pageok
pageok
pageok
Deleted Comments:

As I noted a couple of months ago, I've been trying to block a commenter who goes by the unlikely name of ReVonna LaSchatze; the commenter has personally insulted other commenters, and in a vulgar way. Unfortunately, LaSchatze's posts come from different IP addresses, and don't use a fixed comment account that I can block. (To make things convenient for commenters, I don't require people to set up comment accounts, though I may have to change that.)

My solution to the problem has been to delete LaSchatze's comments; this kept LaSchatze away for a couple of months, but now this unpleasant person is back, commenting up a storm. I have therefore deleted LaSchatze's recent comments, but this has at times either required me to delete or edit other comments that respond to LaSchatze, or has led some of those comments to be hard to understand. I'd rather avoid either result, because those responses come from valued commenters and took some time for them to post. So the request: Please don't respond to LaSchatze's comments.

By the way, just to remind people why I take the view I do about the need to maintain civility in comments, and the propriety of deleting commenters: Comment threads (unlike, say, all the videos on YouTube or generally even books in a bookstore) are a coherent conversation; for the conversation to be readable and pleasant to participate in, people have to maintain some minimum level of politeness. The analogy I give is a party that I host -- if people are rude enough to other guests, they won't be invited back, because that's how one keeps parties pleasant. I generally don't try to exclude people for their viewpoints, though I reserve the right to do that if the views are nasty enough. But I have and will exclude people who express their viewpoints in needlessly offensive ways, for instance by personally insulting fellow commenters.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Comments on SSM posts:
  2. Deleted Comments:
vet66 (mail):
I encourage you to be proactive in the pursuit of these ill-mannered anarchists.

Keep after "revonna!"
4.9.2007 2:12pm
pete (mail) (www):
Please keep banning uncivil commentators as this blog has one of the few comment sections still worth reading.

There have been several other blog comment sections where this party guest no longer stops by to visit because of rudeness.
4.9.2007 2:23pm
RMCACE (mail):
I too appreciate this comments section. If I want to read AutoAdmit, I go read AutoAdmit. When I want good legal discussions in a civil tone, VC is the place to go.
4.9.2007 2:33pm
RichC:
Sorry for the effort it costs you, but thank you for doing this, Professor V.
4.9.2007 3:00pm
Russ (mail):
Prof Volokh,

I agree that you are doing the right thing, but I think you've given her waaaaaaay too much attention, and I think she revels in it. After two threads on this, just delete her comments and don't say anything about it. To do more is just to encourage her.

Besides, if she was that intent on posting, since her comments come from different IP addresses, wouldn't she just change the name she posts under?
4.9.2007 3:03pm
neurodoc:
EV, why don't you agree to some general guidelines with your fellow Conspirators, then empower them to delete posts that clearly cross the line. That way you wouldn't have to be constantly on guard for the likes of ReVonna, and offensive posts can be deleted quicker. As a practical solution, asking everyone who visits VC to remember that ReVonna is to be "silenced," all that he/she may post to be ignored, including relatively inoffensive posts of his/hers which may lead to the more offensive ones, is not likely to work. (ReVonna may just return using another name, but with the same persona.)

Why do you permit any posts that are unquestionably abusive, though? Without clear provocation, a regular commentor recently called another poster an "a**hole" and "moron." You admonished them and got back a less than sorry-it-will-never-happen-again response. Why not delete such offensive posts without hesitation and tell the offender, perhaps off-line, to stop it or not return. (Unlike ReVonna, while very free with the ad hominem, this other individual also engages with ideas, which is why a course correction might be hoped for and warnings be in order.)
4.9.2007 3:09pm
neurodoc:
I see no reason for the VC to indulge the likes of ReVonna her. I will say, though, that with his responses to ReVonna and others who chose to be disagreeable in disagreeing with him, Professor Kerr shows the way to handle such interlocutors.
4.9.2007 3:18pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Each coblogger is already free to delete posts that clearly cross the line. But while we have "general guidelines," they are naturally subjective enough that different bloggers have different views, which is generally just fine. (Also, different bloggers at different times pay different amounts of attention to the comments, so sometimes some won't be noticed for a while.)

