Some reminders about commenting on Liberal Democrat Voice

One of the joys of a site like this is the lively, good-natured and well-informed discussion that can be found under perhaps not quite all of the posts.

A vital part of this is the respect that is shown for our comments policy which can be summarised as: be polite, be on-topic, and be who you say you are. We have this policy because we have to take some responsibility for what appears on the site, and because this is our place to talk, not our place to indulge the most abusive people on the internet. (They have many more sites than we do.) If you disagree with the comments policy, you can comment on a post like this one, but it would off-topic on the rest.

Some comments are held up for various reasons by software magic because they might be in breach of the policy. If this happens to you just wait for your comment to be approved or rejected. Please don’t complain about the software, it isn’t very bright and it doesn’t really care.

We can’t promise to apply the policy entirely consistently because we are a disparate team of volunteers, because we don’t pre-moderate every comment, and because there are some fine judgements. Do contact us if you see a comment that should not be allowed.

Some guidance:

Politeness

I think that is a rather hysterical view, N.

No good. It has no intellectual content. Why do you think it is hysterical?

N in denial. Great to see.

Nope. You might think somebody is in denial, and if you gave some reasons, it would be different. But this is pure, empty, ad hom.

Well, to even things up, that’s the one thing by N that I’ve read recently which doesn’t come across as a shabby political manoeuvre.

You’re not really evening things up, there, are you? Hint: if you agree with something it is better to say so without the insult.

Being on-topic

I would like to respond to you with examples. But unfortunately my response keeps getting deleted.

The examples are not the reason for deletion.

Pity my comments on X are not published – pity the Libdems seem so one sided

You know you shouldn’t generalise from us to all Lib Dems. It’s not like we’re a race or a religion or something. And you do know this is an independent website.

Don’t let a thread degenerate into a conversation between two or three people. Avoid repeating yourself, and if you are trying to examine a position with questions, give your opinion too, sooner rather than later. (After all every non-trivial position can be nitpicked, so nitpicking alone is just noise.)

Well, it would still be interesting if N could explain what …

This comment was approved, but another problem with questions is that the person you are addressing may never visit the thread again. Better to state your own views in contrast with theirs, so that your comment can stand alone.

Being who you say you are

We do allow pseudonyms, and, yes, A Lib Dem Candidate has wasted the cost of a deed poll.

However, we don’t allow people to use multiple names (astroturfing), and if we find this happening, posts will be rejected. We will email you to advise you of this, in case it was an innocent mistake, which brings me to the next point.

We do need a genuine email address. If you are posting with a fake email then all your comments are liable to be deleted, as a matter of policy. Which is a shame because some of them are quite good. We haven’t always applied this consistently, but that is an error on our part.

So, if your email address is, for example, [email protected], or [email protected], or even [email protected], I’m sorry to say that these appear to be bouncing. We promise to try not to publish any more of your comments until you supply a working email.

If a comment is rejected, you are likely to receive an email explaining the reasons, on the first occasion at least.

Thanking you all for your understanding. We wouldn’t want it to be like this:

From xkcd

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Site news.
Advert

50 Comments

  • When someone delivered a one liner to Nick Clegg that no one is listening any more, I responded that the comment was boring UKIP line that was unconstructive.

    My repost disappeared. Why? It was certainly no ruder than the original comment. If people really want to know what “no one is listening” is really like they might try going back to opposition with a reduced number of MPs. People only claim no one is listening when the opposite is true.

    Does this article herald a new get tough policy? If so it needs to be studiously impartial within the party.

  • Eddie Sammon 28th Jul '14 - 9:57am

    I think most of the time the moderation is fine, but there is still a bit of a problem with the following attitude:

    “You can express an unfair comment or twist somebody’s words politely, but you cannot make a fair comment angrily”.

    This gives the upper hand to the people making unfair comments, unfounded allegations and twisting people’s words. We should never lower ourselves to Twitter standard where it is full of people making threats and giving sexist abuse, but likewise we shouldn’t go so far that people aren’t allowed to express their true non-violent thoughts.

