"[lprent: I've had you on my watchlist since Tane warned you what would happen if you misrepresented this site on your blog again. I think that "The Liarbour lapblog" counts.
You also have really stupid set of daft catchphrases that mean that I have to waste time rescuing you out of moderation. You just clutter the comments section up with boring waffle. I've just been reading it here and on your site while making a decision.
Decided to ban you permanently, because you don't appear to have any ability to contribute here meaningfully. ]
Now the irony here is that FFM hasn't beene banned for anything particularly provocative that he posted on The Standard. He is being vilified for comments he has posted on HIS OWN BLOG!! Obviously, Big Brother has been watching him.
The Standard was outed a month or so ago, and there have been no denials as to the names attributed. Tane did post on Keeping Stock that it was their policy not to comment. I do not propose to repeat the names - after all, I can hardly be critical of the ethos of blogging anonymously when that it what I do myself. However, the issue of links to the Beehive and EPMU remains. For the record, I have no links to the Beehive (although I know that Keeping Stock is read there), and although I was a paid-up, card-carrying member of the EPMU up to 2006, I receive no practical or financial support from that august body!
The Standard also specialises in snide and disparaging remarks. I have had several "digs" from "Steve Pierson" about the level of readership of this blog. Again for the record, Keeping Stock rose 12 places in the Tumeke! June survey to 25th place - not bad for a one-man band, without the alleged benefit of the State's machine, and that of the EPMU. Given that traffic was up by around 30% in July, it is not unreasonable to expect that Keeping Stock will advance further. And yet again for the record, Keeping Stock does not delete comments - we (the Royal "we") actually welcome dissenting opinion, as it adds to the quality of debate.The only comments I have deleted are ones of my own where the brain and fingers have not been in synch, and one from a reguslar commenter who specifically asked me to delete it as it may have caused him "identity issues". I have not even had to contemplate a banning, and in the interests of free speech, hope I never have to.
I daresay that Keeping Stock will now be on lprent's "watchlist" - such is life. However, The Standard makes a mockery of the so-called freedom of the blogosphere with its insipid, pathetic attempts at censorship - usually for non-issues. The authors of The Standard would do well to follow Winston Peters's advice of many moons ago - "Wake up and smell the coffee", reflect on their draconian policies, and decide whether they REALLY want to be a forum for free speech, or a closed shop for the chosen few.
18 comments:
Like yourself IV2, for want of a better word, I must be buggered if I was ever to venture over to the Liarbour talking points site and comment.
I just can't be bothered with remembering another user account and password.
I have only ever viewed Liarbour as a corrupt minority government desperate to remain in control. Their blog serves to confirm for me social engineering at its worst.
BTW, belated congrats on your meteoric rise of late. Long may it continue.
If it catches on, perhaps a list of bloggers banned from each others blogs?
That's a possibility Tim. But as I said in my post, I have no wish to ban anyone from Keeping Stock. DPF is open about his bannings and demerits (including an "award" of 50 demerits to yours truly for suff-ggesting that he had a great face for radio after his last appearance on Agenda!!). However The Standard's crew seem to have taken bannings to new heights. The blogosphere is supposed to be a place for freedom of expression - the attitude of The Standard guys is very 1980's!!
I'm with Voltaire on this - providing people aren't defaming anyone or using foul language I'll let them express themselves even if I disagree with the views they're expressing.
It is just so juvenile. I saw a picture of these idiots the other day. They'd be lucky if they're old enough to have learnt how to wipe their own arses.
That 'lowest common denominator' plus spam is what killed usenet because it wasn't dealt with. The same is likely to happen to a lot of the blogs comment sections because they don't moderate successfully.
What I look at as an example of what not to do on a blog comments section is kiwiblog. I periodically have a look at the site, and there is very little discussion. Just people waffling about their entrenched positions using canned lines and without bothering to exercise their brains.
It is typical of the lowest common denominator comments that started the decline of the interesting usenet groups.
