47 Comments

• Jennie 26th Oct '13 - 11:03am

  “End the right to anonymity”

  I have no problem with this so long as pseudonimity is respected. Several of the most upsetting commenters I know (not just on this site) quite happily use their real names and are just as obnoxious in real life as they are online. The fetish for “real” names hurts those who are already marginalised – women, LGBT people, etc. – far more than anyone else, and I thought that, as Liberals, we were against that sort of thing?

  See, for example: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F
  http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html

  But requiring registration, so long as you allow pseudonyms? That would be fine by me. As would wielding the banhammer, should someone prove on a regular basis that they don’t get it.

  Naming and shaming I’m more ambivalent about. I think this is ONLY justifiable if one doesn’t do what CiF does, but specifies what particular rule was breached. That way it’s not just a message to the person deleted, but also everyone else who sees it and then knows what is unacceptable.

• matt 26th Oct '13 - 11:34am

  I think it is right to let people write under an pseudonym

  I personally use my “real” first name but I would not be at ease with using my full name.

  I also do not believe it would be right to expect people to “register” before being allowed to comment on these forums.

  I have wrote a very personal article and made comments that are very personal to me on very sensitive issues. I would not have been able to do this if I were forced to reveal my full identity. I would be in effect silenced and I do not think that is fair.

  With regards to comment policy,
  I think if a poster has found their comments to be stuck in “auto moderation” then the thread should at the very least show that a comment is pending. If the comment is rejected it should show that comment was rejected and the reasons why.It would also be helpful once the comment is finally released it was released at the end of the thread then if the comment is a reply to another poster they will not miss the comment in reply.

  It would in my opinion make the threads flow better and easier to follow.

• Jennie 26th Oct '13 - 11:39am

  I should clairfy: I was thinking registration in the same way as one does on (say) a fandom forum, not the full name/rank.serail number/bra size required by Google/Faceache/etc. If only because if someone has an account attached to a persistent name, whether “real” or pseudonymous like your own, Matt, that makes moderation that much easier.

• g 26th Oct '13 - 11:44am

  What intrigues me is that some of my comments are never approved, yet non-premoderated comments making the exact same point are allowed to remain. I don’t abuse people, nor do I use inappropriate language so it does create the perception that, wherever possible, criticism is censored away.

  Also, on the subject of abuse, two of the most aggressive and unpleasant (in terms of online personae) commentators post under their real names and are longstanding, and elected, Lib Dem members who never seem to be discouraged from their verbal bullying of those they disagree with.

  If you wish to generally moderate comments, for consistency’s sake, you need to deal with those on your side in the same way as those who disagree with you, not just the latter.

• Chris 26th Oct '13 - 12:16pm

  My suggestion is that you stop deleting comments which in no way breach your advertised guidelines.

  An example: I posted a comment on the Dunfermline by-election thread saying that it was ridiculous to report the result of a by-election without giving the percentage changes, and asking whether the purpose of LDV was now simply propaganda rather than information. It was deleted. Why?

• John Dunn 26th Oct '13 - 12:29pm

  My initial thoughts on this are the obvious [Up]… [Down], arrows to self moderate by the community that frequent the threads.
  But this inherits other problems. In the same way that some people see ASBO’s as a ‘badge of pride’, so some commenter’s (as can be seen on other blogs), would’ get off’, on seeing 400+ Red down arrows. Equally, the arrows system can (if misused), create a sterile blog, whereby green up’s are promoted and credited, and red downs are banned, (never to be seen or read). So the two options seem to be :
  1. Wild West 2. Sterile and no atmosphere.
  However, I have often perceived the ‘blog structure’, similar to a old fashioned pub, where you could just wander in, off the street, have a beer, and a chat to whoever was there, about whatever was the topic of conversation at the time. The moderation in the (old fashioned) pub environment tended to be ‘moderated’, on three levels.
  1. The landlord or landlady, who ‘kept’ the house to a standard of their liking.
  2. The individual decides that they like or dislike the pub, and either drink up and leave, or stay and buy a second pint.
  3. The ( Vault – Lounge ) structure of older pubs also allowed the publican to micro manage his customers into areas where they would still be welcome, but each room had a tacit understanding of a different set of protocols. The ‘lounge’ had higher standards, and if someone offended, the landlord could ask them to either leave or direct them to the ‘vault’, where their standards would be better suited. By the same token, you as an individual could choose to enter the pub, and go directly into the Vault, but you would do it on the understanding that the language was likely at times to be more ‘ripe’, and more akin to Mad Max than Max Bygraves. (But at least you had a choice!).
  Would it be possible then, to do the red/green arrow thing, whereby a certain number of red arrows would send that comment(er) to a ‘Vault’ area on the blog site, that, (if you chose to!), you would need to click to enter, and thus read the less popular views.?