I don't recall the "a**hole"/"moron" incident, but my general practice is to cut people a little bit of slack. Maybe I should cut them less, but it tends to be a judgment call. Bans usually happen in response to repeated or unusually egregious (and unprovoked) behavior (and it sounds like you and I agree on that). I am freer with deletions, but sometimes I'm inclined to leave a post up and provide a public admonition, because I think it might be more effective at setting the norm than just silently deleting the item. Sometimes I don't; in close cases, it may depend on my mood as well as other factors. But I think that's inevitable with subjective judgments like this.

As to posts such as this one, they are for the benefit of other commenters, whose comments might become hard to understand when we do indeed delete ReVonna's comments.
4.9.2007 3:24pm
blindgambit7:
I don't post here regularly, but I do read most of the posts, both by the bloggers and the commenters, so I appreciate the effort to keep the comment sections civil.
4.9.2007 3:39pm
Just an Observer:
I think the practices in promoting and sometimes enforcing civility at VC generally work pretty well. And yes, the comment section here does remain one of the few worth reading.

On the general topic, I note without endorsement or further comment this story in today's NY Times: A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs.

EV's own standards, set forth at the bottom of every comments thread, are pretty clear.
4.9.2007 3:44pm
neurodoc:
EV's own standards, set forth at the bottom of every comments thread, are pretty clear
Yes, they are, the question is when and how to enforce them. Thankfully, the question doesn't come up too often on VC.
4.9.2007 4:13pm
zooba:
Just DNS the IPs and tell the ISP that a user at time X with IP Y was posting harassing and obscene messages and that you will have to ban the ISP / initiate legal action if the user is not terminated. This sometimes works.
4.9.2007 4:27pm
ReVonna LaSchatze:
Oh it's the same IP address.

Don't be such a liar!
4.9.2007 4:53pm
e:
FYI, before someone gets called a liar, some connections (especially cable modems) always result in dynamic IP addresses.
4.9.2007 5:12pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Here is a subset of the IP addresses for ReVonna LaSchatze from my Banned IP log:

IP: 70.226.130.70 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-04-09 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.132.8 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-04-09 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.142.172 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-04-09 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.149.42 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-04-09 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: Revonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.129.146 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-04-09 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.129.120 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-21 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.140.134 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-12 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.170.23 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-11 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.174.131 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-11 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.168.163 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-10 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 69.218.137.171 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-06 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.177.26 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-05 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.146.212 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-02-05 Banned By: David Bernstein Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.130.36 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-23 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.136.147 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-23 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.137.52 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-23 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.170.69 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-23 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 69.218.136.236 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.131.3 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.144.231 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.158.1 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.165.41 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.142.28 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...

IP: 70.226.133.129 Enforced: saved Date: 2007-01-18 Banned By: Eugene Volokh Name: ReVonna LaSchatze ...


Besides, why on earth would I make up something like this? If LaSchatze were always posting from the same IP address, it would be easy for me to ban the address, just like I do for other commenters I ban (not an everyday occurrence, fortunately, but something I have plenty of experience with). The only reason for me to go through the hassle of manually banning the comments and posting a note about this is that LaSchatze's posts come from different IP addresses.
4.9.2007 5:17pm
ReVonna LaSchatze:
LaShatze, LaShatze. Is that a common name? Maybe there's more than one trying to swarm aboard and you'll need to scrutinize all the R.LaShatze's out there.

Heh. Just a thought...
4.9.2007 5:20pm
Zuhaib (mail) (www):
Those IP's are all SBC IP address, you could contact them and let them know you have a user from those IP being abusive on your website. Dont know if SBC will do anything, but it might not hurt.
Here is info for one of the IP
--> fwhois 69.218.137.171@whois.arin.net
[whois.arin.net]
SBC Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-69-208-0-0-1)
69.208.0.0 - 69.223.255.255
PPPoX Pool - rback4.mdsnwi 021505-0440 SBC06921813600023050215034056 (NET-69-218-136-0-1)
69.218.136.0 - 69.218.137.255

