Leaving comments for yourself are you?

Jahanshah Javid
by Jahanshah Javid

It's been how long? Two years? Not sure really. But ever since comment boxes appeared below articles on iranian.com, there have been rare instances where writers have left supporting messages for themselves.

You, the general reader, may be able to guess these instances. But often you're probably wrong and it's just your conspiracy-friendly mind talking.

I on the other hand, have access to our publishing system, which can tell me, with a good deal of accuracy, if these comments are coming from the same person under the guise of different users.

In order to check on my suspicions, I have to ask our technical chief Foaad, to go and dig up the facts. I don't know how to do it myself and I don't want to. In a total of three instances (two concerning abusive users and one regarding comments on one's own writing), I have been so annoyed that I have sought Foaad's help. It's good to have an expert witness and second opinion.

Now my question is, what am I supposed to do? Should I tell the offending person to stop leaving congratulatory or supporting messages for her or himself? Should I just delete them? Should I expose them (I'm not going to that, I don't think)?

Or should I stop checking on these desperate individuals altogether? So what if people want to give themselves a pat on the back, anonymously, over and over again? Is that any of my business?

I would like your input. PLEASE do not speculate and name names in your comments (they will be deleted), because I would have done so myself and that's not the purpose of this blog.

However, maybe those who have done it may see this note and feel a little uncomfortable.


Recently by Jahanshah JavidCommentsDate
Hooman Samani: The Kissinger
Aug 31, 2012
Eric Bakhtiari: San Francisco 49er
Aug 26, 2012
You can help
Aug 23, 2012
more from Jahanshah Javid

What's the abuse?

by Anonymous New Comment (not verified) on

What is the definition of 'Abuse'? What is the difference between 'Minor' and 'Major' abuse?

Without rules, one man's abuse is another man's freedom of expression.

Niloufar Parsi

JJ jan

by Niloufar Parsi on

I would just leave it. It is better to protect the freedom to express rather than spend much time and effort on catching minor abuses of the system. But it is good to highlight the abuse once in a while.



I’m confused about “No Name”

by Confused Reader (not verified) on

Was there a post by “No Name” that is now deleted? If there was one and now deleted, can someone briefly tell me what it said, and why it might have been deleted because I’m confused about what’s going on with regard to that name? This is better than watching TV!

Nadia, how is your new job coming along?


As the World Turns on iranian.com..............

by Nadias on





Several misconceptions:

by Anonymous Whatever (not verified) on

* I'm not fighting; I gave up fighting a long time ago.

* I'm not advocating any specific policy, but "a well defined policy", whatever that policy might be, as long as the rules are clear.

* I'm not advocating "registered users only". As the way it is I'm MORE THAN happy to be a multiple ID user, registered and unregistered. If this does not please some members of this fine community of ours, please by all means change the non-existing policy to reflect however it ought to be, and I'll be the first to comply with it. I am a very very very law abiding citizen. A good citizen always follows laws, rules, regulations, codes,....

* NOT "every single person on iranian dot com is anonymous". The last time I counted there were about 50 people that had their full real names, their real life pictures, and a brief Bio of themselves posted. The last time I dug into this issue, I did some search of those names and it turned out that those people were truly who said they were. Of those 50 people almost all of them live in North America, the rest live in European counties, and none lives in Iran. According to my definition of anonymity these people are not anonymous. To make sure there is no misunderstanding I do not advocate that people ought to be "real" to be participants in this website.

I absolutely agree that under these circumstances to be anonymous is the best option.


Contributors of Iranian.com; Unite!!

by Karam (not verified) on

Another Day Another Name, you are right. It is foolish to register under these circumstances. Unregistered users have more rights. Don't they? Their comments are ALWAYS approved but registered users comments are subject to deletion.

Your points about blogs are correct too. So unless there is way to unite, Editor rules and tosses Contributors away like a used rag! Case and point; too many to count!

Now weren't many who blogged recently about uniting and change and all that crap?! You want to unite, try unity right here for a cause. A simple cause of fairness to contributors. Making the playing field even. Our slogan? Abolish unregistered comments!

PS funny Editor went to this format a year or so ago to take himself out of the process. Now he is in it more than before.


So, what’s the point...

by Another Day Another Name (not verified) on

Last night I was going to write more but I was too haggard to do so. So, where is the discussion now? There is a direct and pending question, “I wonder why you’re not using your avatar…”? I have multiple registered usernames and I have contributed regularly, I can’t be more specific than that otherwise I give my identity (or lack of it) away. I also post comments anonymously on daily bases. The reason? Because it suites me fine.