• Melanie Harvey 26th Oct '13 - 12:42pm

  If someone opens debate or discussion and they or others cannot take all responses good or bad, seems to me they should be the ones who should not be saying anything in the first place. As the saying goes, if you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

• Mark Valladares 26th Oct '13 - 1:16pm

  We’re off to an interesting start, I see…

  @ Jennie and Matt,

  I’m minded to agree on the question of anonymity and the use of pseudonyms. As long as the Editorial Team know who you are, and you use the same pseudonym consistently, it allows readers to build a relationship with you should they choose to do so. And, of course, anyone can give any name, so proving that someone is who they say they are is quite a challenge.

  @ g and Chris,

  There is a question of perception here. You believe that your views are expressed in a manner consistent with the comments policy, yet the person carrying out the moderation sees it differently. Ultimately, the website is run in accordance with the views of the Editorial Team, and they set the rules as to how a view may be expressed. Interestingly, the view itself is seldom a problem, unless it is discriminatory or offensive in some way.

  And, sometimes, a comment can be written in such a way that it doesn’t trip any of our moderation filters yet is offensive. In such circumstances, successful moderation relies on a discourse between readers and moderators, whereby readers tell us, via the e-mail channel signposted, that they perceive there to be a problem. The Editorial Team then look at it and respond as they see fit. It is a method that works most of the time, yet people prefer to raise concerns via comments, leading the thread off-topic very quickly.

  For those in auto-moderation through historic, and persistent, breaches of our comments policy, every comment is moderated, thus likely to be filtered out before publication if it is felt to be another breach.

  @ John Dunn,

  The purpose of an effective moderation policy in to be as inclusive as possible, so as to enable the widest range of views possible. That requires a very delicate balance to be maintained, in that if you lean one way or the other, you risk excluding a whole group of people. We’ve found that leaning towards the ‘Wild West’ format tends to alienate or exclude a lot more people than the alternative.

  The up/down arrow suggestion is an interesting one, but it does allow a vocal group to effectively punish someone who is expressing a difficult or uncomfortable view, thus potentially discrediting it. It is, however, worth a thought, assuming that our software allows it.

  @ Melanie Harvey,

  Your suggestion that those who don’t like your views should ‘stay out of the kitchen’ is made rather more difficult when the people that you’re suggesting it to own the kitchen. They do, however, have the right to determine who comes into their kitchen.

• m 26th Oct '13 - 1:37pm

  Why exactly is the “relationship” with a commenter so important? An anonymous comment must stand or fall on its own merits, anonymous commenters can’t get away with relying on “everyone knowing” they’re an intelligent person and assuming they’ve made a good point backed up with evidence. Every individual comment must be argued and presented or fail to be taken seriously.

  I would say there is a strong argument that anonymous commenting is far superior to pseudonymous or identified commenting. There’s no reputation for the commentator to feel they should protect, accepting others points becomes far easier as there’s no shame in admitting a mistake. There’s no assumptions made about evidence or background, if a real person has a strong link with a company involved in something you often don’t hear about it until much later, but an anonymous commenter must show the evidence for their point in such clarity that even if they were the CEO’s nephew that wouldn’t affect the point they make. Removing the illusion of trust allows us to focus on the real issues and not how trustworthy the person saying something is.

  And as has been pointed out above, people using real names are often the most abusive. I would like to believe this is because they’re online and so separated from the people who see their comment but I’ve met some real life people and I think it’s the people who are the problem not the way they’re identified. A troll by any other name is still a troll, even in person.

• Eddie Sammon 26th Oct '13 - 1:47pm

  I am pretty indifferent about ending the right to anonymity because people can just choose made up names instead and it becomes even harder to manage.

  I think temporary barring is quite a good idea. However there would be a backlash from some viewers if they felt they had been unfairly barred.

  I am a bit indifferent about naming and shaming because it is unclear who is being named and shamed, the moderator for heavy-handed or biased moderating or the commenter for being abusive.

  Overall I think the two main problems are: a liberal and leadership bias towards moderation and heavy-handed moderation. The liberal and leadership bias needs to go and I also think moderation needs to go a bit more laissez faire. Yes I have complained about other people, but that is mainly because if I am moderated then I want others to be too.

  The thing that has annoyed the the most is that I have improved my comments a lot, but Lib Dem Voice has never given an inch in credibility to my complaints, as if I am insane and making it all up in my head. I understand that LDV cannot have a different comments policy for every individual member, but every time I mention bias I am just told (we receive complaints about bias from the left as well).

  Having said all that, I appreciate all the time you spend on the website and for the party!

• Andrew Hickey 26th Oct '13 - 2:07pm

  “For those in auto-moderation through historic, and persistent, breaches of our comments policy, every comment is moderated, thus likely to be filtered out before publication if it is felt to be another breach.”

