I understand the necessity of your automated filtering for insulting language, but some words have different connotations based on context, and perfectly acceptable uses can trigger your filter and place a poster on your moderated list. Once there, it is almost pointless to post anything as by the time it is moderated, sometimes as much as a full day, the discussion has moved on.

If you are going to use an automated filter, you should at least post a list of the filter words so we can avoid them. Better, a spell check like filter giving some warning by highlighting trigger words would allow us to avoid being placed on the 'bad boy' list inadvertently.

For the most part I enjoy reading views that differ my own. However, I do get annoyed at those who are hostile about disagreeing with me. I attempt to use logic, informaton available to me and my own experiences when I form an opinion. I have had a few people who disagreed with me and were what appeared hostile about it in a way that said that if I didn't agree with them then I am substandard compared to them. Those are the type that I would block from seeing any of my comments. Furthermore, I really don't want to see any of their comments because they don't really believe in the free exchange of ideas but to dominate others with theirs. I appreciate the Pilot for giving us this service. Thank you!

The individual Editorial writers columns were supposed to be stopped on the blogs here, then the chief editor's column shows up the other day. Yesterday's main editorial about the OLF still doesn't allow for commenting, and from today's Pilot, the editorial about Obama lying about how transparent his admin wil be is missing completely. Are these oversights, or is the Pilot showing an intention to decide what they will allow to be commented on, and what will be presented on the blogs? It's their product, no arguing that. An explanation would be nice. My e-mail I sent yesterday about the OLF editorial remains un-responded to. Of course, it is the weekend, so I'll see what happens by tomorrow..

Situation normal.

Mr. Putney, I have a question for you, but first.........The Pilot holds all of my posts for "editorial review" for at least one and often several days before posting. Kind of a cool way to effect censorship without appearing to do so. My political viewpoint is often 180 degrees off of the Pilots so it is to be expected. If you review my posts however; I do not believe any are offensive, vile, or in poor taste. Actually tame compared to many. And so it goes.............Mr. Putney. You posted a while ago that you would get to the bottom of the "AK-47" ,"Machinegun", "Fully Automatic Assault Rifle", stories concerning the Chesapeake Cop vs. Thug shootout a few weeks ago. I've not come across your report. Is is coming or did I just miss it. MACHINEGUNS used against the police would seem to be a National News type story.

I agree that, generally, blocking a commenter is capitulating to thin-skinned people who don't want to hear the other side. That said, there are some commenters who break the rules and should be flagged and removed promptly. Otherwise, if one doesn't wish to read a certain poster's views, the poster's "name" is at the beginning, and he can omit that post.
I also prefer the ability to comment on any story I read, versus the V-P deciding what stories should be commented upon. There have been several I dearly wanted to comment upon and couldn't, at least one of which _seemed_ politically motivated. Also, I don't want my posts to remain after a story has been replaced by an updated story that removed the information to which I referred.

I'm for it. As far as execution, however, I don't like the two line format, in two different fonts, no less.

I'd suggest you try to get all the verbiage on one line, and in one font; for example:

View x comments. Add a comment. Manage "ignored" list. Link to post.

"8 comments and View 8 comments" seems like a redundancy. "Add a new comment" is excessive. Can you add an old comment? The "manage" item is just too long, and be cut back without loss of meaning.

Nice, progressive thought on your part.

I am still being moderated for some, unknown reason. I never understood why in the first place. I can't believe some of the comments that go unchallenged, but MINE have to be reviewed first??? Please someone explain to me what the "excessive violations" were.

Are you going to call the “ignored commenters” capability the “ostrich-head-in-the-sand button”? Or will it be the “I-only-want-to-read-comments-from-people-I-agree-with” button? The value of public dialogue seems inhibited with this feature. It seems like adding a technical feature to aid narrow-minded people, narrow-minded people will be narrow-minded enough without your help.

I would not use the feature blocking any comments. The interesting part of comments is reading what everyone has to say. That is why I participate. Like a team sport.

if efforts were put into allowing for comments on ALL stories, both state/local, and national. Amazing how many stories are in the Pilot that don;t allow for commenting, like the Obama admin keeping the locations of toxic waste sites secret. The Pilot's hypocrisy in protecting Obama is becoming legendary, given their treatment of all stories related to Bush. Another helpful change would be to employ someone on the Editorial Board who is not a Democrat! But what are the odds of that ever happening?