I don't see the value in this. The problem isn't that peter is unregistered. It's that I, and perhaps others, have a different opinion of what constitutes correct moderation. The idea is that one can say anything no matter how nasty about public figures or groups but not make personal attacks against other posters. While that rule is somewhat loosely applied it's generally followed. Peter generally follows that rule. He could register, not change at all, and still follow that rule.

The problem is that if someone takes full advantage of that rule it's generally disruptive. Peter is disruptive to civil discourse here just like Trump is disruptive to civil discourse in America. Most of us don't do that. Rarely does anyone here call Trump tRump. In 2008 I never called Obama supporters Obamabots. I called them Obama's supporters. We might on some rare occasion call a politician a nasty nickname but mostly we call Cruz Cruz and republicans republicans. Most of us realize that constantly calling even hated political opponents insulting nicknames is disruptive to civil discourse.

Trump realizes it to and so does peter. They both want to disrupt civil discourse and piss off their enemies. That's why they do it. It could be said we should just ignore peter's effort to disrupt the discussions on this site. It's been said many times in the news that liberals, the American public, mainstream media and pundits should ignore Trump's attempt to disrupt civil discourse with his twitter feed. That may be true but it's not a realistic solution. It ignores human nature and will never be implemented by enough people to make a difference.

Hi Moat, I discussed this with other mods. As O-K pointed out up-thread, Peter (unverified) mostly follows the rules about personal attacks. He did violate the ToS in that Warren thread, but frankly, so did a few others, and I don't feel up to parsing out every comment that crossed the line in that thread. Certainly, it seems like overkill to block all unregistered comments just to ban Peter.

Something I've never understood about the web, even back in my TPM Cafe days, is why people waste their time and energy on trolls. "Don't feed the trolls," goes the old cliche, as if feeding trolls is so enticing that one has to actively resist the urge. I find that genuinely puzzling. Why would you be tempted to argue with people like that in the first place? Mocking trolls is occasionally amusing, but arguing with them is just annoying and pointless.

FWIW, and I say that as an intro because I feel that what I think on this really doesn't matter that much. As in: much ado about nothing.

Personally, Peter's latest commenting didn't bother me in the least, nor do most of his comments, especially because he is like a caricature of himself and doesn't act like a real person. He's like a strange SNL character that mixes Trumpism with SDS lingo from the 60's. And when I reply to him, it's only when it's on a news topic where I feel I have totally gotten my understanding all figured out, so then it's  like an effortless entertaining diversion.

I think of him like a robot troll, not a real one. Or like a nasty pet we've got to kick around when he appears. I've seen much worse in my time. I find it perversely entertaining at the level he has been participating. It would probably be much more aggravating at a higher participation level.

On a strict moderation level, I don't think his attack was any more personal than mine to him, as I called most of his comments here stupid. (Note I did not call him stupid directly.)

I actually find it much more insidious and aggravating when someone is trying to seriously spin the news according to an agenda or some world view. Rather than just regurgitate talking points like Peter does. I do think some people do that here from time to time.

A few other comments to try to clarify my own participation:

I am here to share developing news with a small group and get the input of a few good minds on analyzing developing news. Interest in the news has been one of my favorite hobbies for decades, predating the internet.  I have near zero interest in political activism and feel that political activists usually have a serious confirmation bias problem addressing the news. But I also feel that when political spinners chose to chime in on a news item, I can learn something from how they react, as in: a little focus group.

It's not as enjoyable reading it alone without input from others, it's just that simple. I learned long ago that trying to do share my interest in news with meatspace friends or family was a recipe for aggravation and stress and that doing it with a small group on the net was instead a mostly pleasurable way to get the interaction I like. I never had any desire to do it under my real name as under a pseudonym, I can keep my interpretations private, and don't have to make excuses or hedge what I say, so I enjoy it more

Likewise with using a much larger site: you end up with too much sturm and drang in the commenting.

Yes it's like a book club. One could also compare it to a senior or graduate seminar. Both groups are designed small for a reason.

I'm probably unusual in that I am not much interested in reading original amateur content in blog punditry on news and politics. Why would I want to do that when there is so much quality available by the pros and prestigious prize winners in journalism and writing that I can only get to a small percentage of that? To me that's like teaching, where you have to grade the student papers and make suggestions and give false praise when you see it would help. People get paid for that because it's not always fun.

I have had the luxury of being able to spend a lot of time on my hobby here the last year but I will not always be able to do that, wherever it is. No one should read anything into me pulling back from time to time except that real life has intervened. Because as one masthead person said to me when I met him in person a year or two ago: all the stuff about member behavior: it just doesn't matter. Most of us aren't even using our real names, and he does.

Nah, leave Peter alone. If they bring him down next they'll  go for me and I'll be left with smoke signals. 

I do sometimes wish some of the really valuable voices weren't  somewhat less  inclined to hone  knives for one another. Still it at least  diverts them from dispassionately ,sort of, assessing the real estate  I comfortably  occupy.And occupy. And

Nevertheless .Attempting to squirm  to the occasion I did toy with resurrecting  Tom Lehrer's  "boy scouts' promised creed not to write naughty words on walls  that they can't  spell ". But elected  the praeteritio treatment cause I don't have the  Latin for the spellin unless Moat or (Peter?) comes  to my assistance.

And lest we forget, there's this:

Well, the bowl is set before you, citizens. Throw in a piece of clay if you agree.

Vote.

I’m not as active here as I used to be. Mostly because of work. But if I can add my two cents, I think Peter is a side issue. I like seeing people engaging trolls from time to time, it demonstrates an unfailing faith in the ultimate humanity and decency of anonymous strangers looking for some/any connection with others on the net, even of that connection is merely a verbal slap in the face. If there were a change here, I would like it to be merely in terms of breadth of interest. I have been fascinated by three or four threads on id politics, but the fifth I’ll skip. Ditto for Trump-is-terrible, or the left-center debate in the dem party. I’ll always read Dickday or PP’s riffs or AA’s cultural raps (always requiring deep dives in threads). But a lot here is rehashed talking points and circle jerks. Even if the content is news commenting, we can broaden the news we comment. That’s all I got. 

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Except the ones that are happening to annoy me that day . Where did Big Brother leave the  "Memory Hole"

when we need it ?