have some pretty extreme demographics.
The fact that this thread is HERE says something.

whewwwwww 51 comments on 1 article should be a record!!. in my opinion, The Gazette still has power over comments.
You don't want to get in a fight with someone who buys "ink by the barrel"
You just need to remember what political persuasion the newspaper supports.
As in the past,if you criticize, the posting won't be on here long.
so, in closing, it seems to be a moot discussion.
not anonymously Gene Wendt

No, they are very correct and that is why you have reacted the way you have. I wish I could be content, let alone happy, with the Gazette. Many others express these feelings also. Wake up Scott. Be a great editor by being a great editor, not by listing misleading potential ad-view results and 'guiding' the news. I am not angry with you or the paper. I am disappointed.

I have been a multiple business owner in the reading area and know that even when you know of a new business opening you do not let the public know on a consistent basis. Is your policy part of the new reimaging of the paper? I know first hand that you write an article in response to buying ad-space. I know for a fact that along with a thank you comes a plaque to display the article. I have one! I have a business that I know for a fact was known of, but I know for a fact it never made the paper. The new owner knows for a fact that you frequent this place and still has yet to see a story promoting his 'new business'. Don't tell me I am anything but observant and factual; unless you do not recognize what makes something factual.

How about a family members new business, visited by your sales staff, but due to the tremendous start-up costs they are unable to afford a package deal big enough to 'spark' a story? Funny, they have been open for almost a year, but no story. Maybe your staff is thinking family members will buy more papers waiting to read a story on the successes of their family members new business? Better yet, maybe an article would spark enough business to enable them to be able to afford an ad-set. They moved here from out of state, out of college, and don't know of the Gazettes 'old' ways. Those are the facts! You could be much more than you are now. I bet you have heard that before, and you will hear it again. I wish the Gazette better luck next makeover. "Local Matters" seems to be a perfect catch line, if only it really mattered

Scott...hang in there! I agree with pulling the comment section of the Beck Story!!! As far as posting with an individual's name attached! I too am not in favor of this idea! Much more out of fear of retailation...enough said! Great website..."Gazette Staff" and Scott, keep up the good work!

- No, we do not write stories about businesses because they advertise. Never have, never will. That's journalism 101. Flat out untrue. The newsroom has no idea if businesses such as the christian bookstore advertise. We don't care. We are simply informing our community of a new business. We do it all the time. We don't know about all businesses that open, but we do our best. And we always write something if the business sends us a press release or announcement.
- We use "Gazette staff" when the story essentially comes from material provided to us, such as a press release, and does not involve information gathering by our staff. It's that simple. Nothing more.
- We benefit from all traffic to our Web site because we use those numbers to show advertisers how many people could see their ads. Just as we benefit from the number of newspapers we sell.
- Enough with the conspiracy theories, beachsexton. The foundation of your post about us doing stories on businesses that advertise was so flawed that it essentially undercut the rest of your arguments. Again, we're far from perfect, but most of your claims are preposterous.

Scott Angus

mom of 5: You make good points. And I know they are a business. The story on the book store is not like the ones they do when a new business opens. It was to provoke. If they advertised, they would have a nice story about the owners, "motto" they live by, fav. book...

I think that is pathetic the radio station turns down a $2000+ donation for a charity for any reason. The fact they try to tie ad time to it, or deny it places an "!" after everything I pointed out in earlier comments. They could be one of their own "TOP 50" in the community if they wanted to. In return, they may better the reputation they have w/o having to repackage their image. That would make me an advertiser. That would make me be a subscriber. That would make me talk about the paper in high regards.

You are a business owner also? If someone came to you and offered $2500 to your fundraiser knowing you may talk about it to friends (on air, in the paper...) would you make them first buy your product/services? No need to answer that. We all know the answer. The ones that need to think about that are the board members of Bliss. I bet with all the money they make off of the ad-space on the blogs, they help plenty of charities to offset taxable income. That is the real reason they turned down your donation; at least they will spin it as such. No need to help a charity, promote a local small business, and fill otherwise lack-luster airtime with a petty $2000+ donation.

Right?

