One of the unexpected advantages of being the Day Editor on New Year’s Day is that you can, perhaps, make a resolution for the year ahead. And nobody can stop you…
Mwah, hah, hah, hah…
And it dawns on me that, as the person technically responsible for moderation today, I have the tools at my disposal to actually change a small corner of the Internet, and make it a better place, if only for a little while. Call it “taking a stand for decency”, if you like. Or, as someone is bound to say, “censorship”… (you’re wrong, in the nicest possible way, because this is a liberal, rather than libertarian, website).
So, let’s lay down some ground rules for today. Firstly, treat fellow commenters with respect, even if you don’t agree with them. I am the judge of whether or not you’re showing sufficient respect and, as the Day Editor, my word is law. If you don’t like that, go somewhere else, at least for today. You aren’t being censored, as I have no control over anything you say anywhere else, you’re just being managed.
Secondly, try to make a positive case for whatever it is you believe in. You’re trying to persuade people as to the virtues of your argument, not trying to browbeat them into submission. You probably won’t succeed in the latter here anyway, and all you achieve is to ratchet up the level of unpleasantness. And, frankly, it’s all a bit tedious. As my mother might have asked, “How old are you? Five?”.
Thirdly, and this isn’t a rule but merely a suggestion, sarcasm and irony work relatively well when there’s body language to read. Here, there isn’t any. So, why not consider how your witty barb might read sans context before you post it? And, if in doubt, think again.
Unhappy? Get in touch with me via [email protected]. I’m five hours behind you, and whilst I am on holiday (it’s very cold, and thank you for asking), I’ll answer as quickly as I can. Remember, I’m on holiday, so you are not my uppermost priority, but I’m a courteous soul at heart. Oh, and yes, my fellow editorial team members are celebrating New Year as well, so cut us all some slack, if you’d be so kind.
And so, on with the medley… Have fun, and be careful out there…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Alex Macfie
David Evans
Matt Wardman
Peter Martin
expats
34 Comments
Happy New Year Mark.
I do wish you’d apply these New Year’s Day rules every day. It would make LDV a much better place.
A suggestion. The benefit of the doubt to be given to those who post under their real full name and against those who don’t without good reason.
It worth remembering some do not give their full names because they do not want their boss, work colleagues or clients to know they are supporters of the Lib Dems.
Happy New Year to all !!!
Thanks for all you do Mark, and happy new year!
I would agree with all the above & add a restriction on private conversations between commenters : everyone is allowed one comment on another comment & the original commentor is allowed one reply. Nothing derails a thread faster than arguments between 2 or 3 people , often about what they meant or didnt.
Paul Barker is right (there, I’ve said it for 2018!) ;-). What any modern blog needs (especially one which has threads which get participatory interest) is a threading system. Not rocket science.
Happy New Year to all Tories and Socialists as well as Lib Dems. Especially, goodwill to all women.
“I do wish you’d apply these New Year’s Day rules every day. It would make LDV a much better place.”
Seconded.
And on LibDemer’s comment on Andrew Tampion’s posting – some might be in politically restricted jobs.
May I respectfully point out that I did not suggest that anonymous posters should be barred: only that the moderator should exercise any discretion in favour of those who use their full name and against those who do not.
Also my post does specifically refer to posters who use pseudonym without good reason.
Finally the true identity of posters should be known or at least available to the moderator. To prevent people commenting on their own article if nothing else.
Dear All,
Good morning, and a Happy New Year to you all!
I suspect that there is a philosophical bias in favour of posters using a ‘real name’, as readers may well know them from having met each other in the past – my sense is that, if you know someone, you might put their use of humour/irony into more accurate context, for example.
And yet, there are those who, through a series of comments over time, establish an online personality – their style becomes familiar and readers may develop a sense of the person behind the pseudonym. I wouldn’t want to discourage that, especially where there are respectable grounds for anonymity.
The test for any editor is how to deal with marginal cases. Is a comment inappropriate, or just hurried and poorly phrased? To some extent, that decision will depend on the sensitivities of the day editor, and perhaps on the amount of time available – a quick decision may be more cautious than one where there is scope for reflection.
It is, I suppose, an art rather than a science, although technology does provide a useful, if occasionally blunt, tool.
I use a pseudonym and I am on the left of this party….
I do not use personal insults or unpleasant language and yet my posts are usually moderated and often removed…Is that not already LDV ‘discretion’?
What does today’s special ‘discretion and ‘benefit of the doubt’ mean?
expats,
One interesting aspect of being a day editor is that you can draw upon the archive, and a glance at it indicates that you aren’t anywhere near as hard done by as you suggest – you will note that I use the word ‘indicates’ as I’m not minded to carry out a more complete analysis at 7 a.m. on New Year’s morning. I have found in the past though that some of our more ‘challenging’ customers tend to focus on the rejections rather more than the approvals.