  • Another comment that did not get through was when I agreed with another contributor about Renard’s continuing saga. In particular about being investigated by the English Regional Party Committee about “Media and social media comments made by you”. Was my comment not allowed because I suggested that on that basis LDV might be the object of investigation?

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 28th Jul '14 - 10:17am

    Martin and Jedi, we are not going to go into specifics here, nor are we going to enter into email correspondence on every infringement. We simply do not have the time to do that. I can see why your comments were deleted, though.

    If criticism of the party could instigate disciplinary proceedings, I think LDV would have had the key thrown away long before now – for substantive articles and not just comments. There are limits, though.

  • This sounds good to me, especially if we can stop comment threads turning into private conversations between 2 or 3 people.

  • Jenny Barnes 28th Jul '14 - 11:25am

    I used to moderate a site, and keeping comments on topic and sensible can be a thankless task. So – to even things up – thank you to the moderating team . Conversations here are (usually) a pleasure, even when we don’t agree.

  • This website is primarily for lib dem voters and members. It’s bound to attract oddballs – what do you expect.

  • You aren’t the world’s worst bunch of moderators. Within limits you try to be fair. However:

    ” Well, to even things up, that’s the one thing by N that I’ve read recently which doesn’t come across as a shabby political manoeuvre.

    You’re not really evening things up, there, are you? Hint: if you agree with something it is better to say so without the insult.”

    I think you’re completely missing the poster’s point on this one. The poster (who sounds a bit like me) is an avowed enemy of N, and would certainly not like to give the impression that he has suddenly gone all mellow and undergone a Damascene conversion. However, the poster has, to his surprise, read something by N which he does like, and for whatever reason, he decides he would like to say so. Perhaps he would (in his dreams!) like N to read LDV, to learn that he has done something more popular for a change, and to learn to modify his behaviour…!

    Now the poster can only make those points properly, they way he would like to make them, by using the style which you quote. If he takes all the negative stuff about N out of his comment, then his comment becomes worthless.

    Just because you would like people not to say negative things about N is not a good reason to prevent them appearing!

  • I am pleased to see the issue of pseudonyms being addressed.

    For some people there are very good reasons for not displaying one’s full name on an internet blog yet there are some LibDem members that seem to think those of us using pseudonyms are doing so in order to hide our political leanings & should have to declare our intent prior to posting.

  • Eddie Sammon 28th Jul '14 - 2:13pm

    Just seen the guidance of not letting a thread degenerate between two or three people. I’ll try to abide by this, I just think it will change the very nature of LDV and damage its community atmosphere. Even non-regular posters sometimes want to get into a discussion on here.

    It will no longer be a place for discussion, and simply to post comments. Maybe that is the future, but I don’t think it is a minor change.

  • Richard Dean 28th Jul '14 - 2:32pm

    Politics is about emotion as well as rationality, and the idea of respect should not in my view be used to suppress the freedom to express valid and real politically-relevant and topic-related emotions.

  • Eddie, my old sparring partner, they’ve been going down THAT road for several years, ever since they disabled the ability to subscribe to a thread. If it’s any comfort it makes me as sad as it makes you.

  • “David, what’s wrong with saying ‘I rarely agree with N, but on this occasion I do’.”

    What’s wrong with letting people choose their own words, rather than have a moderator telling them what to say?

    The point is that if you are going to delete comments on the ground that they are “impolite” because they contain criticism of your favoured politicians, then there is going to be no free debate here at all.

    And, for that matter, I don’t believe for a moment that that particular comment would have been deleted if it had referred to Nigel Farage, for example.

  • Green Voter 28th Jul '14 - 5:10pm

    I am a bit concerned about this new rule “so nitpicking alone is just noise”.