  Not everyone in auto-moderation has historically and persistently breached the comments policy, though. My comments are auto-moderated, and while I may have breached the comments policy once or twice, I certainly haven’t done so ‘persistently’…

• Andrew Hickey 26th Oct '13 - 2:07pm

  (And then *that* comment *wasn’t* auto-moderated, which is just odd. Most of my comments in recent months have been, though…)

• Eddie Sammon 26th Oct '13 - 2:07pm

  Actually, the vast majority of my comments go through fine and I usually understand why a comment hasn’t been allowed if it hasn’t. So although I still think the moderation is a bit biased and heavy-handed, my main problem seems to be that perfection is expected before I am taken off.

• g 26th Oct '13 - 2:27pm

  “For those in auto-moderation through historic, and persistent, breaches of our comments policy, every comment is moderated, thus likely to be filtered out before publication if it is felt to be another breach.”

  I am in auto-moderation yet, to my perception, I do not persistently breach comments policy. That’s not a really a major concern though, it’s your house, and you get to decide whether guests wear shoes, slippers or have to be manually sanitised before entering. What is a concern is, as I said before, comments, not in apparent breach of your policy, not going through while similar comments from others not on pre-moderation are allowed. It suggests double standards and an unwillingness to tolerate criticism from those other than your own.

• Chris 26th Oct '13 - 2:39pm

  Mark

  It’s perfectly obvious that comments are being deleted when they don’t breach the advertised guidelines.

  On the one hand that’s OK – it’s your website and you can do what you like with the comments. But you shouldn’t pretend that comments aren’t being deleted simply because the moderators don’t like them – or don’t like the commenter.

• Andy Boddington 26th Oct '13 - 2:56pm

  Too often we see aggressive commentary here on Lib Dem Voice. It is nearly always made by men. It sours debates. It rapidly becomes bellicose. People take attitudes to each other and slug it out. Quieter people, reasoned debate and women are squeezed out.

  LDV is at times an aggressive male, bar brawl atmosphere. There are very few people involved in this scrap. Less than twenty I think.

  In this twenty, we have commenters who wait and pounce within minutes of an article being published. Occasionally they say something positive, but that’s not often. They just want to be in first.

  We also have commenters that are disgusted by the Lib Dems, they hate us. But somehow they need us so they also come in first with loathing comments.

  And then there are those that snipe overnight. They sometimes make ten comments on ten blogs within little more than ten minutes.

  But the worst of all are those that attack other commenters. When I remonstrate, the perpetrators plead they are only trying to advance the argument against someone who is falsifying facts. They complain the person they are attacking is the aggressor. This is the attitude of the playground bully that says of his victim: “It’s his fault!”

  In my book, our aim at Lib Dem Voice is to encourage rich and useful debate, with the widest range of participants. That means clamping down on those that are obsessed by themselves, that lust for a fight, drive other people out of the debate, and in the process of doing so have nothing much to say.

• Eddie Sammon 26th Oct '13 - 3:31pm

  Andy, how about LDV meet us in the middle and publish articles that are more honest? That way it wouldn’t put more women off and the people who regularly snipe negative comments would feel that justice has been done. It is not just 20 odd people who get frustrated with the lack of honesty in politics. People can’t just blame all the negativity on the commenters because there is another source of this conflict.

• Eddie Sammon 26th Oct '13 - 3:35pm

  Publishing more honest articles on its own wouldn’t entirely solve the conflict because the dishonesty comes right from the very top and we can’t censor out what they say. I admit people, including me, can be unfair and over critical, but it is not without source. More respect needs to be shown both ways, but we cannot just blame everything on the commenters.

• Brian Cakeface 26th Oct '13 - 4:09pm

  My difficulty when writing in the name of Brian Cakeface is *the other* Brian Cakeface. You might have thought that my name is so unusual that I am the only one, but I learned of confusion quickly. He inconveniently works in a similar field and is of a similar age to me. I have bought lousy products from companies where the other Brian Cakeface works, so *this* Brian Cakeface does not complain about them in his own name. Occasionally, I have written on uncontroversial topics in my own name; I have written thousands of A4 pages in my own name; but I use a handle for forums like this.

  I use a consistent web handle, Charlieman, for my contributions. Anyone with half a brain could look up Charlieman contributions at different places and identify me from them. If you wish to out me from them, it is not a difficult exercise.

  Sometimes Charlieman comments embarrass me. But I would feel worse if I embarrassed *the other* Brian Cakeface.