Your online personality does come across as gratuitously snarky sometimes, and I do wonder if that’s your intention. If it is, why? If not, perhaps you might want to temper your approach from time to time?
It is, ultimately, the Editorial team’s right to impose a style of discourse upon the site. That will sit well with some, less well with others, but like all actions, it comes with consequences. Rejection of comments that offend the sensitivities of the editor is one of those consequences, I fear.
Mark Valladares 1st Jan ’18 – 12:10pm…
Thank you for your response; especially as you are on holiday…’Snarky’? I’d prefer ”Sparky’ or even ‘Passionate’….
Anyway, enjoy your holiday and, as a New Year Resolution, I’ll endeavour to read through my posts and try to remove ‘extra’ adjectives..
Best wishes Mark, and to all on here, no matter what shade of LibDem you are… ‘
Mark Valladares – thanks to you and the other moderators for the work that you do on this site, it is much appreciated.
You Tube has a valuable feature in that you can to post a comment and then subsequently edit or remove it – is there any way of doing this on LDV? It would enable contributors: (1) to tidy up poor presentation and therefore to make posts clearer, & (2) to reflect on a comment – made possibly in the heat of the moment – and then to alter it.
expats,
I can see that, and it is often in the eyes of the beholder, so to speak.
But thank you, and to nearly all of our readers, contributors and commenters, for helping to make this site what it has become over more than a decade.
Unsure of what principles surround moderation on LDV. 4 times attempted to comment on the former leaders reward and each time they failed to make the cut. As far as I am aware I was not offensive but can only assume it was because I was criticising the decision.
Didn’t feel this was particularly liberal and pointed that out in the follow up posts. If this is going to be the way then think it is time to end my interest in this site. Just seems to confirm a personal perception that there some that don’t live up to their claim to be liberal.
There are some excellent posters on here and some stimulating debates. I don’t even mind frankies unicorns.
Sean,
Criticism is acceptable, but you do sometimes stray over the line in terms of unpleasantness.
In general terms, a good point is a good point is a good point, even if it challenges the orthodoxy. It is not aided by throwing in a gratuitous cheap shot, tempting though it may be.
And whilst I’m here, in a more general point to our readers, using the comments box to question or critique moderation is unhelpful – do read our comments policy (it does seem to be neglected by some of you) as it outlines how best to question our judgement in such matters.
Thanks for allowing my comments. As far as I can remember I’ve never had one disallowed. Just occasionally they are held up in moderation but never for very long.
I’m somewhat to the left of most Lib Dems, as you might have noticed, and have views on economics which may seem odd to some. This then leads to the belief that the current EU structure is unstable and fragile. Doomed to failure even. I know this can’t be popular in pro EU party but it’s good we can at least talk about all that!
Thank you for this, Mark, and I agree with Mick.
For Andrew Tampion’s point: perhaps requiring registration to comment, whether pseudonymously or otherwise, would help the mods in both identifying and removing persistently combative commenters?
Sean: I would contend that it’s perfectly liberal to want to foster an atmosphere where all can participate, as opposed to one where those who are most vituperative drive everyone else away. Without casting any aspersions on anyone commenting on this particular post, below the line on LDV veers towards the latter far too often.
I can understand the need for moderation when there is abuse. But I don’t think I have ever been abusive yet have been moderated on occasion.
My comment really is there should be a clear differentiation between abuse and say, snarky comments. I don’t find expats snarky but that may be because I often agree with his/her comments. But moderation because of a subjective view of tone is quite dangerous. On that basis political satire would surely be excluded too.
Peter Martin:
“I’m somewhat to the left of most Lib Dems, as you might have noticed, and have views on economics which may seem odd to some.”
Perhaps I am confusing you for another, but my impression had been that your comments placed you more to the right of most Lib Dems.
Apart from my first posts on LDV,as is policy, I have never been pre modded or had a post deleted. I am now accused of tending to be unpleasant and taking cheap shots. This is a first for me and I have certainly had no indication of this on this or any other forum.
All I initially did was make a post on Nick Clegg getting a knighthood and suddenly I’m pre modded and posts deleted. I certainly was frustrated on my follow up posts but was not offensive as far as i am aware. Maybe it is as Mark says” all in the eye of the beholder”
I take the hint. This is my last post on LDV. My plan to rejoin the party is forgotten and I have serious questions to ask myself about whether I will continue to vote Lib Dem.
Sean,
Whilst you have chosen to personalise my more general point, you do personify, in this instance, the sort of dilemma that is frequent. Am I supposed to offer you freedoms that I might not permit to others in the hope that you might join the Party? I can’t see that as fair.
