The Transcript of Our Little Battle with USA today


Body:    The "jury" is still out on this one...will post the outcome tomorrow.
We could use your help read the blog or bulletin from yesterday:
Thanks

------------------------------------


(First Message from USA Today)

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Cooper, Patrick .. wrote:


Bob Barr 2008,
I work in the USA TODAY newsroom connecting readers and reporting, and I'm writing to let you know about an issue with your account on our site. Our moderators have suspended your account after determining your comments do not meet the community guidelines.

The site welcomes a broad array of perspectives in the community's conversations, and these differing opinions are what lead to strong and engaging discussions. But we require original contributions that are respectful of an ongoing news conversation. Your comments repeatedly violate the site guidelines against advertising and spam. Other readers correctly report these comments as abusive, and the moderators feel it is necessary to intervene. Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Patrick
--------------------------------------
(Our first Response to USA Today)

Subject: Re: Issue with USA TODAY account



As you were. Each comment that has been made under this identity has been relevant to each article that the comment was posted. Apparently either you have not read the substance of comments, or this is an act of censure regarding informing the public that there is a viable third party candidate. I have re-reviewed your terms of service. Unless USA Today, consider's the Presidential bid by Bob Barr a commercial enterprise, I cannot see how this can be interpreted as "spam" even with a url posted with the article comments to further direct those that are interested to obtain more info on a candidate that will be on 49 states' ballots. Not any of the content posted can be construed as malicious, abusive, or otherwise contradictory to the stated objectivity of opposing or different views by USA Today.


I request specific clarification of the alleged violations, and a point of contact for your legal department so that information can be forwarded to the Official Campaign Staff for further consideration.


Thank You,
--------------------------------------
(USA Today's Response Received Tuesday Morn):

Thanks very much for your e-mail. As I noted in my initial message, neither the content of your comments nor the contents of your link were issues in the account suspension. Where the account ran into the community terms of service was the repeated posting of the link.


We ask our members to contribute original content each time they post. The repeated posting of any type of material -- politically related or not, promotional or not -- runs into the guidelines and draws quick complaints from other readers (of all perspectives). Even when this repetition is alongside other content, the moderation team has to act. It has to handle this guideline evenly across our online community, from big-time dating site spammers on down.


If you could continue posting without the repeated link promotion, I can certainly look into the moderation process for you and see about reactivation. There were no other troubles with the account. Suspensions on the site are indefinite, but that policy allows our moderators to reactivate accounts whenever appropriate. They're often happy to do so if they can be assured of no further issues. I hope this information is helpful to you.


Regards,
Patrick
--------------------------------------
(Our Final Response to USA Today)

Thank You for your response.


Just to make sure I understand correctly. USA Today requests the deletion of a pasted url that would direct interested citizens and voters on where to go for more information on their balloted choices. Ironically, enough almost 10,000 of your readers have viewed the video link in question. In addition USA Today asks all who contribute to contribute original content, so as not to be repititious or repeat a belabored thought, political ideology, conspiracy theory, etc.


That is quite interesting, given the often contentious and oft repetitive content that is posted by other readers who "contribute" to your contents (to include pasted url's). Your statement of USA Today policy has been noted and will be complied with. However, I trust that your "moderators" will utilize a more even "handed" approach to such. Quite frankly, it seems from this end that the actions encountered seem to be the result of the effectiveness of the contributions made (as opposed to judicial enforcement of stated policy). This campaign has have to overcome hurdles of exclusivity exercised by the two mainline parties in regards to exposure to the public via media outlets (including yours). Thus we have had to resort to unconventional methods to inform the public about another choice they will have on the ballot on Election Day. I am sorry Mr. Cooper, but this really seems to be another constraint upon providing the citizen, the voter, and most importantly your readers information about their lawful choices. Perhaps naive, but I would have thought that some exception would have been made for a candidate, who perhaps does not have the mega budgets of the Republican or Democratic Candidates, nor the "lions share" of media exposure.


I do appreciate your identification of USA Today's policies and where it stands in regards to making sure that the reader is informed of all its choices.


Links in question were:

http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU

http://www. bobbarr2008. com

It is my thought that despite the "repetitive" nature (less than 30 posts over a 7 day period) would be contradictory to USA Today's openly stated mission of providing its readers to most and best information available.



Thank You,
Jesse Runions
http://www. myspace. com/bobbarrforpresident