• tonyhill 26th Oct '13 - 7:05pm

  It’s odd, but I don’t actually recognise most of the problems that are being rehearsed here. Almost all the debate on LibDem Voice seems to me to be coherent and well enough argued to be worth posting, even when the person posting is clearly not a supporter of the party. Andy Boddington says “Too often we see aggressive commentary here on LibDem Voice….” Yes, people disagree with one another, sometimes in robust terms, but I don’t think that calling that ‘bullying’ is really justified. I have had the odd comment moderated, for reasons that were explained and I understand, but I don’t consider that my comments (often critical of the party or Nick Clegg) have been subjected to censorship at any time by the editorial team. All that being the case, I can’t see why people are exercised by the fact that a lot of the people commenting are anonymous either: if people are not being abusive, bullying, aggressive and so on then why does it matter if they are ‘hiding’ their identities? I’m glad that supporters of the Labour Party come on this site to debate with us: there used to be a few Tories as well, and I am sorry that they do not comment any more. Liberals believe in plurathe equivalent Tory lism and our arguments and principles are robust enough for us to be able to debate with those who do not share those beliefs. If you compare the standard of debate on LibDem Voice with the equivalent Tory or Labour blogs you will see that ours is greatly superior: maybe that is down to the work of the moderators, but I would prefer to see it as being a reflection of the fact that nearly everybody who comes on this site and expresses an opinion does so because they are prepared to enter into a civilised debate about their views.

• Richard S 26th Oct '13 - 7:53pm

  I agree with Tony Hill, and note that no links are provided to comments containing these supposed personal attacks. However, some people seem to experience any kind of contradiction as a personal attack.

  I agree that pseudonymous posting is fine – either the comment stands or falls on its own merits.

  The only attitude I have a problem with is the (rarely but occasionally expressed) idea that the comments space is the personal property of the person who wrote the original article and that they have the right to close down or redirect discussion of the topic when it doesn’t go how they want.

• tpfkar 26th Oct '13 - 9:39pm

  Interesting discussion. It made me think why I post under a pseudonym (although not a very secret one – if you’re that bothered, you’ll find me on a 2 minute google – not @tpfkar on twitter) I guess it’s that I feel freer to disagree with the mainstream, and as a councillor know that I’m not likely to have any controversial comments quoted by my opponents if they google my name. I think I’d be blander and more “Isn’t Nick Clegg wonderful?” if I posted under my full name. some days I feel that, others less so! Would I stop posting if we moved to full names only? I hope not, and maybe I’d be more careful in what I say, but I fear I’d get boring.

  Not much I can help with on the moderation front although you are brave to raise it; ultimately this is the editors’ call and if we don’t like it we can go and set up our own discussion board 🙂 Not sure about the like/dislike buttons or the arrows idea; I like to hear challenging views that go against the mainstream and fear we’d marginalise posters who swam against the tide. Even a view I don’t agree with helps me think why I see it differently and how to put my point of view across.

• Melanie Harvey 27th Oct '13 - 12:21am

  Mark Valladere, I agree, however since when was political debate owned by anyone? Having said that, comment moderation and then said comment not being allowed but, others later saying similar anonymously is akin to a form of intellectual property theft or opens that possiblity. It would be awful if others felt they needed to hit print before hitting post comment . My remark respects heat and kitchen was actually covering both sides of debate. Not just soley for those with opening the conversation but also any rebuttal getting rebutted !

• David-1 27th Oct '13 - 3:03am

  It seems to me that commenters are already far from anonymous, since LDV has access to our email addresses (which are required in order to post) and, unless you’re using several layers of anonymisation, proxies, and so forth, pretty much everything anybody at LDVwith access to the mailing list wants to know about us they can find out with very little effort.

• Chris 27th Oct '13 - 6:42am

  Actually, it seems that most of my comments on LDV are being routinely deleted now. As well as the other ones on this thread, add one on the ‘Lib Dems like immigration’ thread and another on the ‘not a single Liberal Democrat voted for extra spending’ thread.

  Perhaps the Readers’ Editor could investigate what is going wrong with the moderation?

• Mark Valladares 27th Oct '13 - 8:42am

  @ m,

  I tend to the view that having a relationship with commentors allows for a far better grasp of nuance and humour, both of which offer potential challenges in terms of moderation, but that’s a personal, rather than corporate, view.

  But I fear that, whilst in theory I can see your point about anonymity, in practice that appears to be less true, especially from non-Liberal Democrats amongst us. That isn’t to say that Liberal Democrats are more virtuous – I’m not that naïve – but the motivation for non-Liberal Democrats is less likely to be positive.

  @ g,

  Have you considered the possibility that, whilst the point might be the same, the manner might be rather more contentious? My experience is that the more consistently difficult commentors seem to find it hard to accept the notion that, for example, challenging the sanity of another commentor, might be considering outwith the boundaries of courtesy.

  @ Eddie Sammon,

  ‘A liberal and leadership bias’ – in terms of content, you’re probably right, as the Editorial Team are committed Liberal Democrats. In terms of moderation, there may be some subconscious bias, but I am not aware that there is any intention amongst the team to reject comments on any grounds other than those stated in the comments policy.

• jedibeeftrix 27th Oct '13 - 9:16am

  Also agree with TonyHill, in particular:

  “Yes, people disagree with one another, sometimes in robust terms, but I don’t think that calling that ‘bullying’ is really justified.”