    One commenter who uses the name Chris tends to provide interesting criticism and I would hate for his contributions to be ruled out of bounds by the rule

  • Richard Dean 28th Jul '14 - 5:16pm

    @Joe Otten
    Not every emotion is an angry one. There is love, for example, though perhaps not relevant here. There is approval – simple support without saying why – and disapproval – again there is no reason to require people to explain why: the information that support or resistance exists is valuable and relevant.

  • “One commenter who uses the name Chris tends to provide interesting criticism and I would hate for his contributions to be ruled out of bounds by the rule”

    It’s funny you should say that, Green.

    Then again, “criticism” is evidently a dirty word around here these days …

  • “There is approval – simple support without saying why – and disapproval – again there is no reason to require people to explain why: the information that support or resistance exists is valuable and relevant.”

    I’m sure no difficulties will be made when people express their support and approval without explaining why!

  • Eddie Sammon 28th Jul '14 - 6:38pm

    Thanks Jennie :).

    Hi Joe, I don’t think it should be anything goes and sometimes I lose proportion with a comment and think it was probably right that it was moderated out.

    However, I don’t think people should be polite at all times. I understand the defusing argument, but I think it is best to react firmly and then politely, because then you get to express and then defuse.

    I feel that I get angry a bit more often than other posters and I am always trying to learn how not to be, so I’m not trying to pretend to be some kind of expert.

  • David Allen 28th Jul '14 - 7:46pm

    Joe Otten,

    What Chris said.

    You also commented:

    “There’s also the question of whether other things N has said or done on other occasions are on topic or not.”

    OK, let’s look at that point. This post (above) which you rejected as being off-topic said: ” that’s the one thing by N that I’ve read recently which doesn’t come across as a shabby political manoeuvre.”

    So, no great long ramble on an unrelated theme, then. Just a one-line comparison between the topic and N’s general behaviour in other fields. “Aha!” you have said to yourself. “Got him! Off Topic! Censor that anti-N comment immediately!”

    Fortunately, other moderators are less Machiavellian. I think.

  • Green Voter 28th Jul '14 - 7:49pm

    Thanks for the clarification, Joe.
    Can I take it, then, that this sentence from the article “Don’t let a thread degenerate into a conversation between two or three people” is not a new rule, either, merely a suggestion?
    There are good reasons for not being required to respond to all who take part in a discussion thread

  • David Allen 28th Jul '14 - 7:53pm

    Joe Otten,

    “There are fora for the expression of unfocussed rage – demonstrations, Comment is Free, etc.”

    So there we have it. LDV has higher standards than the Guardian. Those higher standards are: If the poster expresses anger, the moderator shall judge whether or not that anger has been properly focussed. If the moderator thinks that the anger has been expressed in an unclear fashion, or has been directed against the “wrong” target – Well hey, what more excuse do we need for binning the posting?

    Censorship, not us guv!

  • By the way Joe – you accuse me of “twisting”.

    We’ll have to agree to differ on the justice of that accusation – just as we’ll have to differ on whether N indulges in shabby political manoeuvring.

    But your accusation against me is unquestionably impolite. Surely moderators are not meant to be above the rules they apply to other people?

  • Stephen Hesketh 28th Jul '14 - 9:19pm

    Absolutely gutted not to have made the short list – but promise not to try harder 🙂

    My personal view on this topic appear to be closest to those of Richard Dean and Eddie Sammon … over the years Richard and I have ‘enjoyed’ exchanges reaching moderate+ on the emotion scale!

    At the other end of my approval scale are those who object to threads being dominated by just a couple of people – why? If two people have particularly strong views or experiences, why shouldn’t they. If people object they are free to join a different thread, write an Op-Ed or go out canvassing or delivering or, dare I say it, even turn to tweeting if really at a loose end.

    I think that certain people complaining about many of us calling for Nick Clegg’s resignation in the days following the local and Euro elections ultimately amounted to little more than, “I don’t like all this, I’m going to get it stopped.”

    I believe this changed the very flavour of the site. Although I obviously don’t have any data, I also feel the flow of posts has reduced over recent days and weeks. Maybe a blip, maybe something more lasting? Maybe I’m just wrong.