We started to head that way last year at TS along with the "crap and leave' graffiti trolls. Since we felt that a strong comments section was important, I intervened to kill the moronic commentators and generally lift the standard. That is an ongoing process, that FFM just got caught in.
IMO, FFM wasted bandwidth. He didn't say anything interesting that hadn't been seen before. He didn't engage other commentators (and they didn't engage him). He obviously didn't bother to go back and read reactions to comments, because his behaviour didn't modify. He was acting like a troll. That was what he got banned for.
IV2: You note that you don't get the same treatment. You do engage in the comments sections, and do get engagement from other commentator. I disagree with your opinions - but at least you have some that are worth disagreeing with.
The reason that Tane pulled him to my watchlist was also relevant. Not only was he crapping on our site, he was also then trashing it externally - by repeating technical crap by that buffoon Whale as if it was proven fact.
I take a dim view of people repeating bullshit from a technical moron about our site. It has been denied many times that we do this as part of our jobs - explicitly in our About. It is a pity that the simple minded prefer not to believe a simple statement, and prefer to try to manufacture evidence
We don't comment on the identities of posters because they are anonymous. A negative seek search is still a search. That is why "neither confirm or deny" strategies are used everyone to maintain secrets.
Lynn
Lynn - thanks for taking the time to post a considered response to the "challenge" I laid down. Maybe, instead of simply banning your "miscreants" left, right and centre, you should introduce a system of demerits such as that DPF uses, with suspensions triggered after reaching a certain threashhold. That way posters would know where they stand, and how far they can push the envelope. DPF's suspension system also has merits - the suspension doubles each time as roger nome recently discovered. His system is transparent, and seems to work well.
BTW - here, as an example, is roger nome's suspension history:
"Roger Nome - 1 week until 14/3/08 and 2 weeks until 18 June 2008 and one month until 3/9/09."
These are just thoughts, but The Standard is going to become something of a farce if you don't have anyone offering a contrary view to that of the authors's.
Hope you do not mind me responding to lprent here IV2. But I refuse to visit their site, since that idiot pierson (clinton smith) sent a letter to the editor of the Herald - In which he claimed that they are the most read blog in the land....
Anyway, lprent, When your bumchum pierson/smith sent that letter to the Herald, claiming amongst other things, "that you all blog in your own time" I did some checking.....
I looked at your blog over a few days, and as we all know, most of you are employed by the EPMU and the gummint. I found that a huge proportion of both posts and comments that are made by yourselves: tane, lprent, pierson, et al, during working hours, all bloody day long!
This only underlines that you are thieving from your union members and the tax payer.
I work in a company that employs a large number of factory staff. Recently, quite a few of these factory staff joined up to the EPMU, (I tried not to vomit)... due to a big push by the EPMU. The EPMU have now started persuading these recent "recruits" to vote Labour!
I have now made it known to all of these staff what certain EPMU staff are doing during their working hours, when they are supposed to be working for better conditions for the employees..... I know at least some of these staff have now cancelled their EPMU membership!
I am going to do my utmost to turn every person I know away from the EPMU.
Finally lprent, you lot are fools, most of the comments on the standard are self gratifying comments between the bloggers. What makes a blog is debate, robust and healthy debate, which you have none of. Stick to your fornication.
I encourage everybody not to visit the standard, don't link to them, don't encourage the sad fucks, don't engage with them - simply ignore them.
IV2: I write a system like that. I cannot see the point in doing so. People should take better care of their online identities.
Problems usually occur with people who don't take the effort to read the responses to their comments. If they simply drop comments in without checking for responses and especially warning notes from moderators, then to me that is a troll. It is impolite, annoys other commentators, and does nothing for the debate. Essentially it is just graffiti.
In the event of a banning, people can simply start a new online identity because there is no requirement to register. We only check back on people who attempt to do this immediately after a banning.
So why should I shield people from their own stupidity with a complicated demerits system. If they value their on-line identity, then they should treat it with more care.
Of course if they really think that a mistake has been made - there is always e-mail.