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-04-08 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
--> fwhois "!NET-69-218-136-0-1@whois.arin.net"
[whois.arin.net]

CustName: PPPoX Pool - rback4.mdsnwi 021505-0440
Address: Private Address
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60606
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-02-15
Updated: 2005-02-15

NetRange: 69.218.136.0 - 69.218.137.255
CIDR: 69.218.136.0/23
NetName: SBC06921813600023050215034056
NetHandle: NET-69-218-136-0-1
Parent: NET-69-208-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment: Abuse contact abuse@swbell.net, Technical contact noc@sbcis.sbc.com
RegDate: 2005-02-15
Updated: 2005-02-15

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE6-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Southwestern Bell Internet
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-648-1626
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@sbcglobal.net

OrgNOCHandle: SUPPO-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Southwestern Bell Internet Services
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-648-1626
OrgNOCEmail: support@swbell.net

OrgTechHandle: IPADM2-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-SBIS
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-648-1626
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@att.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-04-08 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
4.9.2007 5:29pm
Richard Riley (mail):
I'm glad Eugene is banning the ill-tempered ReVonna LaSchatze, though I felt sort of honored a few weeks ago when he/she insulted me on a VC comment thread.

In that thread, there was a discussion of the fact that some ISPs, such as cable broadband internet services, reassign IP addresses more or less constantly. Isn't there a name for that - "non-static" IP addresses or something? (I am WAY beyond my technical knowledge here.) And doesn't the fact that all of ReVonna's IP addresses listed by Eugene above start with 70.226 suggest that something like that may be going on?
4.9.2007 5:35pm
rarango (mail):
I appreciate the comments section at Volokh--and while the LaSchatze persona is at best unpleasant, she isnt nearly as bad as some posters I have seen on other sites--Clearly the conspirators attract a somewhat higher class of troll. And as a lay person, I genuinely appreciate the legal commentary which is nearly always lay person friendly.
4.9.2007 5:46pm
Arvin (mail) (www):
Non-static IP addresses are called dynamic IP addresses. According to the ARIN WHOISes of these IPs, it looks like ReVonna LaSchatze is using dialup from SBC, as the addresses appear to come from SBC's PPPoX Pool. Dialup IPs change every time one reconnects.

As to broadband, most cable modems I know of maintain the same IP, even when a static IP has not been paid for. DSLs who use PPPoE are usually dynamic, whereas regular DSL with just regular IP connections are like cable modems -- can be dynamic, but usually the modem gets the same IP every day, especially if one doesn't shut the modem down.

This is based purely on my own experience as a home user and an IT guy for 5 or 6 years. YMMV.
4.9.2007 5:47pm
Coke is it (mail):
What a shame.

Professor Volokh, you really ought to require registration. It's lame and inconvenient, but you can't expect this blog to work very well in the future (when lots of people will test the limits) if you maintain a completely free commenting system. You will have to make this change in the future, you might as well get started working the kinks out of the registration system now. Believe me, I'm the last guy to actually want to see this, but it's small price.

As an aside, it's pretty likely that this troll is a student at the University of Wisconsin (who else but a student has the time or inclination to do something like this, most of us have jobs). They are probably going from one wifi point to the next (mmm coffee). How embarrassing.
4.9.2007 5:48pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Please err on the side of non-censorship and anonymity, Prof. Volokh.

Most posters are adults who can ignore offensive messages and not give a schatze about them.
4.9.2007 5:49pm
Coke is it (mail):
I fail to see how comment registration amounts to censorship. Certainly, it makes it a lot easier to systematically remove vulgar and abusive stuff. I don't want to read a completely free forum. Hardly anyone does. Free speech isn't an absolute right.

Go read xoxo to see what happens to purely anonymous and uncensored forums. It's boring, low on content, and full of embarrassing shock speech. I see no reason why every poster shouldn't be identified to the owner of the forum. They can hide behind a handle for the rest of the world at any rate.

