I can’t help thinking that the discussion on here would be a great deal more productive if all commenters abided by these principles.
Before You Speak Think-3 by Shannon
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Actually, this Summer of Strategy could be quite good… (Caron Lindsay)
Accountability and international law (Anne-Marie Simpson)
Good luck Scotland and England (Caron Lindsay)
We need a tax rise to fund additional defence spending (Simon McGrath)
Putting Liberal values into practice in the heart of London (Victor Chamberlain)
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Aidan O'Rourke: Mangersta Beach
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
The Joy of Six 1532
Sighcology: The Snake Pit, Out of True and Nellie Bly
What people get wrong about secondary legislation: interview by James O'Malley
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2026
Richard Whelan 
David Raw 
Tom Reeve 
paul barker 
Neil Hickman 
60 Comments
I’m aware of the irony of responding to this whilst on permanent pre-mod, but it’s important that people are given the right to reply if their person or ideas to which they subscribe are attacked. In which case those principles won’t be appropriate.
Actually, I don’t see why you should not respond in a courteous and respectful manner. These principles should apply to all communication.
I am attacked and vilified all the time, but I don’t feel the need to bully and vilify others in response as we so often see online and is attempted by commenters on this site.
@Caron “I am attacked and vilified all the time, but I don’t feel the need to bully and vilify others in response as we so often see online and is attempted by commenters on this site.”
They shouldn’t dish it out if they can’t take it back.
The thing is, if a commenter erupts in outrage at any criticism of their idea, you just get a horrible escalation of nastiness which does nobody any good.
Also, I wouldn’t wish to demean myself by stooping to the level of the people who behave in that way.
One persons’ nastiness and bullying is another person’s robust debate. We don’t all take comments in the same way.
Unfortunately the principles contain an internal contradiction. Truth requires supporting factual evidence, but inspiration requires new ideas, which being opinions, are not factual. Also if others have stated as facts things which are not facts we will gradually learn the inavoidable facts that nearly all facts are actually opinions, and that many things stated with great certainty are actually untrue. If you believe in anything, believe in the Uncertainty Principle. Sourced from Wikipedai, which is, of course, subject to alteration online. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
If this policy is enforced strictly it will lead to censorship, which inevitably includes subjective judgement.
When it gets to vicious personal attacks and aggressive language, it leaves “robust debate” way behind and won’t be tolerated here.
If people can’t express themselves in a way that doesn’t involve unpleasantness and bullying, then I despair for their grasp of language. It really isn’t that difficult to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner.
Being ‘kind’ may be in conflict with being ‘true’ or being ‘helpful’.
I suggest ‘kind’ is replaced with ‘courteous’ or ‘respectful’.
Sorry to mess up the THINC acronym.
@David Evershed I have no problem with courtesy, but respect has to be earned and is lost when ad hominem is used.
There is also another principle here, consistency.
Seems like a great idea.
Given the amount of grief comments seem to give everyone involved with LDV for the minuscule benefit of a few awkward people, I think it’s time to get rid of them entirely. They are either a miserable experience for anyone reading them or a hell on earth for the moderator.
Hi
Just out of interest looked at Labour List. Wow the level of vilification from and against Corbynistas is something to behold. Think the Blairites and Corbynistas hate each other more than us and the Tories.
@madmacs “Think the Blairites and Corbynistas hate each other more than us and the Tories”
I think you’re choosing the wrong comparator there. Think of the word “Booker” and the vilification that can engender 😉
@madmacs, This site would be as vicious as LabourList if we let it. I certainly won’t allow that to happen, but there is still a problem with a few people dominating the discussion in a way that doesn’t help anyway and actively hinders others from taking part.
I agree with Caron. I am fed up to the back teeth with the replacement of reasoned debate by abuse , personal attacks and vilification. If the same people met face-to-face it just wouldn’t happen, so why should it be tolerated on-line? It is perfectly possible to make a strong case for or against something without stooping into the gutter.
In my view, if contributors to LDV can’t contribute without this kind of intolerant language, then we’re better off without them. I often switch off LDV rather than join in because I’m so annoyed at the comments made – and as Caron says, mostly by the usual suspects.
In a Liberal Party we should respect each other and disagree in a civilized fashion.
I agree with Mick. If there are Lib Dem members who think an unmoderated blog is a better alternative then they should set one up themselves.
If you think that LDV needs to improve, then the best way to do that is submit your own articles. LDV like the Lib Dems is general is what you make it. And I am sure they will often need volunteers to help run it, maybe that could also be you if you put yourself forward.
So, Mick, what do you think that the editorial team should and could do about that?
Should we limit the number of comments per post? Or actually ban people who aren’t prepared to behave in a reasonable manner to others?
It’s something that worries me because although our comments threads are definitely not the cesspits of abuse that most political threads are, they are still far from inclusive.
