Jahanshah Javid

My two cents worth

You may as well divide Iranian.com into various special interests sections, Monarchists, Commies, various oxymoronic groups such as Jebhe Gheir e Melli and Melli Mazhabis. It will become either that or people using blogs to reply to each other.

Before you spend too much money on this, isn't better to figure out where you want to take this site? Over the years we have gone from a jounal format to a blog/semi-chat format. This is not a criticism but acceptance of the reality that monetary support has not been forthcoming. A compromise maybe to have free say on featured blogs or articles.

Question for you, can we freely comment on articles or will those comments be controlled by the writer too?

Mr. Fozolie

Giving blogger control of comments is not the answer to "trolls"

Other sites have spam button and Admin deals with those type of comments. And the definition of "troll" may be different according to people. Some people do not like criticism at all, but as a creative person they should be open to it. And some people call long winded comments with many links as trolling, while others define troll as someone who makes too many comments. 

The unique selling point of IC is that anyone can comment on any blog, this is especially important for hotheaded Iranians that get personal with people and will block differing views out of debate or hold grudges against individuals due to clash of personality or culture. This is the reason people come to IC rather than Facebook to have discussions. In a free society noone should have "permission" to take part in a public blog unless they have been blocked by Admin (an impartial party) for abusive behaviour.   

Thanks Mr. Javid for bringing more order to Iranian.Com

Your efforts and new additions and changes, which will bring this site closer in its democratic format and self-regulation, to all the other public internet sites like FaceBook, YouTube, etc ... is very much appreciated.

We deserve better discussions, and we don't need 24/7 trolls monopolizing this site and stalking or harrassing bloggers.

Many Thanks! 

Faramarz jaan let them be!

Yes now we're talking!  We're talking about a "few" but let them be.  They have the right to live and pollute the internet like the rest of us!  Fox News people are doing this 24/7 and they're on the decline and not on the rise.  With their leader in hot water in UK they're like soaken mice!

You can still use the game of Whack-a-Mole, maybe they let you in with a comment or two and if they delete, you have yourself a new "subject" to write about!  

Think about it, isn't this what we're doing now with Islamic Republic?  They don't allow anyone to say a peep yet they are being blasted 24/7 by the likes of Parazit!  

Everything is sacred

Esfand Jaan

I have complete trust in your intentions and judgment and know that you will hold your end of the bargain. It is the vocal minority that I do not trust; the people that turn every blog into a discussion about Israel/Palestine/AIPAC/NeoCon, etc. I would like to have the ability to counter them whenever they raise their heads.

Just like a game of Whack-a-Mole!

Faramarz jaan not sure if they're defending or attacking!

I was looking for smoke coming out the Mullah's end somewhere! 

Looks like the fear is that Bloggers will delete the opposing views and the world will come to an end!  Really?!

Do you think that someone who has put a lot of effort into expressing his/her views and researched and presents an argument in a well outlined blog will delete the "opposing view" as soon as one is posted?  Why would s/he "post it" on i.com in the first place?  And just because "some" will do it does that mean "most" will do it?

Is this going to go unnoticed?!  How many would you say would delete on site?!  There are more than 10,000 i.com registed users and less than 50 people contributing!

I for one will allow everyone to comment on my blogs and the more the merrier.  However, I will definately delete comments that I feel are condenscending and I don't need others to tell me what is or isn't condenscending.  I am a grown man and we're all adults here not children!  

Everything is sacred

In second thought.

Today my previous comment seems a Wall Street protesting approach to me.  I think that's a good idea to give more authorities to blogers.  Bloggers will be able to sell the products (e.g. ideas) by removing unwanteds...

We, as customers, have an option to select and communicate in our favorite blog.  I think blogers will compete with each other in this way, and try to be creative and influenctial in stead of writing whatever it comes at the top of their mind with no organization.

I hope JJ spends more time to improve his own blog, which is usually the most popular one.  I don't think that blogs are only the place for homesicks who need a company.  We can learn from blogs and the involving communications through customers' comments.

"It's not about what we believe. It's more about how we behave and influence." Comments

Esfand Jaan

This discussion needed a picture and I think that the picture below does the job! It is called

اردوی فرهنگی و دفاعی میثاق با ولایت در قم

//www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=52230&st=1373...

this ain't good, JJ

If someone is in control of the comments on their blogs, then the person can direct the contents to sound as one-sided as the blog itself, and basically shut the other points of view.  If this is the case, I will probably slow down on  my contributions as I see my comments being deleted based on the content!  So, is there a way for us to reflect the one-sidedness of the author?

As I mentioned in VPK's blog, some folks have much shorter fuses, and more apt to delete/flag comments based on content.  As a result, even now, you see a spectrum of vulgar, condescending and insulting comments.  So, is there any metrics on the author's boiling point?

