by Ron O
Well, after several years of commenting on the Vanguard it has finally come to this – I quit.
When I first started commenting, the Vanguard allowed a wide variety of comments (and viewpoints) without even requiring that commenters use their own names. It was a lively environment with a wide variety of viewpoints, no arbitrarily-enforced comment limits, and the ability to post comments without pre-cenShorship – as others have labeled it (in reference to Don Shor). Though it seems highly likely that David Greenwald also moderates comments, and is ultimately responsible as the operator of the site.
Ironically, the changes that the Vanguard has implemented since those earlier days have not addressed the problems that they claimed to be addressing, whether it's continued personal attacks, doxing, or (perhaps most importantly) – refusing to post comments that the simply don't like.
One might expect that the one reasonable change to their policy (requring pre-screeing of comments by the resident moderator) would have resolved some of these problems. But instead, it has gotten worse – especially in regard to not posting responses which in no way violate policy, and which may also prevent the ability to respond to personal attacks. You can find some of those responses below this article, and judge for yourself.
At this point, I do believe that their practices are intended to discourage participation by those whom they don't agree with, so I guess they've "won". However, I'm not the only one who has "had enough" with their practices to make this decision. A publication like the Vanguard cannot continue abusing its own participants (and/or allowing other commenters to do so), and expect to remain relevant as a viable source of information/debate for the community.
Perhaps the Vanguard's actions to discourage participation are partly by design, especially when it comes to development issues. After all, it's pretty much become a mouthpiece for interests in support of development. It is ultimately a business, partly dependent upon advertising funds received from development interests. And in fact, their resident moderator (Don Shor) is part of the Nishi development team, himself.
In addition to the active discouragement of debate, I'm growing weary of attempting to respond to the same arguments, day-after-day. Nor do I know if the Vanguard (or the responses in opposition) make any difference regarding results. It's ultimately up to everyone to arrive at their own conclusions, whatever they may be.
I do plan to continue participating on the Davisite, sometimes in response to the articles on the Vanguard. But I'm tired of allowing the unpredictable whims of the Vanguard to control my responses. For what it's worth, this wasn't an easy decision for me to make, because I actually do think it's important to dispute what the Vanguard puts forth. (And while some may disagree, I think I'm pretty good at doing so.)
In any case, below are some of the responses that David and Don are refusing to post. One of these (from Ron Glick) was a direct, personal attack against me – in which he described my comments in a manner which do not reflect reality. However, since he did include my quote, I suppose he could argue that it's his "interpretation". Now, one might question if some folks put forth comments like this simply because they don't like what you have to say about some other issue, such as development/growth. Again, with the encouragement of the Vanguard.
Davisite 
Leave a comment