I find the vast majority of comments here, if not polite, certainly without personal attacks….
Far more prevalent are those, who appear not to be moderated, who distort what has been said to bully and derail argument…In a recent discussion on the Bin Laden killing my comments were translated into a personal attack accusing me of having a ‘total disregard for soldiers’ lives’….I ceased commenting
Expats, when these things happen, please let us know. We don’t have time to go through every comment, but if you make us aware of an attack like that we can do something about it.
When Tory and Labour MPs pause for breath, or to think, or to remember their party’s briefing/s, they often say “and the truth is”, but follows is usually opinion, so that the phrase has becoming a meaningless cliche when coming from them.
In ordinary conversation it might mean that a previous statement was untruthful.
Read On Liberty by Mill
I agree with Richard; also I’ve not seen a true, helpful, inspiring, necessary and kind post yet on this thread. 😉 Truth is often subjective, helpfulness always is, inspiration is in the eye of the beholder and what’s necessary depends on your point of view. I feel like I’m being kind putting it this way, but this is a list of subjective criteria and the subject in question will be the moderator! Which brings us back to the real liberal problem for internet forums, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If Caron’s assertion that discussion would be more productive under her subjective criteria had validity, why are Reddit and 4Chan so very big and powerful? I believe no good will come from imposing limits, censoring or excluding – banning Greaves hasn’t led to a more productive LDV, has it? In my opinion it only serves to make us look like churlish, small- time authoritarians incapable of coping with the realities of political debate.
Caron, can you show us an example of the sort of inclusive discussion that you believe we should be trying to achieve? If you could make LDV more like another forum, which would it be?
@chrisB, Discussions on Jennie’s blog are usually a good example of respect and inclusion. http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org
If people are not allowed to comment on the site, there will be a good reason behind it. I simply will not tolerate any member of my team receiving abusive emails. I think that is a very reasonable position to take. And this site is far from the bear pit that most political sites become precisely because we take action to make sure that it isn’t.
I have reported inappropriate (racist) comments and been impressed by how quick the edirotiral team responded.
I have also, in the heat of the moment, attacked someone else’s views in immoderate terms that were not helpful.
I don’t know if the software would support it, but I would favour an automatic ‘are you sure?’ function to slow things down so that instead of tapping away furiously and then hitting ‘Post Comment’ at the peak of their righeoust indignation the writer of a comment would see the full text of their missive/rant and be deliberately made to wait 5 seconds or so before getting an option to either click to go ahead and post or to amend further before posting.
That wouldn’t stop deliberate bullying, but it would provide an opportunity for the honest-but-misguided poster to consider the effects of their words.
Ultimately – and I have frequented all kinds of odd places on the net, including model railway socieities – the forums that work are where the posters share the culture among themselves and self-police and self-restrain. The forums (fora?) where things break down are where the purported ethos of the site is under permanent attack from the attitude / tone of the posters.
Many businesses limit discussion to the present and the near future and we should do so most of the time.
A past exception was when a businessman became Defence Secretary in a Tory government and started asking “and what have we learned?” which is particularly relevant to combat and can be urgent.
With careers at stake other Ministers were reluctant to do the same. Michael Heseltine later challenged the PM, became DPM and and eventually a peer, but even when he was DPM he was not able to spread this practice widely.
His publications business has included the glossy Management Today. He is a pro-European so we may hear from him during the upcoming referendum.
To answer ChrisB, I would like the comments to be more like either Hansard (interventions) or the letters page of a newspaper.
To do this we would probably have to call them something other than comments. Change the “post comment” button to read “submit a thoughtful constructive response to be considered for publication”.
The challenge is that constructive discussion usually relies on taking the most charitable interpretation of what somebody else has said, and assume they are acting from the best motives, and the standard in political mudslinging is to do the opposite. And many an OP is not so constructive in this sense.
Might there be a semi-technological solution, or help, in the form of adding a widget that allows either thumbs up or down or possibly a better option a “flag this comment” (perhaps with a tick list of reasons for flagging it so people don’t have to explain in detail). Would that help moderators, even “freeing” people they current “pre-moderate” in the knowledge that if they kick off again someone will flag them up.
Hey Caron,
An interesting example – much more caustic language there than you’d ever allow on LDV, very little signs of any censorship at all. I only clicked on a few discussion, but it seems completely different to the policy here. The most important addition it had as far as I could see were the little pictures of Anthony Ainley, can we get them on LDV? 🙂
It’s clear that debate can be as/more heated there as anywhere else, but still there seems to be less active censorship. I think this is true in many situations, you can find nearly unmoderated subreddits that seem to communicate just fine.