If the content is not insulting, let it be.  It is a good reflection of the commentor's personality.

anglo, he's obviously

anglo, he's obviously involved in i.com's operations. and whether the site is meant to maximize profit or used as a sounding board for regime supporters (mixed in with others :), the bottom line is maximizing users.  don't know about the details of i.com management.  if m16 didn't work out, try savama.

Is JJ still the owner of IC?

Can one of you informed users please oblige me with an answer? I have heard that JJ has sold the site to a private investor (a compony) a while ago and his role is effectively that of a site manager?  Yes? No? or do I have to ask my contacts in MI6?

esfand jan, it seems that

esfand jan, it seems that you've forgotten that jj is running a private enterprise and not a country. he has a profit-maximizing objective: the more users he has, the more ads he can have and the more money he can get per ad. he uses different "versions" to achieve that end.  if his new scheme doesn't work, he'll revert back to the old or come up with a new "version."  the "right" thing to do in a profit-maximizing venture is always to make more profit (how's that for ciruclar reasoning!) whether it's instilling more democratic values in the business model or less.

i.com democracy version 5.0!

Faramarz jaan your comment (along with that of Nazy jaan) compels me to ask you to Defend! ala an episode of the Big Bang Theory.  I can't find a video clip of it (perhaps Darius jaan can find it ;-) but the script can be found here.  Read the first few lines and you'll know where Defend comes from and we can certainly use it in this debate!

This debate is haggling about Freedom before having Freedom of Speech (FBFOS)!  I explained the issue of FBFOS in my blog here and please notice that the blog was blocked by the Admin which proves my point that the new format will not be any less democratic because as it stands my rights or Freedom of Speech as the author of that blog was trampled upon!  But that's ok, these are the rules we live by now.

If you want total democracy we had it in version 2.0 when i.com was launched in this new Drupal format.  At the time it was total democracy and zero censorship.  You can find the proof here.  Please note the comments and how users were addressing each other and the blogger.  There are plenty more examples from where that one came from.

Then we went to version 3.0 where JJJ would moderate the anonymous comments but the problem was that a comment could be waiting for him to wake up (depending on the time zone ;-) before he could post it.  So we had some comments being posted hours after they were written!

Then came the current version 4.0 where it is all registered users.  Now would you say these versions were progress and moving forward or backward?

Currently if an IRI, MKO, Tudeh, Monarchist or any other self admitted supporter wants to write a blog to express views the usual suspects will gang up on him/her with the same old tactics and making him/her regret ever writing something!  Whereas a real debate and exchange would be to followup with an opposing view in a separate blog where tit for tat drive-by slogans are not used and someone has actually put some thoughts into it.

In free societies people have been doing this for ages, even before the advent of internet where people would respond and exchange views in newspapers and magazines. 

So finally my question to you and Nazy jaan is this (and neither of you are under any obligation to respond) what makes you think we'll have "less exchanges" and debates will be "one sided"?  What prevents someone from posting an opposing view in a separate blog or article?  Defend!

Everything is sacred

JJ is making life easier for himself

... which is his prerogative. By shifting the bulk of the control to the bloggers JJ is freeing up himself and the rest of the "moderators" from the dreaded task of censorship. His argument seems to be along this line: in the same way that every house owner has the right to control who enters his/her house, every blog owner must have the same right to choose who leaves comments on his/her blog. On the surface this appears to be convincing. There is, however, one fundanental difference at work here. No sensible house owner places his/her house on public display with an open door invitation for the public to visit and inspect the house. Once you let the public into the privacy of your house you can no longer control what they may say about the house. This precise analogy applies to blog and blog ownership. The blogs on Iranan.com are not for private viewing: THEY ARE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. Therfore, it is totally nonsensical to let the people from around the world to visit your blog but to silence those whose views in "your" judgment is unfavourable!! This is neither democracy nor autocracy - it is "hardambilo-cracy". 

But JJ dear don't give up the idea just yet. Where there is a will, there is a way. Remember that you are the ultimate owner of blogs and not the blog owners (unlike the house analogy). If you are still  bent on the idea of giving your bloggers full power to control thier blogs and the comments thet attract, you might as well give them the full power to select who can visit the blog and who cannot.  In other owrds let the selcetion process begin at the door of the house by letting in those visitors the blogger may choose to let in - make it a privately viewed blog and not a publicly viewed one. It is a mockery of the concept of public owneship (let alone democracy) if you allow the visitors in and then have the gagged. There is a way to do this (an easy way too) but I am sure Fawaz Khomsood has the right skills to implement this policy if you choose it.

Final point: if power to the people is what you have in mind, then power without being accountable for that power is a recepie to dictatorship. Need I say more? :) 

I totally agree with Nazi Kaviani

In my opinion removing a comment is wrong.  Why should I mind if X does not like Y comment or vise versa?  Many other may enjoy. The idea of removing is all about being sensitive to someone, not his comment.

What is the next step?  Harassing the person in addition to removing his comment.

It's easy to see two people who are fighting with each other. Everybody ignores them; exept the 2 people themselves.   