• Richard S 27th Oct '13 - 12:48pm

  On anonymity, also please consider the hypothetical case where the poster “Chris” is actually Samantha Cameron or Miriam Clegg. Of course she should be entitled to put forward her own views which are probably not 100 percent the same as her husband’s on every single issue – but at the same time not wanting any contradiction to be used directly against the person close to her. What better solution than to post as “Chris” with a photo of Tony Hancock?

• Melanie Harvey 27th Oct '13 - 1:33pm

  Apologies Mark I misspelled your surname,

• Melanie Harvey 27th Oct '13 - 1:40pm

  Is it really more a question of interpretation of comments and not one of intent? One thing many/most people find hard to cope with is truth that does not come with rose tinted glasses as standard.

• Mark Valladares 27th Oct '13 - 4:40pm

  @ Andrew Hickey,

  Interestingly, you’ve never been in auto-moderation. And yet, many of your comments are pulled up because they contain the word weasel, a word which has quite high potentiality as an insult – even when they don’t contain the word weasel at all. I am mystified by this, and have referred it to Ryan, our technical genius, for comment.

  @ g and Chris,

  Might I suggest that those most likely to take a, how might I put it, aggressive approach to other commentors are the least likely to understand why their comments might be pulled up. I’ll take a look at your comment history and see what it shows.

  @ Eddie Sammon,

  By honest, do you mean articles that you agree with, or are you open to the idea that others might have a different viewpoint. For example, on today’s piece about all-women shortlists, a range of opinions will be expressed. They will all be honest, but not necessarily in possession of all of the information. They might be steered by personal experiences or influences, but that doesn’t make them dishonest, merely held beliefs. It is when argued that an idea can gain credence or be discredited.

  It would also be helpful if you were to indicate who represents ‘the top’ from whence the dishonesty comes too. That’s a pretty strong allegation, and not one to be bandied about lightly.

• Eddie Sammon 27th Oct '13 - 6:52pm

  Mark, the dishonesty I refer to is spin. I am not an honesty extremist, but I think the level of spin in politics is at the extreme. I don’t want to blame the level of spin in politics on one person, because it is very much a cultural and natural thing. However because we adopt very much a top-down approach to messaging then the people devising these messages need to do their bit, then perhaps others will stop sniping at them so much. I think it is the duty of our leader Nick Clegg and president Tim Farron to start to tackle this, as well as all elected representatives and in fact members. The snipers need to do our bit too to stop being overly critical or having unrealistic or uneconomical expectations.

• Mark Valladares 27th Oct '13 - 7:27pm

  @ Brian Cakeface,

  I suspect that there’s a very clever point being put across in a curiously obscure way, and one day I may have time to work it out. Until then…

  @ tonyhill and Richard S,

  The problem is that you don’t see the worst of it by a long chalk, as the moderators remove it. And, because we don’t operate a name and shame policy, the worst offenders are, to some extent, protected from more public opprobrium unless they out themselves, so to speak.

  Some are the equivalent of ‘drive-by shootings’ where an individual appears, leaves a fairly rude, often foul-mouthed, tirade and is never seen again. Others are more regular and erratically in breach of the comments policy – they tend to go into auto-moderation as it reduces risk levels. I may cover the statistics one day, as it is an interesting subject.

  @ tpfkar,

  I do think that the use of a pseudonym is legitimate where justification exists, and if in permitting such a position, we serve to increase participation and diversity of views, I see no problem with that.

• Mark Valladares 27th Oct '13 - 8:24pm

  @ g and Chris,

  I’ve had a look at the numbers, and at some of the comments themselves, and they make interesting reading. Would you prefer me to continue this discussion offline? They don’t reflect Chris’s assertion as to ‘strike rate’ in particular.

  @ Melanie Harvey,

  There is truth, and there are potential legal issues. Sometimes, using someone else’s platform to espouse your view of truth puts them at risk, and anyone commenting here needs to be aware of that. In any event, the intention is not to prevent dissemination of views that are not Liberal Democrat, more to act as ‘courtesy police’, if you like.

  I’m not hugely fussy about having my surname correctly spelt (it is unusual), although it is probably a sign of respect that you get someone’s name correct… Apology accepted!

  @ Andrew Hickey,

  We’ve checked, and it’s your use of Iceweasel, a browser I had never heard of, which triggers our moderation software. Ryan has looked into it, and I’m hoping that we might have a fix.

• tonyhill 27th Oct '13 - 9:19pm

  But Mark, if the moderators are already removing comments which quite clearly breach the comments policy of the site then I don’t see what all the anguish is about. Why are we having this discussion about anonymity, naming and shaming and the rest of it if, as I expressed in my comment above, it does not appear to me that there is a major problem with comments? You are, collectively, clearly doing a good job as moderators. There are people who comment who in real life I would cross the street to avoid, but on a blog I have a choice to ignore them, even if they are responding to something I have written in a way I don’t like. It is very rare that you publish comments that seem completely inappropriate for the tone of the site and I would not like to see hypersensitivity blanding out the possibility of robust discussions on LibDem Voice.