I understand the value of not being censored, but almost nobody is here and political censorship isn't really what we're talking about. The most "adult" approach is to use registration and deletion very conservatively to maintain the quality of this site. Not that I have any say, but I really dislike the contention that limited censorship is always childish.
4.9.2007 6:08pm
Ryan:
If you look up the ip addresses, http://www.arin.net/whois/ , you'll see the range of addresses that the address belongs to. Judging by the range, it looks like the 70.226 addresses are from an institutional account in Madison, WI (a law school perhaps?). The 69.218 address are from a narrower ranger also in Madison. About what you'd expect in from typical residential account?
4.9.2007 6:45pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Coke is it-

Not that I have any say, but I really dislike the contention that limited censorship is always childish.

The contention wasn't that censorship is always childish, immature, etc., although it often is. The point was that the average VC poster tends to make appropriate posts the vast majority of the time and ignore the ones that are inappropriate. That and the topics here tend to be pretty sophisticated, keeping a lot of the knuckleheads out just by being not worth the time to spam, disrupt, etc.

I see no reason why every poster shouldn't be identified to the owner of the forum.

There's a bunch of reasons. Although through IP addresses you can probably find out the identity of everyone with enough time, effort, expertise, money, etc. it is an added layer of anonymity. There are people in firms, academia, government, etc. that probably don't even want the owner of the forum with easy access to their identity. Not that I'm a great poster or anything, but I wouldn't post if registration were required. (Which will probably be the clincher - everyone will now want registration.)
4.9.2007 6:45pm
Hattio (mail):
No real comment on the editing/deleting when appropriate, but can someone explain to me why ReVonna LaSchatze is that unlikely of a name? Is htere a literary reference I'm missing? Does it mean something in a foreign language?

I consider myself generally fairly knowledgeable, but it never occurred to me to be a fake name until the last time Professor Volokh mentioned it.
4.9.2007 6:58pm
zooba:
At least testing most of them, it's a PPPoE DSL Dynamic IP account from SBC in Madison, Wisconsin.
4.9.2007 6:58pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
I have never heard of a person actually named "ReVonna"; "Re" as a separate prefix, followed by a capital letter, seems at least uncommon (as opposed to, say, "La," or "Le," which isn't that odd); one such prefix for the first name and one for the last name seems odder still; put that together with the uncommon first and last names, and it smacks of pseudonym.
4.9.2007 7:03pm
Latinist:
I really hope you won't require registration. In the first place, the comments on VC posts are generally very interesting and worth reading (far from the norm for political blogs): I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Also, I think you'll lose some comments if you require registration. I've posted here a few times, and I probably would register; but the first few times I posted, I was thinking of it as a one-time thing, and probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of registering (I'm very lazy, and don't have a very strong desire for pseudonymous blog-comment immortality). Then after I'd posted a few times (and a few people had even responded to me), I was hooked. I'm still not one of the most frequent posters, but I imagine other posters have had at least somewhat similar experiences.

So, if there's anyway to handle ReVonna and her ilk without its being too much trouble, I hope you'll keep VC comments more or less exactly as they are.
4.9.2007 7:23pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I have never heard of a person actually named "ReVonna"; "Re" as a separate prefix, followed by a capital letter, seems at least uncommon (as opposed to, say, "La," or "Le," which isn't that odd); one such prefix for the first name and one for the last name seems odder still; put that together with the uncommon first and last names, and it smacks of pseudonym.
Moreover (as I pointed out last time it came up) googling it leads only to posts here on the VC. Given how outspoken she is here, it's unlikely that this name wouldn't appear somewhere else if it were a legitimate name.
4.9.2007 7:27pm
Connie (mail):
It's obviously an alter ego for Ann Althouse; the Madison connection clinches it.
4.9.2007 7:30pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Just to make things clear, I take Connie's post to be a joke.
4.9.2007 7:58pm
Wisconsin Student:
As a Wisconsin student, I really like this blog. It would be quite unfortunate if this character were from our school. Please don't get the wrong impression from her--most of our students are intelligent, civil, etc.
4.9.2007 8:19pm
anon34324556 (mail):
Eugene,
On the one hand I totally understand your concerns, but on the other hand I think the poster's right to anonymously critique takes precedence over your concerns.
You, as a free speech advocate and scholar, should understand the value of speech you disagree with.
I like the fact that your blog is one of the few to allow anonymous comments. I think you're overreacting here.
I also think you should not release the anonymous gadfly's IP address.
4.9.2007 8:50pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
anon34324556: I value thoughtful, polite speech I disagree with. I also don't think rude speech I disagree with should be banned; but I don't want to provide a platform for it myself, and I don't want it to interfere with the quality of the discussions we have -- and rude speech does interfere with the quality of discussions, online as well as offline.