Ok, maybe not for the rest of us in the real world. See what makes a good paper below.
I hope the charity accepted your donation and did not make you subscribe or buy and add in return. ;)

One last thing: Mr. Angus, you mentioned in your blog that web traffic is up significantly. Does the Gazette benefit from this at all via sponsors, endorsements, and the like? Has the Gazette seen an increase in door delivered subscriptions since implementing the online comments? Other than providing a service to the community and the reader base, how do the online comments benefit the Gazette as a business and organization?

beachsexton: the Gazette is a business. Of course they run stories for those who advertise with them. Do you think WCLO/WJVL or any radio station is any different? As a business owner, we offered to donate $2,500 to a local radio station towards a charity drive/promotion they were doing. We were turned away because we did not want to purchase air time from them as well. When you hear of giveaways on the radio, etc.., you can bet that all of those businesses pour thousands of dollars into that media outlet.

The online comments should be taken for what they are; CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT.

courtjester: Contrary to what you may have deducted from my posts, I hold no grudges against this person. In fact, we were friends and then not friends. I was one of a very small percentage of students at Parker who stood up to her. I hope she has learned from her prior struggles and mistakes; as we all should and hopefully have. And, while you make a very solid point for being against anonymity because we ALL could be the brunt of venomous words, it would be hoped that if an article were written about (me) it wouldn't gloss over my trials and tribulations. I would hope the article would tell the reader base how I had grown and learned from them. We all have skeletons in our closets, point well taken.

joejack I agree with you again. The Gazette hides behind "By GAZETTE STAFF" any time they throw out a story that is a non-story seemingly intended to spark debate. Current example of this is "Christian bookstore opens on Milton Avenue." Since when did an advertisement become a story? For you non-business owners reading this, The Gazette only runs stories on a new business opening if they buy ads from them in a package deal. They then "create news" and look like they are providing a service to our community. If "Gazette staff" wanted to help promote a environment for a new business to succeed, they would do this as an effort to inform the readers of new products or services. Then, maybe a business would go to the paper and support them. Instead, 3/4 or more of all people I talk to dislike the Gazette with almost anger-like feelings behind their comments. Too bad the "Gazette staff" did not find it in them to better their selves, better their standing, and better their paper when they "changed" recently. Rather than providing free advertising for one building owner and neglecting others, or attempting to spark debate as to location or religion with the Christian book store; maybe they could publicize all businesses when they open, help fill empty buildings by subtle 'point-outs', or focusing on the facts in a way that does not create stories. We have plenty of newsworthy events without finding angles to create friction or debate. A good reporter never has to hide behind their "staff" or an unnamed op-ed. A good reporter does not have to make stories. A good reporter does not have to bend, twist, or embellish a article. A good local paper never has to repackage themselves to attract lost customer base. A good local paper is in demand because of the desire of the locals to be informed of local news. A good local paper is not serving the interests of the locals by creating controversy in a way that increases attacks, counter attacks, and people logging in to check for 'action' in the blogs just so that the view rate of the advertisers increases in a manner that can be used to boost ad-space cost (aka: revenue for the Gazette)

When your motive shifts from selling a quality product to just selling; you are not a good local paper!

Judging from the many comments I read on here, quite a few of the people (like myself) have to hide behind nameless posts to tell how we really feel. I am not talking about those that attack or libel others. I am talking about those that have comments that can not afford face the repercussions from those that don't agree, or those that do but fail to have the means to speak out. I could see many reasons to get rid of this anonymity. Maybe the 'Gazette staff' will lead the way with listing the writer of all written works. Maybe they will coordinate those positive changes with eliminating their "views" or telling us "their" stand. We all know it is a corporation, and we can all assume the owners have a view.

That view does not need to be broadcast as if it were a bandwagon we should all jump on. Report the news. Does the "Gazette's stand" on issues, written by Scott Angus and "expressed" by the entire board, ever take into consideration the rest of the Gazette "team"? It just shows the executive management (the board), that 'repackaged' the Gazette is on an island. It also implies the island is very one sided, very opinionated, and all share the exact same views. The same views they wish to impose on us. Or do they? Does the board need a anonymous way to express their feelings like us so that they will not have to have other people think for them, speak for them, and be ostracized for having a differing view?