@Caron, the comment made by “Expats”, and your response to it, shows that this is not an easy or simple issue. In my article about the killing bin Laden, Expats argued that non-lethal force should have been used to break into a base of suicide bombers, in order to arrest them. I pointed out that this was impractical and would cost the lives of good people, and when he continued to argue this I did indeed say that he was showing “total disregard for soldiers’ lives” – which he was. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I think these are good tips by Caron and we need to make sure the site is as enjoyable as possible. I will think about the Think acronym.
I think I’ve improved, but it wasn’t easy. I don’t want to slide back down to where I was.
Caron, it can get dull.
I would like to see the return of the more liberal approach that used to be applied to LDV. That is, articles broadly being subject to editorial filter only on the basis of defamatory or illegal statements and comments being moderated similarly. I agree it is good to have guidelines but allow people to breach them if they wish, on the basis that rudeness diminishes the strength of an argument … give some people enough rope and they will hang themselves. Of course there are other more extreme reasons to filter or edit, such as someone obsessively sending articles and posting comments or UKIP members posting 100s of comments unrelated to the articles in question, or people posting nonsense comments like just letters of the alphabet and so on. In all cases the website has to protect itself from law suit of criminal & civil proceedings. I have worked in lots of undemocratic countries where there are lots of sugary media rules about being nice and kind, truthful, relevant and helpful to the government, and so on, which end up just providing sweeping censorship powers. Part of the point of democracy is that people express views which are uncomfortable for many. In a democracy, challenging pomposity, conceit, smugness and complacency are just as important as challenging injustice, abuse of power, or mistreatment of people, since one can often be the thin end of the wedge of the other. A Utopian world where everyone’s views are nice and kind (to whom?), always ‘relevant’ (for whom ?), always inspiring (to whose end ?), helpful (to what aims ?), truthful (by whose definition ?), and only expressed when necessary (by what criteria ?), is quite the opposite of a democracy. By applying such criteria, exactly whom is to be protected from what ? [Hint; please be as rude and personal as you like if you disagree with me]
Could you give each user a maximum number of comments per month (100, say)?!
The fact that the moderation policy of this site has become such an issue suggests the LDV team have misjudged things repeatedly. Best move on, there are other sites. Facebook groups have much more vibrant and interesting discussions.
“banning Greaves hasn’t led to a more productive LDV, has it?”
Maybe some of us would like to hear what he has to say and be the judge of it.
I remember a conversation with a foreign student I had many years ago. I was talking about my interest in politics.Well she said in many countries those involved in politics get killed. Sticks and stones may break my bones indeed.
Sticks and stones may break your bones but abuse can drive members off the site.
Manfarang 9th Sep ’15 – 6:43pm You can get emails to your personal inbox about what he says in parliament, or come to conference and sit in the coffee lounge, or listen to the main debates. Try “they work for you” who also accept donations for their costs.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Lester Holloway
I am not one of those who believes that the exercise of freespeech is the right to shout obscenities at others. This seems to be widespread in todays Britain. Liberty not licence.
Richard Underhill
I would love to come to conference , could you see your way through lending me something for the airfare?
Paul Reynolds
I couldn’t agree more. I live in an undemocratic country where those that express dissent publicly are sent away to have their “attitudes adjusted” I don’t expect the same thing on this site.
Chris B – there’s little sign of censorship because I have had a very stringent comment policy for nearly 15 years, and people who cause strife know not to bother even trying.
Sadly I think LDV’s culture of mudslinging and wilful misinterpretation of comments to cause a row is too far embedded for anything other than something like what Joe Otten suggests to make a difference.
I cannot but notice that all apart from K for Kind have a very relative value: Thinking can still lead to abuse, unfortunately. What I deem Helpful can other see as Harmful, I can tell you I know a lot of people who remain cold when faced with something which I find very Inspiring. Necessary is often the result of individual thinking: I think it is necessary for the LibDem to have a coherent and better industrial policy. But I seem to be the only one who finds it necessary.
Of course K is another matter. All of us know what being kind means. But even there is the relative saying ‘cruel to be kind’. So please be K in all shape and forms: Kind, Courteous, Caring, Compassionate. I agree with Paul Raynolds: articles and comments should be broadly subject to editorial filter only on the basis of defamatory or illegal statements.
I would also be interested in seeing maximum posting limits. I came on here the other day and the righthand sidebar where latest posts are shown was full of posts from one individual who was ‘broadcasting’ comments across 5+ articles simultaneously.
I say this as someone who has had a tendency to this sort of behaviour in the past.
I would say that Jennie Rigg’s blog is very interesting but reason why I don’t post ocmments there is that it has the tone of a conversation betwen friends which it feels it would be rude to intrude into. LDV needs to find a way to build a mutually respecting commmunnty in a pulic forum which is easy for all kinds of folk to enter into. That is more difficult.