    Not surprisingly I personally have had many posts zapped. Sometimes the decisions have seemed a little ‘PC’ and other times I have been left simply scratching my head as to why.

    One such comment at the end of a post was “Cue Pauls X and Y” which was deemed an ad hominem attack. Really?

    In relation to this I commented to Joe only the other day something along the lines of, “Meanwhile, others are permitted to refer to ‘the usual suspects’ – which although not mentioning names is, to my mind, actually more personally and politically dismissive than my jokey aside.”

    The team must all know some pathetically inoffensive people if what we post here is considered unacceptable communication between consenting adults.

    I also fear that if dissent is blocked, we run the risk of those with heartfelt opinions having no outlet for these and them ending up switching to the Greens etc or simply walking away from participative politics altogether. What one person may regard as being off topic may easily be regarded by another as being just another facet of the same problem.

    Perhaps I may be permitted to offer some thoughts regarding small-scale changes?

    1) Instead of, or as well as, the Liberty Bird, I would like to see a ‘status’ indication: Lib Dem member; Lib Dem voter: Green; Labour; Conservative; UKIP; SNP; Plaid Cymru; Independent etc. This could be completed at the time of registering/reregistering to use the site.

    2) I believe at present the posting rules can be just the wrong side of nanny-ish (sorry). Providing posters are “who they say they are, their posts on topic and not illegal, offensive etc”, I believe posters on a Liberal Democratic website should have a little more leeway in what can be written – not so we can go further in our comments but so that we don’t have this constant issue of trips into moderation or threats of automatic moderation, suspension etc. The clue should be in the name as they say.

    3) I should also like us to have the option to use both our own name and a pseudonym. I obviously post using my real name and most of the time I am completely happy to do so – my starting point being that if you can’t put your name to it, you shouldn’t be saying it! There have been times and topics however when I would be more comfortable having the option of using something less personally identifiable. After all, this appears to be available to Newsmoggie, The Voice etc. The proviso should be only one name per thread!

    4) An upgrade to incorporate a preview or a 5 minute(?) review button enabling us to preview or quickly amend posts. I’m sure we have all fallen foul of primary school level spelling and grammar mistakes – not to mention omitting a key word or whole sentence.

    Finally, I should like to thank the entire team for their efforts. I’m sure we all know it is a thankless task! Thank you also for this opportunity to be able to provide some hopefully positive feedback.

    Kind regards
    Stephen

  • Stephen Hesketh 28th Jul '14 - 9:20pm

    Yes! I’m in the M-place!

  • Little Jackie Paper 29th Jul '14 - 12:20am

    Stephen Hesketh – Status indicators: In my 19 voting years I have at various times, in various places voted for candidates put forward by all 3 of the current main political parties and one independent. I have no idea who I’ll be voting for in 2015. I just think that one has to accept that on an open political board (as distinct from a members-only forum) there will be partisan politicking and one has to trust the readers to take it as what it is. And in include the articles in that too to some extent. That, of course, is not to say that there is no place for a robust discussion and divergent value judgments – that is after all the stuff of politics. This isn’t some online university seminar, however much some might want it to be.

    I do however like the general idea of, ‘dumbing up.’ But I don’t think that is necessarily exclusive to a strongly expressed opinion. Again, I’d like to think that I and others know a good argument, well put when I see one. Trust the readers!

  • LJP: I’m with Stephen Hesketh about status indicators. I think they would help if available for voluntary use. Someone like you could opt to leave the field blank, that would have to be fine too.

    I would suggest giving each poster an allocation of up to six words for their descriptor (just like a ballot paper). Mine would be “Anti Coalition Lib Dem”, and I don’t think I would be able to represent myself effectively if i had to pick froma drop-down list, as Stephen seems to be suggesting.