As you know very well, you were instrumental in the campaign to have people registered in the heydays of Wild Wild West, but as it turned out registering under those circumstances were turned out to be disastrous for many many many people including myself. The relentless insults, profanities, accusations, and misunderstandings was too much to bear, and even drove one of the ‘regular’ contributors to attempt suicide. I myself was subjected to many abuses, which I mainly brushed off except for one that I cannot get out on my head and this one was from a regular registered contributor. Also, at one time one of the registered users looked up my Bio and then turned around and attacked me anonymously with what he/she had found in my Bio as a registered user. At that point I figured out that not even posting a Bio was a safe thing to do, so then I deleted my Bio. If you wish, you can do a quick research and find out for yourself that not very many registered users have anything written in their Bio now.

So, what’s the point of registering under this dual system? Whatever I want to say I say it anonymously, if I am rude there is an Editor that makes up my mind for me by not posting my anonymous comments (that gives me structure), I don’t care to blog anymore under these circumstances, and I don’t have to bang my head against the wall to come up with an original blog (in comparison to the ones that get posted and even featured nowadays that are nothing but copy and paste). The non-existing rules get violated at a whim, registered people constantly post anonymously whenever they wish they don’t want to be identified with their registered username character, and we have an Editor that says ‘whatever’, so what’s the point of being registered under these circumstances?

Sorry, I’m asking questions on top of your question.

Anonymous Observer

Rosie - 17 People Using the Same Computer?

by Anonymous Observer on

Only if they are in a prison or on a forced labor camp......which raises an interesting question: are there inmates in prisons around the world who are avid readers of Iranian.com and feel compelled to leave comments?  Could be an interesting demographic for JJ to consider (if true) for advertising purposes.....something to ponder.... :-)

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Rosie of course you can post anonymously

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

You are anonymous whether you think so or not. You're not Iranian. I feel really bad saying this because you are one of us to me, but if you say something that a wing nut Iranian does not agree with, the chances are slight that they will slander you, your family, and even your neo-lithic ancestors. LOL. 

I'm posting as Marge because there is a lot of reality that you can't post here are a Jane Doe from Irvine, CA. My employer will have a heart attack if I write that stuff about Cheney eating Obama's puppy or that Reza Pahlavi is a spoiled rich kid, just like Bush, only without the Ivy League degree or ambitions. 

So please be mindful of this. I hate going to an Iranian dinner party and hearing "hey I read your thing when I was web crawling in iranian.com (everyone reads this even if they aren't registered), and well I just want to say that you obviously haven't read enough about the Shah or Jimmy Carter's communist aunt".

I'm not here to attack any person, I'm shielding my ideas, actually. Even the most awful people here who have attacked me, I haven't attacked personally. I attack what they say. The only offense I've made according to JJ's e-mail to me is "profanity" which is hilarious in light of his motto "nothing is sacred". So what was that line about the sacred and the profane in Shakespeare errrrr yea. I am just tired of being called names. I'd rather Marge be slandered. I'm not a politician so I don't deserve these names. I'm just a web crawler like the rest of us. If I was Reza Pahlavi then I'd understand. But I'm a schmoe who bothers a lot of granny undewearing types because I mock what they say about my lord and savior Obama. I don't need to congratulate myself or attack anyone, they already do that themselves when they write the mud they do....

But you, you have an advantage. You can swoop in here as a Rosie Goldstein and say "I understand you". It's a very different politic with foreign types here. Have you noticed?? Except for American Wife, because she her wit and her audacity (which i love) threaten a lot of these foggy men.

Love you Rosie,



Rosie jan

by Souri on

The feedback was there. My support, means that I agree with what you just said. As this was not the first time you present this idea, I didn't feel the need to explore it more.

The "my name is here" is the regular user you surely know. If she choose not to use her usual user name, there's a reason. And I guess you must know the reason. Sometimes the chemistry between two persons doesn't get well in this virtual world, but nevertheless, in some other cases, they come to agree with each other, more than with other persons, so this anonymous way is the only alternative to talk their idea . I must leave for work now, I'm already late.

