I think the case of the ‘former LibDem’ crosses the line from the former to the latter because of the usage of that specific pseudononymous handle, so in this case in the interests of free speech I am happy with the result, but I’d accept a right-of-reply provided no abuse of intent is involved.

That’s why I think we should do nothing.

With the benefit of hindsight, there is a way this could be / have been dealt with that I think would satisfy both our points.

If the LDV People have evidence that “Former Lib Dem” is a Conservative activist who has never been a LD (say, an IP address or something), they could have just made this clear in the following post.

Thus readers would be warned of the ‘trolling’ (if they couldn’t notice it themselves), yet the poster would have the right to reply.

The problem with the current situation is that the poster cannot argue back. S/he can only write to LDV, who have the final decision and all the power.

Therefore LDV could, in theory, block someone’s comments and accuse them of trolling and we would have no idea whether or not this was true, or whether legitimate points were just being blocked because someone didn’t like them.

Now, I doubt this is happening, as Mark Pack & Co. strike me as nice, liberal people – but as liberals we should know the dangers of assuming those in charge are always acting benevolently.

If the post and the charge against the poster were visible, we could all judge without this speculation.

M’well, how though? Assuming the commenter has a decent grasp of the English language and isn’t as thick as a whale omelette there’s no real way to tell whether they’re a lying troll intent on wasting everyone’s time or not, unless you watch their comment pattern/phraseology/location over a long period of time, which is something only a mod can really do.

The question of whether or not to give credence to something is much more within the grasp of the reader if they know that people who lie in debate are caught out and edited wherever possible. It would actually be unfair on the people who genuinely *do* take the view above to not moderate trolls. We should listen to someone who genuinely holds that viewpoint, and we’ll be less inclined if we know they could be lying.

At this point it becomes a wider question about how to treat trolls, I think. Some people want more protection from this sort of thing and don’t care about swearing, say, others want to be protected from naughty words but couldn’t give a, er, stuff about mischievous Tory activists. My point being a mod is always walking a line; there’s no absolutely correct position for everyone. What do others think?

Because if you’ve voted for us in the past the potential exists to do it again: we never say never, unlike Conservatives and Labour pack hounds.

I must confess that I didn’t see the post, though; so it may have been worse (and / or different) to how I’m imagining.

These zone 6 stations are closer to central London than many zone 5 stations and recent fare increases have been been punitative for commuters and were to be ameliorated by rezoning.

If Boris is simply going to ignore vital commitments like this then I suspect Tory results in 2010 may not be as good as they’d like to think…