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
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Chris Moore
Roland
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
50 Comments
i can live with the policy quite happily as it stands, it is more than reasonable.
fwiw – i was responsible for the first example given above. it was justified, but should have been provided along with explanation.
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.
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?
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.
no complaints from me, Caron. 🙂
This sounds good to me, especially if we can stop comment threads turning into private conversations between 2 or 3 people.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for all the comments. Trying to stay away from particular examples and focussing on the policy:
David, what’s wrong with saying ‘I rarely agree with N, but on this occasion I do’. There’s also the question of whether other things N has said or done on other occasions are on topic or not.
Eddie, I take the point that it can be infuriating when one’s words are twisted. Tragically it is a bread and butter tactic in the political cut and thrust. It would be very difficult to apply a rule against this because of the amount of interpretation it would demand of every statement and response. And sometimes ‘you appear to be saying X’ may be a reasonable attempt at clarification, and who is to say whether the author would find that interpretation offensive.
However I agree we should act when someone is gratuitous and persistent in twisting the words of others, when it clearly becomes an attempt to obfuscate and derail rather than clarify.
Richard and Eddie, yes anger is real and politically relevant, but what are you asking for here? If we said that you can say what you want so long as it is motivated by genuine and relevant emotion, there would be no enforceable standards at all. There are fora for the expression of unfocussed rage – demonstrations, Comment is Free, etc. Anger provokes anger, and it doesn’t help us to debate and test ideas. By all means tell everyone what makes you angry but don’t act angrily towards others in this forum.
“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.
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
@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!
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.
You’re getting close to the quota there Chris! 🙂
But seriously, there isn’t a rule against nitpicking, and criticism of favoured politicians doesn’t constitute impoliteness. Your reinterpretation of the comments policy is a perfect example of the twisting that Eddie was talking about, in which case publishing your comment was probably in breach of the “gratuitous and persistent” condition in my earlier comment.
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.
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
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?
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
Yes! I’m in the M-place!
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.
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.
“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.”
not to mention the oddity of the outsiders who seem more loyal to the party than the members! 😉
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.
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.
Lib Dem Candidate – that was me actually – but thankyou.
Anyway, one last point, I hope:
Can I assure everyone who fears comments being blocked because I or other moderators disagree with them: I disagree strongly with many of the comments that are published. Think what you like about site moderation, but please please don’t imagine that just because something appears in a comment, that I or another moderator has any shred of sympathy or agreement with it. That would be to misunderstand and misrepresent our views on a substantive issue quite atrociously.
“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?
the policy seems reasonable enough to me, and a balance between keeping a debate going, and not causing offence or a “bad atmosphere”.
I don’t get much time to read many posts, and even less to comment (and I am retired!!!) so I maybe find it more difficult than others to work out who people are. I would really like to be able to click on a name and get a brief resume of who they are. I have no idea as to who most of the people who have already commented on this post are. maybe the length of description could be up to the person writing, in this e world it might not matter ?
but i have no idea if people are lib dem members, ex members, supporters but not members, members of other parties, member of no party. It would help to understand where some of the comments are coming from and enrich debate. If someone has to keep identity confidential because of their job or other role, then a way of doing this could be sorted with the moderators for the few who it would apply to.
Also I’d like to know if somebody has replied to a thread I have commented on. I just cannot keep up with posts I have commented on to remember which they are and look and see if there is anything further. is there something techy one can do that i haven’t twigged ?
before I end one comment not meant to be snide or nasty – but I do hope that those who makes lots and lots of comments are using their skills to challenge “the real opposition” in letters to local papers / putting down questions at council meetings etc.
last word – lots of thanks to those who give their time to make LDV work.
I endorse David Allen’s improvement on my ‘political status’ suggestion. Indeed, such a comment could easily be placed in a box corresponding to the ‘Website’ box below our personal Email address on each post.
Who we are and effectively what we are politically would add context to our posts.
@Little Jackie Paper29th Jul ’14 – 12:20am
” … 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. “. Exactly. Jackie, I think you make my point for me. We should have a better understanding of the person we are talking to. As above – context.
@Mark Valladares29th Jul ’14 – 1:55am. Thank you for the ‘view from the inside’.
Re: “I’ve watched the moderation policy evolve over time from a much more relaxed approach to a more inclusive one.”
Do you really mean ‘inclusive’? I do however take your point – and one which Caron has made similarly – ” … 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.”
I can agree with this and one of the last things I would want is for those of a less confrontational style to be driven away from the site. As Joe says anger provokes anger.
Cherry picking from Mark’s comments:
“And no moderation policy will ever satisfy everybody”. AGREE
“The more libertarian amongst us dislike what they see as a nanny state,” AGREE
“whilst loyalists question why outsiders are given a platform to criticise the Party at all.” ‘STATUS’ would again give some context.
“I might therefore suggest that, if nobody is entirely happy, the policy is just about right.”
Hmmm, I think this is probably your most contentious point Mark. It could just as easily be that the majority think the policy has ‘evolved’ a little too far away from the “much more relaxed approach …” you mention.
Thinking about what has been written by the team and colleagues in the thread, I will certainly put more effort into not appearing to write in anger for the reasons of inhibiting fellow contributors. This is, I think, more likely to receive a more thoughtful Liberal response from posters than ‘don’t do it again or else’. In my case, I do hope people recognise my slightly sharp humour rather than anger and will ensure the inclusion of a little smiley to show I am commenting in that spirit.
In terms of what we can and cannot say, could I also suggest that there is a difference between expressing something as an opinion and as a fact?
For example re LDV’s: “I think that is a rather hysterical view, N. No good. It has no intellectual content”.
Had I been on the receiving end of this I would not feel the comment to be impolite or rude; it is simply an opinion of someone else’s view and does not imply in any way that the person themselves is hysterical. As such does it need intellectual content?
I just feel the team may be in danger of approaching a micro-management of comments that cannot be sustainable – for the team, the visitors or the site.
I do hope my comments are accepted in the positive and supportive spirit they are made.
Kind regards
Stephen
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.
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.
@Richard Dean 29th Jul ’14 – 6:50pm.
Point taken dear 😉
@ 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.
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…
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.”
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
Harumph!