• Melanie Harvey 27th Oct '13 - 9:32pm

  Mark, In respects legal issue, as with all forums in either the real world or virtual, the person speaking would have justification in their comment and stand by the reason they made them (whether by experience of an event or misunderstanding in interpretation).Is then the comment/forum being protected or those who were deserving of such comments being made in the first place? Is that akin to the UK legal process in which the accused is offered the benefit of the doubt more so than than the victim?

• Mark Valladares 27th Oct '13 - 11:14pm

  @ tonyhill and jedibeeftrix,

  The charge of bullying one is a difficult one, I admit. However, if some people feel bullied, and there are some of our readers who have expressed concern about the tone of some of the comments that are published, the Editorial Team has a responsibility to respond to that.

  We also receive a number of complaints about moderation from the perspective that we are insufficiently laissez-faire, and as Readers’ Editor, I see my responsibility as enabling a debate on that to establish whether or not the ‘direction of travel’ is the right one. Additionally, as I’ve noted before, moderation takes time and can wear down those having to do it.

  @ Eddie Sammon,

  I fear that spin begats spin, in that once one side start, everyone else feels that they must respond. Turning the other cheek, so to speak, only works if there is a punishment for offenders, and in our current media environment, there is very little evidence that such punishment exists.

  Frankly, I’d prefer a more measured, more informative debate of ideas, rather than the soundbite heavy politics we have. But, until then, top-down, consistency driven messaging will predominate, I’m afraid…

• Chris 28th Oct '13 - 7:42am

  Interesting you mention Comment is Free. I’ve found there’s only one way to get moderated off Comment is Free and it’s to write anything that could in any conceivable way be interpreted to mean that you might possibly think that someone called Bidisha is not Britain’s leading intellectual and the greatest writer of our age. Comment will disappear immediately every time. Apart from that you can pretty well say what you like.

• daft ha'p'orth 28th Oct '13 - 10:36am

  Popular Science provided a bizarre explanation, given that their decision to adopt a no-comments policy in some contexts is perfectly reasonable even if they’d based it entirely on the cost of maintaining comment facilities. However, their remarks regarding the ‘war on expertise’ in which ‘scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television’ and ‘everything is up for grabs again’ are insightful in the context of their publication. As Greg Laden pointed out at the time, comments skew public understanding of science, not the science itself, but even so, Popular Science have a right to draw back from wading hip-deep in the political aspects of science communication.

  It’s more difficult for political blogs to access the ‘war on expertise’ angle. Politics, after all, is at the origin of all this ‘fact is just another thing for people to discuss on television’ attitude. Politicians very often use precisely the same rhetorical tricks accessed by the well-read troll. Ad hominem is commonplace, as is faux outrage, appeal to emotion and all the rest, the reason being that political communication isn’t in general about fact or lasting consensus, but about influencing public views of events and policies. It doesn’t matter to a politician whether the public are in receipt of all the facts, but it is important for the survival of that politician that a sufficiently large proportion of voters (and party colleagues) hold a compatible stance on a sufficient subset of issues to keep that politician’s future viable.

  As unaffiliated to factual discourse as political communication so often is, it can still be committed with honourable intentions. The politician may well view the policy as the right one, for all the right reasons. Even so, relatively few politicians perform roles comparable to Popular Science and its contributors – conduits (in the eyes of the online editor of Popular Science, anyway) communicating expertly-derived scientific certainties to the public. In a society that does not greatly value direct input from the tribally unaffiliated citizen in deliberative democracy, political discourse and trolling seem to me to be too similar for the politician to rightfully claim any moral high ground. But it’s just a point of view.

  As for pseudonyms, I used one initially because of a funder’s stance on social media. It is perhaps not well-understood that govt-funded research funders may transmit directives to recipients of funding about public communication, but I can tell you that at least one of them does, or did. It was made clear over the last few years that I had the option of immediate redundancy and future unemployability in the sector alongside saying what I thought under my own name, or waiting for eventual redundancy and keeping schtum.

  My funder closely monitored and controlled the extent and nature of our use of social media and communication with the press, mandating certain uses and outlawing others, as well as prescribing a certain level and type of activity designed to raise the funder’s profile. I once said something they didn’t like. Fifteen minutes later, they were on the phone to my manager. This story nicely illustrates how PR offices deal with employee uses of social media. In the end, it’s as simple as this: I was involved under a pseudonym, or I did not get involved at all. I didn’t have the preexisting level of success or status in politics, or the energy, to defend my disobedience against the disapproval of the muppets in the PR office. I no longer work with them, but my aggressive ex-funders are still out there. I can’t identify myself without identifying them too. I just don’t feel like kicking that anthill.

