Sometimes I should just keep my (virtual) mouth shut. HNN long ago decided to increase it's user-unfriendliness by making registration before commenting mandatory. Okay, now that makes some sense, if they were getting the kind of flames that they claim they were. But, on top of that, it is not enough to provide a live email and go through the registration process -- you have to provide your actual in-real-life name, too, and allow it to show up in your posts.
Me not knowing this, I dutifully registered, using my Rana Ravens alias. While there, I was polite, civilized and (I thought) made some useful comments. Then I made the mistake in responding to a post about anonymity of admitting that my pseudonym was, well, a pseudonym. Whoosh -- away go all my polite, thoughtful posts, and I am now banned from posting.
THIS was among one of many reasons why IA's site was so good. We could have lively, impassioned, deeply argumentative discussions there, and so long as we did so with a modicum of politeness and intelligence, we could call ourselves whatever we damn well pleased. I only recall about 5 or 6 people in the entire time I visited the blog being told to behave by IA, and they either did, had their ISPs banned, or left. Other forums and blogs I visit have similar policies -- you get warned, the bad post is deleted or "disemvoweled," repeat offenders get banned, and life continues on. Even the Chronicle's clunky "submit first, then we'll vet it before posting" format works better than the system in place at HNN.
Such a delightful way to be welcoming to those who wish to participate in discussions about academia and history but (often with good reason) fear the retribution that might follow if they posted openly, eh? No wonder the comment threads are so empty and bland.
Such an irony: should IA wish to comment in response to any of the posts at Cliopatria about her departure and good works, she would have to forgo the very thing that made her valuable as a sort of academic everywoman: her anonymity.
Recent Comments