My opinon, respectfully, ia that requiring "real names" is impossible. With public computers and wireless connections, it would be too easy to misrepresent yourself as someone else and have innocent people's reputations be affected.
Also, I do not think the gazette would get the town's true feeling on a news story. People would be afraid to post on domestic violence, police issues, school board issues, for fear of retaliation. Worse yet, people could pose as other people and retaliation could ensue.
So i think anonymity is the way to go, or get rid of the board altogether.

Thanks to the gazette for taking the blog down for the Beck article. TheCourtJester puts it well when he says that the comments that were being posted were not appropriate. Thanks again to the Gazette for pulling the plug on that one. I hope to see more of that. In my opinion, the blogs would be much more enjoyable without all the attacks.

momof5:

I wasn't following the thread that was taken down, but I did look at your comments. Which, by the way, were not taken down, and in fact, show up in your comment history. It appears that you are holding some sort of grudge left over from high school that you were bullied. I am sorry that you were bullied, and no one should ever have to put up with bullying. That being said, this however, is not the place to air out those grievances, and for what you posted, you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of the truth, it is not appropriate to post crap like that. I am sure that if it were your name in the paper, some people that know/knew you could likely come up with choice things to say about you. And that my fellow poster, is exactly the sort of ammunition needed to make a case for NON-anonymous posting. I happen to like anonymous posting and see value in it- please don't ruin it for the rest of us by airing out your petty high school grievances that happened almost a decade ago. Egads.

Wow. Great response. Thanks to all. I'll follow up in a future blog.
For now, a few quick responses:
- joejack, you're entitled. We're not perfect.
I've said it many times and will many times again. But I know newspapers and I know journalism, and we have good, smart people here making their best judgments under the circumstances. No slanting. We balance many things when we report - newsworthiness, people's privacy, readers' expectations - and we make decisions. No malice. No nothing except fallible humans trying their best.
- gazettefan, you are correct. Editorials are the positions of the newspaper and not necessarily those of the writers. Each editorial is essentially signed by the Gazette editorial board as a whole. Columns, on the other hand, are clearly the opinions of the people whose pictures and names appear with them.
- We took down the comments on the "Face of Janesville" story because of personal attacks that were not germaine to the story subject or content. Our Web site, our choice. One person on this thread suggested we need to be quicker at pulling the trigger when comments get ugly or off topic. I agree.

Scott Angus

Looks like more thought should have gone into your blogs than into the new building. Our town paper that is famous for misquoting people, not reporting facts, slanting stories to make people look like villains, and reporting as much as possible about a sexual assault victim that their picture should have been used by the time the story is over. The Gazette is concerned about ethics and comments left on their website? Did you ever think about not having blogs? I'm sure that money generated, and attention given to your web site is more important than what people are saying. It is very hard to do the right thing when money is involved.

newsreader-point well taken. Although the "attack" wasn't anything that was untrue or not well-known to anyone who walked the halls of PHS in the 90s. Perhaps Amy has turned her life around, realized her mistakes and is conducting herself in a more productive and positive manner. That to me, would have been VERY newsworthy and a positive for not only Janesville, but the African-American community. I do not doubt that those of different colors and races faces more obstacles than the majority. And, I can only speculate that those obstacles and differences helped percipatate the unforunate circumstances that this young woman found herself in over the years. How she overcame them could have been included in the article perhaps. If it would have stopped another bully or given coping mechanisims to a bully or their victims it would have been worth the hell of walking the same halls as her.

momof5 - My guess is the comments were removed because of the nature of the comments, yours included. I did not see all the comments, but the one you posted yesterday bothered me more and more as I thought about it and I logged on today just to mark it "Suggest Removal." Personal attacks on individuals, regardless of whether YOU feel the attack is valid, should not be made in an anonymous comment. The is precisely what Mr. Angus is addressing in his column.

I'm just wondering why the comments and the ability to leave comments on the "The face of Janesville is Changing" article has been removed. Mr. Angus, could you tell us why? With NO disprespect meant, did the Gazette realize they had stepped in it by using someone with the history of Amy as their profile subject?

I'm not altogether sold on using real names but if real names were used then posts would become more than just strung out thoughts, they'd become more fully reasoned opinions.

There's nothing wrong with presenting your thoughts while at least attempting to approach editorial standards.

Either way is OK with me.