    Why would that be useful? Well, on the one hand there are (for example) a few Labourites who try to pose as independent commentators, thereby seeking to get their comments taken more seriously. That’s annoying. There are also a lot of occasions when hordes of peopel from all shades of opinion pile in to criticise Clegg’s latest asinine piece of behaviour, and the loyalists wrongly just dismiss them all as Labour trolls. That’s also annoying. Status indicators woud help them say things like “2010 Lib Dem, now unsure”, or whatever. This site would then give us all a clearer picture of what the state of opinion is on a contentious issue.

  • LJP: I’m with Stephen Hesketh about status indicators. I think they would help if available for voluntary use. Someone like you could opt to leave the field blank, that would have to be fine too.

    I would suggest giving each poster an allocation of up to six words for their descriptor (just like a ballot paper). Mine would be “Anti Coalition Lib Dem”, and I don’t think I would be able to represent myself effectively if I had to pick froma drop-down list, as Stephen seems to be suggesting.

    Why would that be useful? Well, on the one hand there are (for example) a few Labour people who try to pose as independent commentators, thereby seeking to get their comments taken more seriously. That’s annoying. There are also a lot of occasions when hordes of people from all shades of opinion pile in to criticise Clegg’s latest piece of behaviour, and the loyalists wrongly just dismiss them all as Labour supporters. That’s also annoying. Status indicators woud help them say things like “2010 Lib Dem, now unsure”, or whatever. This site would then give us all a clearer picture of what the state of opinion is on a contentious issue.

  • Mark Valladares Mark Valladares 29th Jul '14 - 1:55am

    An interesting debate, as these types of philosophical debates often are.

    As someone who has been part of the LDV team in the past, then the ill-fated Readers’ Editor, and now in retirement, I’ve watched the moderation policy evolve over time from a much more relaxed approach to a more inclusive one.

    There is little doubt that a laissez-faire approach is easier to manage, and allows debate to flow. However, the rather harder edged dialogue that ensues appears, based on the evidence of reader polls, to effectively exclude those who seek a less confrontational exchange of ideas, creating a mirror of the worst excesses of modern political debate. It does seem that, for some reason, winning the argument is sometimes more important that persuading people to your viewpoint (they aren’t necessarily the same thing).

    I suppose that the key factor in determining the comments policy is finding a happy medium whereby those who manage the site continue to get some satisfaction out of doing so. If they find that they aren’t enjoying it any more, they’ll stop, and for those who seem to think that attacking the team is a good strategy, it may not seem so clever if the team is whittled down to the extent that there are insufficient people involved to publish material and administer the site.

    And no moderation policy will ever satisfy everybody. The more libertarian amongst us dislike what they see as a nanny state, whilst loyalists question why outsiders are given a platform to criticise the Party at all. I might therefore suggest that, if nobody is entirely happy, the policy is just about right.

  • Lib Dem Candidate 29th Jul '14 - 8:31am

    I will take Caron’s comment about “deed poll” in the good-humoured spirit that it is intended, and I know that among the few people who are very into these things, some people will have worked out who I am, and I normally find secret identities quite risible, but – in this instance, for work reasons outside politics, I didn’t want to be seen to be commenting on a blog at present under my real name.

  • Bill le Breton 29th Jul '14 - 10:13am

    How to win an argument (in an on-line community) – Tips from a master 😉 http://hopisen.com/?p=6361

  • oops thought I’d entered a working email address (this is an entirely fair demand)

  • “Chris, you’ve said the policy is something other than what it is, in order to have a point to make. Happy to use a politer word than “twisting” for this. Happier still if you would stop doing it.”

    As I said, we’ll have to agree differ on the justice of your accusation. (I don’t accept it for a moment.)

    But the point is that – as you admit above – regardless of whether it was justified, it was not a polite thing to say. Can you not see the problem here? The rules don’t say “Don’t be impolite unless you feel it’s justified”. They say “Don’t be impolite”. So you shouldn’t have posted anything impolite.

    Rather than coming back with an instant reply here this time, why not take some time to think about this, and perhaps discuss it with your colleagues?