Lynn
Damn - that first sentence should be
"I could write..."
Over at Crusader Rabbit I ban lefties on sight--and make no apology for that.
I'm tired of their incessant trolling, tired of their dishonesty, tired of their attempts to drag discussions off-topic. And most of all, sick to death of their refusal to address specific points raised.
We regard the left as the enemy and treat them as such. Debating anything with them is a waste of time.
The day the left argues for liberty and freedom from the slavery of having to contribute to welfare bludgers is the day we'll engage them again.
Fair comment kg - we all make our own choices; mine is to allow all comments.
And I will allow lefties to exercise their right to free speech on Keeping Stock - that way, I can expose their hypocrisy when they then impose restrictions on the free speech of others!!
I can see how your approach may be the better of the two, IV2 but when lefty trolls demand the "right" to comment in my blog (as more than one has in the past) then I draw the line.
If nothing else, it's a fine example of property rights for them. ;-)
kg: seems a bit draconian. The only one that is probably more draconian is NRT (no comments at all).
I just ban for what I consider is bad behaviour. That is mainly behaviour that I've seen leading to flame wars and incomprehensible comments.
Just at present I'd say that TS is running close to 50/50 right to left in the comments area. What would you say IV2?
It gets thousands of comments per week, so moderator is an expensive chore. I have to read it so I regularly ban people from trying to trash the place. I've been giving less warnings as the volume of comments goes up. People should read the policy before they crap around the place - "Think of it as evolution in action".
The banning is far higher on the right side, mainly because they care a lot less about the site continuing to run.
I agree it's draconian Lyn, but then CR wasn't set up as a forum for debate in the first place. Maybe that's the difference. And we simply don't have the time to moderate comments frequently. :-)
Lynn - I wouldn't agree with your 50/50 split on comments - I would say it's more 70/30 left/right. It might have been 50/50 a while back, but you've banned so many righties lately.....lol!
And as an honesty call, I think you cut the left a lot more slack than you do the right. Robinsod is a prime example. You or Tane "tut tut" from time to time when he gets in one of his moods, but personally, I found his "pig f**ker" allegations way more offensive than anything that Fairfacts has said on either his blog or yours.
But at the end of the day, it's your blog, and it's your call over who can comment. If that leaves you open to criticism, I guess that is the consequence.
IV2: Ummm depends how you measure it. I just hada peek for the last 30 days using:-
select trim(comment_author) as author, count(*) as number from wp_comments
where datediff(now(), comment_date) <= 30
group by comment_author
order by number desc
Ignoring posters and moderators (Steve P as the top).
Certainly the highest numbers of top (by number of comments) commentators are from 'left' in the top 10 there is really only vto, higherstandard, and burt. I skipped d4j. That was pretty much between 100-200 comments each. That fits your 70/30.
However there are a lot more right commentators in the mid range of 20-100 - about 30/70 (BTW: you were 26 comments).
The low numbers of comments tend to be 50/50
It is interesting because it seems to follow a pretty classic Pareto splits. Especially when you look at words written.
The banning isn't severe. Over the last 30 days, there were about 450 commentators, of which less than 15 were banned - all of them in that low comment range and most of them with small numbers of comments. For instance, FFM has only ever done 10 comments, and almost all of those have moderator comments on them.
These days, they typically get banned soon after starting to comment or if they are an occasional commentator (group C). That is because we do it when they start trashing the site.
The most common reason is attacking the sites existence or funding or who the writers are. But that is Evolution in action. I like assisting martyrs to add the 'dom. They obviously haven't read the About or Policy. Bad idea not to do that on any site - it is impolite not to look at the rules.
Like IV2 I tolerate a broad range of comment, though I have excluded one non NZ commentator for offensive racist and anti-semitic remarks
I do not expect people to agree with my remarks, if they do that is fine, if they do not that is fine also.
Like IV2 my readership has grown in the last several months
Like many I blog for fun and possibly a bit of vanity.
Post a Comment