Frankly, anonymous comments posted in a forum such as this are about as useful to public debate as graffiti. In my view, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech carries with it the responsibility to be willing stand up publicly, identify yourself and defend your position. However entertaining anonymous postings may be, they amount to little more than self gratification and should not be confused with serious public discourse.

--Martin Densch, Beloit, WI

Definition: Editorial

1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.

2. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.

How would you know that my real name isn't Coppertop?

The newspaper industry is really being crunched by the Internet. Newspapers provide a permanently accessible record in print. They managed to survive the invention of radio and television, but I'm not sure they will withstand the maturing of the Internet. The daily paper version of the Gazette comes rolled up in a small cylinder that reminds me of the unwanted free Jotters that used to lay on people's front porches for days.

===============================New-Paragraph===============================

The generations that grew up with the Internet are far less likely to subscribe to the dead-tree version of a newspaper (or magazine) and the "cost-free" origins of the Internet continue to put a damper on the idea of paying for access to information on the web. It would be very interesting to see the print and subscriber web circulation data of fence-straddlers such as The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post ($79 for either the paper or the online version, $99 for both). Are they slowly losing circulation as the older print-centric generation dies out? Is the younger web-centric generation subscribing to the online version in the same numbers that the older generation did to the print version?

===============================New-Paragraph===============================

The younger generation demands streaming updates, rather than a fixed printing press-oriented schedule and expects access to voice their opinions. How many are eschewing The Gazette for YouTube and MySpace? Meanwhile, nobody has come up with convincing metrics of readership to show advertisers.

===============================New-Paragraph===============================

People who don't have a sense of credibility wish to remain anonymous because they rightly assume if they are known as the author, their comments will be dismissed. People who do have a sense of credibility wish to remain anonymous because they rightly assume if they are known as the author, they will be held accountable for their comments in their careers and/or positions in society.

===============================New-Paragraph===============================

A.J. Liebling has been quoted as saying "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." Today, in a sense, with the Internet, everyone CAN own a press. Many just don't want the downside of being known as the "Editor". My "vote" is to keep the comments anonymous.

Editorialize 3: to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

Editorials by definition represent the opinions of the publisher and not just a given writer. That's probably why editorials are usually without attribution.

Columns specifically represent the opinions of its writers and come with attribution.

When we leave a post here, we are only representing our own point of view, not that of a publication.

Maybe Scott can jump in here.

I don't think people who write posts are trying to be "columnists" as much as they are EDITORIALIZING, and very seldom is a Gazette editorial signed. They say it's because it is a group effort, but nonetheless it's still for the most part anonymous.

There's good points on both sides but I think people are more apt to give their true feelings anonymously for most of the reasons previously stated.

Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.

There is a kind of comfort in anonymity that encourages enthusiasm but at the same time that anonymity may also encourage rudeness.

But:

Columnists use their real names, don't they? And aren't people who write posts, in effect, attempting to be columnists?

If true names can be verified and the playing field is even, maybe that's the way to go. Real names will probably improve the quality of posts. Why not a trial period?

Also, taking a dig at another poster should only be allowed as a response to a first unprovoked dig. The original dig should be deleted. Otherwise the rules apply.

Should the Gazette opt at some point to require 'real' names, trust me, the system can and will be beat..just use or create a yahoo e-mail address using a 'real' name! Actually, I quite enjoy the various screen names many of the posters use and am sorry I wasn't in a creative mood when I registered! As an aside, I read the Daily Herald (an Chicago collar county publication) online daily and it recently started a posting option - to date, I haven't noted one post and their subscriber base is huge My point in telling this somewhat unexciting story is that the beauty of the Gazette and its readership area is small enough where people feel their opinion can make a difference, whether to the community or an individual. Bottom line - keep anonymous an option.

Anonymity is the way to go if you want how people are really feeling on a subject. Just look at how involved some of the "trolls" are in some of the article comments. You're going to get a dose of opinion from the outspoken people whether you like it or not but that's part of what brings people back and fuels discussion.

If you make people post who they really are, some people would flat out stop posting out of fear of repercussion for their opinion.

If people want to say who they really are they can always make a Username that says it or they can sign their name.
If you do start requiring people to post with their real names... you need to start printing real names along with the Sound Off submissions.

I would not post if I had to use my real name. I follow guide lines set forth by the gazette as well as the values my parents taught me before posting. That being said, I have a high profile position and would not want my opinions to be in any way looked at as the opinions of my organization. Some readers would not be able to distinguish between the two.