  • SIMON BANKS 29th Jul '14 - 5:19pm

    Seems fine to me and the examples are helpful. I am sometimes curious when my comments are held back for moderation and I can’t see anything that might have triggered the software’s warning system – for example an innocent use of a word like “corrupt” or “laughable” – but I’ll have to remain curious.

  • Richard Dean 29th Jul '14 - 6:50pm

    May I suggest that advice along the following lines also be provided, though not in terms of rules:

    > Keep contributions short if possible. Many readers (though not all) are turned off by long essays, and if a long contribution is needed in order to make many points, why not instead submit it as an article to LDV?

    > Keep paragraphs short. Some readers (though not all) may find it difficult for their eyes to keep track of where the next line is if there are more than about 5 lines in a paragraph.

    > Avoid copying long bits from other websites, such as from Wikipedia. Provide the link instead, so that readers can see where the information came from and decide whether to read it in more detail

    > Avoid Last-Wordism. Readers can read all the comments, not just the last one, so the last person to comment is not necessarily interpreted as having the last word on the subject.

    > It is not necessary to repeat a previous comment in order to comment on it.

  • Stephen Hesketh 29th Jul '14 - 7:13pm

    @Richard Dean 29th Jul ’14 – 6:50pm.

    Point taken dear 😉

  • Mark Valladares Mark Valladares 29th Jul '14 - 8:28pm

    @ Stephen Hesketh.

    No, I think that ‘inclusive’ is about right, in that there was plenty of evidence that the original policy caused a number of people to opt out from the debate. By attempting to excise some of the more aggressive comments, those who want to take part in a genuine debate are likely to feel encouraged to do so. At least, that is what members have said when polled.

    I think that, in the main, moderation is handled pretty well on LDV. Yes, there are incidences when I might think that a particular rejection is somewhat marginal at best, and others where I wonder if the moderator really grasped the impact of was being said. Sometimes, the moderation software misses a fairly offensive comment, and unless someone brings it to the attention of the team, it stays up, leading to charges of inconsistency. But that, as they say, is the likely outcome of a website managed by enthusiastic amateurs.

    To be a liberal is to struggle with balancing the rights of the individual against the needs of the community, even the silent element of it. And whilst there are a few individuals on this site who I would probably cross the street to avoid based on their efforts here (published and unpublished), it is necessary to try to treat each comment on its merits.

    That isn’t easy, especially where a commenter has a record of ‘pushing the envelope’ in terms of acceptability. Sometimes, such a person loses the benefit of the doubt, especially if they give the impression of being an agent provocateur – and I’m afraid that there are a few amongst you who do just that sometimes. But, at the end of the day, moderators are human too, with the implications that result from that.

  • @ Caron Lindsey
    “nor are we going to enter into email correspondence on every infringement. We simply do not have the time to do that. I can see why your comments were deleted, though.”

    If a comment is banned or deleted I thought it was policy to send an email. To not do so would not aid in avoiding the same person doing the same thing again. I assume that most comments which are banned are written in good faith and there wasn’t an intention to disobey the rules.

    It would be a good idea if the words that mean a comments is put into moderation because of the software was published in the comments policy so people could attempt to avoid them.

    I think most threads with automatic moderation now do say so and I think this is a good thing.

    @ Richard Dean – “Keep contributions short if possible”
    AND “It is not necessary to repeat a previous comment in order to comment on it.”

    It is often shorter to post what someone has written rather that state the context of a reply.

    One of the features I like is that there is no limitation on how long a comment has to be. I often join a thread late but wish to comment on many comments and this means I don’t have to make a lot of individual postings. Also to explain a position long contributions are sometimes needed.