"It's not about what we believe. It's more about how we behave and influence." Comments

An Opposing View

I am totally against user control of the blogs. When I comment, I usually spend some quality time on what I want to say and always make sure that there are no typos and the format is correct. It is one thing to ignor my comments (no problem), but removing it would not be nice. In the 5-6 years that I have been around, only once my comment was removed and that was a Lori joke that some humorless person objected to.

I believe that we should be able to self-police. Also, this is not FB. This is a community of very narrow interest and if we segment it even more we will have a private party of a very few like-minded people that will be boring as hell. It is like kissing your own sister!

Yes of course I lost the debate and you won!

Everything is sacred

Thank you for proving the point

That you have already taken over as some kind of authority speaking on behalf of Admin and "most people", writing post after post. I hope this is a warning for others on this site of what is to come. This is a subject which is important to you and you have shown that you are as obstinate and as much into Pissing Contest that you accuse others of.

You have that option now and keeping it is no big deal.

We have had some occasions (two or three I think) where some users have gone back and mass deleted their comments (by deleting everything they've said with only their avatar showing) and nothing of substance was changed.  Water was not moved from water!

We're talking in general and not exceptions.  Most people are not fussy about comments they leave or what may happen to it.  For every 1 person who deletes his/her comments there are more than 10,000 users who don't! 

Everything is sacred

I don't have a disagreement with you or anyone here

I will be happy as long as Admin gives people the right to delete their comments, that is all. That is one feature I would like as User Friendly. That is all from me.

The Editor is absent and I'm here for a just bit longer anyway.

After I leave for the day others will take over and go on.  As for the "vote" that took place, I took that vote and it was 7 to 23.  Now contrast that with over 10,000 registered users who didn't "vote" and what do you get?  Nothing!

Furthermore, that blog was "blocked" by the Admin because of the shenanigans of other Pissing Contestants. Now why was my right as the Author of that blog infringed upon?  Is that how this "democracy" works?

Everything is sacred

Stop trying to answer questions addressed to Editor

We have heard enough from you on this matter, that is all I am saying. 

Perhaps you should note the current format and back off!

Everything is sacred

Esfand Khan

You seem to be the spokesperson for this blog, where people have asked JJ for explanation. You have made your opinion clear many times. Since you object to people hogging blogs and posting too much, perhaps you need to back off a little and let JJ reply to peoples questions on this occasion.  

So Nazy jaan FB, Twitter r dictatorships and i.com a democracy?

As a reminder Facebook and Twitter have been instrumental in not only reaching global audiences but affecting protests to lead them to progress that was never before possible.

Latest example being Egypt and let's not forget our own uprisings in 2009.

Nazy jaan if you're going to state your objection to changing i.com's format please provide your view on whether you object to FB and Twitter's format?

Please don't say that we have something "special" here as this is what we're currently being told in Iran that we have the best!  We don't! 

Everything is sacred

.

.

Behind every anonymous avatar may sit a small dictator

In my humble opinion, allowing people to comment or not, or being able to delete their comments one by one, or the collection of them in a blog, is fundamentally wrong.

Jahanshah Jan, I am really baffled by your gleeful announcement of people's ability to control who comments on their blogs in the new Iranian.com. As a publisher, you seem to be devoted to keeping comments from anonymous contributors that are clear manifestations of defamation and slander against individuals with real names, under your belief in freedom of expression. What is the reason for your sudden joy over giving people the choice to silence others all of a sudden?

For all it is worth, just as I have objected to people being allowed to delete blogs where other people have expressed their opinions, I object to this idea that would destroy the best part of Iranian.com--freedom of expression.

My two cents.

.

.

Bambi what "option"?!

Do we need a highlight right now in blogs that only the admins of i.com have comment control?  

So if a blog is not marked and highlighted in bunch of places that the following blog is subject to comment control by the blogger, the commentator should think twice before continuing to read or comment?  Or comment only to "warn" others that the belog is subject to comment control?!

I am sorry if I'm sounding sarcastic but I just don't see any "option" here.  Once i.com gives control of the comments in the blogs to the authors everyone knows what is going on.  Everyone has that option.  Why would you want to deny an option from some bloggers to not have comment control? 

As for "trust", right now the trust is bestowed upon JJJ and as many would say not everyone agrees with how he moderates the comments and the blogs.  In my case I trust myself more than I'd trust him. 

Everything is sacred

Dear Anahid

How about this scenario: A blogger starts a conversation and debates something. When they see they are losing the decide that "blogger does not want any more of their comments". Happens very much.

One thing we do not seem to have learned is to allow dissent. Many people want to just have agreement. Once the other voice becomes too annoying they want to shut it down. It is practiced at home; school and government.

I agree with Bambi this whole thing is a sign of weakness and intolerance. I am also done with my points since this is not my site. I have really stated what I wanted, and I conclude my posts to this blog.