PS: ....and I still love you :O)


Dear No Name.....P. S. Souri

by Rosie pushing daisies... (not verified) on

No Name, h...as you are you have good articulate ideas and I'd REALLY like to discuss them with you. I will reply further tomorrow and as long as you're down, I'm down. BUT just to clarify, I'm a registered user and I ONLY posted anonymously at first (then disclosed it) for very specific reasons and I've NEVER done it before...and I won't again, btw. So since you seem to be one of the "structurists' and I'm a kind of tight rope walking structurist myself, we probably both agree that there ARE SOME problems at least with anonymous posts from reg. users. Rectifiable, or not, they are at least in SOME ways problematic...so...if you're registered I wonder why you're not using your avata, and if you're not I wonder why you're not.

Could you please let me know just that before I reply>


Robin Jayne Goldsmith New York City(as you can see, definitely NOT in favor of reg users posting anonymously, certainly in principle if NOT in policy...

PS Souri, I know, I know, dear, but you know what the deal is...do you have any specific feedback on my posts here other than I luv you? I luv U 2!


Thanks Rosie jan

by Souri on

As I said before, we need more of your contribution here. It is a pity not having you among us more often.

N.B: Believe it or not, clever or not, I can recognize (not only you but) most of the people from their anonymous posts. I believe after a year and half reading all the regular users writing, it is not a big deal to guess who is behind an anonymous user....but, so what ? If the right is given to the people to write anonymously, they will take it.

I always said, anonymous writing should stop.


in the beginning there was a well difined rule

by My Name Here (not verified) on

It’s OK if articulated policies backfire, we'll fix it later. Most laws in the book have evolved over centuries, hopefully we get this done sooner. We must have a well defined policy. It does not have to be encyclopedic in the beginning, as long as it is well defined. For example: “Rule #39: Bloggers can delete their own blog at any time they wish.” Well one day a blogger may attempt to delete his or her blog and come to find out that there is no ‘Delete Button”. So, to make the story short the site owner has violated Rule #39, so we find out that the publisher has decided that based on Rule #12764 he has the right to keep or delete any blog he whishes.

So, we are clear and there is no fight.

I was going to write more but I’m too h.............


From Rosie: Tightrope of Democracy

by rosie from beyond the crypt (not verified) on

Okay friends, you asked for it, soyou got it...

Loosely speaking, there are two main factions on these types of threads. The usual suspects. The "structurists' who want clearer rules, policies, systems, etc. and the "whateverists" who don't. And this is GOOD. And then there is a publisher, who, "whatever" he says about whateverism, actually walks a very precarious tightrope between the two factions. And this is a GREAT recipe for a vibrant interactive democracy.

Now some of the "stucturists" here are very unhappy that jj articulated below that it's okay for reg users to post anonymously and/or with different ID's even under their own writings. I'm not delighted either. But in viewing how steady the progress has been through these discussions from the anarchy of the Wild Wild West til now (see my Muddlefish "history" post below)I'm not worried either. Evolution is incremental. So in this post I'm more focused on what may be concretely gained from the thread consdering where the tightrope is RIGHT NOW:

Abuse Definition and Policies?? Si o No?

The "whateverists" are wrong in being so "allergic" to policies (no order, no democracy as the Wild Wild West proved) BUT the structurists forget that articulated policies can backfire. Here's an extreme example: The Geneva Conventions did not define torture but subsequent conventions have, and all it has done is provided loopholes for certain tortures to take place. I know, I know, very extreme example but still...keep it in mind.

For NOW it seems it would be best to rely on an INTERNALIZED sense of what's right and what's wrong and we all have one (including the people who blow sunshine up their own ass on their own threads...they KNOW it's wrong...) so..my humble suggestion to the publisher would be:


Should Abuse By Reg Users Using /Multiple Identities, Reg, or Anonymous Be Searched For by the Publisher? No but.IF a case of such abuse jumps out at him, as they surely will (just as Souri knew when I was Muddlefish) it should be pursued. The arguments that pursuing multiple identity abuse are not fair are JUST PLAIN WRONG.

WHAT IF 17 PEOPLE ARE USING THE SAME COMPUTER WHERE THE ABUSE COMES FROM? Yeah, so...what if? At a certain point Admin has the right to say, look, babe, if YOU can't control your computer, WE WILL. Case closed.

Correct. So...don't bother.

WHAT WOULD BE AN EQUITABLE WAY OF DEALING WITH SUCH ABUSE? HANGING BY CRANE OR...?I'll repeat a suggestion I wrote below unfortunately titled "Systematize It" in simple language: Warn 'e m once. If they f. up again, block 'em temporarily. If they f. up again, block 'em permanently.

Well, friends, please keep the ideas you like here for your future tightrope discussions, will you? Last year this blogging community was just like...a little baby...and so here I am...from a distance...watching my baby grow...