• David-1 28th Oct '13 - 1:18pm

  Perhaps instead of demanding that commenters provide identifiable, trackable personal information to the general public, LDV could take the lead in demanding that employer retaliation for online expressions of opinion be made illegal.

• George Kendall 28th Oct '13 - 4:32pm

  I like the idea of having registration, but allowing people to provide an anonymous name to be used publicly. It seems to me that that:
  – would keep people’s right to being publicly anonymous
  – would mean I could be sure that the “John” I was reading previously is the same “John” I am reading today. That would, as far as is possible on the internet, allow a relationship to build between those who regularly comment.
  – might, to a limited extent, discourage bad behaviour. If that would reduce the amount of time the volunteer team have to spend moderating, that would be a good thing.

  I’m not keen on up-arrow down-arrow or on publicly shaming those who are moderated. Both could end up make those on the receiving end upset or angry.

  Overall, I don’t think there’s an easy solution to handling comments, and I agree with TonyHill “You are, collectively, clearly doing a good job as moderators.” However, for the team doing the moderation, it must be a pretty tough job. For them, the status quo may not be so good.

  @Matt I notice you don’t like the idea of registering. In that you had to give your real name to get an article published on the site, why are you uneasy about it, if it would still allow you to be anonymous to the wider web? A genuine question. I really admired your article, and I’d be sorry if a change to the commenting policy meant you felt you couldn’t continue here.

  @Melanie Harvey
  I don’t like no moderation sites. There are thousands of sites where people can discuss issues, with no moderation at all. I hate those sites. They are dominated by people who churn out abusive rants, taking almost no time to read the comments they are responding to. In sites like that, the comments of those who carefully craft their responses, and make an effort to phrase them diplomatically, are lost in a tide of abuse. If LDV were like that (and since the introduction of moderation, discussions in this site can be quite good), I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.

  And a great thread. A good advert for discussion on LDV.

• matt 28th Oct '13 - 6:26pm

  @George Kendall

  “@Matt I notice you don’t like the idea of registering. In that you had to give your real name to get an article published on the site, why are you uneasy about it, if it would still allow you to be anonymous to the wider web? A genuine question. I really admired your article, and I’d be sorry if a change to the commenting policy meant you felt you couldn’t continue here.”

  For me it is a matter of trust George.

  Before writing my article, I had been commentating on LDV for a couple of years now. I have commented on threads on matters that are of a great deal of concern to me . Mental Health, NHS, Welfare, Sexual abuse/Harassment, etc. I was able to engage in these discussions without fear of my identity being revealed. I do not believe I would have been able to do that or even had the courage to do that if I would have had to have registered to speak on these forums.

  Having said that. when I felt compelled to write my own article on LDV, I would never expect LDV to publish an article without verifying the source or the accuracy of the article. So I approached Caron Lindsey first through E-Mail. No offense to anyone else who works for LDV because you all do a great job, however, I felt I could trust Caron more. I told her what I wanted to say and I sent her copies of my medical reports to verify who I am and what I was saying was true. Caron gave me her assurance that she would keep my details and my records confidential and I trusted her enough to go through with it.

  The point I am trying to make though is this…….. I would never have plucked up the courage in the first place to engage with people on LDV if there was no anonymity or if there was a registration process. I would just not trust anybody with my personal information, especially when my posts are normally on matters that are “personal” to me.
  LDV provided me with a “safe” environment where I could have a voice, something that I do not feel I have in the “outside world”
  I will always be grateful to LDV for providing that space.
  I know in the past some of my comments have been very critical of the party and I have rubbed people up the wrong way. I like to think though that I have learnt to take a different more measured approach recently which is hopefully a lot more constructive.

• George Kendall 28th Oct '13 - 11:43pm

  @matt

  Thanks for that, Matt. I can understand what you are saying.

  In that case, unless going for registration would make the moderators lives a lot easier, I think I’d prefer moderation to stay as it is. The open internet is never going to be without unhelpful contributions, but, I think, with the exception of a few threads, LDV does a pretty good job of facilitating meaningful debate.

  That said, I echo what Andy Boddington says about how aggressive posters drive the quieter people out. I’d encourage people to continually reflect on how they can make the same debating points in ways that don’t come over as aggressive. We all make mistake in this area, and so we can all benefit from reflecting and improving how we communicate.

• matt 29th Oct '13 - 10:10am

  @George Kendall

  Thanks for your reply.

  I can truly see the attractiveness for some people in having a registration process for the forum.

  My concern for that is that it would deter a lot of people from contributing towards what is a political forum.
  We do now live in a society where for a lot of people there is a built up feeling of fear, paranoia and vilification, feelings of being ostracized and not having a voice in society .

  I am sure there are many people who like me who have a deep distrust of politicians and the media.

  I understand that it is difficult to strike a balance especially on a “liberal forum” between allowing everyone to have a voice, to be heard and to discuss the matters that arise in these forums and for the LDV team to be able to do their jobs , moderate the more excessive, hostile posters who love to turn these forums into chaos.