As to releasing the IP addresses, I didn't even think of it until LaSchatze claimed (at least twice, once here and once before) that I was lying -- not just wrong, but lying -- when I said LaSchatze's posts were coming from different IP addresses. My response was an attempt to defend myself against these allegations that I was lying; seems to me it was a sensible response.

Finally, "gadfly" suggests someone who is irritating because he covers inconvenient truths, or even makes arguments that upset those in power. Casting aspersions on fellow posters' penis lengths, which is what got LaSchatze permanently kicked off, does not merit the generally positive connotation that "gadfly" tends to carry.
4.9.2007 8:58pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Eugene, given that this commenter uses many different IP addresses it is probably unwise to ban any of them. I mean if these are addresses from a DHCP server (perhaps at a law school) it could very well be his intent to cause further annoyance by getting genuine commenters banned from using the board when they are assigned one of his old IPs.

As far as when cable modems and the like reassign IPs they usually don't do so frequently but they might if you turn them off. Equally likely though is this someone posting from a laptop used at a coffeehouse or similar place (if it was a school.
4.9.2007 9:28pm
Fury:
Zuhaib, I hope that Professor Volokh has good success with contacting an ISP about abusive posters, because we have had very little success at our institution.

We usually ending up blocking an entire Class C network if the abuse continues *and* the ISP does not respond back. In the case of the problems by this poster, it may take blocking one or two Class C networks; blocking an entire Class B network would be really akin to killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
4.9.2007 9:30pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Cable and DSL tend to keep their connections as long as they stay connectected, or until they expire. Dial-up of course invariably uses this. Dynamic IP addresses are typically assigned and controlled by DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). At least running DSL here, I have to pay an extra $10 a month for a static IP address. Otherwise, I would be assigned a dynamic one. If you want to host any services, you really need a static IP address (though you can somewhat fake it using dyndns.org domain addresses). I pay to have the static address so that I can run: email, ftp, web, and VPN servers/services.

However, if you work for a company or school that got in early on the IP address allocation, you may indeed have a static IP address. I did at the last two big companies I worked for.

If every time you boot you computer, you have the same IP address, then it is likely static. However, if your apparent IP address is 10.0.0.0-10.255.255.255, 172.16.0.0-172.31.255.255, or 192.168.0.0-192.168.255.255, then it is being dynamically assigned to you by DHCP (most routers, etc. come with the default set to 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x). Those are considered unroutable addresses, and are thus almost invariably used by DHCP. You can find out your assigned IP address in Windows from the command prompt using the IPCONFIG program, i.e. "ipconfig /all" lists all your active IP addresses. If you have an unroutable IP address, DHCP is automatically translating that to a routable one, and that is what is seen by EV (unless that too is unroutable and assigned by DHCP).
4.9.2007 9:42pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):
I have an itty bitty blog that almost no one knows about and on my second posting I had a comment that distressed me. Someone posted an ad hominen attack on one of the people I mentioned in my article.

I think the fact that the person was in support of my posting made it all the worse. I'm ok with a bit of rough and tumble and wouldn't have minded someone attacking me, but I couldn't accept an attack on a third party not there to defend themselves.

I wrestled with the decision to censor or not and ultimately chose to edit out the worst parts with an edit note to show I had done so rather than just delete the entire comment.

My decision rested on the fact that I am not required to provide others with a forum to vent their 'isms.' If someone wants to spew hatred and bigotry they are welcome to set up their own blog. The First Amendment doesn't apply to me...I'm not Congress.
4.9.2007 11:02pm
Eli Rabett (www):
I suggest Kevin Drum's (washingtonmonthly blog) policy to you

If I or my moderators get sufficiently annoyed with you, we will delete your comments. If you don't like it, tough.

saves electrons
4.9.2007 11:57pm
Coke is it (mail):
Clearly the solution is to require registration for Madison residents!