The whole premise of the 1st Amendment is that you put ALL of the ideas into the mixer, and the 'truth' (best ideas), like cream, will float to the top. Those with no appeal will die on the vine. I'm afraid that requiring names, in this day and age of government invasions of privacy, people would be less inclined to add their point to the discussion; I wonder what ideas, then, we might never be privy to? Say nothing about the 'whistleblower', who might feel more inclined to reveal illegal or improper conduct in either public or private employment situations. I agree that the libel, fighting words, etc., need to be removed, but let the other stuff stay--anonymously.

It's interesting to see how some people would rather get into a verbal dispute regarding the opinion of others rather than discussing the issue at hand. I agree with several of the comments already made regarding anonimity but also realize that comments would be stifled if identification of the author were required. The First Amendment applies to ALL OF US as long as we use it intelligently.

bottom line.....those who think it is better to post real names and think people should clean up their posts or NOT OFFEND someone are just using that as code for POLICAL CORRECTNESS. to not offend someone would be not to disagree or be critical of their life style or behavoir. their are soooo many people out in the community that just can't stand the truth. they are, i'm sure, good people but just scarred of confrontation. some folks acually avoid certain areas of town instead of demanding it be cleaned out of thugs.

I, too, prefer to remain anonymous when I post. I feel that allowing us to do so will continue to foster dialogue on both sides of a topic without fear of retaliation. If someone has a viewpoint which may be unpopular, they should be able to express it in a meaningful manner without fear that someone is going to throw a brick through their window. Does it make us less accountable? Perhaps, but in this case, so what? It's just an opinion. It seems that the Gazette is doing a good job at removing promptly any post which is profane or threatening. As for the dimwits that stray off the subject, there are enough insightful people in this community to pull the topic back where it belongs. Just ignore the rantings or read them for the entertainment value. But leave them anonymous.

Just so you know, Billnewbie, when you post, you most likely will leave a "footprint". Most notably an IP address from the computer where you posted from. From the standpoint of the forum's host (the Gazette) I would imagine that it wouldn't take too much legwork to get a general idea of who you are from that IP address, that is, if someone really wanted to know. SO, that is something to put in your thinking cap.

In the world of technology it is easy to mislead or misinform others on the internet. It is also hard to understand emotion, seriousness, and other adjectives which makes comments difficult to determine one's intentions; however when someone does want to voice there opinion over the internet they do have the right to keep personal information from the public therefore maybe if we can suggest if you would like to be known or not to be that could be a solution, but we are never fully going to get rid of immature comments or suggestions. frankly Janesville needs people to stir the pot. We are so afraid of change and like to keep our small town the way it is, but unfortunately times are changing and the world around us needs people to speak out and voice concerns. That is what our country is based on.

I have no problem with the gazette knowing who I am, but It would be too risky to let some of those that post often know who I am. Some are obviously unbalanced.
Having the gazette know true identities at least should keep the worst posters on guard.

Like most others, I prefer remaining anonymous. My last name is uncommon, I'm in the phone book and I live in a small town. It's a shame that I have to hind behind a false screen name, but that's the sad reality of life. I don't want someone calling me or worse, locating where I live.

For what it's worth, the Chicago Tribune newspaper allows anonymous posts, and they apparently don't have any issues (that they're willing to publicize). So for now I'd suggest leaving things alsone as they are now.

If someone wants people to know who they are, they can always print their name in their post. Keep it anonymous.

You need this and Sound Off. My comments are not in violation of the guidelines, but because they may be of the opposite opinion expressed my employer on certain subjects, I could get into trouble at work or even lose my job for expressing these without anonymity. Contrary to populate belief, the First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of speech in all instances without repercussion.

I agree with both sides of the argument but tend to lean towards anonymity. Although using your real name may help clean things up a bit it will also inhibit people from speaking what they really feel. If people don't feel free to speak their mind the blogs may ultimately end up shutting down as a result. As expressed earlier, there are too many people who could use your name against you. There was also a point made that people may use a name of someone else and that can ultimately hurt them.