Thx & kisses, Rosie with Limited Visitation Rights

Anonymous Observer

How About An Ancient Persian Punishment?

by Anonymous Observer on

In keeping in touch with our ancient Persian souls, I think that anyone who engages in such conduct should be flayed in public, with his organs being donated to organ banks....no? Too harsh?...


Yes, Souri, AW I am ONLY posting here because you two and

by robin/rosie (not verified) on

others I know well realize the crucial importance of this discussion and are sticking it out to the bitter end. Consider me a visiting cousin. As I said, conscience dictates I do this now and BELIEVE ME, I am eating a LOT of crow by doing it, but as I said, HOW the site functions IS what the site IS.. so... . I'm thinking... drafting...I will post tomorrow a.m. on the specific issues here. I can't possibly be here regularly. Consider me

Cousin Rosie


Could, would, but should not

by Anonymous Post (not verified) on

Yes, one “could” ask Majid and American Wife what they are doing here, but why “would” anyone want to do such a thing? It is none of one’s business what they, or any other person, are doing here, so one “should” not ask suck a question, directly anyway. Someone said some people do things for their “sick self satisfaction”, now for a comment like that, that some people are calling others sick no one takes an offense at it so far, but when one propose a different reason why people are here, which is in no way near calling a person sick, then it’s offensive! Good thing at the end of the paragraph it says they won’t necessarily act on it when they find their mate, or otherwise one would be in deep s…, I better say one would be in deep mud, otherwise my comment might not get posted.


Like clockwork

by Anonymous Comment (not verified) on

Very soon an anonymous person will make a comment that what we have here is public women’s bath house.

American Wife


by American Wife on

How absolutely wonderful it is to see you.  I thought I recognized you here and there but wasn't sure.  And you slipped past me on this one.  Now I'm going to have to go back and re-read everything. 

Damn girl.  You sound good.  I always said... you can ask anyone... that a Rosie on prozac would be a roaring force of nature blowin' through iranian.com.  Hell... through the world...lol.

Someone who would understand the difference between an insult and a joke.  Someone who would take an insult from a peer and not die of twisted panties.  Someone who could give as good as she got.

I hope you're well.  I personally don't care for prozac.  I'd have gone for electric shock.  But that's just me...LOL.  Just like the Pill, I'd forget to take it and be a basket case all worried and fretting up a storm.  Plus you really REALLY can't drink on it.  Screw that.

Anyhoo.  Glad to see you're doing well.  Take your time... dip your toes in slowly...:-)


I do

by Souri on

Yes Rosie jan. I do benefit from your comments and your ideas. Please  do write more. As Q told you before : Please don't live!

American Wife

well gee.. thanks

by American Wife on

Souri. I guess it would be ASSUMING on my part that not everyone in the world knew this. And I guess YOU were assuming everyone did.


From Rosie, yes I have egg on my face but my conscience dictates

by formerly muddlefish (not verified) on

that I post here because this discussion is of crucial importance to the website. And people know this or it wouldn't be MOST DISCUSSED and also for a couple of days under MOST VIEWED (which is very unusual, most vieweds are usually pictorials and photo essays). As I said below I am organizing my thoughts to write a detailed post.This is a complex discussion.

So in the meantime I'll just say that for those who do value my opinion on this crucial discussion, I DID post anonymously here (although I am against this in principle as a personal ethical issue, not necessarily policy) I did it for very specific reasons and it was VERY hard for me to do it. Now someone wants to engage in dialog with my "Muddlefish" and I can't go that far, I have to do it as me.

So my anonymous posts are: two by Muddlefish, one Systematize It (I mean...who else....?) and one from a General Reader. (Yes, I stooped that low because I knew I was voicing opinions of general fish I'd dialogued with previously)

HOW the website is run IS what the website IS. The stated mission is free speech. In an interactive environment free speech and democracy go hand in hand, they cannot be separated. The burden of maintaining the democracy however falls on the readership, especially the regular bloggers, FAAAR MORESO than on the publisher. That is the overarching thought I would like to leave. I shall explain. I'll return later with specific comments about the thread. If even one person benefits from them, it's more than enough for me.




by Souri on

"Actually I think everyone who is here is here to find a mate,
especially the ones that say “no I’m not”, and the ones that say “no I’m happily married”, and the ones that say “no I’m here for serious political discussions”, I think they’re here to find a serious-political-discussion kind of a mate."

Then how about a couple ? Could you ask Majid and AW, what they are doing here ? I don't care if by saying this (I am happily married) you just wanted to belittle me!!