I wanted to mention in reply to Connie's joke about Ann Althouse that when I checked those IP addresses, the tool I used initially spat out Austin Texas. That's where I am and it was just showing me my IP, but I when I saw Austin for recently and then a bunch of Madison I wondered for a second if it was Althouse (obviously ridiculous).

Anyway, I know registration would be lame, but I don't think it would be a big deal. It would prevent some first time posters. That's too bad. One could always have a system where unregistered posters have to wait an hour (or until the post was approved) before it appears and registered folk got their info on here immediately. That way people who are ashamed of what they are writing, or otherwise paranoid about anonymity would still provide their input.
4.10.2007 12:00am
Connie (mail):
Yes, it was a joke.
4.10.2007 12:00am
Waldensian (mail):

Each coblogger is already free to delete posts that clearly cross the line.

I would love to see a breakdown of how many posts are deleted by each coblogger. Because I suspect Prof. Bernstein deletes more than everyone else combined. He is quite ridiculously heavy-handed in this regard, IMHO.
4.10.2007 12:27am
Porkchop:
Google is a wonderful tool. I never realized how common a name Revonna is — doctors, professors, schoolchildren, and, well, a few others.

Is this our ReVonna? "Revonna/Rider of Gold Rylonith" (http://lostweyrs.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board = adoptables&action = display&thread=1139543563) [Spaces inserted before and after the "='s" in the URL in order to meet the 60-character limit]

"Personality: Revonna is a selfish bitch. She is used to getting anything she wants and is willing to go to any means necessary to achieve her desires. She likes pretty things that flatter her looks and has collected quite an array of jewelry and fine clothing. She is very demanding and sometimes runs her personal drudge ragged with her constant requests. She is disgusted with any woman that lets a man dominate them and has vowed never to let any man have control over her life. She normally uses men to get what she wants and then throws them aside."

I would guess it is not this Revonna: "A Re-examination of Gray's Culture Framework Using a Modification of Nair's Accounting Practice Classification: Is There a Relationship with IAS Conformity?" Mitchell, Revonna, et al. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=484182)

Perhaps it is this one: "Revonna Deathwish,
39th level Valkyn Bonedancer" (http://www.camelotherald.com/chardisplay.php?s = Mordred&c=1346572) [Spaces before and after "="]

Then there is accused murderess, Revonna Nutt — http://www.bizjournals.com/ kansascity/stories/2005/01/31/focus4.html [Space before "kansascity"]

These are just the tip of the Revonna iceberg.
4.10.2007 1:15am
Really? (mail):
Dial up??? Seriously? How lame. I wonder if ReVonna got kicked off Compuserve and Lower Lights as well. I wish her luck at beating Commander Keen 4 and Captain Cosmos Cosmic Adventure.
4.10.2007 1:27am
really?:
Because I suspect Prof. Bernstein deletes more than everyone else combined. He is quite ridiculously heavy-handed in this regard, IMHO.

He also attracts the most ire from ReVonna-types, and indeed, ReVonna herself. So why is this surprising, or "heavy handed"? If you have an instance of heavy-handendness, cite it. But of course you won't.
4.10.2007 1:29am
ReVonna LaSchatze:
Orin Kerr...
has no hair!

Heh. Hurry and delete before his gentle delicate feelings get hurt. Boy's these day's sensitive like that you know.
4.10.2007 5:05am
ReVonna LaSchatze:
Damn, nothing about to talk about in American news but ... ME! I'm the talk of the day on the Conspiracy.

BAHAHA!! Damn. Things must really be down on y'all's topic of expertise if somehow I'm PAGE ONE news. Damn. This war on Terra got warriors like you collected here. No wonder we're winning with this crew of young male leaders. (Hope that doesn't hurt your feelings none. You too Dale. Sell out to be part of this crew? Heh Indeed!)
4.10.2007 5:10am
ReVonna LaSchatze:
Finally Eugene Volokh--
Don't be so sensitive about banning people for using the term penis. And if it's the size you'll so concerned about, well my mailbox is full of pill poppers eager to help you grow, WonderBoy!

