• Blogosphere,  Media

    Ventura County Star: Comments Sections Restored

    The Ventura County Star discontinued interactive comments last week after being bombarded by vicious online postings concerning race and immigration. Read the story in the Los Angeles Times (free registration required) here:

    Thousands of Ventura County Star readers have posted messages since January, when the newspaper launched the feature as a way to connect with the community and let residents have a say, said John Moore, assistant managing editor for new media and technology.

    Comments were posted live and largely un-moderated. But too often, Moore said, topic threads spun out of control, with readers peppering posts with profanity and engaging in personal attacks. Even the most routine story would degenerate into a string of invectives, often centering on ethnicity and immigration status.

    The newspaper disabled the online comments section Wednesday, but Moore said he hoped to resurrect the feature, with tighter controls, perhaps as early as next week.

    “All of us were sad we had to shut it down at all,” said Moore, noting an escalation in the online nastiness in recent weeks. “We didn’t have the staff to spend 24 hours a day watching this.

    Now, the Star has restored the comments section albeit in a more moderated form. Read about this here:

    Comments have been restored to the Ventura County Star website. But this time they’re coming with some stronger rules and guards to stem the tide of abuse that brought down the Comments last week.
    And they’re coming with the hope that users will continue to step up and strike down the trolls and other offenders.

    Here’s what we did:

    All comments are routed through our online registration system. A script attaches the registered name to the comment. It also allows us to identify the email address that was used in registration. (And thanks to our friends at our sister newspaper Naples Daily News for doing this for us.)

    That allows us to contact via email anyone who files objectionable comments. If they persist, we can block their registration in addition to blocking their IP address.

    If we send them a warning and find their email is phony, then we ban them for violating the Terms of Service.

    It also creates a self-regulating factor for many of us. By forcing people to use registered names (which should be their real names), we invoke the “Mama’s listening” rule: Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want your mother to hear.

    We’ve also attached a basic profanity filter which will allow comments to be posted, but replaces the growing list of profanity with asterisks.

    And we are encouraging, imploring and, yes, empowering readers to police themselves. We’re asking them to contact us immediately if they find objectionable posts. And we are still investigating the model of volunteer moderators (maybe not as extensive as Slashdot).

    We recognize that the persistent ones can find a way around the wall. At least now they’ll have to work at it a little harder. We’ve committed to devoting some initial staff time in the coming weeks to monitor the comments. We’ll work hard at keeping them away. Our hope is that we’ll spend less time doing that and more time working to grow and enhance the site.

    The goal remains the same: Create a home for civil discourse stemming from today’s news. We don’t want to control the discussion; we want to make it open and free flowing and comfortable for everyone to participate.

    Will this work? We don’t know. But it’s worth us trying.

    We do know that today one of the early returnees wrote:
    “I am so pleased that the editors of the STAR have finally cracked down on the use of this web site for productive comments. …
    Hallelujah! ”

    That was followed a short while later by this response from a different poster:
    “Your comment had nothing to do with the article. If you are happy with the new format then you should send an email direct to the Star. In doing so, you’ll avoid stirring up the pot, which it would seem was the intention of your post.”

    Go forth and comment.

    I am glad the comments section is back up although Flap has had some trouble today with the trackback section of some stories.

    This is worthwhile endeavor even if some readers insist on being rude.

  • Methamphetamine,  Morons

    Morons: Vanity Plate Spells Out Methamphetamine

    Good Grief!

    A vanity license plate that spells out the chemical formula of methamphetamine. Read about it here and here:

    Most drivers may be puzzled by the vanity license plate C9H13N, but plenty of crooks likely nod their heads knowingly.

    It’s the chemical compound for methamphetamine, and despite a state law that prohibits references to alcohol or illegal substances on vanity plates, it may be perfectly legal.

    Bradley A. Benfield, a spokesman for the state Licensing Department, said such a license has been granted to the owner of a black 2002 Audi registered in Seattle. The plate may be legal because the same compound represents amphetamine, a legal substance when used in medicine.

    “This is a serious concern if there is a license out there with something on it that a reasonable person would consider related to an illegal substance,” said Benfield. “It’s pretty easy for something like this to slip through.”

  • City of Thousand Oaks,  Politics

    Ventura County D.A. Begins City Council Probe

    The Ventura County Star is reporting that the Ventura County District Attorney is beginning an inquiry into whether members of the Thousand Oaks City Council violated open-meeting laws in a controversy leading to the city manager’s departure. Read the story here:

    The council voted unanimously last month to seek an investigation into itself following allegations that City Manager Phil Gatch was being forced out.

    Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Pena called for an investigation, saying Gatch informed her he was being forced out by Councilman Andy Fox. Gatch told her that Fox implied he had the three votes necessary to fire him, she said.

    Gatch’s supporters repeatedly accused the three council members of deciding in private conversations to push Gatch out.

    Fox, Councilwoman Jacqui Irwin and Councilman Dennis Gillette, for their part, stressed at the April 19 meeting that they had not violated the Brown Act, but questioned whether other council members and staff had improperly revealed conversation from closed session meetings.

    Gatch left his office this month. The council accepted his resignation on a 3-2 vote in April. The vote came nearly two years after he was hired on a 3-1 vote in July 2003. Then-councilman Bob Wilson, Bill-de la Pena and Councilman Ed Masry voted for him. Fox dissented, and Gillette abstained. Irwin replaced Wilson on the council after the November 2004 election and voted with Gillette and Fox to accept Gatch’s resignation.

    Gatch officially vacates his position on June 30.

    Flap previously reported on this controversy here and here.

    This inquiry is going nowhere.

    It is simply sour grapes from a Mayor who is, now, along with Councilman Masry votes within a minority coalition.

    The City Council has better things to do…… so do them!

  • Dentistry

    Hawaii Changes Dental Licensure

    The state of Hawaii is changing its dental licensure law. Read about it here:

    The Legislature has approved sweeping changes in the way dental professionals are licensed in Hawaii, potentially allowing more dentists to practice in the state.

    After years of lawsuits and challenges that questioned the fairness and validity of the state exam for dentists, the Hawaii State Board of Dental Examiners this year stopped offering the test. The test had an estimated 50 percent failure rate, significantly higher than other state or regional tests.

    The board, which has administered the arduous licensing exam since the mid-1900s, last offered the test in July 2004 and is in the process of revamping it.

    In a move to fast-track a new state exam, legislators passed a bill allowing the licensing board to bypass the state’s slow rule-making process and is requiring the board to administer two tests by the end of 2005.

    If the board doesn’t administer the two exams, the state will accept licensure by regional exam and licensure by credential for specialists such as orthodontists and oral surgeons, meaning that a license from another state can be accepted in Hawaii in place of taking another exam. And the law has been changed so that Hawaii will accept a new national exam once it is established next year.

    Licensure by Credential is the future.

    Look for major changes in all USA dental licensure within three to five years.