Really, but really, I don't care what YOU would think about me and my purpose of being in this site.

But watch your words, not becoming too offensive toward many other people here. 

PS: It seems that I am not the only one who "assume"  things here :O)


The more the merrior, why

by Anonymous2 (not verified) on

The more the merrior, why can not ppl comment on their own things, what harm does that do?

All opinions should be welcome also those from the person itself!


Ethics don’t mean a thing without rules

by Anonymous Synonymous (not verified) on

Most of my immediate neighbors have at least four vehicles one of them being a truck; a couple of them also have motorcycles and trailers. They use their different vehicles for different purposes, if they want to haul trash they’ll use their pick-up truck, if they want to go to a formal event they’ll use their luxury automobile, for their daily commute to their jobs they’ll use the economy car, and for driving leisurely on a country road they use their convertible.

Now we have a situation here, which to some people, even to a self-proclaimed responsible highway patrol officer, my neighbors might seem to be unethical. How can any household be in need of four vehicles, or more? Where I grew up we didn’t even have one automobile, yet we survived. Imagine this scenario, I go to my neighbor and tell him he is unethical because he drives too many cars, or better yet one day he is driving on a highway and a self proclaimed responsible highway patrol officer stops him and tells him, yesterday I saw you driving a different car and here you are today with a another one, in my OPINION you are no “good” and what you are doing in “bad”. I have to revoke your driver’s license because what you are doing is “unethical”. And then he begins to write a citation but he has to justify it from the Vehicle Code, and he’ll be at a lost because he won’t be able to find a reference for his high moral horse or motorcycle.

There is nowhere in any vehicle code that says individual drivers are supposed to drive only one vehicle and one vehicle only.

Now let’s examine, “cheaters”, “sick satisfaction”, “good manners”, “ethics”, “common sense”, and “what we learned in school” at the dinner table. Why is there a person at the table that is so hungry that he has to “take all the food or most of it” for himself? Either that person is obese, or too hungry, either way an “unethical” action has taken place PRIOR to his “bad manner” behavior. Why is he obese? Is it because his parents did not set up some RULES about how much he was allowed to eat? Is he from a Pepsi generation in need of devouring calories without any restriction (another rule)?

Or, why is he so hungry? Is it because he didn’t pay attention to the RULE that says, “if you don’t work you don’t eat”, so then he didn’t follow that rule and now he is going around hungry, so now he has to take all the food for himself? And, where were the gracious host and the guests all this time while he went obese or hungry. And why would the host invite such a person to his dinner party? Shouldn’t he set up some standard (another word for rules) about who he wants to invite to his house? If he would have said no hungry or obese guests are allowed at my dinner party, well then there would not be any confusion at the party, would it? For fact I would not be confused because I’m neither hungry or obese, and I would drive to that diner party with one of my four vehicles, and if I was stopped by a highway patrol officer I would tell him there is no rules against driving different vehicles at different time, and I would tell my gracious dinner host that since he made it clear that he does not want any hungry or obese people in his house I only brought myself with me and I left my obese and hungry relatives at home.

And, speaking of the taxes, driving an automobile is one of the most overtaxed endower one can engaged in. From the moment one purchases a vehicle he start to pay taxes in the form of sales tax, excise tax, DMV fees, when he buys gasoline he pays more taxes, when maintains his car, buys tires, even when he uses some roads and bridges, he pays taxes. In comparison to this site, no we don’t pay taxes but we do PAY. Every time we log into this website we contribute to its existence, every time we post a blog, article, art piece, photo album, or a poem we contribute to its existence, and therefore we should have expect the police officer or officers of this website, which is like a highway in the cyberspace, to follow some set of established, well defined, and enforceable rules. We can call it Iranian.Com Code of Conduct (ICCC). And if in that ICCC it says that users are only allowed to have one registered username and can not post comments anonymously, then I am going to follow, it otherwise I’m going to continue what I’m doing now, which suits my needs fine, and no I’m not “sick”, and a “cheater”, but I do DO it for my own “self satisfaction”. Is there a rule that says people who do thing for their “self satisfaction” should not post here? Isn’t everyone here in this site here to do it for his or her “self satisfaction”?

Actually I think everyone who is here is here to find a mate, especially the ones that say “no I’m not”, and the ones that say “no I’m happily married”, and the ones that say “no I’m here for serious political discussions”, I think they’re here to find a serious-political-discussion kind of a mate. What I just said does not mean that they’ll necessarily act on it when they find their mate; I’m just saying it is human’s nature to look.