Heh Indeed!
4.10.2007 5:13am
William Oliver (mail) (www):
I did not know there was a 5-day limit on comments, and I note in a follow-up of a 2-day limit. Regardless of content, I suggest that the time limit be abandoned. If an article is of sufficient interest to generate comments a month out, then those comments may be worthwhile. In my own blog, at least before my disk crash a couple of weeks ago, much of my traffic was related to one of three of several hundred posts. One was a technical post on installation issues on HP laptops, one was on false rape accusations, and one was on a Medical Examiner issue. In all of these interest was constant for over a year and useful comments, particularly in the technical post, continued to accrue.
4.10.2007 11:13am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Coke is it-

That way people who are ashamed of what they are writing, or otherwise paranoid about anonymity would still provide their input.

Yeah, that's it. Anyone who is concerned about privacy and finds registration annoying, controlling, paternalistic, etc. is "paranoid" or "ashamed".
4.10.2007 2:03pm
Waldensian (mail):

He also attracts the most ire from ReVonna-types, and indeed, ReVonna herself. So why is this surprising, or "heavy handed"? If you have an instance of heavy-handendness, cite it. But of course you won't.

But of course you're wrong.

He once deleted one of my posts, which was critical of his viewpoint, on the ground that it was "ill tempered" (marking it [ill-tempered post deleted]). It was, quite simply, nothing of the kind, and I told him so. He then amended his bracketed comment to remove his allegation of "ill-temperedness" but of course he didn't restore the post.

Comments about his heavy-handed deletions have in fact appeared in some of his comment threads, but they disappear just as quickly, presumably because he deletes them as well.

I really do not think I am alone in criticizing Prof. Bernstein's cavalier attitude toward deleting comments. But maybe I'm totally, utterly wrong. So how about if a Conspirator starts a thread about Prof. Bernstein's comment-deleting practices, and whether they comply with the guidelines, which state that deleted posts should be "exceptional events."

People can then weigh in with examples of how their comments have been handled. Or of course maybe they won't, as you predict.

But of course such a thread won't be started.
4.10.2007 5:33pm
Waldensian (mail):
And by the way, I'm ready to stand corrected. If the data show that I am wrong, I will most humbly apologize. Is there a way to tally up the number of posts deleted by each of the Conspirators?
4.10.2007 5:36pm
Coke is it (mail):
American, I can see why what I wrote would come across that way and even seem deliberately provocative. Not meant that way.

Most of the people really worried about anonymity are going to be writing things they are embarrassed about. Strong political views embarrass a lot of people for some reason, for example, but also a lot of people are trollish or overly sexual or just silly somehow on the internet in a way that would be embarrassing to the authors if labeled by name. I'm sorry, but I think that's reasonable of me to say considering what goes on with the internet these days.

And there's nothing wrong with these people wanting anonymity at least from google. Certainly nothing sinister.

Also, the "otherwise" in my comment up there referred to people who have some sort of reason for wanting to be anonymous beyond embarrassment to friends or employers or students for their strong views or silly behavior. I'll be honest and say I don't think this is a large category of people, but I know it exists (there are secret agents and protected witnesses and such). But if someone simply is afraid that they will suffer societal ramifications for their comments on the internet being linked back to author, that's fear of embarrassment. It's civilized, normal embarrassment and nothing insulting is implied in this practical observation.

Waldensian, I know that Bernstein is comparatively provocative, but he gets to manage his posts, and that includes comments. I don't know if he deletes things that aren't over my personal line, and I don't think it would be a crisis if he did. We all get to start our own blogs if we want to get really substantive in our replies. I personally think (and I could be wrong) that these comment sections are more of talks between commenters discussing the post, not really a bunch of us interacting with the poster (but occasionally). Perhaps you should just find an advocate of the post and debate it out with that person. I think a lot of people accidentally come across as insulting, and it's not really a crime to delete accidental provocations to steer things back on track.

Oh, and Commander Keen was a terrific series. I wish I had it on my cell-phone.
4.11.2007 1:12am