It should be said, that it would have been extremely unlikely that a LibDem forum for perspectives from all-comers wouldn’t have had a contentious discussion over moderaitonn and mutual respect over the last 3 years.
With the crashing experience all LibDem sympathisers must have had, feelings are naturally running very high – and, whilst it should not be inevitable that people would lash out and be abusive, it should not have been an unforeseen consequence under the circumstances.
But for those of us who are not in the inner circle and use LDV in part to find out what is going on in LibDemmery, it is very important that as a ‘shop window’ the tone is right. Passionate is fine. Difference of opinion is fine. Unproductive and blind scorn and scolding (which is too much the tone of the entire internet) is not.
But culture is contagious, and its too easy for all of us to catch it and join in without realising it. I’ve tried to be respectful, but too often I’ve looked back at what I’ve posted and thought it was ruder than I had intended.
@ Caron Lindsay: utterly futile, I know, but 3 comments:
1) Respect has to be earned. Once earned, it can be lost. There are some senior members of our party for who I have no respect at all. I refuse to play the hypocrite on a public forum and pretend that I respect people.
2) You still appear to be committed to the theory that we can all be nice to one another and still have a healthy and constructive debate. This party spent 5 years trying, and almost succeeding in ‘nicing’ itself into oblivion. There are times when the right thing for Liberals to do is not to be nice.
3) Anonymous postings contribute to your problems and I am amazed that you can’t see it.
Matt (Bristol): “reason why I don’t post ocmments there is that it has the tone of a conversation betwen friends which it feels it would be rude to intrude into.”
I genuinely think that if more people took this attitude on websites, the internet would be a much nicer place.
The wonderful thing about my friends, though, is that they are mostly welcoming of interesting contributions to conversation. So, you know, don’t feel too intimidated if you have something to say.
I am a moderator on another forum (not political) and I really wish those principles applied there!! One thing tho there is no internal contradiction. Inspiration is not about new ideas….its about inspiring people to be their best.
Feel really lectured down to. Are you becoming a Maggie Thatcher??
So piseed off is not acceptable?? I lived in the USA for over 20 years. We used it there alot. Who are the new thought police in LDV??
A request. The comments policy notes that, “Our system restricts comments to 2500 characters in length.” Fair enough, but it doesn’t keep score as you write and if you go over it says something like, “Too long, please go back and amend your comment.” except that you can’t. It’s lost and that is really, really annoying.
Please fix.
Out of interest (as a non-member) is the behaviour in the private members threads very different?
The term “labour/tory troll” is thrown around occasionally here, but do non-members really lower the tone?
Gordon, that’s a good point.
It would help with the ‘re-thinking the politeness of one’s post’ process if there was an Edit function, for say five minutes after hitting ‘Post Comment’. That gives one time to cast a quick eye, take a breather, and re-word more politely. I’ve done that many times on other Fora.
What Gordon and Phyllis said, which is related to my earlier similar point. Since an edit/review function is something frequently requested, are we to assume that either the technology does not support this, or wwe might have to crowd-fund it?
Really sad to see anyone trying to defend a lack of respect, but encouraged by some of the ‘mea culpa’ comments above 🙂 I hope we are all basically decent people who regret going off on one, even if we are guilty of it from time to time.
Ideas that I think would help – probably already suggested by others above but I don’t have time to read ALL the comments in detail:
1. Don’t allow anonymous comments or pseudonyms. If people want to comment they should be identifiable.
2. Limit number of responses by each contributor on each thread
3. Matt’s idea of an “are you sure you want to say that?”
My personal philosophy is to respond to posts in the same tone that they are made – if people dish it out they should be prepared to receive it back. In some cases I’ve responded word for word the same as the original comment, but with the sense reversed, and found my comment censored but the original comment allowed to stand. Go figure.
“but reason why I don’t post ocmments there is that it has the tone of a conversation betwen friends which it feels it would be rude to intrude into. “ Matt (Bristol)
I think this is a natural human reaction, I’ve seen it at parent and toddler groups and also see it between parents at the clubs my children attend. People (yes both mothers and fathers in the above cases) naturally tend to hold back or feel excluded… The art with physical groups is identifying the ‘outsiders’ and bringing them in, with online forums you don’t know if people are watching (although the webstat’s available to the LDV editors will given them an idea of how many people are regular visitors) so it is much harder to bring them in and attempts to elect a response may seem more like advertising/selling than being sociable.
“Out of interest (as a non-member) is the behaviour in the private members threads very different?” Peter Watson
I don’t know about the LD private forum, by from my long-term usage of CIX I can say that membership based forums do tend to have more chit-chat between members, but that viewpoints are still robustly expressed and defended.
TCO – I empathise with your rage, but there’s that old saying about what might leave the world blind…
@Matt (Bristol) I had to google that quote; I wasn’t sure what activity you were referring to 😉