  I do not think that there are that many regular visitors/posters on this forum who can be branded as being trolls intent on anarchy.
  I do think though that there are some people who come here who are angry and afraid with what the coalition government is doing and how society is changing, which results in them being, lets say “overly passionate” in their posts which can then come across as being hostile towards the party.

  I think the vast majority of LDV users handle these kind of visitors very well, in that they engage and include them in the discussion, challenge their opinions in a calm and constructive manor that leads on to sensible debate. People like yourself George who in the past I have had the pleasure of engaging with in sensible and constructive debates and opinions.

  There are a couple of LDV members here however that are completely “hostile” towards any “outsider” and who are overly keen to get involved in too an all out scrap.
  These couple of members will pounce on the “outsider” the moment they see a post from the “outsider” regardless of the fact whether the post was critical of the party or not..
  That kind of hostility just fuels the fire and is not helpful at all.
  An argument that we hear time and time again from these posters is that this is a Liberal Democrat forum for Liberal Democrats, our place to talk. Implying that the other person has no right to air his/her views or opinions.

  I got to say more recently I have seen a worsen of this situation where the said “posters” who I will not name, have become hostile and overly aggressive towards members of their own party who they do not agree with, namely people who do not tow the party line and are themselves critical of the leadership.

  If anything, I believe that it is this aggression that is deterring other more moderate members from engaging and contributing on the forums, especially if those people hold/share a similar view to that of the person who is being subjected to this hostility.

• David Allen 29th Oct '13 - 11:56pm

  When my comments get modded, these days the first thing I do is to click the back arrow, look at my posting, and try to work out what tripped the wire. It’s usually something silly, for example using the more direct equivalent of “terminological inexactitude”.

  Now, I grant you that “Clegg is a terminological inexactituder!” is a statement that might deservedly be modded out. However, I find that if I say in a philosophical vein “Politicians ought to learn that terminological inexactituding does not pay”, then that too gets auto-modded out. Which is annoying.

  More than annoying – it means that when my comment eventually gets approved and posted up, it goes in way above the bottom of the chain. So, nobody reads it. It’s easy to see that. When I write a comment that goes straight in at the bottom of the chain, very often several people write back to agree, discuss or disagree. Which is what a commenter wants to see, of course. When I write an auto- modded comment that eventually gets accepted when the human moderator gets to look at it, nobody ever answers my comment.

  So to avoid that, I revise the comment that is “awaiting moderation” and post it again, for example with “mis-statements” in place of “bl*ody l1es”. Usually, the sanitised version then goes straight on to the site. Unfortunately, sometimes the human moderator then comes along and accepts the unsanitised version as well, so I end up having two very similar posts, one after the other. Which is no doubt annoying for the reader! Ah well…

• George Kendall 30th Oct '13 - 2:07am

  @matt
  Good to discuss things with you again. It’s been a while. My job no longer gives me the freedom to discuss politics on LDV in the way I used to.

  I think hostility and aggression can be hard to spot when it comes from your own side. That’s probably true of moderators, and it may also be true of both you and me. It’s easy not to notice when someone you disagree with is being attacked unfairly, it’s a lot easier to notice when it is you, or a friend of yours.

  This will be true of me, and it may be true of you. For that reason, I’m not going to assign the blame to pro-coalition people or to anti-coalition people. Just express regret that some people can be overly aggressive.

  This tendency we all have to bias makes the job of moderators really difficult. They may try to counter that subconscious bias, but I think we should be tolerant of them if we feel they don’t succeed.

  I’m just an ordinary poster in this forum, so when people are aggressive, I don’t have to worry about whether they should be moderated. For me, I generally just refrain from replying. When I don’t reply to someone who is abusive and inconsistent, I trust to the intelligence of other readers. Hopefully, they realise that my silence is not because the other has won the argument, but because continued discussion has become pointless.

  What makes threads get a bit ugly is when people do the opposite. It’s like that old saying: “don’t feed the trolls”. Except in this case it’s “don’t feed a bad-tempered argument”.

  But then, Matt, I suspect you follow the same strategy as I do when someone attacks you.

  As to whether there are people who contribute to this site just to cause trouble. That is certainly less true today than it was before moderation started. I’m pretty sure that back in 2010 there were Labour hacks masquerading as ex-lib dem voters, trying to undermine morale among the Lib Dem membership. Frankly, remembering what Damien McBride got up to, it would be astonishing if that hadn’t happened.

  I suspect these hacks have mostly given up, but there may still be a few. But even if some are still posting, as I’ve said before, it’s totally pointless to accuse anyone of it. And doing so will only damage the image of the party, and alienate neutrals who may think the accusation is unjust – which indeed it may be.

• Alistair 30th Oct '13 - 7:41am

  I don’t want to have future employment opportunities impacted by my political views even though they are centerist. The same goes for many people.