Does the software used to run this board allow for posts of specific users or even anonymous users to be filtered if one requested it?  This way, if Rock or anyone else don't want to read anonymous posts, anytime an anonymous post comes up, instead of seeing the post, you'd see

<<filtered>>

Wouldn't this solve Rock's objections?  He would never have to read another anonymous post here ever.  He wouldn't even see them.  This can be done can't it? 

The way we do it at TDG is comment moderation; that presents its own challenges, but does allow the editorial staff to filter out the obvious crap. We also reserve the right to delete obnoxious comments from registered users, and to ban such users if necessary.

There's no cure-all, but it should be possible to reduce the amount of ridiculous garbage that Rock seems to attract. 

IP? thats really LOL!!!!..that stands for Laighing Out Loud for all you who see the LOL comments and do not know.

 I beg anyone to show me where this IP address is comming from or at least what country.

If you required commentators to register to a consistently maintained pseudonym - such as my JAD - that might do the trick. The "anoms" will then have to adopt a name - even a fake one - or leave the scene. This seems to be a pretty good compromise.

While the editors might wish to screen comments more rigorously than now occurs, you can easily err in the opposite direction. I ran into this with a comment I recently made to the Daily Gotham. The item concerned impeaching Bush. In a  short, but hardly libelous, comment, I opined that this whole crusade was a huge distraction that would only backfire and that we should, instead, concentrate on taking the White house in 2008 and electing more Democrats to Congress. I hoped, in posting this, to at least generate a little dialogue on this issue. As it turned out, the comment - as well as a follow up note protesting this - was not posted until well over 24 hours after being submitted. By that time, the item was already on page 2 and, quite literally, yesterday's news. Thus any impact that my comment may have had - and it may have absolutely fallen on deaf ears - was negated by Daily Gotham's editorial policy. So, you have to be caredul here.

I like the que the posts that don't have a registered name idea. That way those no-name posts can't quickly dominate/skew a fleeting conversation by posting many times the sam "cry".  I would also kill IPs that post a bunch a times without a login for some period of time.  

I went into this in the other item, but I think anonymous posting has its merits, because when people put their names on posts, and others know who they are, it allows these others the opportunity to form pre-judgements.  This is what Rock seems to want.  He wants to know if the person posting is one of the intellectual elite whose opinions he seems to value over others.  Anonymous posting doesn't allow for pre-judgements.  All you can focus on is the words, and when you are a snobbish intellectual, you don't by nature think that some posters, most posters, words have as much value as yours.  You want to be able to qualify the posts you are reading with the names, and backgrounds, of the poster.  So you can tell if the poster is one of the "intelligent elite", the beautiful people, who are worthy of your time.

This seems like a pretty liberal board politically, and if you believe that in ideal world all people should be treated the same, respected the same, treated as if they have the same worth and value, then you shouldn't want to create atmospheres where they aren't treated the same.  Atmospheres in other words which create opportunities for pre-judging.  Anonymous posting prevents this.  It allows one to post without the Rock Hanshaws of the world being able to know ahead of time if you are person who is worthy of his time. 

This is why we should keep anonymous posting just as it is.  No changes, other than maybe a que.  Everyone is good enough to post here.  Nobody deserves less respect just because they don't use a name, anymore than they'd deserve less respect if they were pre-judged in other ways.

Rock you are the one who doesn't get it.  The abuses of the anons don't matter because you don't have to read their posts.  People will say bad things regardless of whether they post under an alias, or whether they post anonymously.  What difference does it make to you whether the person calling you an SOB is "anonymous" or "Gatemouth", you still don't know the person's name.  People who want to flame are going to flame.  Therefore the only real reason you could want anonymous posters to get logins is because you want assistance in pre-judging them.  Its that simple. 

We should keep anonymous posting, and instead you should examine why these people flame you.  I need to do that myself more than I do as well, because  I've gotten bashed by anonymous posters too, but the difference is I don't want to pre-judge.  I am not so full of myself like you are that I can't respect the words of others just because I don't know their names or if they are among the intellectual elite. 

And yes I can go from intelligent to stupid all in the same post, so can you, so can we all.  It is called being human.  If you accept people the way they are, you don't have to lord that over them. If you are an elitist snob intellectual though, you will lord that over them.  You will type from a position looking down on others, and when you are in that position, you want to know who you are typing to so you can get an idea of how far to look down.  That is why you want to ban anonymous posting in my opinion.  You don't have to read the damn flaming posts, and the mods delete most of them anyway.  So that can't be the reason can it?  Speak the truth Rock, be honest.  This board shouldn't change its rules so you can feel more comfortable in your elitist snobbery.

The option of moderation by the blogger is a good one-- should be optional by blogger.

Removing immediacy is also a good one-- perhaps delaying by 24 hrs any anonymous poster (including me!)-- so that flamers don't get immediate gratification.  The blog's overall immediacy will suffer, too, but so be it.

Persistent posters like Rwallnerny should get his own blog and post his comments there; build his own traffic and Room 8's, too, maybe.

And if Rock is going to be in this business it's his right and privilege to grow a thicker skin or get out entirely.

What u guy have accomplished with this website has begun to change politics.  It has put pressure on the elected officials

DON'T CHANGE A THING!

FOR MOST OF YOUR POSTERS I RECOMEND THAT YOU CONTACT THAT NASA WOMAN AND GET A BOX OF DEPENDS FOR THEM

This is not about them this is about changing and cleaning up government.  BESIDES SOME OF THEM ARE WORKING FOR OR MAKE DEALS WITH THE INCUMBENT POWER BROKERS QUITE OFFEN.

I think that any censorship on Room 8 is really a bad idea. The reason this site has flourished is that people have been able to post their comments free of the policing of others.

There's a price for free speech and that is sometimes putting up with the offensive speech of nasty, jealous, mean-spirited, pathetic, cowardly people. Its the price we must pay to have truly robust discourse.

Its unfortunate that some choose to drag Rock, Wardally and others through the mud sometimes, but I think its, again, the price they pay for the notoriety that each of them enjoy in their own ways. They also know that each of them have engaged in back room and under the table political bargaining that don't make them angels either. I'm not judging them in the least bit. I understand that it's part of the contact sport that is NYC politics. But for them now to call for or be a party to censorship on this site is hypocritical. Why are they sacrosanct?

Why should Ben and Gur or anyone else for that matter be given the power to censor people's speech on this site? Where are they going to draw the line on what's offensive and what's legitimate criticism? Do they censor rumors? That's a repoter's stock-in-trade. When you get down to it it's Orwellian.

Rock, for all his high minded statements, can't be the intellectual he'd like us to believe he is. No true intellectual would censor other people's speech, no matter how nasty. You fight bad speech with good speech. Period. For all the things that were said about Malcolm X during his days as an activist, I don't ever remember him calling for anyone to be silenced.

I believe that attempts at censorship will mark the beginning of the slow death of this site.