But if you find my comments uncomfortable, perhaps challenging the editorial decision publicly, rather than using the private channel signposted in our comments policy, was a mistake? I looked at your comments on the Clegg knighthood, and wasn’t much impressed. And as I wasn’t the only one to think so, I’m relaxed about the stance.
We have a house bias towards reasoned argument and courtesy, one established over more than a decade. If that is a problem, then it is a problem for you to solve rather than for us to change, I suggest.
@ Dave,
Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to get back to you.
The problem, as I see it, is one of escalation. Call it the “broken window” theory of moderation. Snarkiness begets snarkiness, and before you know it, the below the line comments deteriorate into unpleasantness. As a day editor, I have a responsibility to try to include as wide a range of participants as possible, because, by doing so, readers are offered the best spectrum of views and experiences, which might help them to develop a more complete perspective on a given topic.
I take what may be a naive view – that reasoned, courteous debate, including as many as possible and encouraging them to believe that they can take part without being personally abused, is a universal good. Long term change is best achieved by persuading people, rather than by browbeating them into grudging acquiescence.
If by political satire you mean being unpleasant to groups or individuals, especially those underrepresented in our political discourse, then I’m relaxed about excluding it. Genuine humour, on the other hand, is always welcome, and can often be very effective in argument.
@ Martin,
Maybe you’re just assuming that opposition to the EU is an indicator of right wing opinion? I’ve had a lot of flak from friends and relatives about all that. How can I possibly align myself with Nick Farage and the Tory Right?
But my opposition to the EU isn’t based on the usual anti-capitalist rhetoric of the ultra left. That the EU is a capitalist club etc. If it were a successful capitalist club I’d be all for it!
I meant Nigel Farage of course 🙂
Mark – “If by political satire you mean being unpleasant to groups or individuals, especially those underrepresented in our political discourse, then I’m relaxed about excluding it. ”
No, this is not what I said nor what I meant. I simply stated a concern about subjective moderation as oppose to moderation due to a comment that is explicitly abusive.
On that point I stated “But moderation because of a subjective view of tone is quite dangerous. On that basis political satire would surely be excluded too.”
This is surely an inoffensive comment. But you have taken that statement and attributed something altogether negative such as “being unpleasant especially to those underrepresented”, is wholly unreasonable. I’m not even sure who you mean by “those unrepresented”. If you think I meant that then I can only politely suggest that perhaps the problem lies not so much with what is actually stated but more the mindset of the reader. I think this example simply illustrates my point.
You have variously described contributors as being ‘snarky’ and ‘straying over the lines to becoming offensive’. However, there are many, many contributions on here that I strongly disagree with and a large percentage come from a few regular contributors. But I fully accept that they have every right to say what they think so long as it is not abusive. Equally, I believe that those that disagree with them should have the right of reply.
Debate by airing contrasting views is surely a more liberal approach than having someone ‘moderate out’ comments based on their subjective perception of where some vague non-defined line should be drawn.
I am trying to understand all this. I am stuck on the word “snarkiness” . My Oxford Dictionary of English does not give it. It does give “snarky”, “snarkier” and “snarkiest” which it claims N. Amer. informal. It has origin in a dialect word meaning to snore, snort. It does not say which dialect. Seemingly snarky means sharply critical – but that does not take me much further. I suppose I could Google it, but that does not yet come naturally to me.
@ Tom
A Snark is a Sn{ide Rem}ark
@ Tom Harney,
I wouldn’t use the term snark or snarky when referring to anyone especially Expats.
I suspect that he is a Boojum, a danger to all those right of centre whose description begins with LD.
@ Mark Valladares,
Apologies, and happy new year.
@ Dave,
* who seems to have forgotten that I’m on holiday, five hours behind your time zone *
I’ve retrieved your comment from the ‘moderation bin’ it was sitting in, now that I’m awake.
I can only suggest that you reread the comment, noting the conditionalities in it. You may not have intended your comment to read in a certain way but if I, the reader, interpret it like that, you run the risk of that interpretation being at the heart of my response. You referred to satire, and I responded conditionally to it.
Some people use satire as a means of being unpleasant, a kind of gauzy disguise, if you like. The ‘but it’s only satirical’ defence isn’t always good enough, but satire in itself is not a bad thing, as I’ve already acknowledged.
Otherwise, as a note to all readers, I’m now off-duty, my day editor stint well and truly over until next Monday, so moderation strategy is in the hands of my colleagues. It’s been interesting to see how some of our readers respond to challenge and honest expression, and maybe the debate above has given us all, myself included, food for thought.
And, finally, for those who have been upset by my relatively gentle but open critique, I apologise… partly. If you want to criticise us publicly, but don’t want a public response, perhaps approaching us privately next time might be advisable?
Mark – I do not know the inner workings of the LDV system, time lapses etc. How could I?
So if I post something that is ‘moderated’ and it remains there for some time it’s reasonable to assume it may not appear. That happens with moderated posts from time to time as per mine and other comments re Nick Clegg’s gong.