Self-congratulatory note: That was a great acronym you picked for the code of conduct for this site, ICCC, it sounds like an international treaty between major power players in this world.

American Wife


by American Wife on

Ok... let me get this straight.  Only two posts per computer?  Do you mean per registered owner?  My husband and I share a computer at home.  So does our son.  We're both registered.  He is not (well actually I think he said that he did register). I also log on from work.  How is this going to work?  A registered (or unregistered) user can only post two comments per blog?  We post ALOT.  If I post unverified, I do it under my name.  Sometimes I get kicked off and it's a pain in the ass (another subject to discuss) to log back in.  I don't understand why everyone thinks it's "sick" to comment on your own blog.  I don't post any so you can't accuse me of doing it... :-)

I think it's silly but hardly sick.  I think there are ALOT of insecure people here...lol.  I don't know why this is such a major issue with people.  I know WHY JJ posted this blog though.  To get hits...:-)

And he did!!!  Which is all cool.  I just don't see what all the bruhaha is all about.  I thought most of you would be fanatical about freedom of speech and all that good stuff you don't have in Iran.  I figured if anyone would be against censorship and dictatorship, it would be you.  (you as in all of you... not you specifically...:-)

To not be able to express your opinion fully seems unfair.  I understand WHAT you're saying but I think it's unrealistic.  A comment comes to you... you explain your position.  Another comment comes in to question or dispute yours... you want to explain it further... yet another comment comes in... you want to defend your position.  If you restrict it to two comments, you're going to lose a vast amount of pertinent information.

I'm not saying I have the solution.  Well, actually, what I'm saying is that I don't see it as being a problem, period.  But, this has been interesting.  You should have gotten here sooner....:-0



by Saman on

I think JJ should make the comments public with the article of course ... and have us vote for the best and most creative.


Ah, Souri, you exposed me! I am really registered and I am....

by muddlefish (not verified) on

a) Kaveh Noraee posting anonymously because I don't know what I do when I sleepwalk.

b) Qumars and Tonya collaborating as Muddlefish because our long conversatinos are all a practical joke.

c) Jahanshah Javid generating "traffic" by posting anonymously under my own blogs.

d) a different registered user who on this thread has been torn between a rock and a hard place.

e) all of the above, some of the above and/or none of the above.

First answer wins. The answer is "e". You are correct, Muddlefish. Sad afarin.

Okay, game over. This blog is SERIOUS business because for me HOW the website is run IS what the website IS. And I AM torn between a rock and a hard place and this is my FOURTH post on this thread (yep, new game, which witch is which?). And I have some SERIOUS things to say about this thread. So I'll say 'em once I organize my thoughts. Better that the thread is no longer so active...means that the SERIOUS people are here..see ya later alligators.

Attacking post from anonymousposteronemillionthree: Rosie you're a drama queen like always and a hypocrite too. Posting anonymously after stating you won't post AT ALL. Take your Prozac and LEAVE. NOW!

Self-congratulory post from Muddlefish: Yeah, Rosie, you ARE a hypocrite but c'est a la vie. At least when the chips are down you will fight for what you believe in. Which is...this website. Go girl!


The subject IS serious!

by Jaleho on

Too many comments to read all, so sorry if my suggestion is repeated before. Even if it is, then I hope you can look at suggestions of everyone statistically to guide your final decision.

It would be annoying and unhealthy to have someone's opinion weigh more than once. There are important foreign policy makers who come here to get a feeling for the "Iranian" opinion, many neocons among them. Just imagine if they get the message of "invade Iran" 20 times from 1 person using multiple registered or anonymous alias! The site has a RESPONSIBILITY to reflect reality, not sick desire of individuals.

So, why not like all reputable sites block multiple posts coming from the same IP?

Now, there are cases that a spouse or some kids might occasionally use the same computer. First, if they are constant users, they should register. If they're occasional users, or if a person has a sick satisfaction of giving him/herself an occasional pat on the back, you can magnanimously ignore. But, comments by cheaters should not be allowed to the degree that it would twist the meaning of what is being portrayed. You can not sit and watch everone all the time. So, blocking more than at most two posts per single computer IP is a responsible idea, and elevates the site's credibility.

You can plan the site as if it can grow to entertain millions of people. Why not set the rules of a perfectly credible automated site so that you wouldn't have to get a headache with petty details all the time?

American Wife


by American Wife on

is a philosophy... your example would be considered "good manners"...:-)