I think that anonymous posts encourage people to express what they are really thinking without fear of physical or social or even financial consequences. This tends to infuriate people who are uber PC or bullies. They don't want those ideas expressed. Some posters use the site as a chat room for private debate that strays into areas completely unrelated to the story. That is unfortunate, but it really doesn't hurt anyone and generally makes both posters look bad. The problem with signing your name to something is that once you do it, it is there forever. You do not know how others might react to it. The meaning of the words you use may change over time, distorting your meaning. People in my situation would have to express only opinions that people expect of them and not what they might really think.

I think it would depend on how much info is given. For example are we talking full name or first name only? I would not be comfortable putting my complete name on because as others have mentioned, if someone doesn't agree with your opinion and they have your name what is to keep them from tracking you down to harass you? My name is not a common name so it would be easy to find me. I have never had a post removed, I stay in the guidelines and feel that you should be able to post an opinion without someone else insulting you or making nasty comments about you because you don't feel the same way as they do.I like the discussions and when done the right way they are very interesting and it opens up the possibilities of learning new things.

I would continue to post if I were required to identify by name, perhaps not as often though. I like the idea of accountability for one's opinions, ideas, thoughts, words, etc. If people have a concern with retaliation for their posts, they will either clean up their posts and make an effort not to offend people, or just not post. Perhaps stricter rules for those people with repeat post removals would be helpful. I like some of the suggestions that curlrock gives. Some of the forums have been active for weeks and people aren't going to give up.

an intelligent, thoughtful post Curlrock. but i have to disagree when you say " the quality of the disscusion will improve" when one gives their name. i hope your "quality" was not code for political correctness/company line. i think people would be less likely to post their true feelings and most would just stand around with their hands in their pockets saying "yup, yup!"

I have followed the discussions on both the Gazette website as well as another small town newspaper in Wisconsin over the past few months. What I have observed on both websites is that many discussions are dominated by relatively few individuals. Othertimes comments are completely off the subject. Most discussions turn into a "shouting match" between two or more individuals, which defeats the purpose of the discussion. As far as keeping the anonymity of the posts, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. If the names of people posting are provided I think the quality of the discussion will improve. However, what is stopping an individual from posting dicussions under a co-workers name? Comments that they make could be a source of embarrassment for that co-worker. The Gazette does require you to register, but an individual could register under any name. I'm not sure how this could be policed. Finally, the numbers of posts would decrease dramatically. This may be a good thing if the quality of posts improve.

Based on what I have seen on both sites here are some suggestions.
1) Don't allow discussions for all stories. Some stories are simply news items and should be left at that. Individual opinions on some stories are unnecessary.
2) Stop the discussions on some stories earlier. Some of them go bad quickly.
3) Limit the number of posts to one per day per discussion.
4) If an individuals post is removed for content don't allow them to post for two weeks. If it happens again, ban them.
Just some ideas.

I like reading the anonymous comments. Unfortunately, I don't think many leaders in our community have the time to post much information in the comment sections. They're too busy making it happen instead.

i believe we get a better prospective of the community feelings when their postings are anonymous. when giving your name it might as well be your address too. people are scarred to NOT be politically correct and the possibility of ridicule or of some sicko or thug making a visit to their home is enough for people to keep their opinions to themselves. i think the addition of the comments was the BEST thing this paper has done in years.
you must realize Scott, many of us have opposing views and the gazette must allow us to express them. some people will be offended but maybe i have been offended by their actions/words for many years. I'm sure illegal immigration will draw quite a deverse response from the community when the opportunity avails itself. thanks again Scott.

If this is the case please make people provide their name for the sound off as well!

I don't really post that often but when I do I try to stay within the guidelines and so far haven't had any of my posts removed. However I would quit posting if I had to us my real name. It isn't so much a matter of not wanting to be identified with my opinion as it is being concerned about how others react to it. There's a lot of weird people in the world and I don't really care to have one them hassling me about some opinion I've expressed here.

I wouldn't post nearly as much under my real name. My situation is different than most, but I'd rather not have everyone knowing this is me. I'm sure some people agree with that and some don't.

The comments would be more civil. The volume would go down for sure, it's a question of how much.

I would not have a problem with posting my name. Maybe some people would think harder about what they say if they had to say who they are. Maybe then they would become wiser on what and how they have to post a comment. The majority of the comments have nothing to do with the story as a whole.