22Feb Posting Comments on ACP Website

Posting Comments on ACP website

Following deliberations it has been decided to introduce some changes with how comments are posted on the ACP website.

The topic of publishing anonymous comments was discussed previously on the site.

There is growing awareness of how some people, or organisations, can target websites using multiple identities to distort commentary. Also, most of the more derogatory comments that appear on blogs and websites are made by people posting anonymously, under a pseudonym, or using a false identity.

Because of such concerns some sites no longer accept comments from readers. It is hoped that we can continue to include comments and afford people the opportunity to exchange viewpoints and opinions, no matter how different, in non threatening, non insulting language.

Currently all comments on our site are moderated with the intent of keeping commentary respectful to all. The changes to be introduced in the near future will introduce an added protection in that all who post comments will be required to use their full name. (After entering your full name the first time your own computer should do so automatically when you post another comment) Also, they may be asked to verify their identity. Many regular posters already use their full names and their identities are well known.

Except in exceptional circumstances anonymous articles or comments will not be published and if they are it will only happen after the identity of the author has been verified by the editor of the site.

Comments are also moderated in order to keep the site as user friendly as possible and to this end some guidance is offered about length of comments, the frequency of commenting, links to other sites, etc. so that others may be inclined to comment and don’t see the comment section as being the preserve of a few.

The guidelines below will become operative in the near future.

  • Your comment must include your full name and email. (email will not be published)
  • You may be contacted by email, and it is possible you might be requested to supply your postal address to verify your identity.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger. Comments containing vulgarities, personalised insults, slanders or accusations shall be deleted.
  • Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don’t aid the discussion.
  • Including multiple links or coding in your comment will increase the chances of it being automatically marked as spam.
  • Posts that are merely links to other sites or lengthy quotes may not be published.
  • Keep you comments as short as possible; continued repetition of the same point over various threads will not be published.
  • The decision to publish or not publish a comment is made by the site editor. It will not be possible to reply individually to those whose comments are not published.

Many thanks to all who share viewpoints in a respectful manner. It is hoped that more may venture to do so in the future and that we may learn from dialogue and debate.

Mattie Long


8 Responses

  1. Pól Ó Duibhir

    This all sounds sensible to me. I was forced to moderate comments on my own blog due to trolling. Contributors should realise that moderating can be resource intensive and is not taken on lightly.

    As far as I can see, you have been doing an excellent job in moderating comments on this blog. I have no idea what might have been rejected along the way. You might do a generic post sometime to give us an idea.

    I used to post under a pseudonym (ainm cleite) not to hide my identity but from the sheer excitement of it from way back. Following an appeal here, if I remember correctly, and my experience with the Jersey Evening post where malicious trolls abound, I reverted to my real name and have not been any the worse for it.

    You have an important and representative site here and I share your concern to keep it at a responsible level. There were times in the past when I even wished the Pope could have moderated his Twitter feed.

  2. Frances Burke

    I agree with the above decision.

    I realise that I am lucky to live in a society which allows free speech and I think anyone who appreciates that gift should have no difficulty in disclosing their name and contact details. Forums like this give the ordinary person a chance to air their views and this facility should be given the respect it deserves.

  3. Joe O'Leary

    Anonymous trolls have been the source of most bane on the internet. It might be a good idea to make it a law that all contributors to all websites give their real name.

  4. Chris McDonnell

    sensible and straight forward.
    I have no problem with these proposals.

  5. Kevin Walters

    I stand by my post in @7 given in the article above which goes against the trend so far in the posts posted, but it would, as it appears the decision has already been made.

    Sadly We/I know nothing in regards to ongoing statistical data in regard to visits/types of rejections made etc to the site, this is understandable if you the ACP want to keep this information private; but if so, do the memberships of the ACP have this information?

    Has the full potential of site been fully comprehend as in relation to a unifying (Communicating) force between the laity and clergy etc ?

    From my post in @ 15 in the link below.

    “As I reflected upon this, I wonder was a complete cd issued/offered to all ACP members (Priests) who could not attend the meeting (Or regional Meetings) if not, one could ask why not, as to do so, would it not encourage and promote cohesion and participation, as in ‘Unity of Purpose’, is this not the best antidote to isolation and depression, that some priests voiced at the meeting; a bulk order of CD’s or even DVD’s would not be that expensive to produce for both regional meetings and the annual meeting and then distribute them and in so doing invigorating participation. This enlivened group may then draw in younger priest members, without whom the long term future for the ACP is not good, and perhaps eventually the laity may be included also”

    I suppose what I am saying poses the question, is the ACP working towards a more inclusive forward thinking Church or just maundering about waiting for the inevitable.

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

  6. Paddy Ferry

    A very sensible decision by the ACP, in my opinion.

  7. Kevin Walters

    Correction to my post @ 5 to this phrase

    “I stand by my post in @7 given in the article above”

    Should read
    I stand by my post @ 7 + 17 given via the link (discussed previously) in the article above, which goes against the trend so far ………

    From my post @ 17
    When a post is rejected the Posters name, date and time should remain on the comments list with words to the effect “post rejected”. This would give an overall position of what is happening on the site also further and more importantly if the post had been rejected because of sensitive information relating to stonewalling (any form or cover-up) providing that there is no defamatory information within the post it should be made available to any priest or religious, if they so wish, who is a member of The APC,. Words to the effect could state, “Sensitive post” We need to form a culture of accountability within the church as at this present moment power lies in the hands of unaccountable men as can be seen in the child abuse cover up and the continual denial of its historic culture within the leadership of the church. It was not meant to be like this, Jesus teaches

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

  8. Brendan Cafferty

    A good decision and I agree with it.

Scroll Up