  • Stephen Hesketh 30th Jul '14 - 10:45am

    Mark Valladares29th Jul ’14 – 8:28pm

    Mark, I have already indicated my full agreement regarding the tone of postings not driving others away. To the best of my knowledge nor have I ever made an agressive post. My point is that this is a political website for consenting adults; in my opinion we may have strayed just a little too far in what members can not say. I believe I would be generally regarded as a pretty mild unassuming person. Yes, sometimes my humour gets the better of me but for me to find myself in moderation so often as I do suggests (to me) the balance is not quite right.

    @Michael BG30th Jul ’14 – 2:16am
    “If a comment is banned or deleted I thought it was policy to send an email. To not do so would not aid in avoiding the same person doing the same thing again. I assume that most comments which are banned are written in good faith and there wasn’t an intention to disobey the rules.

    It would be a good idea if the words that mean a comments is put into moderation because of the software was published in the comments policy so people could attempt to avoid them”

    Totally agree Michael – Only a mad person would write a sometimes lengthy post and at the end of it think to themselves, “Great post Stephen, that one will be heading straight into moderation!” 🙂

    I too have requested knowledge of the banned words and excluded word associations as i believe it would assist everyone. Moderators are human, exclusion lists are fixed.

  • Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous to insist that people discussing politics should be polite towards politicians (a category which includes Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage, Tony Blair, Sarah Palin, Vladimir Putin and even Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot).

    It would be far more sensible to limit the politeness criterion to those actually participating in the discussion, and allow people to speak their minds about others (provided nothing actionable was said). And in fact the published guidelines do limit themselves to what is said about those actually participating in the discussion (or about the author of the article being discussed), except for the injunction to avoid “abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, homophobic or coarse language”.

    Extending that to prohibit anyone being rude about politicians is just plain silly. And I think we all know that in practice LDV allows commenters – and the authors of articles – to be really quite rude about politicians of other parties…

  • Stephen Hesketh 31st Jul '14 - 10:14pm

    Just in case no one had spotted them, I repost the following requests from Stephen Tall’s “Lib Dems publish latest accounts: £439k surplus and membership up to 43,451” article:

    @Malcolm Todd 30th Jul ’14 – 11:38am
    “Aargh, sorry – misspelled your name again, Matthew!
    For the nineteen million, two hundred and seventy-seventh time, can we please have a preview/edit function for comment posters? Would it be terribly difficult?”

    and

    @peebee 31st Jul ’14 – 9:32pm
    “Just out of interest would those responsible for this site tell us how much it would cost to introduce a review before posting function – if so a nice bit of crowdsourcing fundraising could pay for it and I would be happy to contribute and hopefully all those frustrated misspelled posters too…”

    To add to my “4) An upgrade to incorporate a preview or a 5 minute(?) review button enabling us to preview or quickly amend posts. I’m sure we have all fallen foul of primary school level spelling and grammar mistakes – not to mention omitting a key word or whole sentence.”

  • Stephen Hesketh 8th Aug '14 - 1:20pm

    Dear LDV editorial team, could we have some positive feed back on the positive comments made by posters in this thread?

    A preview or, better still, an edit function would clearly be very welcome – as would a link to the less obvious naughty words and word associations.

    Also Op-Eds to carry the name of the author and Richard Dean to practice what he advocates regarding the avoidance of ‘last wordism’ 🙂 Sorry Richard too open a goal!!

    Thanks and regards
    Stephen

  • Richard Dean 8th Aug '14 - 1:56pm

    Harumph!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to           show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Marco
    Excellent article, at times I feel that the anti-censorship, pro free speech liberal left has effectively disappeared from politics altogether. If Mary Whitehou...
  • matt
    @Catharine (1) Each patient has been allowed 1 designated visitor for their entire stay in hospital. (2) There have been different rules for Children, who h...
  • John Buckeridge
    As a former Worcester Park resident (I moved away summer 2021) David Campanale strikes me as a great vote winner. Having trebled the vote in Spelthorpe at the l...
  • Brad Barrows
    Sorry - I need to show proof of identity to get to borrow a library book so I don’t see why the UK should not adopt something that is perfectly common in othe...
  • Brad Barrows
    A well written and timely article....