To your general point re satire, just because someone could take satire the wrong way is no reason to take satire away from us all. Content and context is everything. I don’t think I could have been much clearer.
I fully support the work that you and other moderators on any blog to clamp down on abuse. But I don’t accept that describing someone’s general contributions as ‘snarky’ or that someone has ‘crossed the line’ with what is taken as negative, as opposed to abusive contributions, is sufficient cause to prevent publication.
We are all capable of skipping past someone’s posts if we find their views tiresome. I have no doubt that many here don’t bother what I say and may be even fed-up with what I post. They are entitled to dismiss what I say.
But if we start moderation of things beyond what is clear cut abuse I fear we are on a slippery slope towards censorship, a most unwelcome position surely for LibDems to find themselves in.
However, for balance let me commend you and your colleagues for supporting a blog that allows contributions from a wide political spectrum. Democracy thrives on open debate and our ability to challenge each other’s views. Long may it continue that way.
@ Dave,
Ah yes, I can see the confusion there. I’m in Boston, home of the Patriots, heartland of the Revolution, etc, etc. But I did commit to my day editor shift (and next week’s will come to you from Portland, Maine…), so all of this morning’s responses came in whilst I was asleep.
A good thing for readers to know is that any comments which include the word ‘moderate’ or variations upon it, go into… moderation. Funny, eh? I’ll have to go into admin to release this comment as a result. This is done to prevent threads deteriorating into complaints about the actions of the editorial team.
I can’t emphasise enough that because moderation is, ultimately, dependent on human action, that if a comment triggers our moderation software, it is held until someone has time to review it. Depending on who is on duty, and the time of day, it can take potentially hours to release an otherwise innocuous comment. That is one of the prices of vigilance, but we prefer it to the alternative, as noted in earlier comments.
We’re evidently going to disagree on where the line should be drawn, and I suppose that I have the perspective of years of being at this end of the decision making process, with access to the records of rejected comments. And I would note that many of those who have suffered frequently in terms of moderation seem to have a blind spot in relation to the tone they use – reasonableness is relative and exists on a spectrum. And here at LDV, we’ve (tried to) set a hurdle which balances freedom of expression with inclusivity. We are, for the purposes of removal of doubt, liberals not faux-libertarians (cue unhappiness from our libertarian friends, for which I apologise in advance).
But, finally, this is a place to talk. Not shout, or rant, but to talk, like reasonable people, over a cup of coffee, or a fine brandy, or the accompaniment of your choice. We want our readers to be confident to engage as they choose, and to feel free to make a case for their policy stance or world view in the confidence that they won’t be the victim of the ‘driveby shooting’ style of vitriol so frequent these days. I see it as being a bit like a curator, rather than a police officer.
I’ll be back next Monday, unless I feel minded to pop by in the meantime, but thanks to all for their contributions…
With the greatest respect for the work you and the others involved in this site do, I disagree with you Mark. Politics is about serious differences of opinion which cannot always be expressed in a genteel “more tea, vicar?” type of discourse. This sort of bloodless consideration of other people’s feelings is one of the reasons that the Tories walked all over us during the Coalition: being such nice people ourselves we couldn’t imagine that they might be capable of such base treachery towards us. There are people who post on LDV whose comments I don’t bother reading; there are others with whom I would not bother to engage. You are right not to tolerate rudeness, ad hominem attacks and blatant trolling, but I welcome people with other political beliefs posting here and challenging our positions on issues. If we are unable to defend ourselves within our own community, what hope is there for us in the real world, on the doorstep, in the Council chamber, in Parliament? We have these periodic debates on LDV but I have never really understood why people get worked up about the type of discourse on this site. Maybe that is largely down to moderation, but I suspect that it is more likely to be because people come here because they are interested in debating ideas in an intelligent fashion rather than indulging in insults and abuse as tends to be the case on some other political sites.
@ Tony,
I hasten to politely disagree with you.
You can argue opposing views with courtesy and mutual respect, and whilst the outside world might require a more diverse approach, is the current coarseness of public debate actually achieving much?
We live in a society, particularly post-Brexit, more polarised than ever, especially in terms of our politics. There seems little scope for compromise or persuasion, and I can’t see that as being good for our society or our community.
But nobody is suggesting that the debate here should be bloodless, least of all me. What I am suggesting is that it should be less bloody.
It’s a point that has been made before on these pages, that the worst of the comments never see the light of day, but I think it fair to moderate the debate at some level. And, as you can see from the comments above, there are those, people that I respect, who feel that we have not gone far enough.
So, we’ll see how it goes. My fellow Day Editors will doubtless apply their own perspective to our comment policy, and readers will be the ultimate judge. If we are too prescriptive, you will all drift away, or an alternative will emerge…